At 1:56 AM 9/4/96, jim bell 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.
"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for.
I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one.
I agree, of course. There is absolutely nothing about "speech" that is tied to "accountability." And various Supreme Court decisions have emphasized this. (Pay special attention to the quote from Greg Broiles I included in my section from my Cyphernomicon I just posted to the list.) Think about it. Anyone may say pretty much anything they wish (modulo the usual exceptions of certain forms of obscenity, shouting "Fire!," etc....and even these are enforced ex post facto). Once a speech act occurs and some criminal prosecution results, the cops can try to catch the speaker. But if they can't, they can't. We don't require that speech only be done in a way that illegal speakers may be held "accountable." The fact that certain classes of speakers are indeed held accountable is more a function of the particular details of the way they spoke and the nature of society than it is that there is a rule that "all speech must involve accountability." We hold the author of an article in "The Washington Post" more liable for insulting speech than we do the guy in the neighborhood gym, even if they both say the same words. The issue is clearly not that "all speech must involve accountability," as many forms of speech are not. (I'd say the meta-issue is "You can drag someone into court if you can catch them. But if you can't catch them, you can't. And we're not going to limit speech just to make it easier to catch speakers you may wish to haul into court.") As Jim and so many others have noted, anonymous phone calls, anonymous postal mail, whispering campaigns, speech in private homes, etc., are all examples where accountability is extremely difficult or impossible to enforce. We even have names for these things: anonymous threats, poison pen letters, ransom demands, gossip, etc. Saying that speech on the Net may need to be restricted so as to ensure "accountability" is a serious step in the direction of requiring credentialling of all speakers, key escrow, and limits on remailers. Given that so many other types of speech are given anonymity protection, why? The reason this is such a hot button for Cypherpunks is that "responsible freedom" and "accountability" are often code words for controlling some very basic freedoms. Placing limits on anonymous speech would involve some very fundamental restrictions on freedoms of various sorts. Even if "safeguards" are built-in, the effect would almost certainly be to illegalize remailers (unless they had "escrow" features!). And a wide array of other freedoms, too numerous for me to write about here. --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."