On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
I'm sure some clever participant at DCSB will do a pile of homework before coming to my talk and put it all together. So be it. If he or she is polite, they might chide me in private a bit, but not blather all over the list just to show how very clever they were. As long as they enjoy the talk, I'm not overly concerned.
or then again, maybe they'll sell it to BLACKNET!! <g>
actually Unicorn, eventually voice analysis software may evolve to the point that someone could match people based on their voices to public speech databases, and you could be nailed through your phone conversations. hmmmm, have you ever had a conversation with someone who might have been taping you for amusement?
Probably.
(heh. you write a long, self-indulgent letter about the extremes you have gone to keep your ID secret, and pretend to be blase' & nonchalant if someone discovers it? I think I can see through that smokescreen.)
You didn't read very carefully. I'd hardly call the modest efforts I made extreme. This was the entire point. If explaining my successes with moderate efforts so that others might duplicate it (I think that apathy is why more nyms [like yours] are unsuccessful as privacy tools) then how is that self-indulgent?
actually, I heard this interesting rumor that Unicorn threatened to sue someone who "defamed" his pseudonym. quite an amusing story if true, given his last essay that talks about how he created the pseudonym in the first place to avoid exactly what it accomplishes, i.e. dissociating his professional identity from the "lunatic anarchist" writhing beneath the surface.
You fail to not that dissociating one identity from another requires the existence of two identities. Is the second any less entitled to protection than the first?
actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk "rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, "respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"?
No. That is the pseudo-cpunk attitude. The real cypherpunks attitude can be illustrated thusly: Two men are walking down a street, a psychologist and an economist. They happen along on a $100 bill. Thinking he will evaluate the response of the economist, the psychologist ignores the clearly visible bill. To his surprise the economist ignores it as well. On asking the economist why he did not pick up the bill, the psychologist recieves this answer: "If it was really a $100 bill, someone would have picked it up already." An old joke, but it makes an important point. It is not enough to know how the market system works, but also to participate it. This is why I believe using those legal tools that are available is an important step. There is no morality other than the morality of the market. I submit that we do not need a central authority to dictate morality. We need only individual views of morality. There will only be as large a pornography market as there is a demand. Ditto for narcotics, guns. If the market believes that porn is immoral, customers, by their own moral decision, will reduce the market to nothing. Of course this will not happen in the near future because the cost of this moral choice exceeds the benefit for many customers. Why is use of the legal system any different? If it is so wrong for me to use the legal system as it stands, and if I am to be the subject of criticism for the conduct, then aren't the critics imposing their moral view on me? Isn't this what libertarian cypherpunks dislike in the first place? The bottom line is that the decision to sue is much like the decision to use a legal tax loop. I would call "idiot" the person who refused to utilize that which the government hands him. (Did not Mr. May indicate that the $1000.00 or so that the government would hand him was too costly to lose, even in the face of estlablishing privacy for his children? In my view that is a rational decision. Mr. May has priced privacy. My objection to his rationale was that I think the cost of obtaining it can be significantly lower). If the government is going to hand me the means to curb conduct which may be harmful to me, why should I refuse to use it on some "moral" grounds. (The moral grounds might consist of "well it's not a nice thing to do." but other than that, I am at a loss to identify them precisely). I submit that if law suits are so harmful and create such loss, eventually they will be eliminated by one of several mechanisms. Cypherpunks that they might speed the process by using that entitlement which the government gives them. [Remaining nonsense deleted] -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland