Re: rights in cyberspace

[tmp@netcom.com]

"James Sturgeon" said
>> 4. the accused would have the right to confront accusors
>
>With all the anonymous remailers, etc, how do you expect this
>to happen?  You yourself refuse to be identified (as is your
>right) yet you promote the right to confront accusors?

the point is, this `citizen'  organization is built of people who agree to 
the rules `upon entry'. i forgot to mention that the charter of the
organization would require agreements by individual users. for example:
`i am todd marvin peterson, this account is for my use only and i will
not permit use of it by any other person'. now, you are probably going
to say that this is an invasion of your privacy, but then on the other
hand, so would detweiler. who's right? (hee, hee). 

guys, it seems to me that if you want to censor detweiler,
then you would have to construct a system where names map to people
as a `given'. otherwise, you are just going to be tortured forever by
your own `cryptoanarchy'. (a complex subject, one that i don't fully 
grasp, perhaps only the author t.c. may does) if you don't want to 
`liquidate' detweiler, then WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO HOSTILE TO
INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHO HAVE THE SAME INITIALS BY COINCIDENCE?! is
this your idea of an ideal meeting place? where there is suspicion
and distrust?

>> 3. a police force representing the authority of the organization over
>> members would be required for enforcement.
>
>How can you have a police force?  Who will be there to see you type
>something evil?  I can see you shoot someone and the judge can ask
>my testimony to help convict you, but what about computers?  With the
>use of modems an act can be committed anonymously since the real world
>has no proof that was you who did something... only that it was your
>account that was used.  

take your pick -- no accountability for actions whatsoever, *ever*, and
you have rampant `detweilering'. or, people agree to some accountability.
there is no such thing as `an anonymous act'. people who live in communities
can ask that each other adhere to the laws of the community and evict them
if there is evidence otherwise. the purpose of a trial is to `judge evil
deeds'. 

let me give you an example. suppose that i had technology that would allow
me to `morph' to the point of looking exactly like tim may. except, i would
go and terrorize everyone in denver and urinate on sidewalks, flash women,
etc. you say that `modems allow an anonymous act'. well, for me, that morphing
is the same way, it allows me to run rampant without any personal 
consequence. the way that whoever posted the bogus `death to cryptoanarchist'
stuff glommed his signature, this is a similar idea.

so, should we allow morphing? or are you going to insist that morphing is
an uncontrollable technology and therefore regulation is futile? you see,
anything is possible among people who are willing to cooperate. if we decide
that maymorphing is illegal in our society, we can work to prevent it.
but if we have the ulterior motive that, ultimately, we don't want to be
held accountable for `our own evil deeds', then you have anarchy, or rampant
detweilering. (hee, hee, love that verb)

note: i am not arguing against remailers. they are useful in some forums.
but what you seem to have right now is an `anything goes' atmosphere that 
practically invites abuse. you don't even appear to have simple preventions
of things like mailbombing etc. do you condone mailbombing through remailers?

>Amazing that a person who has a fairly good grasp of the English language
>and a pretty good vocabulary can't seem to find the shift key.

WOW!! A SHIFT KEY!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!

well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of
`cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know
of anyone who might? seriously, i mean. don't give me snide email like
`try the nsa'...


pseudonymously,
--tmp