L. Detweiler writes:
5. `pseudoanonymous' or `pseudospoofed' -- the message could either be someone's `true name' or an invented alias, but *no* characteristics of the message (including the message by the author) can discriminate exactly *which*. This is something like `identity camouflage'. It is a new category of identification that transcends (1) - (4) because it encompasses all of them.
So don't give credit to any pseudoanonymous messages which aren't signed by a trusted public key. It's as easy as that.
* * *
Now, I've written a lot on `anonymity' and am a strong supporter and proponent of categories (2), (3), and (4), where the *receiver* of a message is *informed* and *aware* that it can be from *anyone*.
All five categories can be spoofed easily. Even birth certificates. If the hardest (true names) can be spoofed, what kind of person would reason that (5) can't be from anyone?
However, I believe extreme restrictions should be placed on the use of (5) in a civilized cyberspatial society (such as that which mailing lists and Usenet groups attempt to represent, IMHO). Contrary to all
Who is going to place these restrictions? The FCC?
Very serious abuses of (5) can lead to insideous deception and treachery, particularly in the interplay between public and private
The same case can be made for free speech. Allowing hate speech mongers the protection of free speech could lead to negative public opinion about the first amendment. So what? With every technology there comes the capability for both abuse and benefit. Live with it, and adapt. Crypto gives people the ability to post anonymously, it also gives you a more concrete way to authenticate (digital signatures, zero knowledge proofs, etc) which are in many ways, better than hand written signature and photo-id.
Above all, I'm *extremely* disturbed and alarmed to perceive what appears to be a systematic propaganda and disinformation campaign on this list and elsewhere in obfuscating the *obvious* and *incontrovertable* distinction between (3) and (4) on one hand (`anonymous' and `pseudonymous') and (5) on the other (`pseudoanonymous' or `pseudospoofed'), ironically perhaps largely via abuse of the lack of protective mechanisms against it here.
There is no campaign, you are paranoid. There is no difference between 3,4 and 5 except your imagination. In 1-4 I can just as easily spoof. If someone is aware that 1-4 can be spoofed by anyone and they can't extend their pea-brain to reason that (5) can also be spoofed then they deserve the fate they get!
In (3) and (4), the reciever *knows* that the message can be from *anyone*. In (5), the receiver does *not* know, and may even be *misled* into believing that a message is in categories (1) or (2) when it is in fact in fact `anonymous'. IMHO this is *very* dangerous.
Caveat emptor. After they are pseudospoofed for the first time, they won't be so trusting of net.con-men anymore and will demand better proof of identification.
This *camouflage* that various cypherpunks promote, apparently up to the highest levels of `leadership', is IMHO inherently subversive. Because no one here seems to be afraid of subversion and anarchy, and even embraces it, let me go further and say it is *destructive* not only to societies but to *any* social interaction, even interpersonal. IMHO It is not just a recipe for anarchy, it is a recipe for chaos and barbarianism, *particularly* when associated with personal mail (including mailing lists).
Perhaps I'm just not that excitable, but I don't see what all the fireworks are for. This already is the status quo. Mail fraud, con-jobs, fake-ids, these already exist outside cyberspace. If anything, you should be more distrusting of net.pseudonyms than the three-card monte dealer.
In fact, apparently not only are `some' cypherpunks in favor of `black' postings, they are in favor of *concealing* the very existence of the capability, so as to potentially manipulate and brainwash others in an undetected concerted conspiracy! I think I will define this as `evil blackness'. <g>
Bogus. You just went off the deep-end. If you're so concerned about this capability, why don't you go liberate the net.universe and tell them this amazing fact: you can forge identities on the net. Postings, mail, accounts, even whole domains. -Ray NEWSFLASH: Great Cypherpunk Conspiracy Revealed! A california based group of cryptography fans conspire to cover up pseudoanonymous capabilities so they can continue their reign of abuse, exploitation, psychological combat, and the sapping of precious bodily fluids from net.novices. p.s. all this reminds me of the great mud gender identity debates. Many young males were extremely disturbed that the female MUD users they were practicing cybersex with were actually other males. As a result, most mud users are no longer as gullible. Evolution and natural selection at its best. p.p.s you will find that many of us aren't trying to cover pseudoanonymous capability up -- It is just that _we don't care_ I certainly don't care, and I don't think of myself of "the great protector of the ignorant" as you seem to do either. The facts are, short of demanding digital signatures or passwords for posting to this list, there is nothing you can do to prevent me from forging "From" lines, I could probably forge Received: lines too if I had a well-positioned machine. One feature of my Extropian's list software is that it only allows people who are on the list to post to it, and a user can turn on a "password" feature that only allows his address to post if a password is supplied. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --