The attached note is being circulated. It's interesting in its own
right, of course, but it's also interesting because it's allegedly
written by Robert Bork, who is presumably the same person who was once
nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Allegedly written by Rpobert Bork?" Yes, if the message had been
signed with PEM, RIPEM or PGP, we'd have greater assurance that it was
written by him and not someone else.
"Presumably the same person who once nominated to the U.S. Supreme
Court?" This is entirely different question. What evidence would or
should provide that assurance? His mail address says
borkr(_at_)frb(_dot_)gov(_dot_)
A litting digging reveals this is the Federal Reserve Board, a part of
the U.S. central bank hierarchy. The Bork who was well known as a
U.S. Supreme Court nominee is a law professor at a well known
university. (Yale, I believe). It is not at all clear to me that
this is necessarily the same Robert Bork -- I have no idea what
nominee's Bork's middle initial is -- nor does it make any obvious
sense that he'd have a relationship with the U.S. Federal Reserve
Board.
The question I pose to you all, and most particularly those who feel
it's essential to have a name hierarchy that provides more descriptive
information about a signator, is how do we expect PEM certificates to
help us identify someone in circumstances like this? Surely this is a
case in which the importance of the message depends in part on who
said it, and the identification of "who" is grounded in acts and
events outside the Internet. Do we expect his distinguished name (DN)
to tell us he's a Yale law professor? A resident of New Haven? A
consultant to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board? The prior nominee to
the U.S. Supreme Court?
The most obvious analogy that comes to mind is a letters to the editor
column in a newspaper or magazine. The editor will often add a
comment after the letter writer's name mentioning a pertinent fact,
indicating either bias or status. However, I've noticed that such
explanations are relatively infrequent. I'm not an expert on
editorial policies, but I suspect if Mr. Barlow's article had appeared
in the New Yorker and Mr. Bork's response had been written as a letter
to the editor, there would *not* have been any explanatory note,
leaving the readers to presume it's the same Robert Bork. Continuing
my speculations, I presume the New Yorker would have intended the
reader to draw that conclusion and would have included a note only if
this were a different Robert Bork.
Where does this leave us? Well, to me it means that part of
establishing a person's identity is going to fall outside of whatever
naming and identification system we put together in the short run.
Longer distinguished names, whether tied to organizations or to
residence addresses, may help a lot, but they can't do the whole job.
Ultimately, the information needed to completely identify someone is
an open and unbounded set.
Steve
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Steve Crocker | Voice: 301-854-6889 |
| Trusted Information Systems | FAX: 301-854-5363 |
| 3060 Washington Road (Route 97) |-------------------------------|
| Glenwood, MD 21738 | Internet: crocker(_at_)tis(_dot_)com
|
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 21:45:04 -0500
From: John Perry Barlow <barlow(_at_)eff(_dot_)org>
Folks,
I haven't been passing on the huge pile of messages I've been getting in
support of the Clipper piece, knowing how much e-mail you are wrestling
with. But here's one I couldn't resist forwarding.
Weird times, eh?
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 16:18:59 EST
From: Robert Bork <borkr(_at_)FRB(_dot_)GOV>
To: barlow(_at_)eff(_dot_)org
Subject: Clipper
Mr. Barlow:
I'm writing to express my agreement with you
concerning the dangerous, and in fact, tyrannous nature of
the Clipper chip. However, I find your reasoning
anachronistic - more typical of Cold War rhetoric than the
new "paradigm" we find ourselves in now. In particular,
I find it fascinating that many people, like yourself, are
now beginning to see Liberalism for what it really is - an
effort to cram government down our throats in order to
protect us from ourselves. Thus the arrogant "if you knew
what I know" attitude you mention in your article.
And simultaneously, those of you who were most hostile to
conservatism are belatedly understanding what it is about -
the virtue of LIMITED GOVERNMENT and INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY.
It seems, since the end of the Cold War, that new
"battle-lines" have been drawn, and that you have discovered
that those who you considered enemies are now in your camp,
and that several old friends are now opponents.
Even now, you refuse to recognize the logical conclusion of
Liberalism - government dominance of all facets of life,
eclipsing individual rights. Instead, you remarkably tell
yourself that BILL & AL are being hoodwinked by "spooks" in
the NSA, but that they are really on your side. I have
news for you, they are not.
After all, who is most likely to agree with you? Reagan,
who says that "government is the problem" or Bill & AL who
believe that government is the answer to all our problems -
from the health care "crisis" to the dangers of vitamins.
Clearly you can see now who is the champion of individual
rights and who is the champion of bureaucracies that
claim to know what we don't.
I invite you to the real new paradigm, in which old concepts
of liberal and conservative are increasingly meaningless.
It is a new world in which I - a conservative - find common
cause with you - a liberal - in our fight for individual
freedom. It is really debilitating and self-deceptive to
cling to the old definitions.
I offer this in the spirit of cooperation, since I believe
that if we hope to win the war, we should at least know who
we are fighting!
Sincerely,
Robert J. Bork
------- End of Forwarded Message