From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 19:41:33 PST
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Detweiler abuse again
In-Reply-To: <199402150311.TAA29366@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9402150338.AA02234@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim,

> I support Hal's proposal that as many remailer operators as possible
> attempt to filter Detweiler's postings. All it will take for Detweiler
> to get through is one who doesn't filter, and who supports encryption,
> but this will still make it harder for folks like Detweiler to abuse
> the system.

I disagree.  While I can honestly say that I don't like most Detweiler
posts, I feel that he is showing us the possibility of how remailers
can (and are) being abused.  I think censorship is the wrong answer.
I think there needs to be some accountability, even if it is anonymous
accountability.

"How do we acount for something that's anonymous?" I hear you ask me.
Well, I don't have the answer to that.  Maybe our idea of anonymity is
slightly in error.  Maybe we need something like penet, where you
actually get a return ID, to have some sort of anonymity.  I don't
know 100% for sure that Detweiler is an12070, although I do believe it
is his address.

Although I don't agree with his means, I do feel that once in a while
Detweiler does post something useful.  He does have something to say,
although he has a real backwards way of saying it.  (So backwards that
he causes people to stop listening before he makes his point).

But I feel censorship is *always* the wrong solution, unless it is
done at the end-point.  I.e., I can *choose* not to read posts from
detweiler, or an12070, but that is my choice.  I do not think anyone
has the right to say to me that I *cannot* read his posts.  It should
be my perogative.  Maybe we should change our systems to allow for
anonymous accountability?

Just a thought (or series thereof ;-)

-derek