"James Sturgeon" said
4. the accused would have the right to confront accusors
With all the anonymous remailers, etc, how do you expect this to happen? You yourself refuse to be identified (as is your right) yet you promote the right to confront accusors?
the point is, this `citizen' organization is built of people who agree to the rules `upon entry'. i forgot to mention that the charter of the organization would require agreements by individual users. for example: `i am todd marvin peterson, this account is for my use only and i will not permit use of it by any other person'. now, you are probably going to say that this is an invasion of your privacy, but then on the other hand, so would detweiler. who's right? (hee, hee). guys, it seems to me that if you want to censor detweiler, then you would have to construct a system where names map to people as a `given'. otherwise, you are just going to be tortured forever by your own `cryptoanarchy'. (a complex subject, one that i don't fully grasp, perhaps only the author t.c. may does) if you don't want to `liquidate' detweiler, then WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE SO HOSTILE TO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WHO HAVE THE SAME INITIALS BY COINCIDENCE?! is this your idea of an ideal meeting place? where there is suspicion and distrust?
3. a police force representing the authority of the organization over members would be required for enforcement.
How can you have a police force? Who will be there to see you type something evil? I can see you shoot someone and the judge can ask my testimony to help convict you, but what about computers? With the use of modems an act can be committed anonymously since the real world has no proof that was you who did something... only that it was your account that was used.
take your pick -- no accountability for actions whatsoever, *ever*, and you have rampant `detweilering'. or, people agree to some accountability. there is no such thing as `an anonymous act'. people who live in communities can ask that each other adhere to the laws of the community and evict them if there is evidence otherwise. the purpose of a trial is to `judge evil deeds'. let me give you an example. suppose that i had technology that would allow me to `morph' to the point of looking exactly like tim may. except, i would go and terrorize everyone in denver and urinate on sidewalks, flash women, etc. you say that `modems allow an anonymous act'. well, for me, that morphing is the same way, it allows me to run rampant without any personal consequence. the way that whoever posted the bogus `death to cryptoanarchist' stuff glommed his signature, this is a similar idea. so, should we allow morphing? or are you going to insist that morphing is an uncontrollable technology and therefore regulation is futile? you see, anything is possible among people who are willing to cooperate. if we decide that maymorphing is illegal in our society, we can work to prevent it. but if we have the ulterior motive that, ultimately, we don't want to be held accountable for `our own evil deeds', then you have anarchy, or rampant detweilering. (hee, hee, love that verb) note: i am not arguing against remailers. they are useful in some forums. but what you seem to have right now is an `anything goes' atmosphere that practically invites abuse. you don't even appear to have simple preventions of things like mailbombing etc. do you condone mailbombing through remailers?
Amazing that a person who has a fairly good grasp of the English language and a pretty good vocabulary can't seem to find the shift key.
WOW!! A SHIFT KEY!! WHAT A CONCEPT!! well, it appears that no one here is interested in developing a sort of `cyberspatial community' that has codified rules of conduct. do you know of anyone who might? seriously, i mean. don't give me snide email like `try the nsa'... pseudonymously, --tmp