Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:08:14 EST From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) I think that instead you should have a less than optimistic view of the quality of our current netnews software. The problem you list can be fixed with public key cryptography and some intelligent changes. As another example, its easy to assure that moderated newsgroups are run just by the moderator -- he public key signs instead of posting with the "Authorized" header. Easy as pi. And you have an over optimistic view about how fast new netnews software could be developed and deployed. Also, keep in mind that netnews is run by lots of real sites, who have real assets which could be reached if sued by RSA. There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is really bothering me. Oh, well.... - Ted

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 17:44:23 -0800 From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>

There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is really bothering me.

What you believe to be real and what I believe to be real may be different. To claim that another is being unrealistic is to mask what is foremost a difference in belief. What assumptions here do you disagree with? If you are explicit, perhaps we can forge an agreement. Well, let's see.... the most recent assumption I disagreed with was the claim that we could implement full-fledged postive reputation filters, complete with the use of RSA, and deploy it on the Usenet in some sort of time-frame less than ten years out --- and even that is doubtful. Look at how many sites are running B News, long after C news has been out. Anonymous remailers are here *today*. Then there's assumption that anonymous ID's would automatically have no weight --- they may have very little weight, but even today, they probably have some weight. I could probably construct some sort of NSA conspiracy theory, and have it posted so it looked like it came from 20 different pseudonyms, and it probably would be believed by a lot of people. Fundamentally, however, there's the basic assumption that anarchy per se is good; which is a basic philosophical belief which I just plain disagree with. I have strong Libertarian leanings, although I don't necessarily believe in the Libertarian party --- however, complete and total anarchy goes far beyond what I believe is a reasonable or realistic way to run a society; that's basically a "might makes right" form of government. In cyberspace, most of the people on this list would probably be listed among the mighty: we understand computers, and cryptography, and how to use them, "much better than the average bear". So it is not surprising that there are many on this list who think crypto anarchy is a good thing; however, I am not convinced that this would be a terribly just or better society than what we have now --- the only difference which class of people would be in power. In any case, a basic assumption which seems to permeate the arguments made by various people on this list is that anarchy is good. Perhaps I am running away from an argument, but in my experience, it is rare that an argument with a religious fanatic bears any fruit, and it seems that there are people who such militant anarchists that futher discussion doesn't seem to have much of a point. How does that saying go? "Don't bother trying to teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you, and annoys the pig." - Ted

>There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is >really bothering me. People often mistake being a wet blanket and finding lots of objections to thing with 'being realistic'. Is that what you are doing? Otherwise, given how much work I see people doing to both spread the ideas and to build tools, I can't imagine to what you are referring. People are building and deploying remailers, integrating crypto stuff into mail programs, testing anonymity, writing publilcations on teh subject, successfully suing government organizations for privacy violations, working towards positive reputation systems, etc. Pretty damn good for people's spare time. And certainly plenty 'realistic'. Discussion of visions and long term goals might qualify, but the grandiose visions we indulge in drive the day-to-day improvements we make on the technology and ideas about privacy that are available. What assumptions here do you disagree with? If you are explicit, perhaps we can forge an agreement. Well, let's see.... the most recent assumption I disagreed with was the claim that we could implement full-fledged postive reputation filters, complete with the use of RSA, and deploy it on the Usenet in some sort of time-frame less than ten years out --- and even that is doubtful. Look at how many sites are running B News, long after C news has been out. Anonymous remailers are here *today*. I must have missed that message. I looks like a munging together of lots of separate things that are in the works, and that will integrate in some reasonable way. As I put together my thoughts for an answer here, I realized that my summary of what's going on would better fit in a separate message. I'll send that later. conspiracy theory, and have it posted so it looked like it came from 20 different pseudonyms, and it probably would be believed by a lot of It would only be believed by people who tend to believe in that stuff. The people that read home.ec.cooking will just look at a message like that strangely and wonder what it has to do with cooking. There aren't many forums in which such a message is even appropriate. In the ones that are, I suspect acceptance would be slow for a sudden flurry of anonymous postings :-) Most of hte people who would believe that kind of thing easily simply aren't on the net. Fundamentally, however, there's the basic assumption that anarchy I don't even think Tim May believes that :-) I think the basic assumption is that government rstriction of freedom and privacy is *bad*. There's almost certainly more agreement with that. I certainly can't htink of time when it was good... necessarily believe in the Libertarian party --- however, complete and total anarchy goes far beyond what I believe is a reasonable or realistic way to run a society; that's basically a "might makes right" Anarchy is just a bad word because it brings to mind the image of utter lawlessness and destruction. I certainly want all the things typically (badly) supplied by the government: health care, police, fire, national defense, etc., I just don't think that we need the gov't to provide them. Any anarchy that I advocate has to support at least the level of society we have now, and I certainly believe that to be possible. there are people who such militant anarchists that futher discussion Labelling someone with a name, then insisting that it belongs to them is hardly a useful style of argument. How does that saying go? "Don't bother trying to teach a pig to sing. It just frustrates you, and annoys the pig." This is just righteousness that is intended to put people down. It just prompts flaming and doesn't contribute to the discussion. Finally, I would note that people are actively pursuing crypto stuff for a variety of reasons. I can disgree about philosophy and still productively cooperate with people. We contribute to each other's goals. What are your goals with respect to this stuff, and *what are you doing* to pursue them? You want more realism: what are *your* plans? Objecting to someone else's is easy. Doing something is hard (that's why I support other people doing something even if I don't quite agree with them). dean