TCM
I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says, "I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of _contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in sticking its nose into.
well, I was satirizing the "extremist cpunk position" which is stronger than the above. I noticed you didn't use the cpunk four-letter-word, "we", but used a nearly equivalent construction. I have seen it repeated here often that somehow anonymity is some kind of a "right" that one should have in all kinds of different & important transactions, not merely on "cyberspace debate societies". I see here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to enforce identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing a corrupt, orwellian system. it sounded to me like that was all Dyson was advocating. also, I think you are being slightly disingenuous in masking your own and other cpunks major objections to traceability, with the above, "this is all we really want". what about situations where the government requires you to give a physical identity for some kind of a license etc? do you think there are no such valid situations? is there any role for a government whatsoever in CryptoAnarchist Utopia and if so, is there any situation in which demanding physical identity is reasonable?
No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap."
This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual agreement between sender and recipient.
it's clear Dyson hasn't totally thought out her position on anonymity. imho you are reading too much into her existing positions. because of your government paranoia, you assume that when someone says they want traceability, they are implying they want the government to enforce it in all situations.
(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me.
that's what something like what Dyson has been referring to would suggest to me. that is, that's exactly the system she sounded like she was loosely advocating. I surmise, though,
that use of the U.S. Government as a third party would not be optional, in the schemes of Dyson, Denning, and others of that ilk.)
Denning, yes; Dyson, I don't think so. remember Dyson has written extensively on the subject of "the end of copyright" in some very interesting essays and ideas. one major reason you would want to enforce traceability in cyberspace would be to prevent copyright infringement. so by attacking or "reforming" the concept of copyright, I'd say Dyson is very close to cpunk agendas and ideals from what I have loosely seen. there is something I've observed among extremists. by arguing for an extreme position, they tend to polarize the world and push away proposals that may actually benefit themselves in the long run. in other words, a system A that is "close" to their goals comes along, and if implemented would support them with some minor compromises. but the extremists, such as there are many on this list, say, "A is not good enough for us". but then the window of opportunity is closed, and all future proposals B, C, D, etc. are even worse and one may even get implemented. so it becomes very important to "know when to settle". extremists think that they are promoting their goals when they reject anything less than perfect, when in fact they may be sabotaging their own agenda in doing so. one example I have brought up before: the post office is setting up a digital signature system. it could be a good way for cpunks to educate the public, to get crypto to the masses, and to put in safeguards that prevent misuse and try to guarantee it will be voluntary. but intead they flame it as the beginning of Big Brother. the problem is the mindset that "if its associated with government, it is evil". this can be self-sabotaging. but again I'm arguing in subtleties that few here will grasp so I think I'll just quit while I'm behind <g>