At 11:52 AM 9/4/96, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
At 07:44 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded.
No: The harassment is the problem, not the anonymity that makes it possible.
The harassment is one problem, the lack of accountability another. Which is not to say that 'lack of accountability' should be 'fixed' by some sort of blanket restriction...but it should be acknowledged as a problem.
It has been. In many hundreds of articles addressing aspects of the issue. The fact that Esther Dyson and others think advocates of the right to be anonymous claim that these issues are not being considered just shows that Esther and others are not aware of these many articles. Nor can every brief post--such as the one James Donald made above--include a fully-nuanced, fully-balanced discussion of all issues. Saying that an advocate for a position has not considered the alternate positions is usually incorrect. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."