Re: Something Silly, Something Serious
Tim May writes (and then Jamie takes a bend toward CypherRapture):
SOMETHING SERIOUS:
Seriously, I understand L. Dettweiler has asked to be unsubscribed.
For the record, I did not send him any e-mail these past several weeks, either under my normal name or under any other names. I rarely pseudonyms, and have never--that I recall right now--ever used them in 2-way communication. And never for the purposed Dettweiller/Boxx alleged.
But the cake was taken when he claimed I had invented the nym "Jamie Dinkelacker," whom many of you know personally, to slant arguments! Done humorously, as several of us have done recently, such a claim would be funny (no offense meant, Jamie). But LD showed no awareness of the absurdity of his claim. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim's got a point. Why would Tim create the nym Jamie Dinkelacker? With so many names to pick from, why pick one that is already in use and is fairly visible in other networks (e.g., extropians, nano)? Perhaps LD didn't check them, but others on the list are aware. Isn't it interesting that when a writer doesn't know that two persons are different individuals, it's easy to presume that when they agree in print or simply discuss similar topics, that this implies nym-hood? Fascinating: This isn't a surface event. The issue here is a root failing of LD's cognizance and scope to simply check things out. Readers in the Bay Area or LA may have seen stuff Jamie Dinkelacker has written in _Microtimes_, or in the _Foresight Update_, or if you read the academic communication and mass media literature, there as well. Plus, I'm a fairly voluble fellow speaking at conferences, trade shows, some local discussion groups and the like. No, Jamie isn't an AI, nor does he play one on the net. (Maybe someday...) I've not used net nym. What struck me about LD's vacuous pleas and S.Boxx's vapid rants was the essential disturbed and juvenile nature they projected, hoping to ensure a cause of CypherRapture (following CryptoAnarchy, natch) warranting true names without ever any spoofing or deception. I have made a standing offer to take S.Boxx to lunch (provided s/he eats with a fork and isn't already out to lunch). But spoofing and deception are not the same: more importantly, neither is an emergent element of pseudonymity, anonymous remailers, or cypherjocks. I found Blacknet to be entertaining. It seemed natural this has been going on for years. As far as deception, it's a matter of degree. It's common in nature, sports, business, ... . I'm not advocating it -- but I accept it as a fact of living in modern times. This has been a good experience for me, and has raised many issues in the big Venn of CryptoAnarchy: who owns their name, for how long, does it matter? ... Who can tell the difference? Which John Smith is that? ... Tim continues ...
Cypherpunks write code. Cyperpunks write essays. Cypherpunks make puns and jokes and even spoofs. Cypherpunks have fun.
I don't know if there is a Cypherpunk's cause. I doubt there's a movement, but that's separate from my holding a belief that crypto and nyms and digital cash and privacy and emergent social structures are crucial to a preferable form of human survival. With the net, we have a wonderous tool and opportunity. But the world isn't a safe place. Every time I put a finger or toe into the lovely pacific ocean I'm keenly aware of quickly entering the food chain at a much lower point. These are times of challenge, to develop new tools and fresh perspectives. But many elements of human nature remain the same. I thank the Cypherpunks for writing code. I don't (anymore): I write words, make videos and build organizations. We do need the code. We also need to push at the edges of our understanding of social dynamics. And S.Boxx clearly illustrated that puerile visciousness, wounded animal frenzy, and pathetic behavior are also here in this new world. One of the brave ones, s/he isn't. And Cypherpunks' creations even protect the likes of S.Boxx. Reminiscent of Voltaire, yes? Thanks for the bandwidth. If anyone would like to continue this, perhaps moving it to the Extropians list would be reasonable. James Dinkelacker (True name) -- ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA (almost a true name) Jamie@netcom.com 415.941.4782
It still seems to me that the spoofing issue has been oversimplified: "Hey, it's a fact of life. Accept it." "We're cypherpunks. We have a little fun once in a while. Lighten up!" "Spoofing and deception are not the same." Then Boxx gets dinged for using spoofs, and Detweiler gets dinged for objecting to them. Then May comes out with a G-rated spoof, and everyone (almost) has a chuckle. But I think the issue is too sticky to pass off with flames and grins. As I see it, the spoofing touches on one of the basic opportunities/dilemmas of the NET: anonymity versus responsibility. We can say things behind the cover of ascii that we wouldn't dare try IRL. So some folks do it. You can explore gender bending, being an asshole, etc. -- and no one has to know. Good therapy? Food for the exploring mind? Yeah, maybe. But also -- Good for undermining credibility. Someone spoofs in a letter from William Gibson during a heated discussion of Cyberpunk. It LOOKS plausible. No one on the list knows Gibson personally. Do you take it at face value, or pass it off as a possible spoof? Folks, that ain't spoofing: it's impersonation. It's a form of lying. No harm done? Ask Gibson if he thinks so. Ask yourself if you would. Situation #2: someone writes in a bunch of outrageous opinions and puts YOUR name in the sender slot and fires the mess of to the cypherpunks list. What are you going to do about it? Quickly post a denial, no doubt. But tell me you wouldn't feel furious. Someone has used anonymity to misrepresent you. In essence, to lie about you in an ingenious way made possible by a combo of human nature and the structure of the NET. So: You want to post/pose as *HeAvYd00d* -- hey, go right ahead. That's your biz, and I can use a laugh (the whole scheme of building up an anonymous rep seems like juvenile fantasy or disguised cowardice, but chacun a son gout). You want to pose as William Gibson? I've got a problem with that -- and so do you, if the real WG finds out. You want to pose as someone else on this list? Well, do YOU have a problem with that?
It still seems to me that the spoofing issue has been oversimplified: [...] "Spoofing and deception are not the same."
What's overly simple about this?
Then Boxx gets dinged for using spoofs,
I don't think anyone cared that "S. Boxx" posted pseudonymously. [ Example of someone impersonating William Gibson ] [ Example of someone impersonation *you* ]
tell me you wouldn't feel furious. Someone has used anonymity to misrepresent you. In essence, to lie about you in an ingenious way made possible by a combo of human nature and the structure of the NET.
Anonymity has nothing to do with this. Nor does pseudonymity. This is a simple case of exploiting technical loopholes the size of Neptune. Unfortunately, many people give more credence than they should to the From: line, perhaps not realizing that present protocols were never designed for security. An easy way of making reality conform to expectations is to spread the use of digital signatures. Your examples of "harmful spoofing" are problems, but they are old problems having nothing to do with the use of nyms. You can't, for example, post to alt.cyberpunk as an47351@anon.penet.fi (William Gibson) and expect to fool anybody. Yes, forgery is obnoxious. But this putative offense of "pseudospoofing", of having multiple names, is very from forgery. Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
participants (3)
-
Arthur Chandler -
Eli Brandt -
jamie＠netcom.com