Re: the Joy of Pseudospoofing

[jim@bilbo.suite.com (Jim Miller)]

I just joined this mailing list a couple of days ago (you may remember my  
clue-less subscribe request that I broadcast to the list).  Anyways, I expected  
to lurk for a while, get a feel for the types of conversations that appear, and  
then occasionally post something.  However, I simply must comment on "the Joy  
of Pseudospoofing".

I'll go through it in steps.


> Not a single person has said they understand what I have
> been talking about in describing the evils of
> pseudospoofing.
> 


I understand what you're talking about and I'm just a newbie.  I would hazard a  
guess that almost everybody on the list understands what you're talking about.   
The thing is,  most people on the list probably don't find "pseudospoofing" to  
be an evil menace.

I generally don't care who authors a message.  I care about the *content* of  
the message.  If the content of the message is interesting, I save it.  It's  
boring, I delete it.  I often don't even look at who sent it.

As a member of a mailing list, I accept the fact that message headers can be  
forged or that people can use multiple nyms for nefarious purposes.  It simply  
doesn't bother me.  There will always be jerks.

I joined this list to acquire a good understanding of cryptographic technology  
and how it might affect the world.  The discussions of the technology will  
stand on their own.  The ideas will either be good ideas, bogus ideas, or  
require further study.  I don't think it is possible for people to use multiple  
nyms to somehow "corrupt" the discussion of the technology.

However, people could use multiple nyms to bias the discussions of the social  
effects of widespread cryptography.  So what.  I have long since abandoned  
using majority opinion as a tool for forming my own opinions.  I form new  
opinions based on the quality of the debates, not the quantity of posts.


> .....She never posts uncharacteristically under JR,
> such as talking about some other arbitrary subject she's
> knowledgeable on but would be a bit surprising if JR said
> anything about it.
> 

> Okay, let's stop and take note of this. Is any `deception'
> going on here? Absolutely. Should this be permitted? 


I agree that 'deception' is taking place.  Should this be permitted?  To even  
ask this question show that you haven't fully grasped the implications of the  
technology.


> But the problem with all this is that in a regular social
> setting, there are some very ancient, venerable, and
> sophisticated rules involving propriety and courtesy
> of communication that break down dangerously on any
> online `forum' when a single person has multiple
> pseudonyms, and these `subversive uses' are what I will
> expand on. 

> 


This paragraph says it all.  Many of the rules and assumptions that were  
developed for regular social settings (e.g. face-to-face) are not valid for the  
online experience.  This is something you apparently need to come to terms  
with.


> The final and most important aspect of group
> communication psychology is that of *consensus* and
> *peer pressure*. This can be an extraordinarily
> powerful force. Many people are `lurkers' and are most
> influenced by what they perceive to be other's opinion on
> various subjects, or the general group feelings as
> gauged through multiple postings. They are unlikely to
> question what they read. 

> 


What can I say?  I guess I have a higher opinion of the people lurking on this  
list than does L. Detweiler.  To me, this is his strawman:

  *People are gullible and we need to protect them!*


> This leads directly into the ego case. What about people
> who are simply out to assuage their own ego? Suppose
> Medusa wishes to do this. She could `stage' very clever
> situations where jr@netcom.com says `I heard that
> Medusa knows a lot about industrial sabotage, and am
> always fascinated by her posts.' Medusa pops up a few
> messages later under snake@netcom.com and says `Thanks
> Jim, I really respect your knowledge of number theory
> too, and I hope you can provide some more updates on it' and
> launches into an amazingly relevant post, considering
> what Jim asked about.
> 

> So, cypherpunks, what do you think of that? This strikes
> me as rather perverted. 

>

So what's wrong with being perverted?  By the way, who defines perversion these  
days anyways?  THEM, no doubt.



> Finally, let's look at how peer pressure can be
> influenced by these pseudonymous postings of Medusa's.
> Obviously, she has created the illusion of support or
> rejection of something that is not consistent with
> reality. It is a deception. People may have lowered or
> raised their opinion of something merely because they
> saw multiple posts criticizing the same thing, when they
> all came ultimately from Medusa. 

> 


Here we go again with the "multiple posts" mechanism for forming opinions.  



> These fantasies would totally pollute and poison any
> trust in an online community. It could be compared to
> brainwashing.
>

Well, perhaps trust is not something that carries over easily to the online  
community.  Ever think of that?  Why do you continue to expect online social  
settings to exactly parallel face-to-face social settings?  They are two  
different types of fruit.  They are not directly comparable.


> Note that in all these cases, if any of this was going on in
> `real world meetings' it would be considered shocking
> depravity.
> 


I don't like baseball because no one ever scores a touchdown.


> The very final possibility of pseudospoofing I would
> like to describe , perhaps the most treacherous and evil,
> is the following. Suppose Medusa not only had no ethics
> and morality, but was actually Satan in disguise.
> 


<sigh>

> ``Death is the ultimate form of censorship.'' (author unknown)
> 

> Jim Riverman
> Software Engineer
> jr@netcom.com
> (415) 941-4782 [work]
> 



Oh my god!  It's really happening!!!!!  <yawn>


Jim Miller
Software Engineer
jim@suite.com
(at work)