Anonymity vs accountability - a balanced view (maybe?)

[mjr@netcom.com (Matthew Rapaport)]

Concerning the discussions of privacy, and anonymity on various USENET
groups, attacks on Johan Helsingus, etc. I'd like to add my two cents...

If we are going to convince the USENET community as a whole of the value
of anonymity it seems to me we must also recognize the propriety and
value of what seems to be the dominant sentiment on the USENET now, that
being that accountability and responsibility (for what you say)
reflected in a real identification is also valuable, and under most
ordinary circumstances is more desirable then not.

Putting it another way, I think most of the USENET community would
accept the argument that access to anonymity is something that we should
all have. It is a desirable thing, but it becomes desirable only under
certain circumstances (e.g. active persecution, or a real threat of
same, by a government or corporation, etc). Most of the time, it is better
that people "stand for what they say" and accept the accountability that
goes with non-anonymized postings.

If we approach it this way I think we could achieve consensus at least to
the degree that the existence of alias servers are generally supported.

matthew rapaport     Philosopher/Programmer At Large      KD6KVH
           mjr@netcom.com     70371.255@compuserve.com