BOUNCE cypherpunks@Algebra.COM: Admin reques
----- Forwarded message from owner-cypherpunks@algebra.com -----
From owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM Wed Jun 4 16:52:19 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks@algebra.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706042152.RAA01373@www.video-collage.com> To: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM Subject: BOUNCE cypherpunks@Algebra.COM: Admin request of type /\bsub-scribe\b/i at line 7
From cpunks Wed Jun 4 17:51:59 1997 Received: from sirius.infonex.com (sirius.infonex.com [206.170.114.2]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01319 for <cypherpunks@algebra.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:51:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id OAA09047; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rigel.cyberpass.net (root@rigel.infonex.com [206.170.114.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA09040 for <cpunks@sirius.infonex.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by rigel.cyberpass.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA13609 for <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA25146 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pathfinder.com (relay2.pathfinder.com [204.71.242.22]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA25141 for <cypherpunks@toad.com>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cp.pathfinder.com by pathfinder.com (8.7.3/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15204; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by cp.pathfinder.com (SMI-8.6) id RAA03951; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:43:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:42:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> Reply-To: declan@well.com To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Anonymity should be banned for speakers and vendors Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970604174023.29555R-100000@cp.pathfinder.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk
If Wallace were up against criminal and civil penalties if he continued to hide his customers' real identities, he'd give them up in a hot second. Of course, as soon as there was a chance of that happening, he'd get out of
[Ray, a recent DC law school grad and anti-spam activist, is a good guy but is IMHO sadly mistaken here. Thought this might be interesting. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-FC-URL: To join send "sub-scribe" to fight-censorship-request@vorlon.mit.edu Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 17:25:36 -0400 From: Ray Everett-Church <ray@everett.org> Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu To: sameer <sameer@c2.net>, tbetz@pobox.com Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Spam costs and questions On 6/4/97 4:52 PM, sameer (sameer@c2.net) wrote: the
business entirely.
So how do criminal and civial penalties for not revealing a customer's name protect anonymity on the internet? Anonymity on the internet must be preserved. If you could come up with a way to make spam illegal and preserve anonymity, I would be very glad. Until then, I will have to oppose making spam illegal.
As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales taxes, etc. And in the case above, since the remailer in question is simply acting as an agent for the business, there's no question of legitimate anonymity implicated. Indeed, perpetuating anonymity for the business often times facilitates activites that constitute a breach of contract and sometimes even fraud. The whole reason to use a pro-spam anon remailer is so that you can violate your ISP usage agreement without being traceable or accountable. And if you've entered into that contractual relationship with the ISP with the *intent* to breach that contract, it's fraud. Anonymity for consumers, Yes! Anonymity for vendors, NO! -Ray <everett@cauce.org> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Everett-Church, Esq. <ray@everett.org> www.everett.org/~everett This mail isn't legal advice. Opinion(RE-C) != Opinion(clients(RE-C)) (C)1997 Ray Everett-Church ** Help outlaw "spam"=> http://www.cauce.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End of forwarded message from owner-cypherpunks@algebra.com -----
Quoting Ray Everett-Church:
As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales taxes, etc.
I can think of a number of reasons why a business would want to remain "hidden". Fear of retribution is the biggest. This could be "valid" retribution (such as for selling shoddy products or annoying sales practices) or "invalid" retribution (such as selling a product that offends the local moral or legal establishment), but is a product that people desire and are willing to pay money for. But such markets are "illegal" and thus not to be thought about by good little citizen units. alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."
At 4:00 PM -0700 6/4/97, Alan wrote:
Quoting Ray Everett-Church:
As stated before, I have heard no convincing argument that it is in the consumers best interest to have an anonymous *vendor*. Sure it's vital that *consumers* be allowed to remain anonymous, but if you're selling a product or service, there's no legitimate reason why a business needs to remain anonymous given issues of warranties, product liability, sales taxes, etc.
I can think of a number of reasons why a business would want to remain "hidden". Fear of retribution is the biggest. This could be "valid" retribution (such as for selling shoddy products or annoying sales practices) or "invalid" retribution (such as selling a product that offends the local moral or legal establishment), but is a product that people desire and are willing to pay money for.
But such markets are "illegal" and thus not to be thought about by good little citizen units.
I must've missed the original on this...haven't seen a post from Ray Everett-Church (one of those highfalutin' hyphenated names!) in a long time. It turns out that I had this precise discussion with Chaum just before our panel discussion at CFP; Michael Froomkin was also there and agreed with my points (he can clarify this if he wishes). Namely, Chaum argue that seller anonymity was not needed, except for illegal markets, which he claimed he would not support. Well, I immediately pointed out, what about providers of, say, birth control information in jurisdictions where such information is illegal? (Not all such information is free, and any metered access system that was not seller anonymous would be a prime candidate for stings by government agents). I also pointed out other markets for other kinds of information, which at various times and places have been illegal. Sometimes retroactively so. Chaum said he had to agree that these were good examples, and that he'd think about the issue furhter. He speculated during his panel presentation that possibly a mechanism could be found to allow such vendor or seller anonymity for _educational_ and similar materials, but not for other things...Froomkin and I were incredulous. The fact is that seller and buyer anonymity are equally important. Every transaction has two parts, and it is a logical fallacy to assume that only buyers wish untraceability. It may be true that in the _conventional model_ of retail shops selling to walk-in customers, the ontological reality is that the shops are far from anonymous while the customers are often anonymous, but this model is not the only model of an agoric marketplace. Sellers of information on the Net are quite likely to be serious customers of anonymity...look at the use of pseudonyms in general in literature. And so on. The archives have several threads on this subject. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (3)
-
Alan -
Igor Chudov ＠ home -
Tim May