RE: Challenge to David Wagner on TCPA
Peter Trei writes:
It's rare enough that when a new anononym appears, we know that the poster made a considered decision to be anonymous.
The current poster seems to have parachuted in from nowhere, to argue a specific position on a single topic. It's therefore reasonable to infer that the nature of that position and topic has some bearing on the decision to be anonymous.
Yes, my name is "AARG!". That was the first thing my mother said after I was born, and the name stuck. Not really. For Peter's information, the name associated with a message through an anonymous remailer is simply the name of the last remailer in the chain, whatever that remailer operator chose to call it. AARG is a relatively new remailer, but if you look at http://anon.efga.org/Remailers/TypeIIList you will see that it is very reliable and fast. I have been using it as an exit remailer lately because other ones that I have used often produce inconsistent results. It has not been unusual to have to send a message two or three times before it appears. So far that has not been a problem with this one. So don't read too much into the fact that a bunch of anonymous postings have suddenly started appearing from one particular remailer. For your information, I have sent over 400 anonymous messages in the past year to cypherpunks, coderpunks, sci.crypt and the cryptography list (35 of them on TCPA related topics).
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, AARG! Anonymous wrote:
I have sent over 400 anonymous messages in the past year to cypherpunks, coderpunks, sci.crypt and the cryptography list (35 of them on TCPA related topics).
I see you are no too worries about traffic analysis? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
AARG!Anonymous writes:
So don't read too much into the fact that a bunch of anonymous postings have suddenly started appearing from one particular remailer. For your information, I have sent over 400 anonymous messages in the past year to cypherpunks, coderpunks, sci.crypt and the cryptography list (35 of them on TCPA related topics).
We have, of course, no way to verify this fact, since your messages are not cryptographically signed. For someone who claims to be knowledgable about cryptography, this seems like a suspicious omission. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym: Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | IANAE Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | I Am Not An Economist
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
AARG!Anonymous writes:
So don't read too much into the fact that a bunch of anonymous postings have suddenly started appearing from one particular remailer. For your information, I have sent over 400 anonymous messages in the past year to cypherpunks, coderpunks, sci.crypt and the cryptography list (35 of them on TCPA related topics).
We have, of course, no way to verify this fact, since your messages are not cryptographically signed. For someone who claims to be knowledgable about cryptography, this seems like a suspicious omission.
Bullshit Russ, plausable deniability alone justifies such behaviour. Who sent them is irrelevant except to cultists of personality (eg CACL adherents). Base your analysis on facts and experiment. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Conform and be dull......J. Frank Dobie ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate writes:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
AARG!Anonymous writes:
So don't read too much into the fact that a bunch of anonymous postings have suddenly started appearing from one particular remailer. For your information, I have sent over 400 anonymous messages in the past year to cypherpunks, coderpunks, sci.crypt and the cryptography list (35 of them on TCPA related topics).
We have, of course, no way to verify this fact, since your messages are not cryptographically signed. For someone who claims to be knowledgable about cryptography, this seems like a suspicious omission.
Bullshit Russ, plausable deniability alone justifies such behaviour.
Who sent them is irrelevant except to cultists of personality (eg CACL adherents).
I agree that it's irrelevant. So why is he trying to argue from authority (always a fallacy anyway) without *even* having any way to prove that he is that authority? Fine, let him desire plausible deniability. I plausibly deny his appeal to (self-)authority as being completely without merit. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses persuade 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
I agree that it's irrelevant. So why is he trying to argue from authority (always a fallacy anyway) without *even* having any way to prove that he is that authority?
What has 'authority' got to do with it? Arguments from authority are -worthless-. Make up your own mind as to its validity, who cares about their 'proof'. -Who- is irrelevant. What damns his argument -is- his appeal to -authority-. Anyone who bases their argument on 'He said...' has already lost the discussion and invalidated any point they might make. It's one of the primary fallacies of (for example) Tim May and his consistent appeal to who he knows or what 'they' said. We agree, what I don't understand is why you keep expecting that dead horse to get up...keep asking those damning questions!!!! ;) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Conform and be dull......J. Frank Dobie ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
AARG! Anonymous -
Alif The Terrible -
Jim Choate -
Russell Nelson