From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:54:31 +0800
To: Jon Lebkowsky <mech@eff.org>
Subject: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Message-ID: <199609040057.RAA01205@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
>At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
>>At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
>>> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position 
>>> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, 
>>> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. 
>>
>>If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes
>>of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty.
>>
>>It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba,
>>Iran, or China.
>>
>>It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens,
>>but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people
>>in the street.
>
>Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you
>use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which
>removes accountability) is a problem.  The accountability issue is real and
>should be addressed, not evaded.

"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved."  For many 
decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and 
make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and 
no solution is being implemented for.

I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution 
to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity.  
And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com