Re: more ideas on anonymity

> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@athena.mit.edu>

> I see.  So you don't believe in libel or slander laws.
> 
> And NBC was perfectly justified in faking an explosion in a GM truck to
> show it was unsafe, and broadcast it on prime-time TV.  And it didn't do
> anybody any harm at all.  Uh huh.
> 
> Try again.....

I believe that Theodore is confusing the notion of tort and the notion of
crime.

Slander and Libel are torts, that is, they are civil matters. Prior restraint
of speech is brought up in the context of CRIMINAL acts. As an example,
obviously, if I promise you that what I am about to tell you is the
true formula for a drug who's design I am selling you and I lie, I
am liable under our contract. Also similarly, it is possible under various
legal arguments to consider slander to be a tort. However, it is something
different if the government claims that my saying "all green people should
be killed" is a crime. Now, on the issue of slander, the notion of anonymity
is largely unimportant. If I had walked into the middle of the street and
ranted for an hour saying that GM trucks are unsafe, that would be largely
ignored, as most anonymous denunciations likely are. The issue is if a
non-anonymous individual or entity with credibility, like NBC, says something
that is false.

Perry

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:27:24 EST
   From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)

   Now, on the issue of slander, the notion of anonymity
   is largely unimportant. If I had walked into the middle of the street and
   ranted for an hour saying that GM trucks are unsafe, that would be largely
   ignored, as most anonymous denunciations likely are. The issue is if a
   non-anonymous individual or entity with credibility, like NBC, says
   something that is false.

I don't know about that.  It is certainly true that non-anonymous
individual or entity with credibility, like NBC, can do the most amount
of damage when they slander someone.

But what about someone who sends 20 different mail messages, each
through a different remailer path so they have different reply
addresses, all of them detailing some similar (but false) story about
how some GM truck went up in flames aftering being hit lightly by a Geo
Metro?  Or suppose someone sends 20 messages (all different) about how
Perry Metzger stiffed him/her out of some amount of digital cash?  I'd
suspect you could do some real damage that way.  Not as much, perhaps,
as something like a faked demonstration tape broadcast on prime-time
evening news, but damange nevertheless.

							- Ted

Perry Metzger writes:
> 
> > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@athena.mit.edu>
> 
> > I see.  So you don't believe in libel or slander laws.
> > 
> > And NBC was perfectly justified in faking an explosion in a GM truck to
> > show it was unsafe, and broadcast it on prime-time TV.  And it didn't do
> > anybody any harm at all.  Uh huh.
> > 
> > Try again.....
> 
> I believe that Theodore is confusing the notion of tort and the notion of
> crime.
> 
[disctinction between crimes and torts wrt slander and libel...]
>
> The issue is if a
> non-anonymous individual or entity with credibility, like NBC, says something
> that is false.
> 

Remember the intent as well.  It is not enough that one utters false
statements, one must also intend to do damage with those statements (the
"malice aforethoght" part).  If I honestly thought that GM trucks were
firebombs waiting to happen and told someone else I am not being libelous,
but if I were to publish a statement that I knew was untrue (or one in
which I was negligent in my research, but I am not sure about this...) then
I might have a date in court in the near future...

Either way, these actions are civil one, not criminal.  The U.S. government
is extremely limited in it's ability to use prior restraint to prevent
publication of something (although there are many ways around the existing
protections, as many on this list will undoubtably attest to.)

jim

From: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
   Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 22:50:03 -0600 (CST)

   > The issue is if a
   > non-anonymous individual or entity with credibility, like NBC, says something
   > that is false.
   > 

   Either way, these actions are civil one, not criminal.  The U.S. government
   is extremely limited in it's ability to use prior restraint to prevent
   publication of something (although there are many ways around the existing
   protections, as many on this list will undoubtably attest to.)

You are all missing my point.  I am well aware that libel and slander
are civil actions; not criminal ones.  However, they *all* *hinge* *on*
*having* *someone* *to* *sue*.   Today, it is generally not possible to
be anonymous while broadcasting your views to a large number of people.
The closest you can get to that is at a rally, and even then, since you
are phyiscally present, there is some link between what you say and your
identity; hence, there is a certain amount of personal responsibility in
what you say publically.

Anonymous remailers completely removes this check on undisciplined free
speech; it is now possible to spout GIF images, rantings that Elvis is
alive, the fact that Jim McCoy didn't beat his wife today --- all
without any personal risk on the part of the broadcaster.  While, this
may be a feature in some cases, in other cases it is most definitely a
BUG.  If you ignore this, you are only burying your head in the sand.

						- Ted

> Today, it is generally not possible to be anonymous while
> broadcasting your views to a large number of people.

To do this for free, no.  But you can send direct mail anonymously,
although you can't get cheap bulk rates.

> While, this may be a feature in some cases, in other cases it is
> most definitely a BUG.

True.  Perhaps we should look at the problems of universal anonymity
in contexts where they can already be observed -- like cellulose
mail.  

It would be possible to implement a "postage" analog without a backed
crypto currency.  Each remailer could issue usage tickets, good for
a certain flow per month.  Issue them to individuals, and let them
circulate.  There are obvious problems; for one, transactions would
be on a good-will basis, except in the case of trades to consolidate
a block with a single remailer.  This would produce allocation
problems.  In this mileau, a net.loser might be able to panhandle a
truckload of tickets.  On the up side, it's a good cover for getting
currency up and running.

With real postage, I think the problem would be negligible.  I can
imagine a custom developing that mail from nyms not on the "pass"
list would have to include a certain fee just to make into the
mailbox.  A motivation pre-filter for just mail, at least.  If mail
transmission is flat-fee, such a system seems quite likely.

> 						- Ted

	 PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu