Re: Crypto++, Cpunk Icons, list noise
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995 don@cs.byu.edu wrote:
An anonymous complainer writes:
Well, Perry, my opinion is that there is far too much noise on this list as it is. I have already seen my words drowned out by bellyaching over next to nothing.
POT-KETTLE-BLACK.
Also, since nothing you've written (in your commentary, as opposed to anonymous announcements or releases that most people use anonymity for here) indicates that you're using anonymity for any particular reason,
Hmmm, I'm not sure that anyone has an inherent right to question WHY a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy. I don't believe that anyone should be placed on the defensive, for *choosing* to maintain some semblance of a personal life, or wishing to maintain some illusions that they might still have some shred of personal privacy left. Hopefully, we can still leave a man with his dignity. I should not have to defend my right to present my ideas as I believe are appropriate to the circumstances. My choice to present the idea, that an entire economic sector needs to carefully reevaluate their strategic choices, and their discovered hidden security attitudes -- will stand or fall strictly on its merits. The debate is not advanced in any way by attaching a reputation to the question. Like any other person, I have my skeletons, and I have my regrets. I certainly have unfinished, unresolved, issues that I need to tend to. In that sense, I am no different than any other man. I also realize that ultimately, I'll have to come forward from behind the veil of secrecy which is provided to me. This I will do, after I have reconciled my own security considerations. Please allow me the boundary and dignity to choose when, where, and in what form I choose to reveal myself. That inherent right, should be extended to any man, and no man should be called to account for his desire to maintain his personal privacy, no matter how arbitrary his reasons. Especially when he comes forward to challenge Goliath.
please stop so people can killfile you. Or send it from a nym at alpha.c2.org. I mean, the NSA has your real name anyway, what's the point...
At this time, I don't feel that a bi-directional private communications channel is needed. I have no need for a "nym". People who need to contact me, can. People who would like to know a bit about me, can. Netscape has my address. So does AT&T. And reputations aren't pertinent. (Although, I will say, that the disappearing here-again, gone again, internet draft at ds.internic.net is simply childish, and I'm certain that it was just routine "file maintenance" that caused the flicker.) The ball isn't in my court, it's in theirs. Netscape and AT&T are some of the primary parties who will have to take the hit for the fiasco that they find themselves in. For now, I'll leave my communication channels with them open, rather than letting my mail queue fill more than it already has. Email that is already overqueued. I don't really envy the two companies' position. No one expects to find as significant a security flaw as my anonymous email to this list detailed at this stage of code Burn-In, and I don't take any pleasure in facing the unenviable task of informing ANY party that a Trojan Horse has been engineered into the fabric of an existing globally installed code base. No one does. And as the messenger, I (hope) I don't have anything to fear, from the NSA or any other foreign group that would seek to pursue its own agenda within the borders of sovereign Canada. I really don't think that the NSA is "evil incarnate", as some list subscribers do. They have their intelligence and know how to use it. Usually, they use it prudently. If I did have any worries about the NSA, then I might take some elementary precautions. I certainly wouldn't have my terminal screen pointing towards the twelve odd feet of open glazing that sits behind me, as I currently do. Privacy can't simply be reduced to "a desire to hide from the NSA", just as security isn't something which is simply provided by licensing from RSA. Look to the message rather than the messenger. Alice de 'nonymous ... ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.
On Mon, 6 Nov 1995 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:
And as the messenger, I (hope) I don't have anything to fear, from the NSA or any other foreign group that would seek to pursue its own agenda within the borders of sovereign Canada. I really don't think that the NSA is "evil incarnate", as some list subscribers do. They have their intelligence and know how to use it. Usually, they use it prudently.
They have a nice friend (the author of Spyworld would say outpost) right here in Ottawa at the Communications Security Establishment. They (CSE) seem to have done some recent spying on the opposition parties and Quebec separatists (so I vaguely recall having read in several places. I haven't gotten around to Spyworld yet). It was rather funny to see them recruiting on campus. If you're ever in town, they're just a bit past Carleton U. on Heron. (it doesn't say CSE on the signs, but the guy at the gate will tell you so) Try <http://www.cse.dnd.ca> it's a tad sparse, but entertaining all the same. They have very friendly recruiting brochures. Like NSA, they're also an equal opportunity employer (;-> ).
anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com writes:
Hmmm, I'm not sure that anyone has an inherent right to question WHY a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy.
In your case, Detweiler, it appears to be because you want to cause us to flame at each other and disrupt the list without our noticing who is responsible. I'd say that is a questionable motive.
Please allow me the boundary and dignity to choose when, where, and in what form I choose to reveal myself.
You already have.
P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.
.pm
Anonymous wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 1995 don@cs.byu.edu wrote:
An anonymous complainer writes:
Well, Perry, my opinion is that there is far too much noise on this list as it is. I have already seen my words drowned out by bellyaching over next to nothing.
POT-KETTLE-BLACK.
Also, since nothing you've written (in your commentary, as opposed to anonymous announcements or releases that most people use anonymity for here) indicates that you're using anonymity for any particular reason,
Hmmm, I'm not sure that anyone has an inherent right to question WHY a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy. I don't believe that anyone should be placed on the defensive, for *choosing* to maintain some semblance of a personal life, or wishing to maintain some illusions that they might still have some shred of personal privacy left. Hopefully, we can still leave a man with his dignity.
In the United States, we have the right to express whatever view we wish, so long as it doesn't endanger others (e.g., insight to riot, scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.). Everyone has an inherent right to question why a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy. As far as people being placed on the defensive, if you want to be defensive it's your choice. In terms of understanding what you say, without understanding the WHY, it's harder to understand and evaluate the WHAT. When people use the cover of anonymity to make attempts at character assasination, they WHY certainly seems a central issue. Is it that the people who post such attacks are cowards? Do they have ulterior motives? Or are they simply upset about something else in their life and taking it out on others. Are they using anonymity to prevent responsibility or association? Are they afraid of retribution? Without understanding the motive, their postings cannot be truly understood.
I should not have to defend my right to present my ideas as I believe are appropriate to the circumstances. My choice to present the idea, that an entire economic sector needs to carefully reevaluate their strategic choices, and their discovered hidden security attitudes -- will stand or fall strictly on its merits. The debate is not advanced in any way by attaching a reputation to the question.
You don't have to defend anything, but the debate is certainly advanced by attaching reputation. If you were an investment banker and making major investment decisions on a daily basis without understanding the issue, it would being a very different understanding to our reading than if you were a high school student. The reason is that content without context is devoid of meaning. The more context we have, the more meaning we can attributed to your content.
Like any other person, I have my skeletons, and I have my regrets. I certainly have unfinished, unresolved, issues that I need to tend to. In that sense, I am no different than any other man. I also realize that ultimately, I'll have to come forward from behind the veil of secrecy which is provided to me.
Why wait? We have a special on truth available only today. Tell us who you are and we will forgive all past sins (mortal sins not included, void where prohibited).
This I will do, after I have reconciled my own security considerations.
Ah - probably void there.
Please allow me the boundary and dignity to choose when, where, and in what form I choose to reveal myself. That inherent right, should be extended to any man, and no man should be called to account for his desire to maintain his personal privacy, no matter how arbitrary his reasons.
Your privacy is yours, but the content of your messages continues to be degraded by the lack of adequate context for their interpretation.
Especially when he comes forward to challenge Goliath.
David had only a slingshot. An anonymous remailer would have reduced his risks too. ... -- -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen wrote:
In the United States, we have the right to express whatever view we wish, so long as it doesn't endanger others (e.g., insight to riot, scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.). Everyone has an inherent right to question why a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy.
You're forgetting our good friends the libel laws. Another reason to go anon. You have the right to say whatever you please, but you'll have to be able to defend it in court if it damages someone's reputation. It can also get you fired. (or shot if you're MLK) This is why It'd be so nice to see more idiot-friendly remailer clients on windoze, or even better Java (does Private Idaho support Mixmaster yet?). The average person can really benefit from easy anonymity, otherwise they won't bother and get in hot water. Slander is in the eye of the beholder.
s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca typed:
On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen wrote:
In the United States, we have the right to express whatever view we wish, so long as it doesn't endanger others (e.g., insight to riot, scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.). Everyone has an inherent right to question why a person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy.
You're forgetting our good friends the libel laws. Another reason to go anon. You have the right to say whatever you please, but you'll have to be able to defend it in court if it damages someone's reputation. It can also get you fired. (or shot if you're MLK)
The anonymity will not protect you very well against libel laws. The provider will be suied for libel, and unless they reveal your identity, they will likely lose in court. If they cannot reveal the identity, they will also likely lose the suit. All the anonymous providers are doing is giving you anonymity in exchange for their liability. Even international anonymity systems are not imune to such threats, as we have been shown by the Church of whatever.
This is why It'd be so nice to see more idiot-friendly remailer clients on windoze, or even better Java (does Private Idaho support Mixmaster yet?). The average person can really benefit from easy anonymity, otherwise they won't bother and get in hot water.
If it's just a license to slander people, I don't want to support anonymity. There are valid reasons for remaining anonymous, but being able to avoid liability for slander is not one of them.
Slander is in the eye of the beholder.
Slander is in the realm of the courts to decide - at least in the U.S. -- -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
participants (4)
-
anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com -
fc＠all.net -
Perry E. Metzger -
s1113645＠tesla.cc.uottawa.ca