[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: on anonymity, identity, reputation, and spoofing
> From: "L. Detweiler" <[email protected]>
> On the other hand, I think there is an implicit assumption by virtually
> everyone here that addresses on public posts and private email that are
> not specifically anonymous represent *unique* people.
[...]
> 1) list members are allowed *one* anonymous identity if any. They are
> required to associate some name with all anonymous posts via that identity.
> 2) *no one* is allowed multiple `real' identities and in fact any
> violation of this is considered an extremely serious breach of netiquette & honesty.
[...]
> deep end. The practice amounts to `spoofing' and any patriotic
> cypherpunk with some integrity ought to recognize that immediately and
[...]
> crime against cypherpunk ideology.
[...]
It's interesting to see the different mental models that people hold
of the net. To me, this equation that one truename means one persona
is not realistic or reasonable. People spawn personas (-ae?) for
many reasons, including psychological exploration, sociological
experiments, sexual thrills, or just for practice at maintaining
personas. I know of several instances in which one person patted
himself on the back circularly, or took half a dozen sides in a
discussion -- and can surmise about others. This sort of thing may
well happen routinely, particularly in the low-rent areas of Altnet,
where participation is a kind of game.
What's more, the privacy technology `we' espouse can only promote
this. There is no way to maintain this one-to-one equation when
working with pseudonyms, when the human "dongle on the keyboard" is no
longer a viable identifier. I think the Usenet motto, "Live with it",
applies.
Eli [email protected]