Re: Voluntary Disclosure of True Names

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> 
> TCM
> >>I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter
> >>of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says,
> >>"I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
> >
> >But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that
> >the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of
> >_contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in
> >sticking its nose into.
> 

[...]

> I have seen it repeated here often that somehow anonymity is some kind
> of a "right" that one should have in all kinds of different & important
> transactions, not merely on "cyberspace debate societies". I see
> here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to
> enforce identity in their own transactions are somehow implementing
> a corrupt, orwellian system. it sounded to me like that was all
> Dyson was advocating.

"I have seen it repeated here often that somehow compelled identity is
some kind of a 'right' that one should have in all kinds of different &
important transaction, not merely on 'cyberspace debate societies.'  I see
here frequently the implication that *private*entities* that want to
enforce compelled identity in their own transactions are somehow
implementing a corrupt, orwellian system."

(That put it into prespective for you "Vlad?")

> "this is all we really want". what about situations
> where the government requires you to give a physical identity for
> some kind of a license etc? do you think there are no such valid
> situations?

You are twisting, "Vlad."  

If you really think that the issue is one of what specific times
government can demand anonymous transactions you overestimate the role of
government as well as the ability to demand such transactions on a per
situation rather than "as a whole" basis.

For example.  A friend of mine has never had a social security number or a
drivers license with his real name on it.  He has effectively had nothing
but anonymous transactions with anyone who thought that by asking him for
a SSN or driver's license they were getting identity credentials.  His
basis is philsophical, not criminal.  I might add that he lives quite
normally, works for a big mainstream company, and pays taxes.  Every once
in a while he switches his credentials around a bit to avoid paper
trailing.

Please, if you can, point out the harm he is inflicting.

You can't.  There is none.  The harm you can identify is the classic "but
it might be used for... [insert nastiness in vogue this week here]"

> is there any role for a government whatsoever in 
> CryptoAnarchist Utopia and if so, is there any situation in which
> demanding physical identity is reasonable?

It is reasonable for any private parties to refuse to do business with or
otherwise associate with parties who refuse to divulge their identity.
Government in a CryptoAnarchist Utopia will have a very hard time doing
business with anyone if they make this a requirement I think.
 
> >No, Dyson said "Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some
> >form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are
> >generally required for a wiretap."
> >
> >This implies a role for government, and concomitant restrictions on related
> >anonymity technologies, to provide traceability. So much for mutual
> >agreement between sender and recipient.
> 
> it's clear Dyson hasn't totally thought out her position on anonymity. 
> imho you are reading too much into her existing positions. because of your
> government paranoia, you assume that when someone says they want
> traceability, they are implying they want the government to
> enforce it in all situations. 

Tell me "Vlad," if government won't, who will?
I submit that it is impossible to enforce compelled identity other than
through government.  I also submit that to do it you have to create a
registration process for all mediums.  Pay phones, ISPs, private leaflets,
cash... etc... etc.

So long as cash and payphones exist, (or so long as cash and pre-paid
cellular exists) so will anonymous transactions.

Again, the question is, what are you going to do to prevent, e.g., me,
"Black Unicorn" from publishing as I do now?

> >(I have nothing against senders and recipients agreeing to use the services
> >of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about
> >the U.S. Government being this third party, paid for by tax money, but so
> >long as it is not required, it's a minor concern to me.
> 
> that's what something like what Dyson has been referring to would suggest
> to me. that is, that's exactly the system she sounded like she was
> loosely advocating.

Crap.  Such a system exists today.  It's called the "filter."

If you don't want to transact with anonymous people, then IGNORE them.
Why impose compelled disclosure on everyone?
 
[Yadda Yadda about Copyright and own-back-patting about "subtlies" that
others will miss deleted.]

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li