I wouldn't say that. Anonymity doesn't necessarily mean untraceable
to any previous communications. It just means untraceable to any
Anonymous pseudonyms are people in their own right. They can be
trusted, hated, and mocked, just like any other real person.
My view is that anonymous pseudonyms are *required*, not just
desirable, primarily for privacy protection in a networked world.
I had some more to say in a dist-obj post recently;
>> and anyone who has stumbled across an Internet flamewar has gotten hip
>> to the perils of anonymity. It's far easier to call people
>> who disagree with you pigfuckers if you don't have to say it
>> to their faces. Cypherpunks say that you can deal with this
>> problem by creating permanent online identities that can be
>> banished from cyberspace communities if they act up, but the
>> fact remains that the creation of online culture is more
>> complicated than any of the utopianist manifesto writers
>> first thought.
I agree, but having a pseudonym chastisted or banished is a
pretty bad thing. If you enter a flamewar, and want to wave
around some credentials to back up your opinions, you're out
of luck; credentials are bestowed to physical people. Everything
you are is defined only by the interactions you've had as that
pseudonym. So you better be damned careful with it; creating
a new identity is easy, but making your way into other people's
webs-of-trust is difficult.
-- Mark Baker, Ottawa Ontario CANADA. Java, CORBA, OpenDoc, Beans email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.iosphere.net/~markb
Will distribute business objects for food.