remarkably bad media

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

Responding to msg by perry@imsi.com (Perry E. Metzger) on Sat, 
31 Dec 12:39 PM


Perry makes an astute critique about the Peter Lewis article 
today on anonymity.  I hope that he or someone takes the time 
to write The Times with polite corrections or a cataclysmic 
attack.

I would note that the two law professors quoted are active on 
mail list Cyberia-L, where many of the cypherpunks issues are 
debated from a legal perspective.  Peter Lewis is a subscriber 
to that list.

Peter Lewis wrote yesterday about the LaMacchia case dismissal. 
 The article was reprinted verbatim today.  It too focussed on 
the need for legislation.  (Todd posted Reuter's version.)

Is it any wonder that lawyers are quoted when enhanced law and 
order are immanent?  Mike Godwin, of EFF and also a Cyberia-L 
subscriber, takes a dissenting view from that presented by 
those quoted by Lewis.  Or so I would judge from his posts on 
the LaMacchia case.

My one-cent's worth to the anonymity topic is that The NYT may 
be drum-beating for legislation to regulate anonymity -- a 
characteristicly paternalistic role of the self-important 
power-brokering running-dog mad-dog yellow-dog 
hyenia-slobbering anarchy-hating media.  Oops, sorry for that 
anonymous slip.  Back to totally disinterested objectivity, 
eye-of-god, slug-under-rock-safety.

Say, if anyone wants the Lewis article on LaMacchia,

send blank message with subject:  LAM_not