From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 09:51:56 PST
To: Cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Press attack on anonymity.
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9501030943.A4287-0100000@netcom10>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Yesterday an "opinion" article appeared in the SF Chronicle,
written by some unimportant person who knew absolutely
nothing about the internet.

Today a similar, but better informed article, appeared in
many newspapers, originating from the New York Times.

Articles written for newspapers are written to survive arbitrary
truncation, hence key points first, lesser points later.

The interesting thing is that the two articles, despite different
authors, had equivalent key points, implying that some single higher 
authority gave out a list of points to be made, but left the 
headline and overall spin to the columnist.

Indeed, when one reads beyond the key points that were equivalent
in both articles, it is as if one suddenly encounters a different
journalist.  There is an abrupt change of tone and style when one
reads from the uniform part to lesser points.

The key points in both articles are that the government should
do something coercive to stop anonymity on the internet, and that
there is widespread support for such a move.

Note that since both articles are obviously tentacles, there
is a mysterious and anonymous powerful person -- the single
higher authority of which I spoke earlier -- who is
anonymously attacking anonymity.

In my opinion when a mysterious anonymous and powerful voice
proclaims that the government should coerce someone, it is usually
the government speaking  -- a government department with guns is
running up a trial balloon.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com