mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Matthew J Ghio) Writes:

...

I find it particularily interesting that on the internet (in contrast to almost every other net in existance), people have this strange fettish for worrying about anonymnity and "true names". My question is why? People on other nets never give the using of a handle or nym a second thought. (By other nets I mean Fidonet, WWIVnet, TEAMnet, C-Link, Oggnet, fvnet etc) A name is just a way of identifying a paritcular person. I don't see why people are so opposed to the use of nyms like Wonderer or Black Unicorn because those don't fit your image of what a name should be. These names identify the senders in a manner that is adequate to the discussion on Cypherpunks. Would it be any better if these people used names like Mike or John or something? Would it really make any relevant difference to the discussion on cypherpunks?

Douglas Barnes Writes:

I think the problem stems from the way most people initially got access through the Internet, which was through fairly conservative affiliations such as the military, government or academia; I've seen relatively few military, government or academic environments that encouraged or allowed people to go by "Black Unicorn".

Increasingly, however, people are using the Internet for solely personal reasons, independent of such affiliations. (Which is how Fidnonet, WWIVnet, etc. have always been.) Now, no big surprise, we have Black Unicorn, Wanderer, etc. I think it's a great testimoney to the rapidly increasing diviersity of the net. (Although CERTAIN PEOPLE I'm sure will tell me that such alleged diversity is only a PERVERTED SHAM and the number of REAL people on the net is RAPIDLY DROPPING.)

I agree, background is the key. This whole conversation about Nyms, pseudospoofing, etc. is interesting.

From DAY ONE of me using a computer/modem/BBS/EMAIL in 1983 all I ever knew was to use a handle/pseudonym. On the underground BBS systems, using a real name or even a real-sounding name (even if it was a handle) would cause a good deal of suspicion and would make getting verified for full access difficult. I am constantly amazed how people routinely use their real names in conversations over the internet. I don't judge them however, I don't think they are stupid either, its just DIFFERENT than the way I am used to operating.

The complete opposite viewpoint seems to be prevalent among those who have been using the internet for years -- before the general public started to overrun it. Those people have been accustomed to communicating with people who seemed to be real, at least they had real sounding names. Now an increasing number of pseudo-entities are appearing on the Internet. Some are disturbed by this. To me, its more like "what took so long". With irresponsible people sending mail bombs, using personal information from 'finger' to harass people they don't agree with, etc. it isn't hard to see why some people have reservations about various anonymous or pseudo- anonymous entities. The problem lies in the fact that creating a new identity on the internet either by creating additional user accounts or through the use of anonymous remailers is so easily accomplished that the concept of trust and reputation has been eroded. This is different from my background whereas reputation was essentially EVERYTHING and the creation of a new identity that allowed one to use desirable systems/services (ie, 'elite' systems) took long periods of time. The benefit of this type of social structure was that it naturally kept abuse, deception, and harassment to a minimum. I am not sure what my ultimate point is (as you may have surmised by now) other than there are inherent differences in each Internet user's background just as there are cultural differences among races in real life. There unfortunately will always be some prejudice against those who are different. Isn't a lot of energy saved simply by basing judgement on what others SAY and DO rather than what they LOOK LIKE or in this case, what their 'name' or 'nym' is? Lex