From: "Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ" <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 11:26:13 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Another reason for anonymity
Message-ID: <9404141825.AA09455@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Preface:

   I inadvertently sent this via regular mail to Tim directly instead of
   on the list.  He noted, correctly, that it should have been put to the
   list so I'm copying it there.  
        	 Jim 



<My computer told me that Timothy C. May said:>
> 
> (You should carry these discussions on the main list, so I can justify
> putting more time into the replies.)
> 
> > <My computer told me that Timothy C. May said:>
> > > 
		[ discussion of anonymity and defamation of character
		  omitted since it's been posted before. - JCS]
> > 
> > But what about the credit checking systems now or the "Data Hiway" (I'm
> > growing very weary of the I.S. catchphrase) of the near future?  What if
> > I can type, anonymously, that Tim May is a pedophile and every newspaper,
> > and thus every home, in the world sees it?  Do you think you'd get a job
> > as a elementary school teacher?  Not likely.  People always remember the
> > accusation but rarely the retraction.  Do you think Michael Jackson will
> > ever shrug off the child molestation charges?  Not fully.  Even now, if
> > I have a business and I tell XYZ Credit Check Company that you didn't
> > pay your bill and owe me $1,000,000.00 then you're ruined!  Oh, that's 
> > right, for me to report it I have to say who I am and then you can sue
> > me for ruining your life.
> 
> False or frivolous accusations are often made, and people take into
> account the source. This is what free speech entails.

  Once again, though, if someone is granted anonymity then people can
  not take into account the source unless reputations are attached to
  the pseudonym, as you mention:

> Look into how "reputations" work.
> 
> As to the Michael Jackson case, people believed it because his
> behavior supported the charges, there were corroborating witnesses, etc.
> 

  But we are guaranteed the right to face our accusor in legal cases
  which would go away with complete anonymity.  

> > > (What about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Let those who see
> > > there's no fire beat the shit out of the twerp who shouted "Fire!"
> > > Seems fair to me.)
> > > 
> > 
> > Oops, tactical error, Tim.  Under your statements a guy can shout "Fire!"
> > anonymously so who do you "beat the shit out of" then?  Neither argument
> > (for or against anonymity) is water proof.
> 
> No, if its anonymous, then it can't be punished anyway. I'm in favor
> of "screenable anonymity": set your e-mail filters to ignore any
> messages except from those names or pseuodonyms you place faith in.
> Simple.

   Ok, so it is not just blind anonymity but rather one with some
   degree of responsibility and reputation, thus your psuedonym becomes
   known as a distinct entity that is not tied to you.  Perhaps...

> (My point about the "Fire!" example is that a rare, and solvable,
> problem has been used inappropriately for decades to place legal
> limits on free speech.)

  And a valid point it is.  It seems that in 50 years we could have
  come up with a better example of limiting freedom than this.

-- 
   Tantalus Inc.        Bringing people together     Jim Sewell-KD4CKQ
2407 N. Roosevelt Blvd.   to have a little fun.  Internet: jims@mpgn.com
Key West, FL  33041                               	  CIS: 71061,1027
  (305) 293-8100    "We keep coding and coding and coding..."