Re: Crypto++, Cpunk Icons, list noise

[anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com]

On Sat, 4 Nov 1995 don@cs.byu.edu wrote:

> An anonymous complainer writes:
> 
> >Well, Perry, my opinion is that there is far too much noise on this list 
> >as it is.  I have already seen my words drowned out by bellyaching over 
> >next to nothing.
> 
> POT-KETTLE-BLACK.
> 
> Also, since nothing you've written (in your commentary, as opposed to
> anonymous announcements or releases that most people use anonymity for
> here) indicates that you're using anonymity for any particular reason,

Hmmm, I'm not sure that anyone has an inherent right to question WHY a
person seeks moments of anonymity or privacy.  I don't believe that
anyone should be placed on the defensive, for *choosing* to maintain
some semblance of a personal life, or wishing to maintain some
illusions that they might still have some shred of personal privacy
left.  Hopefully, we can still leave a man with his dignity.

I should not have to defend my right to present my ideas as I believe
are appropriate to the circumstances.  My choice to present the idea,
that an entire economic sector needs to carefully reevaluate their
strategic choices, and their discovered hidden security attitudes -- will 
stand or fall strictly on its merits.  The debate is not advanced in any 
way by attaching a reputation to the question.

Like any other person, I have my skeletons, and I have my regrets.  I 
certainly have unfinished, unresolved, issues that I need to tend to.  In 
that sense, I am no different than any other man.  I also realize that 
ultimately, I'll have to come forward from behind the veil of secrecy 
which is provided to me.  

This I will do, after I have reconciled my own security considerations.

Please allow me the boundary and dignity to choose when, where, and in 
what form I choose to reveal myself.  That inherent right, should be
extended to any man, and no man should be called to account for his 
desire to maintain his personal privacy, no matter how arbitrary his
reasons.

Especially when he comes forward to challenge Goliath.

> please stop so people can killfile you. Or send it from a nym at
> alpha.c2.org. I mean, the NSA has your real name anyway, what's the
> point... 

At this time, I don't feel that a bi-directional private communications
channel is needed.  I have no need for a "nym".  People who need to
contact me, can.  People who would like to know a bit about me, can. 
Netscape has my address.  So does AT&T.  And reputations aren't pertinent. 

(Although, I will say, that the disappearing here-again, gone again,
internet draft at ds.internic.net is simply childish, and I'm certain that
it was just routine "file maintenance" that caused the flicker.)

The ball isn't in my court, it's in theirs.

Netscape and AT&T are some of the primary parties who will have to take
the hit for the fiasco that they find themselves in.  For now, I'll leave
my communication channels with them open, rather than letting my mail
queue fill more than it already has.  Email that is already overqueued. 
 
I don't really envy the two companies' position.  No one expects to find
as significant a security flaw as my anonymous email to this list detailed
at this stage of code Burn-In, and I don't take any pleasure in facing the
unenviable task of informing ANY party that a Trojan Horse has been
engineered into the fabric of an existing globally installed code base. 

No one does.

And as the messenger, I (hope) I don't have anything to fear, from the NSA
or any other foreign group that would seek to pursue its own agenda within
the borders of sovereign Canada.  I really don't think that the NSA is
"evil incarnate", as some list subscribers do.  They have their
intelligence and know how to use it.  Usually, they use it prudently. 

If I did have any worries about the NSA, then I might take some elementary
precautions.  I certainly wouldn't have my terminal screen pointing
towards the twelve odd feet of open glazing that sits behind me, as I
currently do. 

Privacy can't simply be reduced to "a desire to hide from the NSA", just
as security isn't something which is simply provided by licensing from
RSA. 

Look to the message rather than the messenger.



Alice de 'nonymous ...

                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.