There was an interesting article in RISKS 15.28x on pseudoanonymity by E.Hughes. Comments on pseudospoofing and pseudoanonymity by leading Cypherpunks are *extremely* rare, and we have to prize every one! I have asked many times and in many variations for more of these precious gold nuggets, but results have been unrewarding over the past few weeks. There has been a lot of commotion on the list lately on the subject of pseudospoofing, and maybe if the Eminent Leaders came out with a public statement on their personal knowledge, opinion, and involvement in pseudospoofing many people would be less upset, and the noise would die down! Just a hypothetical speculation, of course! They must have excellent reasons for withholding one for this long, even in the face of tremendous public and private pressure! (If anyone knows what those reasons are, could you tell me?) Anyway, on to this letter. The most interesting aspect of it is its brevity. Many interesting implications were raised in RISKS 15.25 and 15.27 about the cryptoanarchist movement in black marketeering, tax evasion, and sabotage of governments, and whether Cypherpunks == Cryptoanarchists. There was also insinuations of a secret mailing list, manipulation of others, widespread deception of the media and a massive hoax and conspiracy, a rampant pseudospoofing effort by the leadership behind the scenes, even involving customized software, a Cult Religion of Pseudoanonymity, etc. (You all know the black, sordid story!) Unfortunately, much to my disappointment, the Eminent Leader did not comment on any of these issues. But nevertheless I would like to analyze what little was available. The major point to make about this person is that everything he writes is extremely carefully crafted to have a precise, intended effect. I imagine that he spent a very large amount of time on this short posting, making sure that it did not contain any incriminating statements. It is a masterpiece of a deceptive and evasive message that supposedly appears to `set the record straight' while actually being completely, utterly empty of any true reassurances or denials.
L. Detweiler's recent article on the RISKS of confusing an online identity with a potentially knowable physical one are quite interesting, if hypothetical.
Interesting the phrasing of `if hypothetical'. There is no indication of any personal knowledge of the veracity of any of the hypothetical situations. But! At the same time there is cleverly no statement in the form, `I am not aware of any' or `I can assure you that they do not exist' despite that this person would be in a position to issue a statement of this sort, and that exactly such a statement is what is called for.
I would be interested in hearing of situations where this practice has actually occurred. If any RISKS members know of any such incidents from first-hand experience, please share them with the readership.
This is another extremely clever method of evading any personal association, accountability, or responsibility for the issues raised. This eminent leader is personally aware of a massive pseudospoofing framework, namely his own, yet makes it appear he has no knowledge of any by requesting information from others. Quite ingenious! This was very similar to N.Szabo asking others for `pseudospoofing tools' and `posting sites'. The entire problem with pseudospoofing, of course, is that in the well-conceived cases only the practitioner has the kind of `first hand experience' the eminent leader requests.
Unfortunately, I think he really believes that the cypherpunks mailing list has been dominated by a small cabal who have been using multiple identities who talk with each other on the list in order to enforce concensus and to suppress disagreeing positions, namely his.
This is a clever method of (1) attempting to discredit L.Detweiler as someone who believes that all people who disagree with him are co-conspirators, and (2) not specifically mentioning those positions, and (3) reformulating the many issues of RISKS 15.25 which are extremely wide-encompassing, into a simple question of `a small cabal on the list' who `disagrees with L.Detweiler'. These are all quite ingenious ways of `begging the question' so to speak.
It just ain't so.
Despite the exchange of probably over a hundred messages in my cypherpunk lifetime with this eminent leader, and reading dozens of his public postings, I've never seen this eminent leader use a colloquialism like `ain't' and its appearance, especially in this context, is quite curious! Notice how he doesn't actually state *what* isn't so, like `there is no cabal' or `I have no personal knowledge of anyone posting under fake identities.' Overall this is another meaningless statement that does not actually imply anything whatsoever.
Therefore, to set the record straight I feel I ought to make the following public statement:
Note that this statement below does not `set the record straight' on many of the issues raised, in particular the eminent leader's personal knowledge of pseudospoofing.
I, Eric Hughes, have never posted or communicated in any name other than my own.
Frankly, I think this is a baldfaced lie. The eminent leader would be implying, if it were to be taken literally and exactly, that he has never used the anon.penet.fi server or any account other than one with his name. What precisely does he *mean* by this statement? How are we to be sure? We need a direct answer to the question, ``What accounts have you posted from, and how were they identified?'' I have many examples of a Medusa claiming `I, Medusa, have never posted or mailed under any other name than Medusa.' This is because under the fanatic religion of pseudospoofing, the cultists actually maintain that the different `personalities' under the assorted `nyms' of a person actually constitute *different* *people*! This, of course, is a blasphemous abomination of the English language, warped to their own ends of deceit, very much like the use of the term `true anonymity' by N.Szabo or `pseudonym' by J.Gilmore.
I can personally testify that I am not the same as any of the other people listed at the end of L. Detweiler's post, and I can testify from personal experience that Arthur Chandler, Hal Finney, Tim C. May, and Nick Szabo are all different people.
This is an interesting statement. Again, I think it is a baldfaced lie. Notice that the eminent leader writes previously that `I have never communicated under any name other than Eric Hughes.' All of these statements would be superflous under that statement, if it were true. But he finds it necessary to be more specific, for some curious reason. The question in cyberspace is not about `people', but computer accounts, as in, `Have you ever posted a message from any of these accounts'? For example, if E.Hughes sent me mail that ``I have never been the originator of a message from the G.Broiles site goldenbear.com'' I would take that as authoritative. But he has never answered any of my questions in any specific form. Even questions like `How many pseudoanonymous identities are you using' he (and T.C.May) refuses to answer.
I also decline to answer, point by point, the numerous defamatory innuendos made by L. Detweiler against the members of the cypherpunks mailing list.
Hee, hee, `defamatory innuendos' is a clever term. He does not actually point to any specific `defamatory innuendo' as defamatory! They are only defamatory if you can state they are false! Also, many of the comments are not directed at `members of the cypherpunks list' but at the *leadership*. But we have another ingenious diversion. The eminent leader implies that a `point by point' statement would be tedious and unjustified. I assure you, I would prize it beyond anything in my ~3,500 message collection of cypherpunk archives.
Might I also observe that none of the statements are specific enough to actually count as accusation, but merely as general slander?
Another rather silly statement. Eminent leader E. Hughes, after many weeks of my trouble, has never answered *either* my `defamatory innuendoes' or my `specific accusations'. Imagine the sheer artillery that would be for your hordes of cultists who continue to assault me, Mr. Hughes! ``Mr. Hughes answered all your charges. Go to hell.'' * * * Why do I persist at this? Because the Cypherpunks wish to pretend that they are a respectable organization on the level of EFF or CPSR, with leaders on par with say, Barlow, Sobel, or Kapor or Godwin. The simple fact is that they are an obnoxious, arrogant, pathetic, repulsive bunch of cyber-guerrilas, pseudospoofers, and quasi-criminals who have no unity other than a Internet mailing list, which itself is used as a testbed for pseudospoofing perversions on unsuspecting and unwilling participants and cryptoanarchist disinformation and brainwashing. Oh, how I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and gone to great lengths to respect you! But your leaders are either undoubtedly corrupt or accomplices, with more interest in secret conspiracies, pseudoanonymity perversions, trust embezzlement, manipulation, and predation, privacy invasion, pornography, ego assuagement, elitist clique parties, and aquiring and dazzling their personality worshippers than anything substantial, such as Internet project development, that involves things upon which you urinate, like cooperation and openness. You cling to your elaborate fantasies with gripping white knuckles. Cypherpunks are blind to the ashes of their arson. `The Tyrant is not that bad!' `Hell is not such a bad place!' `Look how much we have accomplished'! You have nothing but gimmicks, trinkets and playthings, not a `foundation' but deadly quicksand traps. The only observation is that everything substantial accomplished by others you have done a great deal to simultaneously take credit for and maliciously sabotage, and everything you have accomplished is not substantial, and never will be, as long as you wallow in your gutter. But you are not content to wallow alone! You must drag the Current Internet and Future Cyberspace into your filth. I think that real leaders such as Zimmermann, Chaum, Card, and Sterling should have the sense to not only distance themselves but to condemn your parties of freakshow perversions. The cypherpunks list is a magnet for criminal apologists, moral relativists, libertarian extremists, demogogues, poseurs, and hypocrites. Frankly, I'm quite upset that respectable journals, like Wired, NYT, and RISKS have been subtly twisted and corrupted with the depraved Cypherpunk fantasies and lies. These knotty deceptions take an extraordinary amount of energy to untangle, and there is enough here to keep historians busy for decades. I'm grotesquely ashamed to have ever been associated with this sham, this mockery, this farce, that masquerades as a `group' or a `movement'. I have even lended credibility to tentacles by quoting them in my FAQs and in RISKS, oh how that makes me want to vomit. `Anonymity on the Internet' -- more like Disinformation, Brainwashing, and Lies by Tentacles. The cypherpunks list does not deserve to be advertised *anywhere* except as a dark pit to be avoided at all costs, the cypherpunks Movement is no more meaningful than graffiti spraypainted on a wall. It was only an infinitesimal whit better when it was just spread by word of mouth among the conspiring CA slime. Please, go back to your dark holes where you came from, and take your odious `movement' with you. Oh, what insidious despicable poison.