"Cyherpunks Named Official Signing Authority"

[Timothy C. May]

Eric Hughes wrote:
> 
>    From: tcmay at netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
> 
>    If the intent of a "Compelled Signature" (tm) policy [...]
> 
> Putting it in quotes doesn't prevent it from being a misrepresentation.
> 
> Are you saying that adding notifications and delays is compulsion, or
> not?

First of all, I am generally commenting on this:

"I am still considering the "sign-or-delay" proposal for the toad.com
server, that is, sign your articles to the list or they'll be delayed
and eventually rejected." [Eric Hughes, 1994-11-28]

"Eventually rejected" mean to me that unsigned messages will not be
passed through to the list. I call this a "compelled signature" in
that the signature is compulsory, not optional. (We hopefully can
avoid splitting semantic hairs about what "compelled" or "compulsory"
means. A Driver's License is compulsory to drive, though one is free
not to drive. If the "eventually rejected" situation is reached, then
a digital sig is compelled in this sense; that one is free to leave
the list or not to write posts does not significantly change this
compulsory or compelled nature.)


>    Imagine the P.R. value to these Net.Cops: "But even the Cypherpunks
>    require all posts to be signed!."
> 
> If the net cops are going to acknowledge a merit in a cypherpunks
> position, I say let them.  The opportunity to educate the other
> listeners that signatures are not the same as personal identity is an
> opportunity not to be missed, especially when your opponent hands it
> to you.

I strongly disagree with this. If a "Cypherpunks position" happens to
be wrong (as many of us think is the case with this "sign your posts
or face delay an, eventually, rejection")), then it is not
automatically good that Net.Cops see it and respond to it.

I say a system which sets up a person or site as arbiter of what is
signed and what is not is counterproductive to our goals. It plays
into the hands of those who wish to ban anonymous posts.

(Clearly I am not saying that the Hughes proposal is a plane to ban
anonymous posts, only that the "all posts should be signed" notion is
very similar to Net.Cop proposals to associate all posts with personal
identity. That the latest explication of the Hughes proposal says that
the emphasis will be on _syntactic_ checking, and not actual
verification, is a subtlety far beyond the Net.Cops who want real
Signature Authorities to validate Citizen-Units messages.)

In other messages this morning I have made my points about
user-to-user verification being what is important.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay at netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo at toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay