From: rishab@dxm.ernet.in
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 06:46:45 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Anonymous libel and Unicorn's lawsuit
Message-ID: <gate.eiNumc1w165w@dxm.ernet.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The two basic reasons for anonymity, as I see it, are:
1. freedom of expression
2. freedom from analysis, i.e. context-based 'profiling' by companies or 
   governments, based on your non-anonymous posts.

In an ideal world one would have the freedom to express without any risk of
damage, whether it be economic, material or social. Ideally, I should be able
to publicly discuss my views, on anarchy or religion or sadism or whatever, 
without risking social censure. In an ideally tolerant society, the need for
anonymity would then be reduced to (2), freedom from analysis.

Unfortunately our society is far from ideal. Though Unicorn could freely post
on the relatively more tolerant Net, he still faces intolerance in the 'real' 
world.

For all we may talk about reputation systems, multiple identities and so on,
the seven-digit possible loss Unicorn talks about is _real_, in a way 
cyberspace just isn't, yet.

Suppose tmp _had_ posted through chains of remailers? The damage would have 
been just as real; the remedy would have been far less. Would, and should, 
remailer operators facing such a situation 'open up'? Uni says Julf would 
disable tmp though Netcom didn't, Julf understands netiquette. Maybe, but
it's not that easy to disable an account through a chain of cypherpunk-style
remailers.

I remember when we discussed the Usenet libel case in Australia, someone (Tim?)
said that anonymous posts, and libellious posts in general, should not be
taken that seriously. Uni's business associates are not likely to be so 
familiar with net culture, and would not understand the anonymous part of it,
just the slight (from their perspective) on Uni's character.

Of course, Uni should have posted everything through a chain of remailers 
himself, if he was concerned about his views leaking out of the Net. Does
that mean he'd never be able to attend cypherpunk meetings, or have truename
contact with anyone, lest he be identified with his anonymously held opinions?
If tmp, or anyone else for that matter, were to suspect that Uni was behind
specific anon posts, he'd just make that accusation anonymously, in 100 news
groups. Libel doesn't have to be proven to be damaging.

What I find amusing is that Detweiler was the one who started going nuts while
making paranoid warnings about the dangers of anonymity, such as in libel.
He seems bent on proving his predictions correct, as many of the recent 
examples of identity abuse (tm) were instigated by him. (Of course, by this I'm
not saying that Detweiler's views are reflected in tmp's posts... ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                                     rishab@dxm.ernet.in
Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410
H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA

The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says:
                                          Support your right to bare arms!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------