Re: your mail

[nobody@alumni.cco.caltech.edu]

I do sympathize with L. Detweiler's concern about multiple identities.
Human nature being what it is, if a series of posts appears quickly taking
one view, people who disagree may think, well, I guess I'm in the minority
on this, I won't make a stink about it.  That's just part of the herd
instinct, which, IMO, we all share.  The lesson is that it is even more
important on the net not to be afraid to take unpopular stands.  You may
find that there are more people who agree with you than you thought.

In particular, although I think Detweiler's posts could be tightened
up considerably, and I don't agree with his solutions in detail, I can
understand his paranoia, having shared it from time to time.

There are some possible technological solutions to some of the issues
raised.  Chaum, in his 1985 CACM paper, describes how "credentials" can
be exchanged among various pseudonyms a person may have.  A credential
can basically be any statement by a 3rd party about a person.  It could
be a statement by a college that he had a certain degree.  It could be
a statement by a government that he had a driver's license.  It could be
a statement by a business that he was an agent for that business.

The credential would be given to the person, then Chaum shows how it
could be re-blinded and shown under other pseudonyms.  The credential
can be verified, but it can't be linked to the True Name or other pseudonyms
of the holder.

We could think about using something like this for reputations.  Take
Nick's question about how a new pseudonym could get through the filters.
Maybe the person posts under his real name for a while, then some respected
person is willing to give him a "valued poster" credential.  He can
re-blind this credential and submit it with posts he starts to make under
his pseudonym.  People will know that the pseudonymous poster is at least
potentially capable of making sense, and give his words some weight.  But
there will be no connection to his True Name.

(Of course, this could lead occasionally to a Dr. Jekyll who makes
sensible and weighty posts under his own name, while under his Mr. Hyde
pseudonym he rants and raves.  But hopefully this would not happen too
often.)

Other credentials could be related to some of the other points Detweiler
raised, such as list membership > some number of months.  The point would
be that these credentials are voluntary, used to get past people's filters,
and that they retain poster anonymity while giving readers useful information
about the poster.

It's ironic that L. Detweiler, who has played a major part in spreading
awareness of Cypherpunks technology through his widely read Privacy and
Anonymity FAQ, is suggesting that people should be limited in their
use of this technology.  Still, the concerns he raises are going to be
shared by many people, and we should try to be ready with technological
solutions that are consistent with privacy protection.

Hal Finney
hfinney@shell.portal.com