[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wasted BAndwidth

(I'm also [email protected]  This is my work account.  Anyway....)

I think Ted is merely trying to be realistic.

Let me put it this way:  You tell something embarrasing, but true,
about Big Organization With Lots Of Money And Guns (BOWLOMAG).
They're not going to *care* that the last remailer on the chain (who
will, presumably, be identifiable) wasn't responsible for the message
which was sent.  They're just going to invade the building the
remailing host is in, kill everyone in the room, and destroy the
machine, and all the machines around it.  If they don't know which is
the remailer, they'll just blow up the whole block.  They don't care.

After this happens a few times, remailer operators are going to think
twice about passing anything which goes through their site.  They
don't want to be BOWLOMAG's next victim.  And this is exactly what
BOWLOMAG wants.  Control by fear.

Is this a likely scenario?  Probably not.  But in today's society, the
very organizations you are rightly trying to protect yourself against
are the ones with all the Money and Guns.  And they could care less
that it's mathematically impossible for you to monitor messages.  They
merely want it to stop.  Will they blow up buildings?  Not likely.
But I'm sure for every Steve Jackson Games we hear about, there are
other instances we don't.  And the Secret Service is a much easier
target than the CIA.

>> Personal responsibility is a choice accepted by the person exercising
>> THEIR right of free speech... it is important to remember that it is
>> #1 and foremost a CHOICE... you CANT force an attitude of personal
>> responsibility

You can't force and attitude of personal responsibility, it is true.
But you can still make people be responsible for their actions.  Even
if you don't think libel or slander is wrong, if I know who you are,
and I can prove it, I can still sue you.

As long as people are slinging quotes around:

    Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
	    - George Bernard Shaw, Liberty

    The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
    collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any
    of their number, is self-protection.
	    - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, ch.1

People who want complete anonymity, without any way to make people
answer for they actions, seem to want liberty without the
responsibility.  And, they would remove my ability to protect myself,
by hiding the identity of my attacker.  Is this what we want?

Pseudonymity has its place in a free society, but there *must* be
bounds on it.  The recent idea of digital juries is a good one.
(Maybe it's not new; I like it anyway.)  This is better than trusting
the government.  

I do not advocate censorship.  I advocate responsibility.