Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)

> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@athena.mit.edu>
> 
> Since John Gilmore, the maintainer of the Cypherpunks mailing list, is
> one of the absolute free speach advocates --- let me ask a question
> directly at you:  What would you do if sometime next week, someone
> decided to flood the Cypherpunks mailing list with a large amount of
> trash postings, routed through different combinations of remailers?  Let
> us assume that the trash is generated by grabbing varying snippets from
> USENET articles, so that current AI technology is not able to
> distinguish a true Cypherpunks submission from the flooded trash
> postings.  What would you do?  Now let's also suppose someone does the
> same thing to all of the GNU newsgroups.  What would you do then?
> 

I know what I would do: I'd rig the list so it only took PGP signed messages,
and then only from official subscribers. They could be anonymous, but
they'd have to be operating under "known" pseudonyms. This is a "closed"
list -- the Extropians list in principle works under much the same
mechanism, only without PGP. This being in place, people who had not joined
could not flood the list, and anyone flooding the list could be cut off.
Note that just because one is in favor of free speech does not mean that
one would necessarily permit arbitrary disruptions in one's living
room, and being the list "owner" I think John would be much within his
rights to stop non-communicative disruptive "noise" postings.

> (Sorry for sounding so cynical, but after being a News admin at MIT for
> a long time, and dealing with a lot of people suffering from severe
> cases of freshmanitis, I have a less than optimistic view about human
> nature.)

I think that instead you should have a less than optimistic view of the
quality of our current netnews software. The problem you list can
be fixed with public key cryptography and some intelligent changes.

For instance, there is an easy fix to the "idiots posting newgroups" messages
that I heard Nat Howard propose years ago -- use public key signatures
on newgroup messages, and each news administrator picks other administrators
he trusts in the same sort of "web of trust" notion that PGP has. If
the newgroup/delgroup message was posted by someone you trust you take
it, otherwise you reject it. Given that, you are practically done.

As another example, its easy to assure that moderated newsgroups are run
just by the moderator -- he public key signs instead of posting with
the "Authorized" header. Easy as pi.

Perry

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:08:14 EST
   From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)

   I think that instead you should have a less than optimistic view of the
   quality of our current netnews software. The problem you list can
   be fixed with public key cryptography and some intelligent changes.

   As another example, its easy to assure that moderated newsgroups are run
   just by the moderator -- he public key signs instead of posting with
   the "Authorized" header. Easy as pi.

And you have an over optimistic view about how fast new netnews software
could be developed and deployed.  Also, keep in mind that netnews is run
by lots of real sites, who have real assets which could be reached if
sued by RSA.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is
really bothering me.  Oh, well....

						- Ted

Re: authenticated news software

>Also, keep in mind that netnews is run
>by lots of real sites, who have real assets which could be reached if
>sued by RSA.

Why is there a presumption that any such authenticated news software
would be used without license?  RSADSI is not trying to sit on their
patents, but to make money from them.  

>There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is
>really bothering me.  

What you believe to be real and what I believe to be real may be
different.  To claim that another is being unrealistic is to mask
what is foremost a difference in belief.

What assumptions here do you disagree with?  If you are explicit,
perhaps we can forge an agreement.

Eric

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 17:44:23 -0800
   From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>

   >There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is
   >really bothering me.  

   What you believe to be real and what I believe to be real may be
   different.  To claim that another is being unrealistic is to mask
   what is foremost a difference in belief.

   What assumptions here do you disagree with?  If you are explicit,
   perhaps we can forge an agreement.

Well, let's see.... the most recent assumption I disagreed with was the
claim that we could implement full-fledged postive reputation filters,
complete with the use of RSA, and deploy it on the Usenet in some sort
of time-frame less than ten years out --- and even that is doubtful.
Look at how many sites are running B News, long after C news has been
out.  Anonymous remailers are here *today*.

Then there's assumption that anonymous ID's would automatically have no
weight --- they may have very little weight, but even today, they
probably have some weight.  I could probably construct some sort of NSA
conspiracy theory, and have it posted so it looked like it came from 20
different pseudonyms, and it probably would be believed by a lot of
people.  

Fundamentally, however, there's the basic assumption that anarchy per se
is good; which is a basic philosophical belief which I just plain
disagree with.  I have strong Libertarian leanings, although I don't
necessarily believe in the Libertarian party --- however, complete and
total anarchy goes far beyond what I believe is a reasonable or
realistic way to run a society; that's basically a "might makes right"
form of government.  In cyberspace, most of the people on this list
would probably be listed among the mighty: we understand computers, and
cryptography, and how to use them, "much better than the average bear".
So it is not surprising that there are many on this list who think
crypto anarchy is a good thing; however, I am not convinced that this
would be a terribly just or better society than what we have now --- the
only difference which class of people would be in power.

In any case, a basic assumption which seems to permeate the arguments
made by various people on this list is that anarchy is good.  Perhaps I
am running away from an argument, but in my experience, it is rare that
an argument with a religious fanatic bears any fruit, and it seems that
there are people who such militant anarchists that futher discussion
doesn't seem to have much of a point.

How does that saying go?  "Don't bother trying to teach a pig to sing.
It just frustrates you, and annoys the pig."

						- Ted

> Fundamentally, however, there's the basic assumption that anarchy per se
> is good; which is a basic philosophical belief which I just plain
> disagree with.

It's not an assumption, to begin with; I was not born an "anarchist".
Nor is it a philosophical belief, in my case; it's a sociological
conclusion.  And I only claim that it's what I want, not that it's
"good" for you -- that depends, for example, on whether you couldn't
be happy except as an IRS employee.  I'm not quite sure what you
intend by your later comments on "religious fanatics", but any
clarification or random flamage would best be done off-list.

> 						- Ted

	 PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

>There doesn't seem to be a lot of realism in these discussions, which is
			>really bothering me.  

People often mistake being a wet blanket and finding lots of
objections to thing with 'being realistic'.  Is that what you are
doing?  Otherwise, given how much work I see people doing to both
spread the ideas and to build tools, I can't imagine to what you are
referring.  People are building and deploying remailers, integrating
crypto stuff into mail programs, testing anonymity, writing
publilcations on teh subject, successfully suing government
organizations for privacy violations, working towards positive
reputation systems, etc.  Pretty damn good for people's spare time.
And certainly plenty 'realistic'.  Discussion of visions and long term
goals might qualify, but the grandiose visions we indulge in drive the
day-to-day improvements we make on the technology and ideas about
privacy that are available.

			What assumptions here do you disagree with?  If you are explicit,
			perhaps we can forge an agreement.

	 Well, let's see.... the most recent assumption I disagreed with was the
	 claim that we could implement full-fledged postive reputation filters,
	 complete with the use of RSA, and deploy it on the Usenet in some sort
	 of time-frame less than ten years out --- and even that is doubtful.
	 Look at how many sites are running B News, long after C news has been
	 out.  Anonymous remailers are here *today*.

I must have missed that message.  I looks like a munging together of
lots of separate things that are in the works, and that will integrate
in some reasonable way.  As I put together my thoughts for an answer
here, I realized that my summary of what's going on would better fit
in a separate message.  I'll send that later.

	 conspiracy theory, and have it posted so it looked like it came from 20
	 different pseudonyms, and it probably would be believed by a lot of

It would only be believed by people who tend to believe in that stuff.
The people that read home.ec.cooking will just look at a message like
that strangely and wonder what it has to do with cooking.  There
aren't many forums in which such a message is even appropriate.  In
the ones that are, I suspect acceptance would be slow for a sudden
flurry of anonymous postings :-)  Most of hte people who would believe
that kind of thing easily simply aren't on the net.

	 Fundamentally, however, there's the basic assumption that anarchy

I don't even think Tim May believes that :-)  I think the basic
assumption is that government rstriction of freedom and privacy is
*bad*.  There's almost certainly more agreement with that.  I
certainly can't htink of time when it was good...

	 necessarily believe in the Libertarian party --- however, complete and
	 total anarchy goes far beyond what I believe is a reasonable or
	 realistic way to run a society; that's basically a "might makes right"

Anarchy is just a bad word because it brings to mind the image of
utter lawlessness and destruction.  I certainly want all the things
typically (badly) supplied by the government:  health care, police,
fire, national defense, etc., I just don't think that we need the
gov't to provide them.  Any anarchy that I advocate has to support at
least the level of society we have now, and I certainly believe that
to be possible.

	 there are people who such militant anarchists that futher discussion

Labelling someone with a name, then insisting that it belongs to them
is hardly a useful style of argument.

	 How does that saying go?  "Don't bother trying to teach a pig to sing.
	 It just frustrates you, and annoys the pig."

This is just righteousness that is intended to put people down.  It
just prompts flaming and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Finally, I would note that people are actively pursuing crypto stuff
for a variety of reasons.  I can disgree about philosophy and still
productively cooperate with people.  We contribute to each other's
goals.

What are your goals with respect to this stuff, and *what are you
doing* to pursue them?  You want more realism:  what are *your* plans?
Objecting to someone else's is easy.  Doing something is hard (that's
why I support other people doing something even if I don't quite agree
with them).

dean