some pseudopool FUN
S.Boxx:
<sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't it? gosh, how could I have been so blind...
T.C.May:
I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as freeing us.
E.Hughes, on Pseudospoofing software
No the software isn't mine, but I consider myself it's God Father. Tim May and I were talking about this a long time, and he just beat me to learning enough PERL to write the thing. But I'd like to think that the two of us did most all of the design of it. So, in a way, it is my software.
Nick Szabo:
As an example, look at Ender's Game, where Ender's brother and sister get on the net under pseudonyms, and get treated just like everyone else. There is no biases. People are judged on their actions and words, not by who they are, how old they are, what they look like, or anything like that. Maybe you are blind, I don't know. I've never met you.
Arthur Chandler:
And, as I said, it is not the job of the Keyserver to provide any sort of policy. The job of the Keyserver is to distribute keys. Nothing more. Nothing less. The job of identifying True Names is solely a job for Digital Signatures, not a job for the Keyserver.
Jamie Dinkelacker:
I oppose using it in a bogus fashion because the software is not designed for such a use, there is absolutely no protection for it (any key can be added), because I, and all the other Keyserver admins, believe that all the keyservers should be interconnected, and because I feel the job for determining a True Name on a key is a job for Digital Signatures, not for the Keyserver.
Perry Metzger:
I am a cypherpunk. I don't believe in trusting something on faith alone, but you seem to be asking for that. There is no way to protect such a reckless use of the Keyserver. The only way to provide a secure way for True Names is to Cryptographically identify them.
Hal Finney:
So, Mr. Detweiler, why do you oppose using Digital Signatures to verify True Names? I mean, besides that you consider yourself a Cypherpunk? ;-)
Given the many idiotic things already claimed by Detweiler, (including at one time or another, hotly accusing most list-active Bay Area cypherpunks of being "pseudospoofs" of each other, when all he had to do to verify our True Names was call), I don't know if it's necessary to point out Detweiler's own "pseudospoofing" and the forged quotations he is now throwing around. But despite his voluminous whoppers and mad slanders I've seen some folks actually taking some of his stuff seriously. So I just want to make sure everybody understands there's a head full of hypocrisy to go along with the head full of otherwise misfiring neurons: S.Boxx:
<sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. ...
Hi, Detweiler. I see here you're discounting your own voluminous posts on the matter. Typing in lower case doesn't hide your unique word choices, tone of voice, and opinions, and even the occasional slip by both of your 'nyms into UPPER CASE RANTS. Sorry to spoil your mad fun, but "CRIMINAL, TREACHEROUS PSEUDOSPOOFING" for rhetorical leverage just ain't as easy as you make it out to be. The practicum of always having to keep in mind the many ways you can screw up and reveal identity makes the practice severely self-limiting. For readers not familiar with the parties involved, I will point out some of the more obvious (to me) "pseudospooling", Detweiler's seemingly purposeful mixing up of quote attributions:
E.Hughes, on Pseudospoofing software
... Tim May and I were talking about this a long time, and he just beat me to learning enough PERL to write the thing.
It's highly improbable that Tim May would go anywhere near Perl, and it's also quite improbable Eric Hughes would have made such a gaffe. (Which just goes to show I _am_ Hughes and May, otherwise how could I know, eh Detweiler?)
Jamie Dinkelacker:
I oppose using it in a bogus fashion because the software is not designed for such a use, there is absolutely no protection for it (any key can be added), because I, and all the other Keyserver admins,....
Jamie is quite talented in the business world, but again it's unlikely in the extreme that he has time and interest left over for administering key servers.
Nick Szabo:
As an example, look at Ender's Game, where Ender's brother and sister get on the net under pseudonyms, and get treated just like everyone else. There is no biases. People are judged on their actions and words, not by who they are, how old they are, what they look like, or anything like that. Maybe you are blind, I don't know. I've never met you.
And what's wrong with this is the most obvious to me, since I didn't say it. My own memory, recognition of my own style, and if all else fails my own archives are sufficient to quickly dispatch "pseudospooling" attacks against myself. On Usenet there are commonly disputes over false quotations (usually non-malicious misattribution due to the nesting mess, but not always). The reputation of the "pseudospooler" is *plonked* when they are found out, especially if they are malicious. In public it's practically impossible to get away with severely malicious misquoting, unless the victim is both quite isolated and of such bad repute that readers don't believe the archive he produces. It might be feasible to defame people behind their backs, by sending false quotations in mail to small numbers of third parties. There must be quite a bit of accumulated BBS, FidoNet, and Usenet lore on the matter; anybody have good war stories? By extrapolation the quotes attributed to Arther Chandler, Hal Finney, and Perry Metzger were also likely "pseudospools", many of which will be obvious to those falsely quoted or their freinds, or those who keep good archives. And alas for Detweiler, any attributions he makes in the future will be highly suspect, as will the appearance of newbies on the net who just happen to agree with him and sound like him in somewhat improbable ways. The only remaining paranoia I have on this matter is that Detweiler is really Tim May's most elaborate "Stealth Bomber" gimmick to date. If so, either AI (Artificial Insanity?) is vastly more advanced than I had thought, or ... (Detweiler, take over for me here!) Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com
Mr. Szabo objects to my pseudopool fun. I don't understand. How is misattribution of quotations different than than things like pseudospoofing and pseudopools that top cypherpunks promote?
Given the many idiotic things already claimed by Detweiler, (including at one time or another, hotly accusing most list-active Bay Area cypherpunks of being "pseudospoofs" of each other, when all he had to do to verify our True Names was call),
I did call Medusa. Her line was been busy. All I have been able to talk to are tentacles. And they all say, `Believe, me, I am a person!'
So I just want to make sure everybody understands there's a head full of hypocrisy to go along with the head full of otherwise misfiring neurons:
yes, Medusa is quite confused lately. Halleluja for RISKS.
It's highly improbable that Tim May would go anywhere near Perl, and it's also quite improbable Eric Hughes would have made such a gaffe. (Which just goes to show I _am_ Hughes and May, otherwise how could I know, eh Detweiler?)
Your days are numbered, Medusa, and you are pretty clueless for not realizing it. The King is Dead.
It might be feasible to defame people behind their backs, by sending false quotations in mail to small numbers of third parties.
Attention everyone, this is precisely what Medusa is doing with me right now. Be careful.
By extrapolation the quotes attributed to Arther Chandler, Hal Finney, and Perry Metzger were also likely "pseudospools", many of which will be obvious to those falsely quoted or their freinds, or those who keep good archives.
Medusa has finally gone totally insane. Hey Medusa -- do you allow pseudospoofing on your secret mailing list? or do you ban it? are you a hypocrite? are you a liar?
participants (2)
-
L. Detweiler -
szabo＠netcom.com