From: azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:34:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Message-ID: <v02130501ae53380722b2@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>so in a very real sense, anonymity in
>the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been
>"solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people
>agree caller ID is an advancement).

Yes, and that is why some companies (e.g., Private Lines) offer anonymous
out-bound calling services.

>
>I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter
>of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says,
>"I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
>this is essentially what is happening with the remailers *right*now*,
>if you ask any remailer operator. people ask not to receive anonymous
>mail, and are put on the blocking lists. imho only the extremists are arguing,
>and have always argued, that they should have some ability to put
>an anonymous message in front of someone else against their will.
>
>this basic rule becomes more murky when you look at public forums,
>because you can't really say whether given individuals reading them want to
>hear something anonymous or not. by designing the forum beforehand
>to force the situation, you solve this problem.
>

I find most unwanted communications objectionable, anonymous or not. How
about billboards.  Should the fact that I choose to be outside or on a
roadway make my eye a target for ads? (If so, then why not consider having
an e-mail account in a similar vein?)  The fact that I can immediately, or
later, identify the responsible party doesn't keep me from initially seeing
the ad and taking my time.  If I object, what are my alternatives?  The
last thing I want is monetary compensation.  I want my time back.  Failing
this, I want the abusers time (sorta' like in Zardoz).


>I do believe that in the future there will be all types of forums: those in
>which identity is required, those in which it is optional, and those in
>which it is always cloaked. this is eminently reasonable imho.
>those who argue against one of the
>above's existence (such as saying it involves a ghettoization
>of anonymity, that there should always be an ability to be anonymous
>in any communication setting) are extremists imho.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw



PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear, N7ZEZ       | Internet: azur@netcom.com
Grinder                   | Voice: 1-702-655-2877
Sacred Cow Meat Co.       | Fax: 1-702-658-2673
7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------