Jon Callas wrote:
On 8/1/02 1:14 PM, "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> wrote:
So my question is: What is your reason for shielding your identity? You do so at the cost of people assuming the worst about your motives.
Is this a tacit way to suggest that the only people who need anonymity or pseudonymity are those with something to hide?
. Anonymity is generally considered a a requirement for the political process in the United States to protect the right to express political speech without regard to being harrassed by those in power. There have been several federal court decisions in the last few years that have struck down laws limiting anonymity for political speech. One that comes to mind was a requirement in Chicago, I think that required the authors name on political phamplets. Would a law requiring such technical measures for controlling access to copyrighted information as proposed by representatives of Disney, et. al. in the U.S. Congress recently that incidentally by design prevented anonymity be found to be unconstitutionally limiting freedom of political speech on the internet by its chilling effect?