-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I sent mail to Cypherpunks on this a couple of days ago, but it never appeared. There is a problem with the notion that all "anonymous" remailers and news-posting services should label their messages as anonymous so that users can decide whether to read them or not. This approach abandons one of the strongest arguments in favor of anonymous remailers, which is that the net is inherently an anonymous environment. Especially as more public access Unix systems, BBS systems, and so on become part of the net, we are going to see less and less of the strict controls on identity which were possible when the net was restricted to a few government labs and large universities. The level of anarchy will inevitably increase as larger numbers of people acquire net access. Unless massive and universal authentication efforts are undertaken, it is going to be more and more the case that you will know little about the true identity of a poster. Because of this, those who object to having to read the words of an "anonymous" poster are taking an untenable position. They are already reading words of people about whom they know no more than they would about an anonymous poster. And the argument that "non-anonymous" posters are subject to a form of discipline not available to anonymous posters - messages to the system operator - is clearly falsified by the existance of many sysops who care nothing about complaints. As more and more people run their own machines with net access, these cases will only increase. In short, we anonymous remailer operators have every right to be part of the net. We introduce no more problems than are already happening and will continue to occur as the net grows and becomes more universal. The resistance we've seen is from old-time sysops who are unable to adjust to a changing network environment. Rather than placating obsolete beliefs about network identity by agreeing to mark our messages with the scarlett letter A for anonymity, by accepting that we deserve to be in a ghetto set aside for inferior posts, I feel that we should challenge the net with messages that blur the distinction between anonymous and authenticated posts. The sooner people realize that there is no line that divides the clean from the unclean, the sooner anonymity will be widely accepted on the net. Hal Finney 74076.1041@compuserve.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1 iQCVAgUBK7S2oqgTA69YIUw3AQEfagP8DlzINcvUDn7jc351S+hHTBz5NtB3RbRC l+0rgltFcn6QxWaE0GsWFcOa6RcPOe1DOTlwiJejiT6MbnfuDopbUoS98bCiIzLE 0Q2ZVhtsfLs5zFdUj08bRzzU7zyuzSmNoSsCx01O6OiGZB/zs0PEnx/0XqRtXFD2 RM1YTCPIF7Y= =0zw5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hal writes:
[...] one of the strongest arguments in favor of anonymous remailers, which is that the net is inherently an anonymous environment.
It is anonymous by default. If someone wants to break anonymity, they may. I make this stronger below.
In short, we anonymous remailer operators have every right to be part of the net. We introduce no more problems than are already happening and will continue to occur as the net grows and becomes more universal.
We create no new problems to be sure; we just bring them on faster, in order to prepare for them.
Rather than placating obsolete beliefs about network identity by agreeing to mark our messages with the scarlett letter A for anonymity, by accepting that we deserve to be in a ghetto set aside for inferior posts, I feel that we should challenge the net with messages that blur the distinction between anonymous and authenticated posts.
I agree. Hal argues that this means not marking anonymous posts. I disagree with this technique. My solution to this is to make the posting anonymous but to sign the post with your real name. (Yes, that means however _you_ construe your real name.) If we wish to blur the distinction, we should make the means of transport anonymous and the contents of the posting named. Surely this blurs the distinction between named and anonymous posts. People will ask "Why would anyone not want the routing information revealed when they are saying who they are?" This question, even merely asked, has positive effects. It makes one aware that identity is not an email address, nor is accountability the ability to complain to an authority. It allows people to kill anonymous posts out of whatever spite they feel to "those cowardly hypocrites". It also allows the worst excesses to be restrained. Yet if there is a visible group of respected individuals who use anonymous mechanisms for reasons other than avoiding rebuttal, those who unrestrainedly ignore anonymity will find themselves missing out. I suggest that those who participate in news.admin.policy and sci.crypt be the first to start this practice. The more respected users of anonymous servers there are, the greater will be the incentive not to ignore anonymity completely. Eric
participants (2)
-
Eric Hughes -
Hal