From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:49:55 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Internet Drivers' Licenses
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960913202014.2637A-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960913223151.7410A-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Well, it would seem some are helping to make my point; M.Duvos is calling 
for government intervention, in the form of an "Internet Driver's License."

There goes anonimity, which has, in general, been a "good thing" on the 
'net. Here comes "big brother", to protect us from the evil anonymous 
spammer. Here comes more government infrastructure to enforce the LAWS 
that "we", as a society, have subjected ourselves to, so that "the few, 
the rude, the clueless" can no longer send out their anonymously sourced 
spam. Less freedom, more taxes. Why? Because someone out there is doing 
something because they "have the right", by the sole virtue of there 
currently being no law specifically against their particular behavior.

Still on the side of the spammer, Mr. May?

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:
> 
> > Bill Stewart writes:
> > 
> > > Anybody for an Internet Driver's License?
> 
> [Too much spam, some designed to avoid filtering by humans or machines]
> 
> > Just being able to filter out posts from Net addresses that
> > don't correspond to real identifiable humans posting under
> > their legal names would be a good first step.  
> 

Am I not an identifiable human? Is Black Unicorn an AI? Would I be 
acceptable if I posted as JohnSmith@mcfeely.bsfs.org? 

> In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of
> trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign
> your own levels of trust to each signator.
> 
> Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards.

If you consider increased legislation a step backwards. How else can we 
determine what we, as free people, can/can't/should/shouldn't do?
(Sarcasm)

Of course it is a step backwards; the ability to discuss sensitive 
issues, and obtain information anonymously has been of great social 
benefit. Yet another freedom soon to be legislated away (See "Georgia, USA").

Still failing to see the cause-and-effect relationship, folks?

When even some on c'punk readers are calling for manditory identification, 
where do you think the great unwashed position themselves?

- r.w.