The closed Nym list
Tim May wrote:
Declan decided that rebroadcasting articles out of Nym would not be allowed, but he said nothing about not mentioning its existence. (Nor would I have agreed to be on a list whose very existence I could not disclose.) Anyway, tonight when I mentioned its existence as I was posting an article here that I wrote for the Nym list, I half-expected some comments from Dimitri.
But I didn't expect someone to post the subscription instructions (anonymously, of course). Hint: it wasn't I.
Anyway, I suppose that by mid-morning tomorrow Declan is going to have to decide how to deal with subscriptions by Vulis, Human Gus-Peter, Toto, and all the others.
The Nym list appears to be closed. (The web page says so -- so I didn't try.) This state of affairs may even be my fault. The history, for those who care, is appended. It's a shame -- if David Brin really is posting there as one of Tim's recent messages suggested I'd be very interested in seeing his posts. (Thanks, Tim, for reposting yours here.) I still don't think it makes much sense to have a conversation about the use of nyms and then try to protect the posters' words from public view. If posters are concerned about public scrutiny, why not use a nym? Not to mention the fact that one would have to keep the list closed to have a prayer of enforcing the no-repost rule. --Daniel Boone History: Robert Hettinga was briefly forwarding "nym" posts to e$pam, where I saw them. Declan publically requested that posts not be forwarded. I sent Robert a message asking if he was going to comply -- and expressed (to Robert) my lack of respect for a no-forwarding policy. Robert (that notorious cross-pollinizer that he is) forwarded my message to Declan, which was unfortunate -- as Declan no doubt considered my message insulting. (Addressed to Declan, it would have been.) I got a very chilly "response" from Declan about how he had no duty to entertain me with his list traffic. I took the opportunity to ask him how his no-repost rule would fare when someone using a nym started reposting the traffic publicly. He responded with "the list is now closed" or words to that effect. I realized too late he may have thought _I_ was threating to do the evil reposting deed.
(I'm cross-posting this to the Nym list. While posts from within the Nym list are not supposed to be cross-posted outside the list, there are of course no rules about including articles from the outside world, or from cross-posting _in_. Followups may have to edit the distribution list, though.) At 11:56 AM -0700 12/15/97, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
The Nym list appears to be closed. (The web page says so -- so I didn't try.) This state of affairs may even be my fault. The history, for those who care, is appended.
It's a shame -- if David Brin really is posting there as one of Tim's recent messages suggested I'd be very interested in seeing his posts. (Thanks, Tim, for reposting yours here.)
Yes, it's a shame. And, as you and others have pointed out, anyone who thinks their messages on the "Nym" list will not eventually be published or made available to Web search engines has been living on another planet for the past several years. Let me emphasize that I fully support Declan's right to run his list as he sees fit. Normally I avoid posting to lists that are under the personal control of some editor or manager, which is why I have avoided Coderpunks, Cryptography, Fight-Censorship, etc. But I made an exception in this case, as I felt the topic of "nyms" was just too important to me to avoid the list on a matter of principle. The motivation for the "closed list, no retransmission outside the list" rule was mostly because some of the participants wanted to be able to speak freely without being quoted in other places, as I understood the arguments. Declan said that several participants had told him they wouldn't feel comfortable posting to the list if they knew their comments might appear elsewhere. (Sorry I can't quote it exactly, but that's the rule the list is operated under.) It's _doubly_ ironic because digital pseudonyms can be used for just this sort of protection, and because we currently have only one obvious pseudonym (Black Unicorn) posting. I believe that submissions to the list must be by subscribers only, as Declan said recently that he is considering allowing posting from addresses other than those subscribers subscribed under. This means a list devoted to discussion of digital pseudonyms is itself being protected by laws (Declan's laws) rather than by technology. It also means the sage participants are being shielded from some of the more interesting uses of nyms. Doubly ironic, indeed. Having said this, it's not all that big a deal. I've felt little need to retransmit the messages of others to this and other lists. Nor do I care especially strongly that the participants on Nym are themselves being shielded from nyms. It bemuses me.
I still don't think it makes much sense to have a conversation about the use of nyms and then try to protect the posters' words from public view. If posters are concerned about public scrutiny, why not use a nym? Not to mention the fact that one would have to keep the list closed to have a prayer of enforcing the no-repost rule.
Indeed. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (2)
-
Daniel J. Boone -
Tim May