At 08:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

The reason this is such a hot button for Cypherpunks is that "responsible freedom" and "accountability" are often code words for controlling some very basic freedoms. Placing limits on anonymous speech would involve some very fundamental restrictions on freedoms of various sorts. Even if "safeguards" are built-in, the effect would almost certainly be to illegalize remailers (unless they had "escrow" features!). And a wide array of other freedoms, too numerous for me to write about here.

The terms "responsibility" and "accountability" are misused, which is unfortunate, since I think we'd all argue in favor of taking responsibility for our speech/actions in a positive sense. The negative is in asking me to sacrifice my freedom because some few behave irresponsibly. This is like setting an illogical default, assuming that it's a preventive, but it prevents nothing. Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed making remailers illegal? jonl -- Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@hotwired.com> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff> "No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky