From: Blake Coverett <blake@bcdev.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 15:58:05 -0800 (PST)
To: "cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Dr. Vulis' social engineering experiment
Message-ID: <199701212358.PAA14296@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Toto writes:

>   Just because an individual claims, rightly or wrongly, to be a
> big defender of freedom, involving himself or herself in causes
> like those of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, does not take
> away their right to stomp on anyone who disagrees with them on
> their own private list.

Of course

>   To claim otherwise would be as ludicrous as denying the person
> running the Anonymizer the right to expose the identities of the
> people he feels might perhaps be abusing his private system, or
> using it for nefarious purposes, such as hiding their identity 
> from others.

I suspect you intended that to be sarcasm, but to be honest I
wouldn't have caught it at all if I wasn't already aware of your 
views in this area.  The person hosting the Anonymizer *does*
have the right to do exactly this.  I don't believe they would do
so, but that is a reputation issue not a question of my rights.
If I had entered into a contract with the provider of a service of
this nature then I would have a 'right' to expect their contractual
obligations to be fulfilled, but that is not the case with the
Anonymizer and certainly not with toad.com.

regards,
-Blake (freedom of the press for those with presses)