Jamie Dinkelacker:

[wonders why Detweiler hasn't phoned himself or Tim May] The only reason Detweiler has not executed this test is that he avoids truth.

Harsh, but insightful. Detweiler seems to have a world-view in which people are and should be marching morons who make up their minds via peer pressure, perceived majority, consensus, etc. rather than by listening or reading for content, thinking, or taking action for themselves. A phenomenon which disrupts this cherished "democratic" state of affairs is "utterly perverted" and "evil". S(he) who promotes such a change, either specifically or as a side effect of trying to return a modicum of privacy to the panoptic, permanently recorded net, is a "traitor" who should be "thrown in jail", no less. Detweiler's emotional vision of making every poster "accountable" to mob rule is the most convincing argument I've heard yet for privacy on the net, the stronger the better, the sooner the better. I wonder how long it will take Detweiler's rhetoric of "perversion" to spread and color other cypherpunks activities. If maintaining 'nyms indicates a multiple personality disorder, then perhaps posting anonymously suggests an inferiority complex, having something to hide is the sign of a sociopath, etc. If it's a new and different cultural phenomenon with nuances that take time to learn, it might well be easier to defame it as a psychological abnormality, and brand its practioners as "criminals", than to learn about it, adapt to it, and/or convert it locally to better suit one's own tastes. BTW, "Medusa" probably won't last very long after doubling up with her other 'nym to flame people, having her 'nyms praise each other, etc. This isn't theoretical stuff -- a wide variety of these kinds of things have been tried on BBS's for years. There's a big track record out there we can look at. Making a mistake that unmasks your 'nym is very easy: between leaving these pointers lying around, the extreme difficulty of maintaining a distinct style or personality for an extensive amount of quality posted material, and the "treachery" of aquaintences (who can use anon remailers if need be to umask the 'nym). Thus, I find Detweiler's speculation of massive political manipulation by net "pseudo-spoofers" (isn't that redundant)? to be paranoid and fantastic. I wonder if Detweiler is as worried about the small "clique" of newswrire writers, quoted almost verbatim by most print media, and without much more than stylistic changes by TV and radio news, a few dozen people communicating anonymously and via mouthpieces like Dan Rather to hundreds of millions of people in the English-speaking world? This "manipulation" of perceived consensus and majority opinion is something a few dozen net "pseudospoofers" on smart drugs posting under a thousand 'nyms could never hope to match. The closest the net comes to political spoofing is probably voting for Usenet newsgroups -- completely insecure, there may have been some close votes swayed by spoofers, but the world doesn't revolve around the results. Mostly folks don't care enough about newsgroup voting to bother to spoof it. We have two options for electronic voting -- we can make it more secure, and we can make it less important by changing majority-driven insitutions with market-driven institutions. I'm all in favor of making e-voting more secure, but I don't think it's worth sacrificing our privacy or civil rights to do so. I don't find majority rule to be the only, "SACRED" way to get important things done in cyberspace. Right now voting plays practically no role in cyberspace, and that's also what the forseeable future looks like. I've seen 'nym unmasking happen extensively both on BBS's and Usenet. For example, there was a "Holocaust Revisionist" spoofer who posted under a series of nyms to Usenenet, the old silly argument about only 1 million Jews were killed not 6 million, the Nazis really intended to facilitate emigration of Jews to Palestine and instead the Allied bombing trapped them en route in the camps, ad nauseum. Professing such opinions can make you "accountable" really quick, in many lasting ways. In this case, the spoofer was booted off of techbook.com, the BanishedCPU BBS newsfeed was cut off when he signed up there, etc. None of this spoofer's 'nyms lasted long; the style was too similar (consistent differences via purposeful mispelling, different usage of capital letters, etc., overdone regional jargon, etc. are easily recognized for what they are). Perhaps it's selection effect, but I've never seen a 'nym actively maintained for more than a year without unmasking or changing over to another name to avoid that 'nym. In anon posts of significant length I've recognized many style pointers right off the bat. Eg, many of us independtly made the L.Detweiler/S.Boxx link, I've readily recognized the origin of several of Tim May's anon posts, etc. If we can recognize links from just one or two posts, how much more difficult to maintain the ongoing politically persuasive rhetoric suggested by Detweiler. Not saying it's not possible, just that it would take an extreme amount of careful effort. This isn't evidence of "criminality" or "perversion", it's evidence that the "spoofer" cares enough to go to those lengths, much as Detweiler cares enough to go to great lengths to fill up my mailbox with name-calling and elaborate scenarios. Anybody know what the world record is for 'nym maintence? Really important votes, market interactions, etc. should be made quite a bit more secure than Usenet voting, but at least in the case of markets, does not require physical identity to be tied to 'nym. (Cf. for example Chaum's work and per-organziation pseudonyms and credentials that can be transferred between these 'nyms, the ongoing discussion of reputation-building, etc.) Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com