Another Tussle with a Tentacle

"Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor@foretune.co.jp>

>I agree with him that this is an area of great potential concern.  While
>I am not opposed to the principle of maintaining multiple identities on
>the net, the rule of netiquette should be that "multiple identities should
>_NEVER_ intersect."

what, pray tell, do you define as *intersection*? the very existence of
the two pseudonyms on the same Cyberspace can be considered an `intersection'.

>So I support "L. Detweiler"s right to be "Jim," but they ought never to
>support each other.  His scenario is chillingly _possible_.

the scenario is chillingly *true*. And I do not support it. I condemn it.

>At the same time, I think such episodes will be rare.  The amount of
>effort needed to maintain multiple intersecting identities is quite high,
>and in most cases would be "uneconomic."  However, in some cases, for
>some people, the effort might be worth it, so some thought ought to
>be placed into ways to detect or discourage it.

again, more Medusa-cypherpunk brainwashing. `don't worry about this.
it's not a big deal. no one would be evil enough to do this. heaven
forbid, don't do anything rash like invent robust identity mechanisms
that would *prevent* me from continuing to exploit this weakness in the
system and inherent trust of others.'

>Which brings up the question: how can we, in the era of digital pseudonyms
>determine that two pseudos are, or are not, the same person?  One possible
>method would be careful automated analysis of the language used by
>the participants in a net discussion.

hah, hah! society has already evolved many other mechanisms that have
worked for centuries, and `you' promote obscure black magic. the
problem is, all that stuff is just to damn mundane and oppressive. it's
equivalent to Retinal Scans and a Camera on Every Corner.

cypherpunks, you have no idea how much you are being brainwashed. a
true Thought Crime if there ever was one. wipe wipe, slosh slosh, scrub
scrub. look! sparkling white! now, to pour in the blackness...

Mr. Detweilers writes:

>what, pray tell, do you define as *intersection*? the very existence of
>the two pseudonyms on the same Cyberspace can be considered an `intersection'.

Pseudo's intersect when they interact.  You could have several psuedos
here on the list, but so long as they didn't engage in the nasty
behavior you abhor, fine by me.  You could be the paranoid L. Detweiler
and the arch-codemeister "Larry Goodhack" for all I care.

Personally, I am getting a little tired of your ranting.  I agreed with
most of your position and got flamed for it.  Thanks a lot.  It's chillingly
obvious you've read "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

If you are willing to do the research and provide solid, verifyable
evidence of such nastiness as you are convinced is happening, then
do it.  If you are willing to discuss the implications of dishonesty
in a universe of anonymity, then  that is a topic of interest.  If
all you are willing to do is rant about the boogieman under the
bed, then please do your mumbling somewhere else in cyberspace.

I _still_ think the issue that concerns you is an important one.  I
also think you are doing a very good job of ensuring that people
don't give it critical thought. 

Who knows.  Maybe that's your goal.  Think about that, 'punks.