From: gnu (John Gilmore)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 03:01:57 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, gnu
Subject: Re: more ideas on anonymity
In-Reply-To: <199302260935.AA06571@well.sf.ca.us>
Message-ID: <9302261101.AA18976@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


We have to keep an eye on each others' knees here -- there's a
tendency for a knee-jerk reaction not based on reality.

Squabbling over what "crimes" or "antisocial acts" should disqualify one
from being able to use anonymity is ***WAY*** missing the point.  It is
the people who have crossed one of those lines who need the protection the
most!  And, at least the US Supreme Court thinks it is in society's interest
to protect them:

    The case is Talley v. California, 362 US 60 (1960), in which the
    Supreme Court invalidated an ordinance which prohibited the
    distribution of any handbill not bearing the name and address of the
    person who prepared it.  The Court rejected the state's claim that the
    ordinance was necessary to help identify those responsible for fraud,
    false advertising, or libel.  According to Tribe, the Court reasoned
    that "a ban on anonymous pamphleteering falls with much greater force
    upon individuals and groups who fear majoritarian disapproval and
    reprisal -- upon dissidents and upon the unpopular -- than upon those
    with widely approved messages to deliver."

To quote a cypherpunk who usually has more sense:

> I believe unpopular opinions ought to be protected [as long as they don't
> encourage illegal or violent actions].
> 						 Once we get in the
> opinion-censoring biz, it's a steep slippery slope.

I inserted the [ and ].  He forgot to note that he's *already*
advocating opinion-censoring, and yes, he's already sliding down the
slope.

	John Gilmore

PS:  There is no way to enforce rules on the content of messages sent
through encrypted anonymous remailers.  Think about it for a minute.

All there needs to be is *one* remailer anywhere in the world, which will
send any message to the final destination.  Anyone can send an encrypted
message to the "freedom-loving" remailer, via their local remailer.  Even
if the inputs to the freedom-loving remailer were tapped, the messages
that arrived there would already be anonymous (headers stripped) and
encrypted.

Since what passes through the rest of the "freedom-hating" anonymous
remailers is encrypted, they can't see the content anyway.  You could
prohibit encrypted messages through your freedom-hating remailer, but
(1) that's easy to circumvent, and (2) what would be the point of
your running a remailer?