Voluntary Disclosure of True Names
In a rare moment of lucidity Vladimir Z. Dettweiler wrote:
I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says, "I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of _contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in sticking its nose into. Those who wish to not deal with the entities they cannot reliably verify the True Name of are free to filter them out. All we are asking is that those of us happy to deal with S. Boxx, Black Unicorn, PrOduct Cypher, Pablo Escobar, and other pseudospoofing tentacles, not be told by a government that, for our own good, such communications are felonies.
the above is almost exactly what Dyson was saying, and I have been
No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual agreement between sender and recipient. (I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me. I surmise, though, that use of the U.S. Government as a third party would not be optional, in the schemes of Dyson, Denning, and others of that ilk.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
<Part of Tim May's post>
the above is almost exactly what Dyson was saying, and I have been
No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder what Dyson would consider acceptable? Regardless, she is not going to get it. EBD
This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual agreement between sender and recipient.
(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me. I surmise, though, that use of the U.S. Government as a third party would not be optional, in the schemes of Dyson, Denning, and others of that ilk.)
--Tim May
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
TCM
I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says, "I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of _contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in sticking its nose into.
well, I was satirizing the "extremist cpunk position" which is stronger than the above. I noticed you didn't use the cpunk four-letter-word, "we", but used a nearly equivalent construction. I have seen it repeated here often that somehow anonymity is some kind of a "right" that one should have in all kinds of different & important transactions, not merely on "cyberspace debate societies". I see here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to enforce identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing a corrupt, orwellian system. it sounded to me like that was all Dyson was advocating. also, I think you are being slightly disingenuous in masking your own and other cpunks major objections to traceability, with the above, "this is all we really want". what about situations where the government requires you to give a physical identity for some kind of a license etc? do you think there are no such valid situations? is there any role for a government whatsoever in CryptoAnarchist Utopia and if so, is there any situation in which demanding physical identity is reasonable?
No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap."
This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual agreement between sender and recipient.
it's clear Dyson hasn't totally thought out her position on anonymity. imho you are reading too much into her existing positions. because of your government paranoia, you assume that when someone says they want traceability, they are implying they want the government to enforce it in all situations.
(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me.
that's what something like what Dyson has been referring to would suggest to me. that is, that's exactly the system she sounded like she was loosely advocating. I surmise, though,
that use of the U.S. Government as a third party would not be optional, in the schemes of Dyson, Denning, and others of that ilk.)
Denning, yes; Dyson, I don't think so. remember Dyson has written extensively on the subject of "the end of copyright" in some very interesting essays and ideas. one major reason you would want to enforce traceability in cyberspace would be to prevent copyright infringement. so by attacking or "reforming" the concept of copyright, I'd say Dyson is very close to cpunk agendas and ideals from what I have loosely seen. there is something I've observed among extremists. by arguing for an extreme position, they tend to polarize the world and push away proposals that may actually benefit themselves in the long run. in other words, a system A that is "close" to their goals comes along, and if implemented would support them with some minor compromises. but the extremists, such as there are many on this list, say, "A is not good enough for us". but then the window of opportunity is closed, and all future proposals B, C, D, etc. are even worse and one may even get implemented. so it becomes very important to "know when to settle". extremists think that they are promoting their goals when they reject anything less than perfect, when in fact they may be sabotaging their own agenda in doing so. one example I have brought up before: the post office is setting up a digital signature system. it could be a good way for cpunks to educate the public, to get crypto to the masses, and to put in safeguards that prevent misuse and try to guarantee it will be voluntary. but intead they flame it as the beginning of Big Brother. the problem is the mindset that "if its associated with government, it is evil". this can be self-sabotaging. but again I'm arguing in subtleties that few here will grasp so I think I'll just quit while I'm behind <g>
On Thu, 05 Sep 96 10:49:39 -0700, "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> wrote: I have seen it repeated here often that somehow anonymity is some kind of a "right" that one should have in all kinds of different & important transactions, not merely on "cyberspace debate societies". I see here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to enforce identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing a corrupt, orwellian system. it sounded to me like that was all Dyson was advocating. The only time I've ever seen this point of view expressed on the list is when you and the other tentacles claim someone else is wrong for saying it (which they didn't, of course). No one has ever said "private entities" shouldn't be allowed to "enforce identity in their own transactions." This is exactly what Tim and others have been saying _should_ happen. Dyson, however, appears to be advocating some sort of identity tracking mechanism at the network level so that _all_ transactions are identifiable (albeit with some legal mechanism attempting to prevent "unauthorised" identification) regardless of whether the individuals involved want to enforce identity or not. Identification can be proved between the individuals concerned on a truly voluntary basis, without any such controls on the net. also, I think you are being slightly disingenuous in masking your own and other cpunks major objections to traceability, with the above, "this is all we really want". what about situations where the government requires you to give a physical identity for some kind of a license etc? do you think there are no such valid situations? is there any role for a government whatsoever in CryptoAnarchist Utopia and if so, is there any situation in which demanding physical identity is reasonable? If the government, or any other entity, requires identification it can be provided. I'm hard pressed to think of a situation in which the legitimate business of government (if any) actually requires identification. What do we need government to licence? -- Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz> --- PGPmail preferred PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33 C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paradise is exactly like where you are right now ... only much, much better. -- Laurie Anderson
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
TCM
I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says, "I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of _contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in sticking its nose into.
[...]
I have seen it repeated here often that somehow anonymity is some kind of a "right" that one should have in all kinds of different & important transactions, not merely on "cyberspace debate societies". I see here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to enforce identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing a corrupt, orwellian system. it sounded to me like that was all Dyson was advocating.
"I have seen it repeated here often that somehow compelled identity is some kind of a 'right' that one should have in all kinds of different & important transaction, not merely on 'cyberspace debate societies.' I see here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to enforce compelled identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing a corrupt, orwellian system." (That put it into prespective for you "Vlad?")
"this is all we really want". what about situations where the government requires you to give a physical identity for some kind of a license etc? do you think there are no such valid situations?
You are twisting, "Vlad." If you really think that the issue is one of what specific times government can demand anonymous transactions you overestimate the role of government as well as the ability to demand such transactions on a per situation rather than "as a whole" basis. For example. A friend of mine has never had a social security number or a drivers license with his real name on it. He has effectively had nothing but anonymous transactions with anyone who thought that by asking him for a SSN or driver's license they were getting identity credentials. His basis is philsophical, not criminal. I might add that he lives quite normally, works for a big mainstream company, and pays taxes. Every once in a while he switches his credentials around a bit to avoid paper trailing. Please, if you can, point out the harm he is inflicting. You can't. There is none. The harm you can identify is the classic "but it might be used for... [insert nastiness in vogue this week here]"
is there any role for a government whatsoever in CryptoAnarchist Utopia and if so, is there any situation in which demanding physical identity is reasonable?
It is reasonable for any private parties to refuse to do business with or otherwise associate with parties who refuse to divulge their identity. Government in a CryptoAnarchist Utopia will have a very hard time doing business with anyone if they make this a requirement I think.
No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap."
This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual agreement between sender and recipient.
it's clear Dyson hasn't totally thought out her position on anonymity. imho you are reading too much into her existing positions. because of your government paranoia, you assume that when someone says they want traceability, they are implying they want the government to enforce it in all situations.
Tell me "Vlad," if government won't, who will? I submit that it is impossible to enforce compelled identity other than through government. I also submit that to do it you have to create a registration process for all mediums. Pay phones, ISPs, private leaflets, cash... etc... etc. So long as cash and payphones exist, (or so long as cash and pre-paid cellular exists) so will anonymous transactions. Again, the question is, what are you going to do to prevent, e.g., me, "Black Unicorn" from publishing as I do now?
(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me.
that's what something like what Dyson has been referring to would suggest to me. that is, that's exactly the system she sounded like she was loosely advocating.
Crap. Such a system exists today. It's called the "filter." If you don't want to transact with anonymous people, then IGNORE them. Why impose compelled disclosure on everyone? [Yadda Yadda about Copyright and own-back-patting about "subtlies" that others will miss deleted.] -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
participants (5)
-
Black Unicorn -
Brian Davis -
Paul Foley -
tcmay＠got.net -
Vladimir Z. Nuri