(I'm cross-posting this to the Nym list. While posts from within the Nym list are not supposed to be cross-posted outside the list, there are of course no rules about including articles from the outside world, or from cross-posting _in_. Followups may have to edit the distribution list, though.) At 11:56 AM -0700 12/15/97, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
The Nym list appears to be closed. (The web page says so -- so I didn't try.) This state of affairs may even be my fault. The history, for those who care, is appended.
It's a shame -- if David Brin really is posting there as one of Tim's recent messages suggested I'd be very interested in seeing his posts. (Thanks, Tim, for reposting yours here.)
Yes, it's a shame. And, as you and others have pointed out, anyone who thinks their messages on the "Nym" list will not eventually be published or made available to Web search engines has been living on another planet for the past several years. Let me emphasize that I fully support Declan's right to run his list as he sees fit. Normally I avoid posting to lists that are under the personal control of some editor or manager, which is why I have avoided Coderpunks, Cryptography, Fight-Censorship, etc. But I made an exception in this case, as I felt the topic of "nyms" was just too important to me to avoid the list on a matter of principle. The motivation for the "closed list, no retransmission outside the list" rule was mostly because some of the participants wanted to be able to speak freely without being quoted in other places, as I understood the arguments. Declan said that several participants had told him they wouldn't feel comfortable posting to the list if they knew their comments might appear elsewhere. (Sorry I can't quote it exactly, but that's the rule the list is operated under.) It's _doubly_ ironic because digital pseudonyms can be used for just this sort of protection, and because we currently have only one obvious pseudonym (Black Unicorn) posting. I believe that submissions to the list must be by subscribers only, as Declan said recently that he is considering allowing posting from addresses other than those subscribers subscribed under. This means a list devoted to discussion of digital pseudonyms is itself being protected by laws (Declan's laws) rather than by technology. It also means the sage participants are being shielded from some of the more interesting uses of nyms. Doubly ironic, indeed. Having said this, it's not all that big a deal. I've felt little need to retransmit the messages of others to this and other lists. Nor do I care especially strongly that the participants on Nym are themselves being shielded from nyms. It bemuses me.
I still don't think it makes much sense to have a conversation about the use of nyms and then try to protect the posters' words from public view. If posters are concerned about public scrutiny, why not use a nym? Not to mention the fact that one would have to keep the list closed to have a prayer of enforcing the no-repost rule.
Indeed. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."