ANON: Mark anon. posts a

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I sent mail to Cypherpunks on this a couple of days ago, but it never
appeared.

There is a problem with the notion that all "anonymous" remailers and
news-posting services should label their messages as anonymous so that
users can decide whether to read them or not.  This approach abandons one
of the strongest arguments in favor of anonymous remailers, which is
that the net is inherently an anonymous environment.

Especially as more public access Unix systems, BBS systems, and so on
become part of the net, we are going to see less and less of the strict
controls on identity which were possible when the net was restricted to
a few government labs and large universities.  The level of anarchy will
inevitably increase as larger numbers of people acquire net access.
Unless massive and universal authentication efforts are undertaken, it
is going to be more and more the case that you will know little about
the true identity of a poster.

Because of this, those who object to having to read the words of an
"anonymous" poster are taking an untenable position.  They are already
reading words of people about whom they know no more than they would
about an anonymous poster.  And the argument that "non-anonymous" posters
are subject to a form of discipline not available to anonymous posters -
messages to the system operator - is clearly falsified by the existance
of many sysops who care nothing about complaints.  As more and more people
run their own machines with net access, these cases will only increase.

In short, we anonymous remailer operators have every right to be part of
the net.  We introduce no more problems than are already happening and
will continue to occur as the net grows and becomes more universal.  The
resistance we've seen is from old-time sysops who are unable to adjust
to a changing network environment.

Rather than placating obsolete beliefs about network identity by agreeing
to mark our messages with the scarlett letter A for anonymity, by accepting
that we deserve to be in a ghetto set aside for inferior posts, I feel that
we should challenge the net with messages that blur the distinction between
anonymous and authenticated posts.  The sooner people realize that there is
no line that divides the clean from the unclean, the sooner anonymity will
be widely accepted on the net.

Hal Finney
74076.1041@compuserve.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.1

iQCVAgUBK7S2oqgTA69YIUw3AQEfagP8DlzINcvUDn7jc351S+hHTBz5NtB3RbRC
l+0rgltFcn6QxWaE0GsWFcOa6RcPOe1DOTlwiJejiT6MbnfuDopbUoS98bCiIzLE
0Q2ZVhtsfLs5zFdUj08bRzzU7zyuzSmNoSsCx01O6OiGZB/zs0PEnx/0XqRtXFD2
RM1YTCPIF7Y=
=0zw5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hal writes:
>[...] one
>of the strongest arguments in favor of anonymous remailers, which is
>that the net is inherently an anonymous environment.

It is anonymous by default.  If someone wants to break anonymity, they
may.  I make this stronger below.

>In short, we anonymous remailer operators have every right to be part of
>the net.  We introduce no more problems than are already happening and
>will continue to occur as the net grows and becomes more universal.  

We create no new problems to be sure; we just bring them on faster, in
order to prepare for them.

>Rather than placating obsolete beliefs about network identity by agreeing
>to mark our messages with the scarlett letter A for anonymity, by accepting
>that we deserve to be in a ghetto set aside for inferior posts, I feel that
>we should challenge the net with messages that blur the distinction between
>anonymous and authenticated posts.

I agree.  Hal argues that this means not marking anonymous posts.  I
disagree with this technique.

My solution to this is to make the posting anonymous but to sign the
post with your real name.  (Yes, that means however _you_ construe
your real name.)  If we wish to blur the distinction, we should make
the means of transport anonymous and the contents of the posting named.

Surely this blurs the distinction between named and anonymous posts.
People will ask "Why would anyone not want the routing information
revealed when they are saying who they are?"  This question, even
merely asked, has positive effects.  It makes one aware that identity
is not an email address, nor is accountability the ability to complain
to an authority.

It allows people to kill anonymous posts out of whatever spite they
feel to "those cowardly hypocrites".  It also allows the worst
excesses to be restrained.  Yet if there is a visible group of
respected individuals who use anonymous mechanisms for reasons other
than avoiding rebuttal, those who unrestrainedly ignore anonymity will
find themselves missing out.

I suggest that those who participate in news.admin.policy and
sci.crypt be the first to start this practice.  The more respected
users of anonymous servers there are, the greater will be the
incentive not to ignore anonymity completely.

Eric