If you can't take the heat... (Was Re: Keep the pressure!)
At 12:05 PM 3/20/96, Perry E. Metzger is rumored to have typed:
anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com writes:
Some people have wondered why I am anonymous and attack me. I am not ashamed of my views.
Well, then you should be.
I write this thread anonymous as a form of protest.
Why is it a form of protest? If you aren't ashamed, post it under your name.
What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster, is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing so anonymously through a remailer. The irony of such a situation is too rich to pass up. It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such a fiction anyway, get used to it" seem to be common responses), but when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why are you posting anonymously." How sad. So, why the hypocrisy here? If you don't want to be bothered by these messages there is a simple solution, use a mail agent that can filter out remailer postings and trash them. Of course this would also kill interesting messages from others who use remailers, but that's the price we pay for having remailers that do not support anonymous identity upon which reputation can be built. Oh yeah, I forgot...cypherpunks write code (snicker). So why not stop bitching and write a bit of code that provides for useful anonymous reputations and/or fix the glaringly obvious problems with current remailers. jim, who is sorry that he is not the one posting such trolls to the list just to make the puppets dance...
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Jim McCoy wrote:
What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster, is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing so anonymously through a remailer. The irony of such a situation is too rich to pass up.
It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such a fiction anyway, get used to it" seem to be common responses), but when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why are you posting anonymously." How sad.
So, why the hypocrisy here?
I don't see this as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be trying to track the guy down, or turning off the remailer, or filtering anonymous rants at toad.com. I think it's completely legitimate, and healthy, to question why people go anonymous while supporting their right to do so. Sometimes anonymity is necessary, sometimes it's just for fun, sometimes its cowardice, sometimes it's deception. Your point about "stop whining and write code for anonymous reputations" is misplaced. Such code ALREADY EXISTS. There are lots of nyms out there with PGP keys. If you're already PGP-encrypting your message to send it to an anonymous remailer securely, it's really no more trouble to sign it with the key for Alice D'Anonymous. If you don't feel secure using PGP (and "the real Alice" did have some -- some -- valid points), then use a magic number or serialize your messages. It worked for the Unabomber. -rich
Jim McCoy writes:
What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster, is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing so anonymously through a remailer. The irony of such a situation is too rich to pass up.
I have no problem with the existance of anonymous remailers, and I don't want to see them banned or prevented -- indeed, I encourage their existance. However, that doesn't mean that I always favor their use, or that I won't look down on someone for using one inappropriately. To put it another way: I believe that every adult person has the right to have sex with any other willing adult person. However, I think it might not be tasteful if my neighbors decided to bugger each other on the front lawn. Not, you understand, that it should be illegal, but it does make me wonder about them. In the case of the given poster, he claims that he's using anonymity not because he fears backlash (he should but thats another story) but as a form of "protest". This is as illogical as the content of his messages...
It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such a fiction anyway, get used to it" seem to be common responses), but when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why are you posting anonymously." How sad.
Why is this sad? I think you don't get the difference between what is permissable and what is in good taste. Perry
participants (3)
-
mccoy＠communities.com -
Perry E. Metzger -
Rich Graves