Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
EFF in generally does not issue extremist position statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks.
If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty.
It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, Iran, or China.
It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people in the street.
Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded.
"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for. I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity. And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for.
amusing the way you phrase that-- you didn't say, "phone", but "pay phone". the statement used to hold in general for all "phones", but then caller id, caller blocking, etc. have been introduced that make this no longer true. so in a very real sense, anonymity in the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been "solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people agree caller ID is an advancement). 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. this is essentially what is happening with the remailers *right*now*, if you ask any remailer operator. people ask not to receive anonymous mail, and are put on the blocking lists. imho only the extremists are arguing, and have always argued, that they should have some ability to put an anonymous message in front of someone else against their will. this basic rule becomes more murky when you look at public forums, because you can't really say whether given individuals reading them want to hear something anonymous or not. by designing the forum beforehand to force the situation, you solve this problem. I do believe that in the future there will be all types of forums: those in which identity is required, those in which it is optional, and those in which it is always cloaked. this is eminently reasonable imho. those who argue against one of the above's existence (such as saying it involves a ghettoization of anonymity, that there should always be an ability to be anonymous in any communication setting) are extremists imho. the above is almost exactly what Dyson was saying, and I have been advocating this position for a long time. again, I think anyone who rejects the above is an extremist. there are different ways to support or restrict anonymity, some of them extremist. those who argue for no restrictions anywhere don't have a clue about reality imho.
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for.
Incidently, this is being "solved." In D.C. and Chicago the solution is to rip up the payphones and not permit new ones to be installed. If anyone objects the officals responsible make a wide gesture and say "We didn't take away your phones, CRIMINALS took away your phones."
amusing the way you phrase that-- you didn't say, "phone", but "pay phone". the statement used to hold in general for all "phones", but then caller id, caller blocking, etc. have been introduced that make this no longer true. so in a very real sense, anonymity in the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been "solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people agree caller ID is an advancement).
Yet today one can go out and rent a cell phone on the street, or even pay for one's activation in cash up front without presenting any real identity documents. The real question is this, what are you going to do to anihilate anonymous communication, because if you think its harmful that's what you have to do. -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
Not just DC and Chicago, I'm afraid. If anyone around NYC noticed, there are less and less payphones, and all new ones installed, just about, are those yellow credit card phones. Not all of them, but it's now one for one, at least. =Millie= PS: i wrote a fiction book about this a few years ago -- i should have published. People could've said i was the next nostradamus. :( On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for.
Incidently, this is being "solved."
In D.C. and Chicago the solution is to rip up the payphones and not permit new ones to be installed.
If anyone objects the officals responsible make a wide gesture and say "We didn't take away your phones, CRIMINALS took away your phones."
amusing the way you phrase that-- you didn't say, "phone", but "pay phone". the statement used to hold in general for all "phones", but then caller id, caller blocking, etc. have been introduced that make this no longer true. so in a very real sense, anonymity in the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been "solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people agree caller ID is an advancement).
Yet today one can go out and rent a cell phone on the street, or even pay for one's activation in cash up front without presenting any real identity documents.
The real question is this, what are you going to do to anihilate anonymous communication, because if you think its harmful that's what you have to do.
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded.
"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved." For many decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and no solution is being implemented for.
Yes! Exactly! Of course! Precisely the example that has come up in EFF's own statements on anonymity (which, in absence of a policy on the topic have been strictly factual, reporting both sides of the issue).
I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity.
That's a common view here, to say the least. And it's one with which I am in 100% agreement.
And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one.
We don't either, even those of us with questions and conundrums to think about. I do think its extremist to not be willing to even address the questions and conundrums, but we're in agrement on that, so not much to argue about, fortunately. -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>
participants (5)
-
<pstiraļ¼ escape.com> -
Black Unicorn -
jim bell -
Stanton McCandlish -
Vladimir Z. Nuri