[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Models of Anonymity (was Re: Detweiler abuse again)
> Derek's further comments about some kind of receipt that comes
> back....I'll have to think about that further. My hunch is that that
> may break the total anonymity (that we strive for as a principle) and
> should be avoided. I'd recommend we all go back and look at the
I'm not sure that I really meant to have a receipt, more or a
return-path. Maybe even a cryptographiccally secure return path. I
think a question is: who are we protecting against? Are we protecting
against the remailer operators? Or are we trying to protect from a
third party?
I think we should go back and re-examine our goals for anonymity.
> Yes, but Hal has not obligation to accept messages from known
> disruptors, any more than you have an obligation to "never censor"
> people by keeping them out of your house.
To me, this is like NEARNet saying that they have no obligation to
accept packets from a known disruptive user. No, I don't believe that
that is the answer. Then again, I don't think that a remailer should
run out of an account, but rather on a machine, but that's a different
story. I consider a remailer a service, and as such, the service
should be available to all comers. (With digital postage this
paradigm makes much more sense). I do not think of it like a home.
I also agree that positive reputation is important, but I think that
is much more difficult to implement than a more secure anonymous
system.
To reiterate: I do think that something needs to be done, but I think
we should analyze what we are trying to accomplish rather than rushing
off and saying "just don't service this abusive customer".
-derek