If anyone objects the officals responsible make a wide gesture and say "We didn't take away your phones, CRIMINALS took away your phones."
Indeed. It appears the Unabomber has taken away the privelege of dropping stamped mail weighing over 16ozs into street-side mailboxes. One is now instructed to take these packages to a post-office mail clerk for mailing. (Of course it's unclear just what would be done if a package weighing over that magical 16ozs was left in a mailbox)
The real question is this, what are you going to do to anihilate anonymous communication, because if you think its harmful that's what you have to do.
What strikes me as odd is that the arguments against anonymous communication are nearly identical to those against strong crypto. ie. the same four horsemen flare up in these discussions. Yet we have parties who are ostensibly pro-crypto but anti-anonymity. To put it in a nutshell, in a free society I can have a private conversation, but I must essentially announce that I am having one and who I am having that conversation with? Do you believe the benefits of privacy outweigh the costs? Do you feel the same about cryptography and believe it to be an essential tool to advance the privacy of individuals? Then you _must_ be an advocate of anonymity and anonymous communications. Privacy as a right and a reality does not exist without the capability for anonymity. me -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------