sigh. So sad, yet so necessary, I must grow up. I'll clean up the backlinks eventually. It'll be a good excuse to clean up a lot of trolling (*) I leave around.
(*) Of course I troll my own community. Why do you think I created it in the first place? It's right there in my GoalStatement. (Pain in the ***; running roughshod over those who don't share my stylistic sensibilities... bah. You just don't understand my pain, er, art. Meatball is boring? Haha... whatever. I know what a Skinner box is.)
:-) Now someone play Taps. -- SunirShah
Backlinks aren't looking good. Let me think about this a little bit more.
Cryptonaut: illiberal neurotic libertarian paranoid anti-social Freudian rational-imperativist HardSecurity technocratic cryptofreak subversionists. The "lock 'em down, lock 'em out, I hate people" types. The ones that I fight with every keystroke. -- SunirShah
Sunir sometimes plays fast and loose with words, even his own. For example, sometimes his definition of "cryptonaut" is "person who disagrees with me on the issue in question". :-P -- StephenGilbert (although, since it's impossible to cryptographically sign a wiki post and still be assured of its integrity, how can you be sure it's really me?)
Of course you'd say that ya evil dirt eatin' cryptonaut!
For those more favorably disposed towards this point of view, I think what Sunir means by the term may be partially characterized as "libertarian cryptofreaks", or maybe "libertarian/pro-privacy".
I'm pretty hardcore libertarian and very pro-privacy. In political or organizational tradeoffs between individual choice and group welfare, I almost always side with individual choice (but then think that the individuals should voluntarily do what's best for the group). I think cryptology and cryptography might have a part to play in assisting individual freedom, but I'm not sure. It's not people I hate, but concentrations of power. For me, SoftSecurity seems to be a liberating (libertarian) force.
(as always, I reserve my right to change my mind) -- BayleShanks
I don't mean to include just anyone who is interested or uses cryptography. I lock my car doors too. The people I'm concerned with fear other people so much that they spend their life either hiding, cowering, or trying to exert totalitarian control. And I know them because I've been there.
And, look, the term is "ha ha only serious." As most people understand, I mean it about as seriously as when I proclaim myself a GodKing around here.
Unless I'm talking about Republicans or Bay street conservatives. Then I'm a lot more rabid. -- SunirShah
This was consciously done (in part) to dissuade hardcore CryptoNauts from working with us, as we feel that our perspectives are too different.
(discussion moved to CryptoNaut) Really. What else could it possibly mean to say one likes environments where people use their real names, and disdain environments where people use pseudonyms? Who else would insist on using a pseudonym in the context of Meatball aside from a cryptonaut? How many of the UseRealNameCases? aren't cryptonauts?
Hard to say. You've used the term to mean various things, more broad than "those who advocate cryptography", for example. I don't have a clear sense of what the definition of the term is (and I don't think there needs to be one at this point), but I think it's an interesting word nevertheless.
Here are some answers to the question... I like real names, but I also like the idea of PGP and I think I'll start using it eventually. If I could convince my family and friends, I would encrypt all my email to provide another small barrier to government snooping. I would prefer that people would have more of a chance to "disappear" and start a new life under a new identity than they have in our society. I feel that people in heavily surveilled areas should consider walking around in identical shadowy hooded outfits to deter government recording of their movements. Granted, these things may not be necessary, and note that I have not implemented any of these yet; not set up a wiki to advocate the hooded outfits, and I haven't even gotten around to using PGP yet. So I don't think these measures are necessary in our society (except for people with radical political views), but I want to be prepared in case things take a turn for the worse.
Maybe I like the real names policy because I don't feel that anything I post on this site will be dangerous to me. If I was asking for psychiatric advice or critisizing specific businesses, I might insist on a pseudonym. As I noted above, it's not people I'm afraid of, it's powers. The other members of the site aren't the enemy.
How many of the UseRealNamesCases aren't cryptonauts?
Exactly! And you can tell the difference immediately between a cryptonaut and a mere PenName because we've never had a flamewar over using it. Not that I'd ever claim your case was so clear cut that it was a paradigm case. --ss
It's not supposed to be meaningful. What, do you want a hard ass definition like some cryp... er, nevermind. -- SunirShah
Easy there. It's not an objectively meaningful term (yet), but it is still a valuable page. NeutralPointOfView doesn't go very far here! The term is spread throughout the corpus; it deserves a place for discussion, even a humourous one for it is a HaHaOnlySerious? word. -- SunirShah
Zoiks, Scoobs!... Like, didn't we know that already?