From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 18:01:22 PST
To: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Cypherpunks know they're cool
In-Reply-To: <9303122105.AA06413@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9303130159.AA01968@SOS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:07-EST
   From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

   What these solutions have in common is that we ask people to protect
   themselves, rather than requiring everyone else to adhere to their
   notions of good behavior.

Hmm..... how is this alike, and how is this different, from a hardliner
NRA saying, "We should ask people to protect themselves by wearing
bulletproof vests, instead of trying to ban guns"?

   Which brings to mind the potential problem that 99% of everybody
   may choose to participate exclusively in "real person only" groups.
   Any hints at a solution to that one?  How about if we try to 
   convince people to participate in "pay as you go" groups using
   digital postage?  That would solve many of the problems, in a way
   that is less offensive to the freedom-loving among us.

Carrying the above metaphor further, is it really a problem if 99% of
everybody chooses to live in firefight-free zones, so that they don't
have to wear bullet-proof vests?  And is saying that, "O.K, we'll make
people pay for bullets" really going to help?  It just restricts the
people who can fire bullets (or write large amounts of anonymous
postings) to those who have lots o' cash.

As long as we are really being freedom-loving, there's nothing we can do
(or should _want_ to do) to get people to attend groups that allow
anonymous posters, if they only want to travel in "real person only"
circles.  If they've made a choice not to want to read anonymous
postings (perhaps by installing a filter which deletes all anonymous
postings unread), how is this a "problem"?

							- Ted