If you can't take the heat... (Was Re: Keep the pressure!)

At 12:05 PM 3/20/96, Perry E. Metzger is rumored to have typed:
> anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com writes:
> > Some people have wondered why I am anonymous and attack me.
> > I am not ashamed of my views.
>
> Well, then you should be.
>
> > I write this thread anonymous as a form of protest.
>
> Why is it a form of protest? If you aren't ashamed, post it under your
> name.

What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other
than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster,
is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing
so anonymously through a remailer.  The irony of such a situation is
too rich to pass up.

It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and
mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing
that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such
a fiction anyway, get used to it"  seem to be common responses), but
when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages
we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why
are you posting anonymously."  How sad.

So, why the hypocrisy here?  If you don't want to be bothered by these
messages there is a simple solution, use a mail agent that can filter
out remailer postings and trash them.  Of course this would also kill
interesting messages from others who use remailers, but that's the price
we pay for having remailers that do not support anonymous identity upon
which reputation can be built.

Oh yeah, I forgot...cypherpunks write code (snicker).  So why not stop
bitching and write a bit of code that provides for useful anonymous
reputations and/or fix the glaringly obvious problems with current
remailers.

jim, who is sorry that he is not the one posting such trolls to the list
just to make the puppets dance...

Jim McCoy writes:
> What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other
> than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster,
> is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing
> so anonymously through a remailer.  The irony of such a situation is
> too rich to pass up.

I have no problem with the existance of anonymous remailers, and I
don't want to see them banned or prevented -- indeed, I encourage
their existance.

However, that doesn't mean that I always favor their use, or that I
won't look down on someone for using one inappropriately.

To put it another way: I believe that every adult person has the right
to have sex with any other willing adult person. However, I think it
might not be tasteful if my neighbors decided to bugger each other on
the front lawn. Not, you understand, that it should be illegal, but it
does make me wonder about them.

In the case of the given poster, he claims that he's using anonymity
not because he fears backlash (he should but thats another story) but
as a form of "protest". This is as illogical as the content of his
messages...

> It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and
> mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing
> that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such
> a fiction anyway, get used to it"  seem to be common responses), but
> when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages
> we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why
> are you posting anonymously."  How sad.

Why is this sad? I think you don't get the difference between what is
permissable and what is in good taste.

Perry

On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Jim McCoy wrote:

> What amuses me most about this series of rantings by whomever, other
> than the paranoid and baseless claims made by the anonymous poster,
> is the number of people who have been complaining about the author doing
> so anonymously through a remailer.  The irony of such a situation is
> too rich to pass up.
> 
> It seems that cypherpunks can dish it out when other newsgroups and
> mailing lists suffer such problems ("well, the remailers do nothing
> that telneting to port 25 cannot do..." or "internet identity is such
> a fiction anyway, get used to it"  seem to be common responses), but
> when the cypherpunks lists is the victim of unpleasant anonymous messages
> we fall back to the tired refrain of "if you have nothing to hide why
> are you posting anonymously."  How sad.
> 
> So, why the hypocrisy here?

I don't see this as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be trying to track the guy
down, or turning off the remailer, or filtering anonymous rants at
toad.com. I think it's completely legitimate, and healthy, to question
why people go anonymous while supporting their right to do so. Sometimes
anonymity is necessary, sometimes it's just for fun, sometimes its
cowardice, sometimes it's deception. 

Your point about "stop whining and write code for anonymous reputations"
is misplaced.  Such code ALREADY EXISTS. There are lots of nyms out there
with PGP keys. If you're already PGP-encrypting your message to send it
to an anonymous remailer securely, it's really no more trouble to sign it
with the key for Alice D'Anonymous. If you don't feel secure using PGP 
(and "the real Alice" did have some -- some -- valid points), then use a 
magic number or serialize your messages. It worked for the Unabomber.

-rich