-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is really the first line of this message. Ignore the line below -- it was added by mistake by my autosigning scripts. Also, I was completely thrilled by the Peter Lewis article. Now that I've thought about it some more, the Microsoft hoax _was_ a problem with anonymity. Please just disregard the rest of this post. Thanks. -- Raph This is the first line of this message. I agree with Perry that the article has some serious problems. Very little of the actual stuff he talked about has anything to do with anonymity at all, especially with anonymous remailers. I was interviewed but not quoted. I mostly talked about the remailers, their political situation (the fact that the average half-life of a remailer seems to be about six months), and what my role is in trying to make the whole mess useable. When I talked to him on the phone, Peter seemed pretty clear about the distinction between spoofing someone else's identity and being anonymous. However, I don't think this distiction made it into print. The sidebar was particularly problematical. It presented digital signatures as a relief for the problems posed by anonymity. Well, of course I think digital signatures are a wonderful idea (which is why I've signed this post), but it certainly won't protect anybody against being exposed to disturbing ideas that are disseminated anonymously. Thus, I would consider the sidebar to be misleading. I first saw the Microsoft spoof posted to rec.humor.funny. I don't recall it being anonymous, and even if it was, it was clearly labled as a joke. Any problems it caused are due to human gullibility. I found it to be a great demonstration of how effective the AP inverted-pyramid style is in conveying misinformation. I can sympathize with Peter a bit, having just written an article for Wired magazine (Feb '94, pp. 68-69). They used about half of the text I originally wrote. My hard-headed skeptical review of stochastic screening techniques was transformed into Wired's trademark gee-whiz boosterism. As the NYT article appeared, I'm just as happy that I wasn't quoted. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBLwXjPf4BfQiT0bDNAQHN6wP7BqDsLWaSxGu4wet8OaJ0duPMwChXpzAA ryjQOTFsqkz5tWMGBcE5iz+4wAj1lZI2NcX2Y6QF+OPBBMFItmFoIyr1VLYCMUaT nfaTmQBoLPOvgv9nNILuYNd2quBQzQR7yODqUGciBPQk281ao/hgoJjCxg79mbVd SoMUGjNgcM4= =ywCF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- PGP key available by fingering raph@netcom.com