[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Piercing anonymity and censorship
FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
". . . I don't like censorship in any form. But
disclosing who sent a particular piece of anonymous mail
is not the same as censorship."
How about FORCING a third-party to make such a disclosure? It
seems Ted would ask or force remailers to be the nets' policemen.
If remailers are required to compromise the anonymity of their
service, the "chilling" effect on speech IS censorship.
". . . there are people who believe . . . that libel and
slander laws shouldn't exist. But it's not fair to call
that a mainstream position. And it is unreasonable to
assume that as an axiom."
I never claimed that such a position was "mainstream" nor assumed
it was an "axiom." I don't think I've seen ANY "ad populum"
arguments (other than Ted's) on Cypherpunks, we tend to think for
". . . *MOST PEOPLE* also don't believe that the right
to privacy is absolute. It certainly isn't explicitly
listed in the *U.S. CONSTITUTION"*. (Emphasis added.SS)
Our desire for privacy is not the result of a *popularity
contest* nor is it an argument from *authority*. Rather, it is
derived from the logical requirements of freedom.
"But in order to punish the perpetrators, it is first
necessary to *identify* the perpetrators......"
RE-READ my post, Ted.
S a n d y [email protected]