Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing

It is suggested we can gather this information per pseudonym: > >1) how long they have been on the list in days... > >2) how many postings... > >3) ...posting/age ratio... > >4) ...tracking the number of responses a given poster has... Jamie Dinkalecker responds: > Each of these suggestions call for data that may contribute to identifying > individuals, tracking their behavior or providing information useful to > decypher some messages. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent such information being gathered by list subscribers, with the minor change that (1) would be time since first posting. The NSA, BlackNet, Internet junk mailers, or Extortions R Us might be gathering it now if they liked, and for many of us with our True Names to boot. In my limited experience creating Internet pseudonyms, I've been quite distracted by the continual need to avoid leaving pointers to my True Name lying around -- excess mail to/from my True Name, shared files, common peculiarities (eg misspellings in written text), traceable logins, etc. The penet.fi site explicitly maintains a list of pointers to the original address. All kinds of security controls -- crypto, access, information, inference -- have to be continually on my mind when using pseudonymous accounts. The hazards are everywhere. With our current tools it's practically impossible to maintain an active pseudonym for a long period of time against a sufficiently determined opponent, and quite a hassle to maintain even a modicum of decent security. Pointers to info and/or tools to enable the establishment and maintenance of a net.nym, beyond the standard cypherpunks PGP/remailer fare with which I'm now familiar, greatly appreciated. Especially nice would be a list of commercial net providers that allow pseudonymous accounts. Another big problem I see with pseudonymous reputations is entry. If most people are blocking posts from new pseudonyms, how does one get a new reputation established? I've had several years to establish a net.reputation for "Nick Szabo", and it might take a long time for any of my pseudonyms to catch up. Altruistic sponsorship requires trusted friends knowing the True Name, but that public sponsorship itself provides important clues pointing to that Name. Sponsorship by the True Name via an anonymous reputation market (like HEx, but securely anonymous and perhaps tied to futures on the pseudonym's declared income), might be quite useful. (For information on the HEx market, send mail to [email protected] with the subject line "commands"). I hope that we stick to experimenting with pure anonymity in many venues. I suggest we'll find out that purely anonymous posts are not so bad, overall. Some of the recent stuff has been weird or rude, but so have been a lot of True Name flames that have passed thru this list. We find True Name posts easier to deal with because it's what we're used to. Many are comforted by the thought that as a last resort, if a flame is just too evil, the poster can be tracked down and made to pay for his sins. The WELL was so threatened by the thought of anonymity that they required all pseudonyms to be traceable to the True Name, as an explicit policy right from the start of the system. Pure anonymity in all its manifestations is a strange, threatening, fascinating beast in our panoptic social-welfare world. Even those of us at the forefront of harnessing this monster shrink back in fear when it whinnies. Many of the recent anon posts have been quite productive, eg "Wonderer's" embarrassing newbie questions which motivated Hal Finney to first write a nice explanation of digital cash, then think of an interesting simplification of Chaum's scheme. Under any system falling short of truly intelligent filters, Hal would not have filtered S. Boxx's first posts without also filtering Wonderer's first posts. Pure anonymity provide voice for a wide variety of new kinds of expression that up until now have been suppressed. Some kinds are good (whistleblowing), some bad (slander). Most are good or bad depending on the situation (asking embarrassing newbie questions, expressing politically incorrect opinions, discussing illegal activities, etc.) I hope we continue experimenting with pure anonymity for a while longer, as well as experimenting with reputation-based pseudonymous systems. Some of what comes out might look very strange, something like tapping into previously concealed areas of our social psyche. I suspect the result will be a more honest dialog, a more productive conversation freed from posturing and, ironically, from the concealment of threatening truth. I hope we will observe the resulting new forms of good and evil with Zen patience and allow this quite interesting experiment to continue. Nick Szabo [email protected]