1993-03-01 - Piercing anonymity and censorship

Header Data

From: ssandfort@attmail.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6fce5897dc35c941f1a453e40ecfa94c589a6d8815ef1702f141c8a66c2a41ca
Message ID: <9303011933.AA00711@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 19:34:03 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 11:34:03 PST

Raw message

From: ssandfort@attmail.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 11:34:03 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Piercing anonymity and censorship
Message-ID: <9303011933.AA00711@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

    ". . . I don't like censorship in any form.  But
    disclosing who sent a particular piece of anonymous mail
    is not the same as censorship."

How about FORCING a third-party to make such a disclosure?  It
seems Ted would ask or force remailers to be the nets' policemen.
If remailers are required to compromise the anonymity of their
service, the "chilling" effect on speech IS censorship.

    ". . . there are people who believe . . . that libel and
    slander laws shouldn't exist.  But it's not fair to call
    that a mainstream position.  And it is unreasonable to
    assume that as an axiom."

I never claimed that such a position was "mainstream" nor assumed
it was an "axiom."  I don't think I've seen ANY "ad populum"
arguments (other than Ted's) on Cypherpunks, we tend to think for

    ". . . *MOST PEOPLE* also don't believe that the right
    to privacy is absolute.  It certainly isn't explicitly
    listed in the *U.S. CONSTITUTION"*.  (Emphasis added.SS)

Our desire for privacy is not the result of a *popularity
contest* nor is it an argument from *authority*.  Rather, it is
derived from the logical requirements of freedom.

    "But in order to punish the perpetrators, it is first
    necessary to *identify* the perpetrators......"

RE-READ my post, Ted.

     S a n d y                         ssandfort@attmail.com