Re: Question for article
Hello; I read your postings in alt.wired with much interest. I am working on an article in the 'electronic frontier' vein, kind of like a cyber-gunslinger piece, and I'd love to have your input...
Great, just the sort of publicity we need; we're out here on the frontier, alone with our reputations, and if you mess with us? We shoot you.
Say someone fucks you over (real or imagined) or flames you severely. What sort of nasty things can you do to them or their data? You know, like e-mail bombings etc. I don't need particulars, since this is pointed at a mainstream audience. (It also might not get published if the technophobic editor(s) think its too risque, if you know what I mean.) I have some ideas already, but I'd like to hear from the pros. :->
Bad angle, man. Some folks might get a kick out of screwing over someone else, but doing it invites the authorities to step in and put the handcuffs on all of us by restraining our access or tools (at least the legal ones). If it's only a flame and you're established - no problem, just ignore it or defend yourself once or twice and let it go. Besides, you're asking us to tell you the questionably ethical stuff we could theoretically do if we were motivated. I don't think we would be, except in an extreme case, so I would argue that the "rootin', tootin', quick-drawin' console cowboy" image you're trying to perpetuate is way off the mark. Also remember, the probable penalty for mail bombing or any data destruction is being forced off your account which means that you need to find alternative access or *be* *gone* *forever*. Access isn't as hard to come by as it used to be, but reputations are damn hard to live down. Magnetic media store bits reliably for about seven years, but our memories last much longer. -- Best regards, Curtis D. Frye cfrye@ciis.mitre.org "If you think I speak for MITRE, I'll tell you how much they pay me and make you feel foolish."
There is an excellent essay in the December 21 issue of *The Village Voice* that talks about, among other things, the distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity in the NET (on MOOs in particular). There has been a small amount of calm discussion about pseudonymity on Cypherpunks, and I don't want to revive the embers; but the distinction the VV author (Julian Dibbell) makes between the abusive behavior often masked by anonymity and the more mature concern for one's pseudonymous reputation would make good background reading for anyone wanting to mull over this issue in print.
participants (2)
-
Arthur Chandler -
cfrye@ciis.mitre.org