On Or About: 4 Sep 96 at 21:48, Timothy C. May wrote:

In a rare moment of lucidity Vladimir Z. Dettweiler wrote:

...

I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says, "I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.

But this is precisely what nearly all of us have been arguing. Namely, that the issue of anonymity vs. providing of True Names, is a matter of _contract_ between parties, not something the government is justified in sticking its nose into.

I always use my true name and am happy to spread it far and wide, but I have been doing some work for a GroupWare manufacturer. They have seen that even in a corporate environment where information sharing is practised and embraced, sometimes people want to make a comment and not take the heat for making that comment. This can provide some constructive input, so they have a anonymous comment feature built in. So you could say that it is absolutely necessary for the web to have that feature as well.

of some third party in providing ultimate traceability. I'm not wild about the U.S. Government being this third party

NO WAY, These guys are in my life enough already, and you can't trust them anyway!!!! Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906