X-Message-Number: 32424
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Anonymity on Cryonics Plans - Disaster Hazard
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:12:27 +0100
References: <>

On 25 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Being anonymous about
> cryonics is *not* protection for a signed-up cryonicist but rather an
> opportunity for relatives who do not agree to wreak havoc with those  
> plans.

As long as cryonics is regarded as a cult or as quackery by the  
mainstream, being associated with it can result in being banned from  
certain organizations. Therefore, such public association could have  
negative consequences for one's career. It  could also retard progress  
in cryonics by restricting where scientific work can be published by  
those with a public association.

The ideal solution is for a signed-up cryonicist have any public  
association to cryonics protected by a secure pseudonym. The key to  
this public name would be held by a cryonics organization. If any  
question arose as to the wishes of the member, the organization could  
release the key. This would allow anyone to prove the member's  
association with cryonics, their authorship of documents released  
under the pseudonym, etc.

This is an element of the publication model presented here:

Extended abstract (5 minutes):

Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific  
communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd  
International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7,  
127-137.

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14


Comprehensive

Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals  
based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4).

http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19


dss

David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32424