Yesterday an "opinion" article appeared in the SF Chronicle, written by some unimportant person who knew absolutely nothing about the internet. Today a similar, but better informed article, appeared in many newspapers, originating from the New York Times. Articles written for newspapers are written to survive arbitrary truncation, hence key points first, lesser points later. The interesting thing is that the two articles, despite different authors, had equivalent key points, implying that some single higher authority gave out a list of points to be made, but left the headline and overall spin to the columnist. Indeed, when one reads beyond the key points that were equivalent in both articles, it is as if one suddenly encounters a different journalist. There is an abrupt change of tone and style when one reads from the uniform part to lesser points. The key points in both articles are that the government should do something coercive to stop anonymity on the internet, and that there is widespread support for such a move. Note that since both articles are obviously tentacles, there is a mysterious and anonymous powerful person -- the single higher authority of which I spoke earlier -- who is anonymously attacking anonymity. In my opinion when a mysterious anonymous and powerful voice proclaims that the government should coerce someone, it is usually the government speaking -- a government department with guns is running up a trial balloon. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com