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

Re: Crypto++, Cpunk Icons, list noise

[email protected] typed:

> On Mon, 6 Nov 1995, Dr. Frederick B. Cohen wrote:
> > In the United States, we have the right to express whatever view we
> > wish, so long as it doesn't endanger others (e.g., insight to riot,
> > scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.). 
> > Everyone has an inherent right to question why a person seeks moments of
> > anonymity or privacy. 
> You're forgetting our good friends the libel laws. Another reason to go anon.
> You have the right to say whatever you please, but you'll have to be able 
> to defend it in court if it damages someone's reputation. It can also get 
> you fired. (or shot if you're MLK) 

The anonymity will not protect you very well against libel laws.  The
provider will be suied for libel, and unless they reveal your identity,
they will likely lose in court.  If they cannot reveal the identity,
they will also likely lose the suit.  All the anonymous providers are
doing is giving you anonymity in exchange for their liability.  Even
international anonymity systems are not imune to such threats, as we have
been shown by the Church of whatever.

> This is why It'd be so nice to see more idiot-friendly remailer clients
> on windoze, or even better Java (does Private Idaho support Mixmaster yet?).
> The average person can really benefit from easy anonymity, otherwise they 
> won't bother and get in hot water.

If it's just a license to slander people, I don't want to support
anonymity.  There are valid reasons for remaining anonymous, but being
able to avoid liability for slander is not one of them.

> Slander is in the eye of the beholder.

Slander is in the realm of the courts to decide - at least in the U.S.

-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236