"Tim" == Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
Tim> This is helpful because it pushed anonymity back into the Tim> technological arena, where it belongs. Indeed. With all of the people running around claiming that data which are pseudonymous are actually anonymous, it's no wonder that there's so much confusion. http://www.consumerreports.org/Special/ConsumerInterest/Reports/0005pri1.htm Trying to point out the property of pseudonymity and to highlight the differences between privacy risks inherent to pseudonymous and anonymous data is a great way to get yourself labeled a pedant, by the way. It never ceases to amaze me how some people will resist learning something, even when such learning would clearly be in their interest. -- Matt Curtin, Founder Interhack Corporation http://www.interhack.net/ "Building the Internet, Securely." research | development | consulting
On 17 Oct 2000, Matt Curtin wrote:
With all of the people running around claiming that data which are pseudonymous are actually anonymous, it's no wonder that there's so much confusion.
http://www.consumerreports.org/Special/ConsumerInterest/Reports/0005pri1.htm
Trying to point out the property of pseudonymity and to highlight the differences between privacy risks inherent to pseudonymous and anonymous data is a great way to get yourself labeled a pedant,
Basically, whether it's math or crypto, there are some ideas that people just aren't going to "get" because they always lump unfamiliar things together if those things violate the same assumption. In math, they used to look at me blankly when I explained that there was more than one kind of infinity -- Or about transfinite numbers that *weren't* an infinity -- because they only know finite mathematics. Anything outside that realm is, well, infinity, and one infinity, as far as the sheeple are concerned, is as good as another. Likewise, people who only understand speech and business mediated by absolute identities are going to have trouble with the "subtle" difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. It's a model where you are dealing with someone but don't know who they are, and as far as the sheeple are concerned, one not-knowing is as good as another. It violates the same assumption, therefore in popular view, it must be the same thing. *sigh.* Bear
At 10:24 AM -0700 10/17/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Basically, whether it's math or crypto, there are some ideas that people just aren't going to "get" because they always lump unfamiliar things together if those things violate the same assumption.
In math, they used to look at me blankly when I explained that there was more than one kind of infinity -- Or about transfinite numbers that *weren't* an infinity -- because they only know finite mathematics. Anything outside that realm is, well, infinity, and one infinity, as far as the sheeple are concerned, is as good as another.
Likewise, people who only understand speech and business mediated by absolute identities are going to have trouble with the "subtle" difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. It's a model where you are dealing with someone but don't know who they are, and as far as the sheeple are concerned, one not-knowing is as good as another. It violates the same assumption, therefore in popular view, it must be the same thing.
Very well said. This is indeed what's happening. More reason not to trust the laws of man. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 01:22 PM 10/17/00 -0400, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Likewise, people who only understand speech and business mediated by absolute identities are going to have trouble with the "subtle" difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. It's a model where you are dealing with someone but don't know who they are, and as far as the sheeple are concerned, one not-knowing is as good as another. It violates the same assumption, therefore in popular view, it must be the same thing.
*sigh.*
Bear
I used to think so too, but there are a lot of hausfrau who use polynymy. They're not clued in to the subtleties of recognizing prose by style, because my informant has told me that they are recognizable. I doubt many cpunkly anonymous posters put their prose through a few cycles of 'the fish'. Perhaps short prose is their solution; what is *your* unicity distance? In a different but related thread, the whole point of 'human factors' studies and gui design is to use whatever the user brings with him --including metaphors from meatspace. Postcards = IP. Envelopes = crypto. Phone books = PKI directories. Multinyms = "doing business as". Reputation = reputation. dh
participants (4)
-
David Honig -
Matt Curtin -
Ray Dillinger -
Tim May