Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom

[Charlie Comsec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Jim Choate <ravage at ssz.com>  wrote:                                   
   
> > I find it interesting that most of the people who refer to anonymous  
> > posters as "hiding behind" or "hiding behind the skirts of" something  
> > usually have unlisted telephone numbers when you try to do a search   
> > for them. <g>  I wonder why "hiding behind" an unlisted telephone number
> > is considered acceptable but having an "unlisted" e-mail address is not
> > considered acceptable?
> > 
> > BTW, do you "hide behind" clothes when you walk on the street?  If so, why?
> > Got something to hide?  Huh?  COWARD!!!! <g>
> 
> Public anonymity and having an unlisted phone number are not even the same
> thing. An unlisted phone number is to reduce public exposure, anonymity is
> to enhance public exposure and secure plausible deniability. To have an
> analogous situation you would need to use a *listed* phone number registered
> to anonymous in such a way that ANI displayed the number but any directory
> search resulted in anonymous w/ no address or other tracing info even for
> the phone company. To the best of my knowledge no phone company anywhere
> will allow a customer to purchase service without identifying themselves to
> the phone company. Please let me know if there is such a beast somewhere.

That analogy is faulty.  The issue is the (claimed) need to provide an 
e-mail address when communicating via usenet, or some other public forum.  
Since the chosen communications medium is usenet (or a public mailing list like 
this), you can reply to me via that same medium.  An e-mail address is only 
required if I want E-MAIL replies in response to my post.  So, in that 
regard, a telephone number would fall into the same category.  I'd only 
feel obliged to include a phone number in my posts if I wanted people to 
contact me via TELEPHONE.

Sending anonymous e-mail to a person is more analogous to sending snail mail
without a return address.  It would be a form of one-way communications, unlike
an anonymous PUBLIC post where a public reply is still possible.  If you want 
to use the telephone analogy, then what you're talking about is
akin to a pay phone that's not traceable back to an individual.  ANI or
caller ID would show the number of the pay phone itself, just like anonymous
e-mail from a remailer shows the return address of the remailer rather than the
sender.  (For the majority of internet users, calling someone anonymously on
a payphone is probably simpler than figuring out how to use a remailer, so the
convenience of being able to call anonymously FROM HOME is not really
required.)

BTW, while this post does contain a replyable e-mail address, I'm not
soliciting e-mail replies and I can't even guarantee that a reply to my return
address would reach me, due to the uncertainty of 'nym reply blocks these
days.  For all anyone knows, all return e-mail could be forwarded to
/dev/null at somewhere.
                                  
> Generaly people wear clothes because it is convenient and required by social
> mores and legal statute.

Exactly.  And yet many on usenet would deny that same CONVENIENCE to anonymous
usenet posters.  Sure, anonymous posting can be "abused" just as people can
conceal illegal weapons under their clothing.  But the answer to that is not to 
require public nudity just to protect against "clothing abuse".  I guess a
better analogy would be a nudist colony where both nudity and clothing are
acceptable.  And the de facto censors of anonymous posts would turn Usenet into
a nudist colony where clothing was FORBIDDEN, or at least where the wearers of
clothing were ridiculed and insulted.
     
> Put your money where you mouth is, send your bank acct. no. & PIN to the
> list....come on, you can trust US.

As I'd tell someone (if I were posting anonymously) "you go first". <g>  A
couple of times an anonymous poster has offered "if you want my e-mail
address, give me your home phone number and I'll phone you and give it to you".
Strange, but I've never seen such an offer accepted.  <g>

- ---
Finger <comsec at nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNI1CDQbp0h8ZvosNAQGFaAf/RrBdyP7JwwLkoudJ/tgS5dUMx+uOxZ1q
29AfX7rVAARcjJeA+6+a+uScPiy0mr9j8faL8+Qd78/jbKiqDRlZoJykrCfievUW
/iklLAAI7aU09ctFlFO0ys2qk5CSOEf1UYpWlZu++L47r5A7OwXhAKhJ86Szhg+M
LjYHg71dPUgrqLyDTyA7ldsAbFmXE7WyLbWD1y5AeURzOOV4kXlYGMkjduNIZwyj
MrQ27L+NiG8+ruQ1eBIdqxtGiieVqzjQk83uLQRBEphiac+I+S7GHTAGo5YvlkSQ
SudLPKR+G9UAFMVyRZklwMkmawPifwKYZIVL0ZiMeI/EkWWyPZrhkQ==
=Lw+P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----