Re: Thought question: privacy vs. anomnity vs. trying-to-hide

[Charlie Comsec <comsec@redneck.efga.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous <nobody@anon.olymp.org> wrote:

> >This is not applicable.  My argument is that I would not 
> >trust _information_ as being true from a source which 
> >cannot be verified, not an _argument_.
> 
> What's the difference?  If an argument is informative, it's information.  This
> is just semantics.  If you replace the word "argument" with the word
> "information" in the fallacy statement, the truth of the statement is
> unaffected.  In any case, anonymity of the source doesn't  render information
> incapable of being verified, it only keeps the recipient at arm's length from
> the informer.  If you can't verify the information, you shouldn't trust it even
> if it's signed with a "real name".

Agreed.  Unless you have independently verified that the person
named in the post's From:  line is credible, and you have further
verified that the person so named actually wrote the post, then a
post which has something resembling a "real" name in the return
address is no more credible than one which does not.  In fact,
posting with a "real name" may actually detract from one's
credibility if it appeals to negative prejudices by revealing one's
gender, ethnicity, etc.

What really gets comical is to read flames about how anonymous posts
are not reliable because the poster is "hiding behind a remailer",
and then to check and see that the only identification for the
author of that flame is some cutesy screen name at AOL!

Do people really take their ideas seriously?  Even with what
purports to be a "real name" attached to a post, they're being
posted with far less identifying documentation than would be
required to cash a $10 check at the local liquor store.  How many
store owners would cash your personal check merely because you wrote
what purported to be your name and e-mail address on it?

> >Let me clarify.  I _like_ anonyminity and have used it myself
> >on several occasions when I feared repercussions for what I
> >had to say.  During those instances I presented arguments
> >AND information, but the information was independently 
> >verifiable.
> 
> If the information was "independently verifiable", that was so even
> though you were anonymous.  The veracity of what you wrote was
> therefore independent of your "identity".  As to your "arguments"
> which were not "information" (an impossibility), if the argument
> itself fails to convince me, lending your name to it isn't going to
> change that, no matter who you are.  And if the argument is
> convincing, knowing your real name adds nothing for me; not knowing
> your real name detracts nothing.

That's a long way of saying that ideas have a life of their own,
independent of who said them.  The only exception I'd make is
someone claiming to have some special expertise about a subject.  If
you tell me that I should believe you because you spent 10 years
somewhere doing something that would give you insight, then you
WOULD need to identify yourself in order to verify your credentials.

> How do you know any name you see on Usenet is a "real" name?  You've made the
> same mistake made by the writer of
> http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/no-fallacy.html, which is to confuse
> "consistency" on the informant's part with "identity", leading to "trust" on
> your part.  Lets say Francois Dufresne posts, in French, over the course of a
> year, information about Paris which you find to be reliable without fail.  You
> can take what he says to the (left) bank.  And then you learn it was all posted
> by a teenaged Chinese girl named Wang Xiao Ding who has never left Bei Jing. 
> You were utterly deceived about the "true identity" of Francois, but is the
> information she posted now any less reliable?  Identity is ultimately a
> construct of YOUR imagination, it's not something that people wear as turtles
> wear their shells.  This is truer on Usenet than anywhere.

99% of us don't personally know the people whose posts we read on
Usenet, even those we read and find credible.  And a surprising
number of posts by credible people are not PGP signed, so even if
the last 100 posts that were purportedly "from" that person proved
to be credible, the next one may well be a forgery.

The subject you're alluding to is that of persistent identities.
It almost requires the use of something virtually fool-proof, such
as PGP signatures.  The identity then becomes the KEY that has
signed a series of messages, not the name attached to them.  You can
do that either in conjunction with a revealed name, or via a
pseudonym.  Attaching an e-mail address to a usenet post may be
useful in facilitating private communication with the author, but
otherwise adds virtually nothing to the post, other than to make it
killfileable.

The other false notion put forth is that of "accountability".  IOW,
you are presumed (by some) to be more credible if you put an e-mail
account at risk to "back up your words".  I find that fallacious,
because we all know a number of net.kooks who post all sorts of
bizarre things and still manage to keep their accounts.  If I swear
by the names of 100 deities that 2+2=5, am I in danger of losing my
account for posting lies?  Would my ISP even care, as long as I paid
my bill each month?  OTOH, if I said that 2+2=4, and by so doing
offended someone that could put the right kind of pressure on my ISP
to silence me, how long do you think I would keep that account?

> >When it comes down to it, I will take the assertions or claims
> >of person 'A' over person 'B' if person 'A' uses their real
> >name and all other things are equal.  Reasoning skills ARE
> >independent of identity and an argument's validity doesn't
> >require it.
> >
> >-- 
> >     Peter F Curran
> >     Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> 
> If you are able to MAKE the determination that "all other things are equal", it
> follows that person 'B's lack of a "real name" has caused no confusion, much
> less harm.  To choose against him can only be due to prejudice on your part. 
> That's fine.  A personal prejudice of my own is against people who follow their
> "real names" with stuff like "Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute".  Unless
> they're speaking for the institution, why do they do that?  To lend weight to
> their words?  If I'm not convinced by the argument, I'm not likely to be swayed
> by the name of a college tacked onto a signature.  All other things being
> equal, I'm more likely to take seriously the assertions of an anonymous writer
> than those of a writer who doesn't think it enough to merely *sign* his name,
> but feels the need to decorate it with a college pennant.

Agreed.  It tends to lend unwarranted credibility without ever
asserting it.  Right, RPI.  Even if it's true, and I have no reason
to doubt it, is the author a professor, student, or janitor?  Is the
author's field of expertise at RPI relevant to the subject at hand?
Ultimately, credibility in the academic world comes through the
process of peer review, which is also what usenet is about.  IOW, if
you can prove it to academia, then you should be able to do the same
to your usenet readers.

- --
Charlie Comsec <comsec@redneck.efga.org>
Finger for PGP key


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNzT6wAbp0h8ZvosNAQH3yQf+InYJebAUrT0ff3xrPTQ5/HAbvftyt1iU
9HKBFSAMzRfk5NNSsSkQ0FTbP7+nVnZBJa8BQSpSxVeaMZDcaTEQWbNRMz/987zn
5wWPajRBCHm2v6oJFoqrwgWwn2sLsNxglXsIZ62InOH9PtHcy825H++89iotkS+T
zyJWEkZ0CxkBNtuDrCfDjCxYF0JR6fo1anSzXU6MrcXet7kSRQzQEC9dWFAy5OnG
fwya9VMUNfF6pj5uu18l/Sh9SYmcPij7fRQqfJ4a0O2OLDRWEja0jogOZdLfpsx9
uD017TQovISn+GmVR/8FTpkrDoOtc/MOy0HBUYDXehP7UWv/LUiLkQ==
=NMnw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----