At 06:52 AM 9/1/96 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
EFF does not, to my knowledge, (and I am a Board Member) have an organizational view on this issue. There are a lot of different views and each member of EFF has their own view that they can and will state as private people. The tendency of the Press to label people with organizations affiliation ship gives the impression of organizational views. For example I certainly don't speak for the University of Pennsylvania when I say thing to the newspapers.
Dave
At CFP in '95 in SF, Esther expressed the view that there was a place on the Net for an anonymous ghetto (my words not hers) where people could be anonymous but that most of the net would involve traceability of transactions so that people could be held accountable and that businesses and individuals would want to know who they were dealing with for payment and accountability reasons. I am not stating her position well I'm sure but it was clear that she thought that non-anonymity would be the rule not because it was mandated but just because Net actors would want it that way. A short quote would not allow anyone to understand her full position. If she believes that anonymity would be rejected voluntarily for practical reasons then that is just a prediction of a market not a conclusion. Most on this list would have no objection to making a prediction though we might disagree with it. Just as Esther predicted that the net would end copyright, we might predict that the net combined with immediate settlement payment systems might reduce if not eliminate the need for "positive ID." DCF