Well, it would seem some are helping to make my point; M.Duvos is calling for government intervention, in the form of an "Internet Driver's License." There goes anonimity, which has, in general, been a "good thing" on the 'net. Here comes "big brother", to protect us from the evil anonymous spammer. Here comes more government infrastructure to enforce the LAWS that "we", as a society, have subjected ourselves to, so that "the few, the rude, the clueless" can no longer send out their anonymously sourced spam. Less freedom, more taxes. Why? Because someone out there is doing something because they "have the right", by the sole virtue of there currently being no law specifically against their particular behavior. Still on the side of the spammer, Mr. May? On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:
Bill Stewart writes:
Anybody for an Internet Driver's License?
[Too much spam, some designed to avoid filtering by humans or machines]
Just being able to filter out posts from Net addresses that don't correspond to real identifiable humans posting under their legal names would be a good first step.
Am I not an identifiable human? Is Black Unicorn an AI? Would I be acceptable if I posted as JohnSmith@mcfeely.bsfs.org?
In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign your own levels of trust to each signator.
Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards.
If you consider increased legislation a step backwards. How else can we determine what we, as free people, can/can't/should/shouldn't do? (Sarcasm) Of course it is a step backwards; the ability to discuss sensitive issues, and obtain information anonymously has been of great social benefit. Yet another freedom soon to be legislated away (See "Georgia, USA"). Still failing to see the cause-and-effect relationship, folks? When even some on c'punk readers are calling for manditory identification, where do you think the great unwashed position themselves? - r.w.