james donald:

Lucky Green and Dark Unicorn are not accountable. This is a problem? Because it is a problem "We" need to do something about it,

(last line is sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired) a cpunk position I have seen repeated often. it goes along a very simplistic line of reasoning that I have seen TCM evoke repeatedly. it rather annoys me. it goes like this: cyberspace is merely discussion between people. anonymity should be allowed anywhere there are discussions (its a free speech issue). therefore it should be possible everywhere in cyberspace. this idea lacks a lot of subtlety in thought and to my mind is tremendously simplistic. first, it suggests that cyberspace as we now see it is the way it will always be. but that is ridiculous. what we have today in cyberspace is something like a sophomoric debate society. it's gradually increasing in professionalism with the rise of web sites etc. cyberspace is going to grow to become a lot more than a debate society, and is in this progress right now. whenever challenged on anonymity in certain contexts, the extremist cpunk position is to blur the issue into one of free speech. but the issue is much different if we are talking about a professional situation. scientists demand that each other be "accountable" for their work, for example, and pseudonymous publication simply would not be acceptable. cpunks will also argue that anonymity can suffice for any business transaction. that may be so, but what about a business that simply says, "we choose to require identity among our customers, and you can go elsewhere if you disagree". the extremist cypherpunks would be in a quandary over this example, because they think they can support anarchocapitalist freedom and anonymity at the same time. they will argue that such a business will one day not exist. but shouldn't a business be free to make this decision? rabid cpunks would probably argue against such a decision. cyberspace as a whole is *not* going to lead to a totlal motion away from physical identity. in some ways physical identity will be more strictly enforced in cyberspace, in "some regions". there will be other regions of cyberspace in which "anything goes". anyway, I want to emphasize my main point, that *anonymity* is not merely about debate societies. it's about human interaction. any time two or more humans interact in a host of ways that go beyond communication (such as business transactions, professional societies, etc) its going far beyond mere speech. of course in the cpunk mailing list, who cares if there are anonymous/pseudonymous participants? but using this as a metaphor for anonymity in general shows a pathetic lack of sophistication in thinking, imho. there is nothing at stake here on this mailing list except reputations and egos. but far more is at stake in the "real world" and the risks posed by anonymity will be adequately diluted because of this. and it won't be by people who are all "f***ing statists"-- it will be by reasonable people such as those who head EFF, who are interested in a civilized society. "cryptoanarchy"--? if what is being connoted by this is no one knowing anyone else's true identity-- sure, in places, if you go looking for them. but it will be the invisible underside, not the mainstream of society.