From ld231782 Wed Nov 24 00:28:56 1993 Return-Path: Received: from lindsey.lance.colostate.edu by longs.lance.colostate.edu (5.65/lance.1.5) id AA27483; Wed, 24 Nov 93 00:28:39 -0700 Message-Id: <9311240728.AA27483@longs.lance.colostate.edu> To: cypherpunks@toad.com Cc: ld231782 Subject: Pitch Black Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 00:28:33 -0700 From: "L. Detweiler" X-Mts: smtp Someone, I forget who, recently had some words about pseudoanonymity here. I (once) deeply respected this person and hoped he could lead me from my madness with some reassuring words to comfort my anxieties about pseudospoofing and other deceptions by cypherpunk leadership -- someone who could indicate to me that there was concern over morality at the topmost level. I realize now that was a totally hopeless, impossible, futile expectation. The supposedly credible and reputable person, in response to my concerns about integrity, only further perpetuated the ad hominem slurs on my sanity and the attacks on my efforts at honesty. I have nothing but another few K of obfuscations and disinformation in favor of the Religion of Pseudospoofing, myself the Foremost Blasphemous Heretic, burned at the stake for my crimes. All I can do is attempt to stop the oozing blood and untwist the knife with some final feeble rasps. I am on my Cypherpunk deathbed, with tears streaming down my face at having had faith and trust in murderous betrayors. Upon whose hands is my blood? > * Electronic media are no different from paper media in making > it possible to use multiple names. Talk to Mark Twain, Dr. > Seuss, Alice Cooper, Poor Richard, Paul French, or Franklin W. > Dixon if you don't believe me. My experience is that references > among aliases in literary works are seen as `in-jokes', which only > the truly educated (in that particular realm, like science > fiction) can notice and chuckle over. The `entity' asserts that through all my efforts in delineating deceptive uses of identity, none exist. He equates the manipulation, propaganda, deception, disinformation, lies, betrayal, treachery, and brainwashing of tentacles as an `in-joke' that the `truly educated can notice and chuckle over'. Perhaps the same in-joke that truly enlightened gang rapists can perpetrate and chuckle over. > * Your examples imply that some of the people on cypherpunks > are using pseudonyms to deceive people: > > I think that you mistake an honest advocacy of the right to use > multiple names, for an advocacy of deceit. The main reason to > use multiple names is so that your "enemies" cannot correlate > your activities so that they can punish you in one part of your > life for things they don't like in some other part. I think we *both* have mistaken an advocacy of deceit for an honest advocacy of identity, privacy, and anonymity. I think many others are continuing to be subject to evil depravities unchecked by my wailing screeches. I think that the topmost leadership in this organization is not interested in the privacy of honest people, they are interested in protecting the privacy for criminals, like terrorists, drug dealers, tax evaders, pedophiles, spies, and traitors. I think they salivate and have orgasms over the possibility of manipulating honest people with their reputation embezzments, swindles, doublecrossing, other joyous crimes for which you are never held accountable. If you are a criminal, and your `activities' are `correlated' by Police `enemies' with depravity, God help us all that when the police grab your arm it is not a writhing severed tentacle, and that you are punished, and if you are not contrite you are punished without mercy, and that if you commit crimes like fraud against the trusting, `in one part of your life', another part of your life called your `freedom' is taken away, as you ponder your sorry predicament behind cold, unmoving steel bars. >David Chaum was the first person I noticed advocating the use of a >different pseudonym for transactions with each different organization. >(This was automatically done by a smart-card in his design.) Is he >part of the evil conspiracy too, or does he have a point worth >hearing? David Chaum does not advocate pseudoanonymity, and you are nothing but an evil liar for suggesting that he does. A Chaumian bank *knows* it is dealing with a pseudonym. It is OBVIOUSLY PSEUDOONYMOUS. Perhaps you would like to have Anonymous Contracts, so that when you BREAK ONE the OPPRESSIVE ORWELLIAN BANK, stupidly thinking it could TRACE YOU, is CHEATED BY A LIAR. Perhaps you WEEP WITH JOY at the thought of HONEST PEOPLE ENDLESSLY PAYING for the CRIMES OF SOCIAL PARASITES. If Chaum had any sense of decency he would STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM CYPHERPUNKS. Do not look for approval of your perverted Pseudospoofing Religion in your Revered Science Fiction Authors, your Eminent Cryptographic Researchers, your Pretty Good Privacy Programmer, because they are RESPECTABLE and LAW ABIDING and they have the sense to stop LIES and CORRUPTION and CONSPIRACIES. >How would *you* turn back the trend toward having every bit >of information about each person accessible to anyone who knows their >name, date of birth, fingerprint, license number, license plate, >vehicle ID number, passport number, genotype, bank account number, >retina print, credit card number, photo, or social security number? >Or do you think that this is a *good* thing? *you* wish to turn back the trend of Civilization that has moved toward accountability and reduced the ease of cheating honest people from their money. *you* advocate that *no* identification exist whatsoever, particularly the kind that prevents criminals from being prosecuted for their crimes. And you think that this is a *good* thing. >People are under no obligation to tell you whether the name you know >them by is their only name -- People are under every obligation to tell the truth in a civilized society. I choose to live in one. You can have your depraved barbarism. >By assuming >that "the right way for things to be" is for everyone to have a single >name, uniformly used, you have found a conspiracy where there was >simply a difference of opinion. By assuming that cypherpunk leadership did not necessarily have integrity, I have found a conspiracy where there is simply a vacuum of morality. >I think that your artificial distinction between "pseudonyms" and >"pseudospoofing" is the root of where your thinking took a wrong turn. I think your lies and self-deception and associations and defenses of perverts are the root of where *yours* took a wrong turn. I think, to the contrary, the `wrong turn in thinking' is the `Movement' that embraces the flag of Freedom of Speech, Privacy for the Masses, and the Cryptographic Revolution, only to throw it to the ground, trample, burn, and urinate upon it when no one is looking. The Cypherpunks succeed at nothing but hypocrisy and depravity. Led by a conspirational clique of squirmy apologists and slimy moral relativists mindraping the cybervirgins for vicious sport and the positive peer approval of fellow psychopaths. Your hideous criminal clock, your insidious time bomb, is tick-tick-ticking. Go to hell, Medusa