On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Adam Back wrote:

S L von Bernhardt == Black Unicorn, or do you "have that covered" too uni?

(I noticed you said you "had it covered" when you reported to the list on a meeting you attended which had a published list of attenders, and someone pointed this out).

I'm not sure which meeting this would be. If I was on any published list it would be under a pseudonym or a large and diverse enough list where I didn't feel threatened by it being public. Generally these are meetings I attend only for personal or academic interest. (i.e. I'm not attending in an official capacity or participating in a way which would make my presence obvious or a matter of record). I suppose you could be referring to the ABA Committee on Law and National Security Conference on Intelligence and Law Enforcement in September. That's the most recent meeting I can recall which might fit your description. If my attendence to that event was published by anyone other than myself I am unaware of it. Even if it were I doubt it would be of value in linking me to a "true name." But this brings up some interesting points, and, with your patience, I think I will take this time to blather on. Secrecy - A few words (or more). Secrecy is all about vigilance. If you never put your name on something, your name is unlikely to come up. I fail to understand why this is, it would seem, such a difficult concept for some cypherpunks to grasp. If everyone treated true names like PGP passwords and added in a touch of disinformation here and there where required, true names would be nearly impossible to determine. To my knowledge few have bothered on this list. I find this unfortunate. In my personal experience it is quite easy to conceal one's identity, particularly so where personal and professional circles differ significantly, as they do in my case. I admit that I am advantaged in that I was born outside the United States and come from a family jealous of its privacy to begin with, but I submit that secrecy of the kind I have (it would seem) preserved is not that difficult to estlablish, and maintain. I originally adopted a nym because I was concerned that my public statements on the list and elsewhere in cyberspace, (which have nothing to do with my professional conduct, my ability to represent clients or wear my fiducuary hat) might be taken out of context and prejudice clients or shareholders in one fashion or another. Cypherpunks, and my politics generally, are not always conducive to the traditional conservative dispositions my clients and my family often had. I was tangentially concerned about some pre-publication review issues, which have since evaporated. As time went on it became clear that a nym was useful in other ways. For one, because I chose a depiction "Black Unicorn," rather than a name "John Smith," I found that those who eventually contacted me by e-mail had first to overcome the "silliness" reaction. Seems rather moronic to write an adolescent sounding "handle" about financial advice and so forth. A pre-screener of sorts. The inquries I received were from individuals interested or driven enough to ignore the cartoonish pen name as a result. A decided advantage in my view. A disadvantage: When I adopted the nym, I had not planned it to last quite so long. The image was perhaps a bit too personal to deter close and determined investigations from revealing my identity, or at least come close. (As one cypherpunk- I think you know who you are, though I'm not sure- did). Secondly, the potential for malicious reputation destruction was reduced dramatically. Its hard to call my clients and anonymously reveal my "heroin problem" or some such. Given the heated flames I am alarmingly prone to participate in, this was something of a comfort. I don't think I ever abused my secrecy to avoid accountability for any real nastiness on my part, though perhaps the list would be a better judge of that. Thirdly, it became clear that given the amount and degree of archiving which developed on the net, I was protected from the notorious "sleeper blooper" attack. "Do you recognize this, a posting from 1897, in which you said that abortion should be legalized?" This affords nice protection from the sudden change in conventional wisdom on all the topics I discussed. (The flip side is that if banking secrecy ever comes back in vogue, I need only reveal myself by signing my key to something with my name on it and take credit for being a maverick in my time, or whatever). This is a point that bears exploration. The ability to pull up a literal rap sheet on a person is no longer confined to law enforcement (as our KOTM profiler so aptly demonstrated only days ago). It is now an easy endeavor which private investigation services once charged $65.00/hr or more to accomplish. Your's for only the cost of a local call. Yet at the same time few seem to have bothered to pursue research on my nym. I paid for early accounts in cash or with a cutout credit card, eventually using a provider I had substantial control over instead. I monitored things as simple as calls to my access provider, whois commands (try whois.ripe.net), finger requests, etc. To my surprise, these were few in number. I think people generally were uninterested, and those who were either got bored or distracted. Fourthly, the nym lent some protection from the baseless law suit. No longer is it in the power of just anyone to cost me time and money simply because they wish to. If I really engage in some conduct which causes serious harm, and the potential for returns are high enough, resources will doubtlessly be allocated to identify me and name me in a suit. If this cost is high enough, however, nuisance suits become hard to initiate effectively. An important point given all the discussion on the list about the wisdom of legal threats for libel. I think that the usual cypherpunk solution, if such a thing exists, would be to use technical means to deter law suits, yet many in here resort to attacks on those who would use the system instead. Hasn't this been the cypherpunk experience, that prosecutorial discression is no protection? Why is libel any different? Given that civil suits put the private party in the place of prosecutor, and that party has less of an incentive to practice discression in initiating suit (no political checks, no supervisory authoirty or chain of command) it would seem that civil suits bear a HIGHER risk of abuse. Yet government, which like it or not has several checks built in that the civil system does not, gets the most attention in this regard. A point to consider anyhow. What were the biggest problems? Family. A pair of c'punks managed, by coincidence in one case, design in the other, to collide with my sister on the net. As she had a full and rather open web page up and this had the potential to give out a plethora of clues. Nothing too personal, (thanks sis) but I was unaware the page existed for quite awhile. Again, I believe that it was a cultrual thing which prevented her from spilling all her life's details and our family name out onto the web like some kind of billboard. (All it takes is a quick look at something like "babes on the web" or whatever to find quite well designed stalker's cliff notes happily authored by the stalkee. One page I saw recently had a resume with social security number on it). Cultural issues... The problem with the United States is the complete integration of identity publication into the development process. Cub scout fingerprintings, year book photographs, medical records, social security numbers at birth, the list continues. As numerous as these subtle and progressive degradations of secrecy are, they are still not insurmountable for the United States citizen. No more than 4 or 5 absences on key dates would be required to remove any individual from high school year books. Complying with the letter of the law, and no more, with regard to Social Security Number disclosures is simple. (Simply never write it down- or at least not correctly- the people who need it, have it). I have lived on and off in the United States for quite some years, and I have never encountered a situation where an actual social security number would have been required of me. I have shot myself in the foot by refusing to give on rather than making one up, but this is a side issue. Two associates of mine have had similar experience. One (29) has no number at all and never bothered to get one (last I heard, he was working in a high paying corporate type job in a major city on the East Coast). The other (38) has a number but can no longer remember what it is. (25+ years of disuse). I assume that whenever asked, they simply provide erronious or misleading information. Both are U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, in the United States most citizens only become interested in privacy in their 20s or so. By this time it is difficult to overcome the mass of information which has been stored up. (Pseudocide can be an attractive option for some perhaps). One marvels at the inability of Joe Sixpack to recognize the value of at least a hint of caution with regard to identity. (Especially so given all the media hype about the dangers of social engineering, account number and social security number publication and license plate information). Given the cultural elements, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to me that any disclosure about a nym seems to bring with it a thousand clever investigators who are sure that they have just managed to happen on a "slip up." (No less than four postings of this nature followed the DCSB announcement). For some reason, however, I still can't help but wonder that secrecy seems so alien even to noted members of this list. (Chrysler kept its complete control over Norex N.A. a secret for 10 years, despite the fact that millions flowed between the two companies regularly. Crazy Eddie, of New York fame, managed to keep his assets hidden, under the most immense pressure, and his identity concealed for several years despite all attempts by the United States to find him. Saddam managed to avoid bombs and cruise missles even in the face of satelite and directed intelligence tasking. Given these, keeping your name away from the Health Insurance company should be quite obviously possible). Apathy.... There are a few people out there who probably know who I am, but I'm not sure that even they realize it exactly. In terms of money I've not even put much effort into it over the years, at least no more so than I do protecting my personal privacy generally. Part of the reason is that it takes effort to research this kind of thing. Even access to Lexis/Nexis isn't always enough if you're given nothing to go on from the start. Sure, there are schelling (?) points and so forth. Certain lifestyle habits come through. (One list member who I spoke with by telephone regularly derived a great deal simply from my phoning habits- you know who you are- Kudos). Even all this together, however, is not always enough to narrow down the field too closely. Keep in mind that I've attended cypherpunk meetings and met personally with no less than 3 c'punks in the last several years. My point? That I'm immensely clever and trained in the shadowy world of secret identities? Hardly. My point is that minimal effort can be extremely effective. In effect, anyone can do it. I'm sure some clever participant at DCSB will do a pile of homework before coming to my talk and put it all together. So be it. If he or she is polite, they might chide me in private a bit, but not blather all over the list just to show how very clever they were. As long as they enjoy the talk, I'm not overly concerned. I do less work for private clients who's sensibilities I'm particularly concerned about. I spend more and more time out of the United States, and, frankly, cypherpunks in general have received me warmly. Most large posts I made attracted at least a few "thank you's" or "could you tell me more's." In many ways this was much more rewarding than work for which renumeration was forthcoming. I hope I've given something back. This brings up my final point. Reputation. After a while with the nym, the value of reputation became clear. A "cartoon" handle required more than the usual amount of reputation and I found myself often taking more time with long posts and list research projects than I might of had my real name been attached. (!) Reputation has value in more than one way it would seem. Whatever comes of my visit to Boston, and snide remarks about my "teasers" aside, I've enjoyed cypherpunks, even with the noise, and hope I can continue to do so for as many years to come. While less important, today, privacy is still an issue for me. Do be considerate and refrain from taking photos and the like just for kicks. I'm hardly going to be obnoxious enough to have everyone frisked as the enter or the like, do me a favor and make my guess that such measures are unnecessary among cypherpunks the correct one. -- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Larry wrote:

actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk "rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, "respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"?

In general, Cypherpunks promote the ABILITY to use pseudonyms. "Respect pseudonyms" (whatever that means), is clearly a separate issue. In fact, by trying to "bust" a pseudonym, C'punks are contributing to evolution in action. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Black Unicorn writes:

Vald Nuri writes:

...

actually, I heard this interesting rumor that Unicorn threatened to sue someone who "defamed" his pseudonym. quite an amusing story if true, given his last essay that talks about how he created the pseudonym in the first place to avoid exactly what it accomplishes, i.e. dissociating his professional identity from the "lunatic anarchist" writhing beneath the surface.

You fail to not that dissociating one identity from another requires the existence of two identities. Is the second any less entitled to protection than the first?

[...]

There is no morality other than the morality of the market. I submit that we do not need a central authority to dictate morality. We need only individual views of morality. There will only be as large a pornography market as there is a demand. Ditto for narcotics, guns. If the market believes that porn is immoral, customers, by their own moral decision, will reduce the market to nothing. Of course this will not happen in the near future because the cost of this moral choice exceeds the benefit for many customers.

Why is use of the legal system any different? If it is so wrong for me to use the legal system as it stands, and if I am to be the subject of criticism for the conduct, then aren't the critics imposing their moral view on me? Isn't this what libertarian cypherpunks dislike in the first place?

The problem for me when people talk about suing people for slander in net discussions is that it involves governments and laws impinging on the internet. Other examples of legislation interacting with the internet have been entirely negative: some people have called for legislation to stop "spamming", legislation to restrict pornography, "indecent speech", etc, etc The internet in my view is best off with the least possible government or legal interference. It is difficult to see ways for you to stop people intentionally damaging your nym's reputation capital however. Aside from the more speech to fight the speech, you are left with the reputation capital mechanisms. If someone with a low reputation slanders someone with a high reputation, this reduces the impact of the slander, and clueful readers one presumes regard the derogatory statements on the part of the slanderer as suspect. However this still leaves the less clueful (the newbies to a discussion group for instance), and also the chance that others are still slightly affected by these statements. Something else I might suggest, if a nym becomes too valuable to risk using for posting to flame prone discussion groups, perhaps a lower value nym could be used in such discussions. This has disadvantages, in that you have to start over building reputation capital, and so forth. But such is life. You have another nym which you used for the DCSB talk, and one presumes other ones for use in real world business. You use nyms accordingly.

If the government is going to hand me the means to curb conduct which may be harmful to me, why should I refuse to use it on some "moral" grounds. (The moral grounds might consist of "well it's not a nice thing to do." but other than that, I am at a loss to identify them precisely).

There are plenty of people with a wont to sue people for all sorts of things. Many of them would do so on much less grounds than perhaps you might. Some get pretty groundless, in fact. Colin James III being one example. (Erk, may be I ought to be using a nym here, I hear he scans newsgroups, but hopefully not mailing lists) It stifles discussion to bring real monetary threats behind peoples words. It is also in some sense a call to outside authority, something which I resent. For instance many of the people CJ III has harrased from my reading have suffered considerable inconvenience. No need to mention a certain pseudo-religious organisation which has made extensive use of law suits for the purpose of harrassing it's dissenters. Now I'm sure the idea of slander law suits is to stop the slander, recompense for damages etc. but it is a thing prone to misuse, and balanced in favour of those with money. Someone who is using a nym, and for purposes including avoiding the possibility of frivolous law suits, to suggest suing someone who slanders this nym is not that productive I think. The slanderer may also adopt the same strategy, and adopt their own nym! Nym sues nym. I think not. An alternate view of slander law suits is as a way to encourage the use of Nyms. Certainly the dissenters of the unnamed pseudo religious have learnt the value of nyms, remailers and so forth. There are distinct advantages to nyms. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" writes:

one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace.

Correcttion: one of Timmy May's (fart) many stupid lies is his often-repeated claim that V.Z.Nuri is a tentacle of one L.Detweiller. LD is no "deranged crackpot" - he knows a lot more about cryptography and free speech than net.scum like Timmy May (fart) and John "Hitler-like leader" Gilmore.

of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of a pseudonym? of course he is too immature and feebleminded to

Ritalin-induced brain damage?

even consider this discrepancy in his philosophy. cpunks are not known for having coherent philosophies that answer simple questions of actions in the face of quandaries. the basic cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is "look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as inane as selfless public service or leadership"

Cypherpunks are full of shit. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Black Unicorn writes:

The bottom line is that the decision to sue is much like the decision to use a legal tax loop. I would call "idiot" the person who refused to utilize that which the government hands him. (Did not Mr. May indicate that the $1000.00 or so that the government would hand him was too costly to lose, even in the face of estlablishing privacy for his children? In my view that is a rational decision. Mr. May has priced privacy. My objection to his rationale was that I think the cost of obtaining it can be significantly lower).

And I call Timmy May a raving idiot and a censor. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps