Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"

[Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> :The fact that the people making the claims could not afford to pay even the
> :costs probably influences the decision.  
>  
> Nope. If a lawyer believes he can win and there big money involved, he'll take
> it on the premise that he gets paid if he wins.   If the defendant has nothing
> to offer, the lawyer won't do it.  Thus, the falsly accused may not be able to
> afford to go to court.  The decision to sue is mostly based on how deep the
> pockets of the defendant would be.

Then what's the point of going to all the trouble of tracking someone down if
you're unwilling or unable to take appropriate legal action against him
after he's found?
 
> :So you're suggesting that the victim should suffer.  You are really saying
> :that it is perfectly acceptable for someone to be run out of a newsgroup by
> :a single person who refuses to be killfilable.
>  
>  
> Yup, that's what he's saying.

I don't recall ever saying that.  How do you run a person out of
an unmoderated NG?  And if it's moderated, and the moderator is allowing what
you consider libel against you, then you probably have a case against him.
That's what the courts decided in a landmark case against an ISP.  When you
manage the content then you become responsible for it as well.

Nor do I understand the "who refuses to be killfilable" part, either.  How can
someone you don't even know control your killfile?  I can killfile anyone I
want to, including "nobody@some_remailer".  I haven't killfiled anyone, but
I could do so if I wanted to.
 
> :>:The problem is that devising workable solutions to problems that don't yet
> :>:exist is much more difficult that resolving problems that do already exist.
> :>
> :>Many say the problem does exist.
> :
> :There are already problems with anonymous posts.  It's all about abuse "on" 
> :the net, in this case.  Everyone in the NANA groups say "That's abuse on the
> :net, not abuse of the net.  If someone is libelling or harassing you, take  
> :it up with the police."  A traceless remailer makes that impossible.
>  
> True.

Why would that prevent you from contacting the police?  But consider that 
libel is a civil tort not a criminal offense, so the police aren't likely to 
get involved, even if you could identify the culprit.

Using a remailer does not make a person unidentifiable, just untraceable.
There is a difference.
 
> :>Good point.  I again forgot he said "Are only for criminals"
> :
> :Oh, for crying out loud.  I'll try to be more precise.  Completely 
> :untraceable communications are only *needed* by people performing acts that
> :are illegal by the laws of all jurisdictions where an anonymous remailer
> :with trace logging exists.
>  
> You did it again.  If you change the word "only" to "sometimes" it would be
> more correct.

And probably no more so than pay phones or Netcom accounts.
 
> :>:> I still think he's mistaken by thinking that all who post anonymously are
> :>:> lawbreakers.
> :
> :I don't think that.  I never said that.
>  
> Yes, you did.  And you did it again above.  "only needed by people performing
> acts that are illegal"

Sounds the same to me.  I don't know how you could have one without the other.
 
> :>:I do too.  But his premise was used to support his suggested remedy.  If an
> :>:anonymous user is NOT presumed to be a criminal, then you can't justify
> :>:treating him like one.
> :
> :How is this "treating him like a criminal".  I'm asking for a very small
> :amount of information to be kept.  Far less than that required to open a
> :bank account.  Are you saying that banks are treating people like criminals 
> :when they ask for ID?
>
> True. Very True.  It should be "treat him like a suspect" and yes, the banks
> treat you like a suspect everytime they ask for ID.  They suspect you may be a
> criminal if they don't know you.  It's SUPPOSED to be that way.

Banks are a poor analogy, because anonymity is more analogous to paying cash.
When you sign your name to a check, you're already identifying yourself.
Banking is an inherently identity-based institution.  You're asking someone
to trust you, and it's up to you to prove yourself to be trustworthy.

A check is made valuable or worthless by virtue of the validity of its 
signature.  Ideas can be evaluated on their own merit, just like paper
currency can.  I don't need to see two forms of ID to determine whether that
$100 bill you just handed me is genuine or counterfeit.
 
> :>I still wonder about what to do about "suspects" on the net.  How do you
> :>investigate one suspected without harming those NOT suspected?
> :
> :This is my point.
>  
>  
> Duh, I know.

The solution being what?  Surrendering freedom for the sake of supposed
security?  I don't see that there is necessarily a dilemma between protecting
victims versus preserving the freedoms of average citizens.

It seems that every solution I offer Politas' is countered with a "yeah, but 
what about .... " objection.  In an imperfect world, government cannot 
completely protect people from themselves.

I'm really trying to understand what Politas' wants, but it's difficult.  I've
suggested several solutions to his hypothetical problems that don't infringe
on the freedoms of the innocent, but each is quickly rejected.

- ---
Finger <comsec@nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNJ7rOQbp0h8ZvosNAQHuNQf+JTOZwB/OMXag+Q/fp7vYjZ9pfHV0U5WI
rlSgEmZzDIHPUqfns7cDrHSwhKYvfQn9L3VC64qgwRjNSiHcgCqo2f2pnv1Rogoe
pu8nvhANfAFpSIiLQ3oMndVvp3xcNt3MGlFhrBGADgbJ1ky4RtdWeDWvz19tJWlM
Zpy4igHDWyTFmgNTbccq5qeUrHR2mw9/QQb5GNWK9c6tmj54OMv0kOH8Xpqyl+Fq
FocnOLXZI/MAacL5gaLFhNdsv9LkNaC+SeFlK1OxHkcNmTVc00VkPwEzAXtrLSA+
Te+FiRp61mz39CY3hg+Hg/fyLdrTIPK0QjAyL+Lg9ayJh1gVkS8rLw==
=HyrT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----