- another Mailing List - the Fires in my Mailbox - on the Unequivocal Distinction of Pseudoanonymity - my Position and a Modest Proposal Crystallized - an Open Letter to Criminals and Terrorists - the Story of the Cyberspatial Lynch Mob - on Pseudospoofing by the Eminent Leaders - L. Detweiler's Complete Confession another Mailing List == I would like to hear from any cypherpunks interested in starting another mailing list. I unfortunately lack the resources to start one. It seems to me there would be a strong interest in the following agenda: - in favor of Democracy and experimenting with voting systems - in favor of some form of Government, and some form of law enforcement - in favor of experimenting with reputation schemes - in favor of some identification systems, esp. to catch criminals - in favor of a `movement' that includes political aspects - in favor of a totally open, honest, representative, polite, respectful, egalitarian dialogue - in favor of systematic development and progress reports to others - in favor of presenting a professional appearance to the public and media - in favor of `some' restrictions on communications to limit criminality - in favor of putting together protocols, RFCs, and FAQs for the world - against Clipper or any involuntary encryption scheme - against behind-the-scenes machinations (`conspiracies') or elitism - against tax evasion - against black marketeering - against pseudospoofing and pseudoanonymity - against other criminal behaviors like impersonation and forgery - against routine hostility, secrecy, and flames - against manipulating the media or individual ego-assuagement - against people only interested in tedious debates or popularity contests Above all, in favor of `using technology, especially cryptographic techniques, to accomplish promote all of the above.' I don't really know how many current cypherpunks would be interested in this agenda. Judging by my mail, NONE! <g> But seriously, I think there are some more `moderate' cypherpunks out there who would really love this agenda, and their existence has long caused a lot of tension on this list over the above points, when what is really happening is that there is a tension in fundamentally incompatible goals and views underneath it all, such that we could all be better served by better `organization' (or perhaps `segragation' or `sequestration' <g>). Regarding the above agenda: we should recognize that all great technologies can be used for different purposes. The internet can be used for honest communication between strangers, or it can be used to manipulate people who naturally trust each other. We can develop digital cash schemes that encourage tax evasion and black marketeering, or they can enforce some taxation and discourage criminal behavior for overall social harmony (quite like the system we currently live under). Nothing is inevitable with passivity, everything is possible with activity! As I recall, a long time ago, in a very hot flame war over the Cypherpunks name involving all the great luminaries (E.Hughes, T.C.May, P.Metzger, etc.) T.C.May ended up posting a message near the dying embers of the flames that indicated some of the other names that he and E.Hughes had tossed around. Does anyone have that message? Could you send it to me? I thought there were some interesting names in there, as I recall. I wouldn't want to take anyway from the existing cypherpunk agenda in promoting something that was entirely incompatible with it under the same name. The public and the media would certainly be confused (as if they aren't already)! I was thinking -- maybe the `cypherwonks'. (Ever hear about Bill Clinton being a `policy wonk'?) As for the mailing list, if anyone starts one I promise you my personal cyberspatial allegiance as long as it sticks to this above agenda, and humbly offer you all the things I have done on this list over about 10 months or so, like forwarding articles, summarizing views, `cypherwonk awards', mini-newsletters, hot controversy, analysis of press reports, Clipper & NSA flames, D.Denning ridicule <g>, etc. if you provide a highly literate, polite, and professional audience. Just imagine, all of you in the L. Detweiler Hate Society (the membership has quite grown lately!) -- you could be freed of all the flames here over everything I stand for! I'm *sure* you will appreciate that. <g> the Fires in my Mailbox == yes, the flames in my mailbox have really died down. It's gone from

I'm going to come and kill your family with a rusty razor blade.

to

It would seem that, as you are a victim of such TERRIBLE CRIMES, your "RIGHT" has BEEN alienated someWHAT.

ah, I have to settle for what I can get, even if it is sarcastic. on the Unequivocal Distinction of Pseudoanonymity == (So, because I am insane, I am writing more on the subject of pseudospoofing, as more carrion for the amusement of vultures.) It really astounds me how many people continue to write me email obfuscating the distinction between anonymous/pseudonymous mail vs. pseudoanonymous. In the former category, the identification in the message says or implies, `this could be from *anyone*.' `passive concealment'. In the latter, the identification implies, `this is from a real person named [x], distinct from any other real people named [y].' Also, many continue to ignore the sheer dangers of this practice. If anyone does not understand and has not seen my essay `The Joy of Pseudospoofing', please email me and I will send it to you. (If you have seen it, and continue to miss the point, well, I can't help you. As Ann Landers says, seek professional counseling.) my Position and a Modest Proposal Crystallized == I fear my position has been accidentally misrepresented on this list by people who wish to understand pseudospoofing, or intentionally obfuscated phantoms who wish to demonize me. (Once, a long time ago, I flamed D.Denning with such searing ire on this list. T.C.May suggested that `demonizing' anyone was counterproductive and impolite. Point well taken! What goes around comes around!) Here is what I propose for the Internet. 1) a *voluntary* system whereby people who want to `authenticate' their identities can do so by registering with some form of identification. 2) identification servers could be formed that would service requests in the form, `is identity [x] a real person?' 3) hence, people who choice to screen pseudospoofed identities from their mailboxes have the choice of subscribing to a system that allows them this freedom of choice. Such a system, in my view, is NOT Draconian, NOT Orwellian, NOT against the grain of the Internet, and actually feasible in practice. And, in fact I think some form of this is *inevitable*. (and, believe it or not, contrary to the brainwashing, this is *not* incompatible with `true' or `pure' anonymity, which is quite another issue entirely.) Mr. Finney suggested this scheme for `is a person' certificates many messages ago. I fervently believe this system is going to be inevitable because of its high social usefulness and desirability. I'll bet anyone $1 in digital cash the most popular version of Cyberspace is going to have at *least* this much. an Open Letter to Criminals and Terrorists == Many people have been using all kinds of euphemisms for condoning brutality in referring to pseudospoofing etc. `anyone who doesn't know how the internet works deserves to learn the hard way.' `anyone who is stupid enough not to recognize that pseudospoofing is a fact of life should go somewhere else with padded walls and handholding, like Prodigy.' (etc.) But all you vicious cypherpunks, recognize: the world is not as unrefined and raw as you yourselves are, as much as you say it is and wish it were. The greatest and most omnipresent technology is that which is simple and incorruptable. The widespread public can be frightened very easily! and will gravitate toward a system that promotes trust and honesty, because they themselves crave trust and honesty. it is a total fantasy if you think you are going to get away with your imaginary identity arsenals in the future civilized cyberspace. yes, there may be some bloody battles, but you are going to lose. Or, at least, as I was telling an eminent member of EFF, if you do not lose, and I have not died in the battle, I think I will commit suicide. Inevitably, some of you are going to want to sabotage a system that prevents pseudospoofing -- `because its there' -- even if doing so is against the law. I am absolutely AGHAST how much raw criminality is being disguised here in `the cryptographic revolution' and `privacy for the masses' brainwashing. From my mail, a very strong representation of cypherpunks are in favor of, perhaps routinely, FORGING things like birth certificates etc. in the name of PRIVACY. this they disguise under views like, `those damned Big Corporations and Government are Evil, and we have to do everything we can to stop their oppression.' uh, how exactly are you being oppressed? you look at the bountiful fruits of our society and think you are being deprived? `whatever system you will invent, someone will break it.' well, yes, this is like saying, `criminals exist.' there are these cypherpunks who have created an entire *religion* out of *defying* and *sabotaging* whatever identification scheme is invented. Let it be signatures, checks, birth certificiates, drivers licenses, social security, etc. How many cypherpunks are reincarnated thieves, anyway? What society do you people live in, anyway? do you think that checks with your True Name invade your privacy? do you think your bank, associates, or the government doesn't have a right to know who you are? (Uh, rhetorical question. I know the answer.) I hold this as an AXIOM, an Inalienable Human Right: you do NOT have the right to guarantee that another particular individual will read your pseudospoofed postings. If they choose to develop a system that filters it and do all their communication within it, I think you're out of luck (yes, the technique of pseudoanonymity will always be possible in frivolous amusement parks and other various quarantined playpens.) If you think otherwise, well, I guess those bloody battles have already started, haven't they? Frankly, I think quite a few cypherpunks have seriously deluded themselves about the basic nature of the Internet and the ultimate desirability and likelihood of certain protocols (and their own influence in manipulating them). The mail I have been getting is just so far beyond reality, I can barely even respond to it. As (I think) Linus Pauling once said after coming out of a talk, after prompted by a student, `It wasn't even wrong'. This would not be a problem, but in my view you cypherpunks, with your pseudospoofing, forgeries, and sabotage, are really poisoning Cyberspace. Excuse me, I live here too, and it is all choking me. the Story of the Cyberspatial Lynch Mob == Here is one aspect of pseudospoofing I haven't really addressed yet publicly. `As for people being tricked into seeing a consensus when one does not exist, who cares?' The person who asked me this was referring to a scenario like this. Imagine that Medusa has grown quite a few snakes in cyberspace, and uses them all in a single disinformation campaign. `who cares?' To answer this, consider the psychology and anatomy of a lynch mob. In frontier days, this was the notion of `criminal justice' -- a mob of people would catch a criminal, supposedly the perpetrator of heinous crimes. I suspect pseudo-trials went on even in these `mob societies'. you see, a mob is often comprised of people with a slight glimmer of conscience individually. A leader will often arise who manipulates that doubt so that it is turned into vicious hatred, almost animal brutality, to serve the aims of the public lynching. `What did this man do?' the leader might ask, somewhat rhetorically. `He stole my gold!' says one. `He raped my wife!' says another. `He murdered my brother!' says the other. At this point, as you can imagine, the rest of the mob needs no further motivation. If they are too impatient to watch the `criminal's' eyes bulge out from the asphyxiating rope, or are in a particularly vindictive mood, they might even rip or bludgeon the `criminal' to oozing brains and blood, meat strips, and poking bones with their bare hands, all with the barest encouragement like `what are we going to DO ABOUT IT?' from the Leader. Ah -- Justice is Served -- but what if the `Leader' is Medusa? And `one' is Snake #1, `another' is Snake #2, and `the other' is Snake #3? on Pseudospoofing by the Eminent Leaders == By the way, some people have said to me in email that E.Hughes and T.C.May have publicly condemned pseudospoofing, or at least indicated they have not ever practiced it, or at least they are not doing it routinely, or at least that they are not doing it at the moment, or at least they hate the term `pseudospoof', or whatever. <g> If so, please send me those messages. I missed them. (I have asked them to post on the subject, but these letters invariably go unanswered. They are exceedingly evasive in my private email. In fact, Mr. May said that he was quite tired of my enthusiams, and I have so upset Mr. Hughes that he has given me the great honor of putting me, alone, in solitary confinement, into his kill file. `plonk!') The only statements I have are the following: ``That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited. The claim that a person should have only one pseudonym per forum indicates profound misunderstanding. If someone wants to have multiple ... pseudonyms, they will be able to; that is one of the main goals of cypherpunks software. The situations you despise will occur. This is reality. Change your own psychology or change your own software. You will not be able to change the other person.'' --E.Hughes, cofounder, Cypherpunks ``Better to live with the occasional vagaries of digital pseudonyms than to ban them.'' --T.C.May, cofounder, Cypherpunks L. Detweiler's Complete Confession == By the way, just to encourage others to come clean, express my good will and sense of ethics to all the cypherpunks on this list, and whiten my own conscience, following is my public posting of the list of all the pseudoanonymous identities I have ever posted or emailed under: