TCM wrote:
And please spare us the "save the howitzers" comment. We talk about what concerns us. As it happens, our political opponents don't read our words, whereas a bunch of EFF board members apparently do, and so our criticisms here may cause EFF to actually confront the issue of anonymity and decide where they actually stand.
I think Tim's comments are generally on-point. EFF board members are paying attention to discussions on the cypherpunks list and the organization would appear to be moving in a direction that will result in a solid pro-anonymity policy. For reference, EPIC's position is: "Our position is that we strongly support anonymity both for speech and for transactions. The right to anonymous speech is a constitutionally protected right (Tally v. California, McIntrye v Ohio) and we believe that it equally applies in cyberspace. Anonymous transactions are a key way (and perhaps the only way that really works) to provide privacy on the net." CDT's current position is: "CDT believes that anonymous political speech is protected under the first amendment and would oppose any effort to restrict or curtail it on the Net." -Declan