-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Consider this -> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 13:15:20 GMT From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Useless anonymity We are accustomed to seeing useless messages of various sorts on this and other electronic forums. Messages that quote a long article only in order to add "Me too" at the end, messages of no interest to anyone but the individual they are directed to, content-free banter, ego-driven flame wars, and so on. They still happen -- inexperienced people are always joining the net - -- but most people eventually learn to avoid making these faux pas. <- I agree. Especially with regard to the "Me too" analogy. - -> Anonymity brings a new class of useless message, of which the following from Black Unicorn <unicorn@net.digex.access> is a recent example. I quote it in its entirety:

Having worked in Liechtenstein banks, I can assure you numbered accounts exist.

<- You would have preferred that I quote the entire thread and then add my comment? Or is it the lack of accompanying detail in the comment that you resent? - -> "Black Unicorn" is an obvious pseudonym, and I'm assuming that it is not one with an established reputation. (For all I know, "Black Unicorn" might be as famous as the Legion of Doom, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that it isn't.) <- To begin, I have been active in cypherpunks list since about last fall or winter (the exact date escapes me). I left during the summer to return home (Liechtenstein) and returned to the states with new internet arrangements recently. I don't claim to be reputed on the list, but I hope likewise that I am not notorious, certainly not on the level of the "Legion of Doom. Oh, just so everyone knows, I'm a he, not an it. - -> What is the use of an unsubstantiated assertion, from an unreputed[*] source, with no means of verification? Having read Black Unicorn's bald asertion (sic), I am as ignorant as before of whether numbered accounts exist, in Liechtenstein or elsewhere. <- What use is an unsubstantiated assertion from a "reputed" source? It is likewise dependent upon your evaluation of credibility. What I see here is a fundamental difference in the concept of anon posting. I hold a JD from Georgetown and a masters in International Relations to boot. Part of my marketability in the job market was the appearance of a conservative and level headed, status-quo loving, policy wise, right wing, go getter. Considering my employment and the nature of my (rather questionable) intellectual pursuits, (cypherpunks fitting the bill when one considers the political views of my employer and colleagues) it makes little sense to post as my self, but I prefer not to post as anXXXX@anon.penet.fi either. My access account is a nice compromise. Publicly at any rate. In E-Mail, should you wish to so correspond, I would be happy to discuss more specifically, my employment or my experience. To do so publicly is to shoot myself in the foot. I might add that for other purposes, I use anon.penet.fi as well, but this is when I'm more interested in not having any accountability what so ever. Under these circumstances, I understand the reluctance to give any weight to a post, in fact I would argue that most of the time, those who post through anXXXX don't intend that their posts be given much weight. Usually these are harassment posts or questions that posters don't want later attributed to them. The purpose is to avoid a great deal of attention, other than by those in the know (with the question example at least). You are perhaps ignorant of Liechtenstein's banking policy, most people are ignorant of Liechtenstein. My intent was to at least advise the poster that his/her research was not yet in enough depth. I really was, and am, not in a position to comment on banking policy in a public way in much detail. Even commenting at all was within an ethical gray considering my former and current connection with the industry. If what you're looking for in every post is proof, then you might as well ask for a digital signature from a large bank in Liechtenstein. A digital signature from His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II might come closer. Even then it comes down to how well you trust the signature. Strictly speaking, by your argument, anything I post is to be ignored. Even posts with regard to weather (subject matter appropiateness non-withstanding). Should you be more interested in detail, I would be happy to discuss what I can in person, by telephone, or in encrypted E-Mail, in descending order of the detail I would be willing to disclose. - -> New ideas or arguments can be useful regardless of their source. <- Harmonize this with your previous and later position that my post is entirely without value. Did I contribute nothing at all? - -> Likewise pointers to places where evidence may be obtained. Assertions by reputable sources may be taken on trust (I place far more weight on Perry Metzger's comments about numbered accounts than the Black Unicorn's). <- (1) providing specific past employment information about myself publicly would tend to place me in a compromising position. (2) the amount of weight you assign any post will depend on your experience with that posters previous record and accuracy. If I used the pseudonym "Tom Jones" would you be happier? It's still not my name is it? Seems to me you are expressing trust reservations that should be based on time gained experience and not the superficial appearance of my name. If your position is solely that you have never seen posts by me before, and therefore are unaware of my credibility, fine, but characterize your criticism in that frame, not by ranting on anonymous posts. If my name had been Majud Rajakad, would a trust factor (positive or negative) be implied? What about Roosevelt Washington, or Fred Rosenberg? - -> The quoted message does none of these. It is wholly useless, a waste of its author's time, and of ours. <- I enjoy posting to cypherpunks. Hardly a waste of my time, I cannot speak for you. - -> [*] "unreputed": a word I just coined as an opposite to "reputable", meaning not "disreputable", i.e. having a bad reputation, but having no reputation at all. <- Gee, thanks. - -> - -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. <- - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLO03axibHbaiMfO5AQFXmAQAlLvcJ+A5W5ZTH8lUjuJtInyqkeqKFtlj zRFE7h+5h1KWcXbx7r5HzHKGZf2YQycR+l+Jn+WDSZ/nizAagMJuo+VLhvffi7+a U5y7eg4cXzrW3pG0eCwR53Ivll6AxZGS56aAuJAiUQafuZOvHHa8loMTAjlT3P4O siQtqR/6ruM= =ksGs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----