Detweiler's motivations

[Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>]

From: NetSurfer <jdwilson@gold.chem.hawaii.edu>
> The author is Gordon
> McLachlan (mclachlan@cardinal.com), and the article appeared in the
> "Crosswired" column of May 1994 Vol. 5 No. 5 Lan Computing.
> [...]
> First of all, we need a seven-day waiting period and a thorough background
> check before anyone can get issued a user-ID.  This would give system
> administrators time to find out if a user is a loon, or has been bounced
> off of other systems for misbehaving.  To support this effort, congress
> should establish a national database to keep track of network offenders.  
> 
> A quick scan of almost any mailing list or newsgroup will reveal sociopaths
> who should have their access priviledges revoked.  And we should never
> forget that network access is a priviledge and not a right.  Its ironic to
> me that we license people to drive cars, but all you need to get on the
> information superhighway is a MODEM.  

This kind of suggestion, although made in jest, provides a clue to what
Detweiler is trying to do, IMO.  (These are just my speculations, and perhaps
they are obvious to others, but I haven't seen these specific points made
here.)

He posts innumerable messages, alternating between reasonable-sounding
arguments and insane gibbering.  He replies to himself, posting other people's
words as if they were his own.  He calls for accountability and decries the
use of pseudonyms while being one of the most prominent users and abusers
of this technology.

Some have concluded that Detweiler actually is insane, but I don't think
so.  I suspect that he is acting on a carefully calculated program designed
to discredit the kinds of technologies we support.  By posting trash to
the newsgroups under a pseudonym, and making clear that it is just a psuedo-
nym, he hopes to undermine tolerance for this method of using the net.  He
has largely ruined talk.politics.crypto as a forum for serious discussion of
the kinds of social changes which might be brought about by strong crypto-
graphy.  This kind of abuse will undoubtedly lead to complaints against his
service provider, as well as demands to know his true identity.

Detweiler also seeks to reveal hypocrisy on the part of supporters of
anonymity, as when I posted logs of his "Death to Blacknet" post bombs
to dozens of Usenet groups, breaking his anonymity.  He is saying that
anonymity is so bad that even its supporters will seek to destroy it
when provoked.  In this way he seeks to further discredit CP goals.

His bizarre practice of posting replies to his own messages, criticizing
his own words in scathing tones (apparently basing these messages on the
private email he receives) is designed to show that lack of clear ident-
ification of message sources is confusing.  This further advances his argu-
ment that psuedonymity is bad and that clear identification of identities
will be necessary for effective communication.

So, having failed to persuade by his words, Detweiler is trying to demon-
strate his points by example.  By taking all that he hates and becoming the
embodiment of it, to an exagerrated degree, he is trying to show that
anonymity is dangerous, confusing, and a barrier to communication.  In this
light, his behavior is perfectly rational.

Hal