Credentials without Identity--Race Bits

[Huge Cajones Remailer]

At 12:38 PM 12/11/1996, Timothy C. May wrote: By the way, on this
>oftentimes off-topic issue of "bigotry" and "racism," here's a zinger
>some of you may not have thought much about. And it's certainly
>related to the themes of Chaumian "credentials without identity,"
>which is very much on-topic.
>
>While it has been claimed by some that "crypto anarchy" means that
>race won't matter, that cyberspace interactions will be color-blind,
>this is misleading.
>
>While many--probably most--users will care only for cyberspace
>personna issues, and not meatspace personna issues of race, color,
>height, weight, etc., this is not something built in to anonymous
>transactions.
>
>Consider a "race credential" offered by some entity. Perhaps one goes
>down to the local Aryan Nations office and gets one's genetic
>heritage stamped, or down to the Kwanzaa Youth Center to be similarly
>stamped....
>
>(Why some groups might want this is left as an exercise for the
>reader.  Perhaps a less-inflammatory example (to some of the
>sensitive amongst you) might be that some women want to interact in
>"women only" forums--a clear case of discrimination, no?--and may
>want a "gender bit" avaiable to display as a credential.)

Tim May is to be commended for making this fine point.  I simply had
not thought of this possibility.  This is also empirical evidence of
the worth of a wide ranging discussion.  If Matt and I hadn't pursued
our discussion, this excellent point would not have been made.

As Tim has pointed out, it is time to reconsider our beliefs regarding
the morality of discrimination.  The fact is, sometimes we like to
spend time with people who have a lot in common with ourselves.  This
often supports a higher level of communication because the parties
involved really understand where the other is coming from.

This is true of men in the locker room, women, Albanians, or whomever.
And what is occuring is not even a bad thing.  It's good for people to
spend time with people they like and respect or at least know well.
("No man is a hero to his valet.")

The "politically correct" fully recognize this.  That is why they see
gay groups, feminist groups, etc. as worthwhile.  It is only people
perceived as successful or powerful who are not supposed to associate
with each other.  Instead, they are expected to volunteer their time
and personalities for everyone else's benefit.  Somehow we never hear
what they are supposed to receive in return for this, but I am
guessing they are supposed to lovingly accept rudeness, abuse, and
guilt for their services.

Tim said in another message that there are times when discrimination
is rational.  I have no doubt this is true.  How often do we look at a
degree from MIT on a resume and hire?

The degree to which we fear cryptoanarchy is the degree to which we
fear leaving people alone to run their lives as they see fit.  I do
not greatly fear cryptoanarchy.

Red Rackham