Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
Damn good point. Now that I think of it, all the classic examples of anonymous publication were really pseudonymous. (Publius, et al) They have different requirements. Votes and cash transactions and similar things require no history, no reputation. They're one-shot actions that should not be linkable to other actions. Pseudonyms are used everywhere in practice, because even my name is effectively a pseudonym unless you have some reason to try to link it to a meatspace human. This is why it's worth reading a book by Mark Twain, even though that wasn't his real name. And it would be worth reading those books even if we had no idea who had really written them. The reuptation and history of the author lets you decide whether you want to read the next of his books. The same is true of academic papers--you don't need to have met me or even to be able to find me, in order to read my papers and develop an opinion (hopefully a good one) about the quality of my work. And that determines whether you think the next paper is worth reading. --John
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
In many segments of the credit card insutry meatspace is also irrelevant. Anyone with a FICO greater than about 680 is almost certainly concered with maintaining their reputation with the current crop of TRWs of the world...collections efforts leverage the potential damage to the reputation, and only very gradually (if ever) fall back into actual meatspace threats (ie, docking your pay, etc...). And in many cases meatspace threats are forgone due to the collections effort (times probability of collection) yielding more than what would be recovered. So for many, it's effectively been psuedonyms for years, though their psuedonyms happen to correspond to their true names. -TD From: John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED],R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor] Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:01:51 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Damn good point. Now that I think of it, all the classic examples of anonymous publication were really pseudonymous. (Publius, et al) They have different requirements. Votes and cash transactions and similar things require no history, no reputation. They're one-shot actions that should not be linkable to other actions. Pseudonyms are used everywhere in practice, because even my name is effectively a pseudonym unless you have some reason to try to link it to a meatspace human. This is why it's worth reading a book by Mark Twain, even though that wasn't his real name. And it would be worth reading those books even if we had no idea who had really written them. The reuptation and history of the author lets you decide whether you want to read the next of his books. The same is true of academic papers--you don't need to have met me or even to be able to find me, in order to read my papers and develop an opinion (hopefully a good one) about the quality of my work. And that determines whether you think the next paper is worth reading. --John
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
Speaking of pseudonymity... At 12:53 PM -0400 9/27/05, Somebody wrote: Argh! Not this again! Yes, again, and I'll keep repeating it until you get it. :-). No, anonymity is don't know who sent it. For some definitions of who. To paraphrase a famous sink-washing president, it depends on who you mean by who. :-) Examples are anonymizing remailers which give all incoming users the same outgoing name, or the Anonymous Coward comments in /. (Disregard for now details such as the /. admins being able to link an AC comment to an IP address.) Fine. Ignore the output thereof as noise, it's probably safe to do so. Though concordance programs are your friends. Behavior is biometric, after all. The words you use give you away, and can be filtered accordingly. Ask someone named Detweiller about that. Or, for that matter, Kaczynski. Or your trading patterns in market. Just like your fist, in telegraphy. Perfect pseudonymity is can't tie it to meatspace. See who, above. Since we haven't quite gotten AI down just yet, that's good enough for me, though I expect, like Genghis, and not True Names, we'll figure out that intelligence is an emergent property of *active* physical manifestation, and not a giant pile of data. Different communications from the same sender can be tied to each other. Examples include most of the free email services, and digitally signing a message sent through an anonymizer. Yup. That's what I mean by reputation, if I take your meaning right. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
Quoting R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 8:43 AM -0700 9/27/05, James A. Donald wrote: In the long run, reliable pseudonymity will prove more valuable than reliable anonymity. Amen. And, at the extreme end of the curve, perfect psedudonymity *is* perfect anonymity. Character. I wouldn't buy anything from a man with no character if he offered me all the bonds in Christendom. -- J. Pierpont Morgan, Testimony to Congress, 1913. Reputation is *everything* folks. Damn good point. Now that I think of it, all the classic examples of anonymous publication were really pseudonymous. (Publius, et al) -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
-- From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] A very subtle attack, perhaps? If I were so-and-so, I consider it a real coup to stop the kinds of legitimate Wikipedia entries that might be made from Tor users. And if this is the case, you can bet that there are other obvious targets that have been hammered through Tor. In the long run, reliable pseudonymity will prove more valuable than reliable anonymity. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wE/La87xersBx39sShMCS6TkdqJr6DSYslVdXZkf 4GY6BRCS/b8OBic0E/U36X+dc1UIs2oNAkWyXXCQB
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
Quoting Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Forwarded message from Arrakis Tor [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This is a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get Wikipedia to let Tor get through. I completely fail to comprehend why Tor server operators consistently refuse to take responsibility for their crazed users. On one hand, this shows a deep misunderstanding of Tor and its purposes. On the other, I remain disappointed in the number of vandals that take advantage of Tor and other anonymizing services. On the gripping hand, perhaps the Wiki philosophy is flawed. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
- Forwarded message from Arrakis Tor [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Arrakis Tor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:48:22 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wikipedia Tor Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get Wikipedia to let Tor get through. Anyone with a port 80 can vandalize your website. Yes, but we notice that we can control a significant amount of vandalism by blocking ip numbers which have proven to be particularly problematic. TOR servers are among the absolute worst. And TOR operators don't seem to care. We go to the trouble to block all the file sharing clients, and often abused ports and protocols like IRC. Many of us typically block ports which do not have any legitimate reason for being used. If all it take is a port 80 to vandalize the wikipedia, of which port 80 is a public service, then there is no point in discriminating against Tor users since every IP is an equal opportunity offender. Equal *opportunity*, but we have very strong empirical evidence here. TOR ip numbers are the worst offenders that we have seen. People use TOR specifically to hide their identity, specifically to vandalize wikipedia. You say that tor is quite irresponsibly managed. How would you propose we manage tor servers differently? Ban users who vandalize wikipedia. That'd be a start. Rate limit edits at Wikipedia, that'd be good. Write an extension to your software which would help us to distinguish between trusted and newbie Tor clients. I completely fail to comprehend why Tor server operators consistently refuse to take responsibility for their crazed users. - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
What's the problem here? The Wikipedia guy sees lots of garbage coming out
of IP address set {X} so he blocks said address set. Somewhat regrettable
but no suprise, is it?
On the other hand, doesn't it seem a little -odd- that the Tor network is
already being used in this way? Granted, even I the great Tyler Durden was
able to get a Tor client up-and-running, but I find it suspicious that this
early wave of Tor users also happen to have a high % of vandals...something
stinks.
A very subtle attack, perhaps? If I were so-and-so, I consider it a real
coup to stop the kinds of legitimate Wikipedia entries that might be made
from Tor users. And if this is the case, you can bet that there are other
obvious targets that have been hammered through Tor.
In other words, someone said, Two can play at this game.
-TD
From: Roy M. Silvernail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wikipedia Tor]
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:02:09 -0400
Quoting Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Forwarded message from Arrakis Tor [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
This is a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get
Wikipedia to let Tor get through.
I completely fail to comprehend why Tor server operators consistently
refuse to take responsibility for their crazed users.
On one hand, this shows a deep misunderstanding of Tor and its purposes. On
the
other, I remain disappointed in the number of vandals that take advantage
of
Tor and other anonymizing services. On the gripping hand, perhaps the Wiki
philosophy is flawed.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not
It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT
SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss
http://www.rant-central.com
