From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 05:39:12 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: CDT's Berman Opposes Online Anonymity
In-Reply-To: <199707211648.SAA11236@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <199707222127.XAA17893@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May wrote:
> In fairness to Berman, in 1985 very few people were thinking seriously
> about these issues, and Chaum's paper (presumably the one published that
> year in "Communicatons of the ACM") was probably seen as far-off
> technology then.
> 
> I'd be more interested to see Berman's more recent views on online
> anonymity.
> 
> It might well be that in 1985 he saw little hope for technological
> solutions, and understandably placed more faith in legislative solutions.
> 
> Now that the technology for anonymity is widely deployed, this situation
> has changed.

I think we've all been thru this before, with the Esther Dyson flap and
so on.  That was then, this is now.

Online anonymity was not much of a real issue ten years ago, and I doubt
most readers had formed much of an opinion on it.  On private BBSes it
was prevelant, and on academic and corporate networks it was virtually
nonexistant.  As these networks began to merge, not surprisingly people
came down on both sides of the issue, but their opinions were backed more
by convention than by the facts of the situation.

I think that as time has progessed, people have come to see the reasons
behind it.  Five years ago, there was considerable debate over whether
anon.penet.fi should exist, today almost everyone takes for granted the
right to post anonymously.  For all the animosity he has caused, Spamford
Wallace has shown us why you don't want people to know your email address.
Some of you may remember the comments made on the list by a certain law
professor, who said he wouldn't post to usenet because he didn't want to
get junk mail.  In hindsight we can laugh at that remark in light of the
obvious solution.