From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)
Message Hash: 7c3cac4d5949f09f24145055a04cdb6b4e517c13282cab835234c89fc8b79e1d
Message ID: <199609040104.SAA06261@eff.org>
Reply To: <199609040057.RAA01205@mail.pacifier.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-04 03:45:09 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:45:09 +0800
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:45:09 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)
Subject: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
In-Reply-To: <199609040057.RAA01205@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199609040104.SAA06261@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> >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.
Yes! Exactly! Of course! Precisely the example that has come up in EFF's
own statements on anonymity (which, in absence of a policy on the topic
have been strictly factual, reporting both sides of the issue).
> 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.
That's a common view here, to say the least. And it's one with which I
am in 100% agreement.
> And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one.
We don't either, even those of us with questions and conundrums to think
about.
I do think its extremist to not be willing to even address the questions
and conundrums, but we're in agrement on that, so not much to argue about,
fortunately.
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P> Online Activist </HTML>
Return to September 1996
Return to ““Vladimir Z. Nuri” <vznuri@netcom.com>”