I will always have connection to the internet if I desire it, be it legal or not,
pure faith. nothing guarantees this to you. you cannot point to any intentionally designed aspect of the existing internet that guarantees that you personally will have a internet account or connection. in fact, there are many limitations in your existing contract with your provider, i'm sure, and lots of vague clauses that give them the ability to yank it whenever they feel like it for whatever reason they like. why is this such a bizarre idea? i heard of the cypherpunks coming up with `big brother stickers' for at&t phones. how about a `cypherpunk approved' sticker for internet providers that grant a minimal amount of service? i see tc may yelling at netcom all the time-- do something constructive!! come up with a statement that describes exactly what *you* demand of an internet provider, and maintain a list of sites that conform. at the root level, when tc may complains that his internet service is lousy, he is saying that `we deserve better than this'. `we deserve some basic amount of service'. `we have expectations'. these are the same thoughts that motivated the writing of the bill of rights.
my answer is to make it as open as possible, the more people providing the more freedom and competition to drive down prices.
it is not always the case that regulation guarantees that freedom and competition will be stifled. there is a very strict code of entry into the nasdaq stock exchange or any other stock exchange, yet companies manage to flourish within this framework. the internet is *crying* for a universal policy that everyone can agree, `this is what it means to be on the internet'
What garauntees my connection? Well for some people it's cash, money, for others it's their job, for me it's who I know and my skills.
none of these guarantee you a connection.
Because there is no real us. You'll never get rid of the abusers, and yes it will be an amorphous blob. You cannot police kyberspace, since I can create my own extension of that spacde at will, all I need is a willing provider, or an unwilling provider whos a little lax in security.
you seem to argue again that cyberspace = anarchy or at least cyberspace will always lack the security necessary to prevent certain accesses. well, consider this argument. the nsa has a network. in a sense it is `cyberspace'. but you don't have access, try as you might. wouldn't you like to poke around that corner of cyberspace? you can't. there is a titanium lock in front of you.
Your a fool if you think that what I want is a place wher noone is responsible.
absurd statement given the rest of your commentary. you sound to me like a thief saying, `i can break any lock'. well, yes, but that is no reason to stop building strong locks, and rational people will use them.
Will we let some organization try and put restrictions on something that is unrestrictable?
apparently none of the cpunks will. but you may find that in the blink of your eye, all the rest of the world has, and you are left with nothing but a small sandbox to play in. <g> pseudonymously yours, --tmp