Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes:

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."

Nothing to do with the government. If people choose to voluntarily obtain a key with which to voluntarily sign their posts, and I set my newsreader to present only articles which correspond to keys having certain criteria, all is well and good. Anyone can still post anything they like, including unsigned articles, and the filter is at the reading end, which is where it should be. A given key could mean "I am Mike Duvos", "I am Tim May", or "I am Dorothy Denning." Or it could mean something more obscure, like "I showed my driver's license to get this key", or "10 leading Cypherpunks think I'm a Nym worth listening to", or even "I donate regularly to the 700 Club."

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.

Bullfeathers. Encouraging people to sign posts, and permitting newsreaders to select based on signature characteristics is about as big a threat to anonymity as a procmail file which filters out everything having an anon remailer disclaimer attached to it.

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.

They can spam all they want. They can be as rude and clueless as they wish. It hardly requires additional government infrastructure if *I* want to only read posts signed by keys endorsed by persons or organizations I trust.

Less freedom, more taxes.

How one moves from a system of voluntarily signing Usenet posts to more taxes is beyond my ability to comprehend. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $