The two basic reasons for anonymity, as I see it, are: 1. freedom of expression 2. freedom from analysis, i.e. context-based 'profiling' by companies or governments, based on your non-anonymous posts. In an ideal world one would have the freedom to express without any risk of damage, whether it be economic, material or social. Ideally, I should be able to publicly discuss my views, on anarchy or religion or sadism or whatever, without risking social censure. In an ideally tolerant society, the need for anonymity would then be reduced to (2), freedom from analysis. Unfortunately our society is far from ideal. Though Unicorn could freely post on the relatively more tolerant Net, he still faces intolerance in the 'real' world. For all we may talk about reputation systems, multiple identities and so on, the seven-digit possible loss Unicorn talks about is _real_, in a way cyberspace just isn't, yet. Suppose tmp _had_ posted through chains of remailers? The damage would have been just as real; the remedy would have been far less. Would, and should, remailer operators facing such a situation 'open up'? Uni says Julf would disable tmp though Netcom didn't, Julf understands netiquette. Maybe, but it's not that easy to disable an account through a chain of cypherpunk-style remailers. I remember when we discussed the Usenet libel case in Australia, someone (Tim?) said that anonymous posts, and libellious posts in general, should not be taken that seriously. Uni's business associates are not likely to be so familiar with net culture, and would not understand the anonymous part of it, just the slight (from their perspective) on Uni's character. Of course, Uni should have posted everything through a chain of remailers himself, if he was concerned about his views leaking out of the Net. Does that mean he'd never be able to attend cypherpunk meetings, or have truename contact with anyone, lest he be identified with his anonymously held opinions? If tmp, or anyone else for that matter, were to suspect that Uni was behind specific anon posts, he'd just make that accusation anonymously, in 100 news groups. Libel doesn't have to be proven to be damaging. What I find amusing is that Detweiler was the one who started going nuts while making paranoid warnings about the dangers of anonymity, such as in libel. He seems bent on proving his predictions correct, as many of the recent examples of identity abuse (tm) were instigated by him. (Of course, by this I'm not saying that Detweiler's views are reflected in tmp's posts... ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says: Support your right to bare arms! --------------------------------------------------------------------------