Mike Godwin on E.Dyson: [please note that I'm just a conduit here; direct replies accordingly] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:17:12 -0700

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com> To: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>, Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com> Subject: Re: Los Angeles Times article on Helsingius and anon.penet.fi (fwd)

Esther had written:

Now, speaking personally: I believe there are trade-offs -- which is what I told the LA Times. I assume I was quoted accurately (although the word "enforce" is awkward), but out of context. Anonymity can be dangerous -- as can traceability, especially in/by repressive regimes. Therefore I would favor allowing anonymity -- with some form of traceability only under terms considerably stronger than what are generally required for a wiretap. Anyone who seriously needs anonymity because of a repressive government is likely to use a foreign (outside whatever jurisdiction he fears) server, so that this is not a matter of "local" laws. The tracer would have to pass through what I hope would be tighter hoops than we have now.

This is surely a reasonable statement for Esther to have made, even though connotatively it may seem to have an anti-anonymity thrust to it. Who can dispute that individual freedom (of any sort) entails the potential that someone will use that freedom badly, and that the greater the freedom the greater the theoretical potential for harm? The civil-libertarian argument can't be any naive denial of this sort of analysis -- instead, it has to something that acknowledges the truth of the principle, yet simultaneously denies the inference that the principle, standing alone, amounts to a case for limiting that freedom. One way to do so is to argue that the theoretical threat is outweighed by the benefits both to society and to individuals. Another is to point out that there seems to be no evidence that the theoretical problem has transmuted itself into a real one. You may feel free to forward this. --Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Professor Volokh Errs In Slate Article About Communications Decency Act. Set your browser to the following URL to read a critique of the Slate article by EFF's Mike Godwin and MIT's Hal Abelson: <http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~hal/volokh-slate-critique-by-godwin-abelson.html>. Mike Godwin, EFF Staff Counsel, can be reached at mnemonic@eff.org or at his office, 510-548-3290. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------