Re: Ross's TCPA paper
My use of "anonym" was a joke. Sorry if it was too deadpan. But my serious point was that if a pseudonym costs nothing to get or give up, it makes one effectively anonymous, if one so chooses. On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:37:28AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: > R. A. Hettinga wrote: > > At 12:06 AM +0100 on 7/1/02, Ben Laurie wrote: > >>No, a pseudonym can be linked to stuff (such as reputation, > >>publications, money). An anonym cannot. > > > > More to the point, there is no such "thing" as an "anonym", by definition. > > Hmm. So present the appropriate definition? -- Barney Wolff I never met a computer I didn't like.
Re: Ross's TCPA paper
anonym n : "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" when signed in a motel register. On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 09:55:58PM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > > More to the point, there is no such "thing" as an "anonym", by definition. -- Barney Wolff I never met a computer I didn't like.
Re: Ross's TCPA paper
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:03:33PM -0700, bear wrote:
> ...
> >I won't give up the right NOT to do business with anonymous customers,
> >or anyone else with whom I choose not to do business.
>
> A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed
> equally in the rightness of maintaining their "right" to not
> do business with blacks, chicanos, irish, and women. It'll
> pass as people wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately
> that won't be until after at least a decade of really vicious
> abuses of private data by merchants who believe in their
> god-given right to snoop on their customers.
The trouble I have with this is that I'm not only a consumer, I'm
also a merchant, selling my own professional services. And I just
will not, ever, perform services for an anonymous client. That's
my choice, and the gov't will take it away only when they can pry
it from my cold dead fingers. :) It's not that I hate my govt,
although I liked it a whole lot better before 1/20/01, but I will
not risk aiding and abetting criminality, even if I can pretend I
don't know I'm doing it.
Oh by the way, last time you visited your favorite kinky sex shop,
didn't you notice the surveillance camera in the corner? And didn't
you see the cashier at your ${house_of_worship} last ${sabbath}?
The right to anonymity seems to be a new one, not a traditional one
that we're about to lose. It may be a needed defense against the
ever-increasing ability to correlate data. All I'm really railing
against is the notion that just because I'm selling something I MUST
accept your anonymity.
> ...
> I don't see any way that DRM addresses the privacy concern
> of database linking. Especially since I expect database
> linking to be done using specialized software that doesn't
> have to get inspected by anybody with a motive to prevent it,
I certainly agree that DRM cannot protect privacy violation by a
user with access rights.
The whole issue of database correlation and anonymity was insightfully
explored by Heinlein in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in 1966.
--
Barney Wolff
I never met a computer I didn't like.
Re: Ross's TCPA paper
A pseudonym that I can give up at will and that can never afterwards be traced to me is equivalent to an anonym. I'm not suggesting that anonymity be outlawed, or that every merchant be required to reject anonymous or pseudonymous customers. All I'm suggesting is that "small" merchants MUST NOT be required to accept such customers. On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 08:38:29AM -0700, bear wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Barney Wolff wrote: > > >The trouble I have with this is that I'm not only a consumer, I'm > >also a merchant, selling my own professional services. And I just > >will not, ever, perform services for an anonymous client. That's > >my choice, and the gov't will take it away only when they can pry > >it from my cold dead fingers. :) > > Are you one of those who makes no distinction between anonymity > and pseudonymity? 'Cause I've been talking about pseudonymity, > and all your answers have been talking about anonymity. > > Bear -- Barney Wolff I never met a computer I didn't like.
Re: Ross's TCPA paper
Do you really mean that if I'm a business, you can force me to deal with you even though you refuse to supply your real name? Not acceptable. I won't give up the right NOT to do business with anonymous customers, or anyone else with whom I choose not to do business. The point about DRM, if I understand it, is that you could disclose your information to me for certain purposes without my being able to make use of it in ways you have not agreed to. At least in theory. But this debate appears largely to ignore differences in the number of bits involved. To violate your privacy I can always take a picture of my screen with an old camera, or just read it into a tape-recorder. I can't do that effectively with your new DVD without significant loss of quality. I don't see any technical solution that would enable Alice to reveal something to Bob that Bob could not then reveal to Eve. If that's true, then DRM must stand on its own dubious merits. On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:01:00AM -0700, bear wrote: > ... > > Privacy without DRM means being able to keep and > do whatever you want with the records your business > creates -- but not being able to force someone to > use their real name or linkable identity information > to do business with you if that person wants that > information to remain private. -- Barney Wolff I never met a computer I didn't like.
