Re: Something Silly, Something Serious

Tim May writes (and then Jamie takes a bend toward CypherRapture):


>SOMETHING SERIOUS:
>
>Seriously, I understand L. Dettweiler has asked to be unsubscribed.
>
>For the record, I did not send him any e-mail these past several
>weeks, either under my normal name or under any other names. I rarely
>pseudonyms, and have never--that I recall right now--ever used them in
>2-way communication. And never for the purposed Dettweiller/Boxx alleged.
>
>
>But the cake was taken when he claimed I had invented the nym "Jamie
>Dinkelacker," whom many of you know personally, to slant arguments!
>Done humorously, as several of us have done recently, such a claim
>would be funny (no offense meant, Jamie). But LD showed no awareness
>of the absurdity of his claim.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Tim's got a point. Why would Tim create the nym Jamie Dinkelacker? With so
many names to pick from, why pick one that is already in use and is fairly
visible in other networks (e.g., extropians, nano)? Perhaps LD didn't check
them, but others on the list are aware. Isn't it interesting that when a
writer doesn't know that two persons are different individuals, it's easy
to presume that when they agree in print or simply discuss similar topics,
that this implies nym-hood? Fascinating: This isn't a surface event.

The issue here is a root failing of LD's cognizance and scope to simply
check things out. Readers in the Bay Area or LA may have seen stuff Jamie
Dinkelacker has written in _Microtimes_, or in the _Foresight Update_, or
if you read the academic communication and mass media literature, there as
well. Plus, I'm a fairly voluble fellow speaking at conferences, trade
shows, some local discussion groups and the like. No, Jamie isn't an AI,
nor does he play one on the net. (Maybe someday...)  I've not used net nym.

What struck me about LD's vacuous pleas and S.Boxx's vapid rants was the
essential disturbed and juvenile nature they projected, hoping to ensure a
cause of CypherRapture (following CryptoAnarchy, natch) warranting true
names without ever any spoofing or deception. I have made a standing offer
to take S.Boxx to lunch (provided s/he eats with a fork and isn't already
out to lunch).

But spoofing and deception are not the same: more importantly, neither is
an emergent element of pseudonymity, anonymous remailers, or cypherjocks. I
found Blacknet to be entertaining. It seemed natural this has been going on
for years.  As far as deception, it's a matter of degree. It's common in
nature, sports, business, ... . I'm not advocating it -- but I accept it as
a fact of living in modern times.

This has been a good experience for me, and has raised many issues in the
big Venn of CryptoAnarchy: who owns their name, for how long, does it
matter? ... Who can tell the difference? Which John Smith is that?


... Tim continues ...
>
>Cypherpunks write code. Cyperpunks write essays. Cypherpunks make puns
>and jokes and even spoofs. Cypherpunks have fun.
>

I don't know if there is a Cypherpunk's cause. I doubt there's a movement,
but that's separate from my holding a belief that crypto and nyms and
digital cash and privacy and emergent social structures are crucial to a
preferable form of human survival.

With the net, we have a wonderous tool and opportunity. But the world isn't
a safe place. Every time I put a finger or toe into the lovely pacific
ocean I'm keenly aware of quickly entering the food chain at a much lower
point. These are times of challenge, to develop new tools and fresh
perspectives. But many elements of human nature remain the same.

I thank the Cypherpunks for writing code. I don't (anymore): I write words,
make videos and build organizations. We do need the code. We also need to
push at the edges of our understanding of social dynamics. And S.Boxx
clearly illustrated that puerile visciousness, wounded animal frenzy, and
pathetic behavior are also here in this new world. One of the brave ones,
s/he isn't. And Cypherpunks' creations even protect the likes of S.Boxx.
Reminiscent of Voltaire, yes?

Thanks for the bandwidth. If anyone would like to continue this, perhaps
moving it to the Extropians list would be reasonable.

James Dinkelacker (True name)
--
................................
Jamie Dinkelacker   Palo Alto CA  (almost a true name)
Jamie@netcom.com    415.941.4782

It still seems to me that the spoofing issue has been oversimplified:
  "Hey, it's a fact of life. Accept it."
  "We're cypherpunks. We have a little fun once in a while. Lighten up!"
  "Spoofing and deception are not the same."
  Then Boxx gets dinged for using spoofs, and Detweiler gets dinged for 
objecting to them.
  Then May comes out with a G-rated spoof, and everyone (almost) has a 
chuckle. 
  But I think the issue is too sticky to pass off with flames and grins.
As I see it, the spoofing touches on one of the basic 
opportunities/dilemmas of the NET: anonymity versus responsibility. We 
can say things behind the cover of ascii that we wouldn't dare try IRL. 
So some folks do it. You can explore gender bending, being an asshole, 
etc. -- and no one has to know. Good therapy? Food for the exploring 
mind? Yeah, maybe. But also --
  Good for undermining credibility. Someone spoofs in a letter from 
William Gibson during a heated discussion of Cyberpunk. It LOOKS 
plausible. No one on the list knows Gibson personally. Do you take it at 
face value, or pass it off as a possible spoof? Folks, that ain't 
spoofing: it's impersonation. It's a form of lying. No harm done? Ask 
Gibson if he thinks so. Ask yourself if you would.
  Situation #2: someone writes in a bunch of outrageous opinions and puts 
YOUR name in the sender slot and fires the mess of to the cypherpunks list. 
What are you going to do about it? Quickly  post a denial, no doubt. But 
tell me you wouldn't feel furious. Someone  has used anonymity to 
misrepresent you. In essence, to lie about you in  an ingenious way made 
possible by a combo of human nature and the structure of the NET.
  So: You want to post/pose as *HeAvYd00d* -- hey, go right ahead. That's 
your biz, and I can  use a laugh (the whole scheme of building up an 
anonymous rep seems like juvenile fantasy or disguised cowardice, but 
chacun a son gout). You want to pose as William Gibson?  I've got a 
problem with  that -- and so do you, if the real WG finds out. 
You want to pose as  someone else on this list? Well, do YOU have a 
problem with that?

>   It still seems to me that the spoofing issue has been oversimplified:
[...]
>   "Spoofing and deception are not the same."

What's overly simple about this?

>   Then Boxx gets dinged for using spoofs, 

I don't think anyone cared that "S. Boxx" posted pseudonymously.

[ Example of someone impersonating William Gibson ]
[ Example of someone impersonation *you* ]
> tell me you wouldn't feel furious. Someone  has used anonymity to 
> misrepresent you. In essence, to lie about you in  an ingenious way made 
> possible by a combo of human nature and the structure of the NET.

Anonymity has nothing to do with this.  Nor does pseudonymity.  This
is a simple case of exploiting technical loopholes the size of
Neptune.  Unfortunately, many people give more credence than they
should to the From: line, perhaps not realizing that present
protocols were never designed for security.  An easy way of making
reality conform to expectations is to spread the use of digital
signatures.

Your examples of "harmful spoofing" are problems, but they are old
problems having nothing to do with the use of nyms.  You can't,
for example, post to alt.cyberpunk as an47351@anon.penet.fi (William
Gibson) and expect to fool anybody.  Yes, forgery is obnoxious.
But this putative offense of "pseudospoofing", of having multiple
names, is very from forgery.

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu