Re: The persistance of reputation

[Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>]

Robert Hettinga wrote:
> 
> At 9:47 pm -0500 11/14/96, Rich Graves wrote:

[Lots deleted; I agree that I was unwittingly proving some of your 
points with some of mine, thanks for the lesson...]

> >Pseudonymity is only perfect where artificial boundaries such as 
> >respect for netiquette are erected. If someone really wanted to track 
> >you down, they could either find you, or "out" you as a pseudonym 
> >"afraid to use your own name." Both can be damaging (to your 
> >reputation or otherwise). In order to put your life on the line for 
> >something, you need a life story.
> 
> Okay. Then it should be trivial for you to tell me who "Pr0duct
> Cypher"(sp?) is...

Sure. I'll give you the answer in email; no need to bother the whole 
list.

But what kind of reputation does Pr0duct Cypher have, really? What has 
Pr0duct Cypher done or said that you cannot independently verify? In 
what sense do you "trust" Pr0duct Cypher? What you're trusting is 
source code, which is self-certifying. If Pr0duct Cypher tried to tell 
you about events in history or in a foreign country, or about technical 
subjects in which you had no personal competence, would you trust the 
information? Why should people who know nothing about crypto code trust 
Pr0duct Cypher's tools? (In reality the answer is: they don't. They buy 
from less technically adept companies that they can sue if things go 
wrong.)

Among specialists, collegial discussion works for establishing 
reputation. But where you need to put faith in someone or something that 
you cannot independently verify, real personal accountability is still 
useful. Why do you trust your doctor? Would you buy food or water (or a 
gun) from an anonymous source with no verifiable meatspace presence? 

-rich