We have to keep an eye on each others' knees here -- there's a tendency for a knee-jerk reaction not based on reality. Squabbling over what "crimes" or "antisocial acts" should disqualify one from being able to use anonymity is ***WAY*** missing the point. It is the people who have crossed one of those lines who need the protection the most! And, at least the US Supreme Court thinks it is in society's interest to protect them: The case is Talley v. California, 362 US 60 (1960), in which the Supreme Court invalidated an ordinance which prohibited the distribution of any handbill not bearing the name and address of the person who prepared it. The Court rejected the state's claim that the ordinance was necessary to help identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising, or libel. According to Tribe, the Court reasoned that "a ban on anonymous pamphleteering falls with much greater force upon individuals and groups who fear majoritarian disapproval and reprisal -- upon dissidents and upon the unpopular -- than upon those with widely approved messages to deliver." To quote a cypherpunk who usually has more sense:
I believe unpopular opinions ought to be protected [as long as they don't encourage illegal or violent actions]. Once we get in the opinion-censoring biz, it's a steep slippery slope.
I inserted the [ and ]. He forgot to note that he's *already* advocating opinion-censoring, and yes, he's already sliding down the slope. John Gilmore PS: There is no way to enforce rules on the content of messages sent through encrypted anonymous remailers. Think about it for a minute. All there needs to be is *one* remailer anywhere in the world, which will send any message to the final destination. Anyone can send an encrypted message to the "freedom-loving" remailer, via their local remailer. Even if the inputs to the freedom-loving remailer were tapped, the messages that arrived there would already be anonymous (headers stripped) and encrypted. Since what passes through the rest of the "freedom-hating" anonymous remailers is encrypted, they can't see the content anyway. You could prohibit encrypted messages through your freedom-hating remailer, but (1) that's easy to circumvent, and (2) what would be the point of your running a remailer?