The Zen of Anonymity

Given: Some graffiti is on the wall.

Question: who is `responsible' or `liable' for graffiti?

the `vandal' (or `artist')? the owner of the wall? society? What if no
means exists whatsoever to identify the originator? or the owner of the
wall actually *encourages* people to use it for whatever purpose? And
socially beneficial uses ensue?

Given: something `illegal' in country A but not in B has been written
on a piece of paper. The paper now resides precisely between, exactly
on the border, of A and B.

Question: Who is the criminal? What is the crime?

the writer for treason? the paper transporter for violating export
laws? the border guards for not shooting? Again, what if the writer is
unidentifiable, the transportation automatic, guarding impossible? What
if there is actually a great deal of utility in the transportation of
paper-scrawl across borders, for everyone involved?

(Note that answers like `it behooves us all to ...prevent the spread of
graffiti' or  `...prevent the spread of illegal papers to borders'
would be worthy of the NSA but pathetically beg the questions.)

* * *

IMHO, anonymous postings and email have the same legal status of
graffiti or the paper on the border. No one is `responsible' or
`liable' for the content of graffiti, no laws apply to the paper. 
Precautions can be taken to limit `offensive' or `illegal' graffiti
(whatever that is!) and contrain the transport of writing on paper, but
nothing can be done to completely eradicate either, save erecting the
most totalitarian system the world has ever seen (a phrase coined by
T.C. May, my respect).  Perhaps we should have licensing laws for
graffiti `vandals' or paper carriers? registers next to all the walls
and streets so they can sign in? `Scrawling implement' or `communicable
media' bans? Or panning cameras mounted in every 10 foot square area of
space in the world? Human identification tags and tracking systems?

We have this thing called `cyberspace' that has nothing to do with the
laws of any country and comprises nothing but innocuous electrical or
light streams coursing through wires and fibers, and trying to impose
some system of `accountability' or `responsibility' or `liability' on
every last element is an archaic, horrifying, but thankfully obsolete
and conceptually impossible artifact from the `dark' ages. Yes, people
can choose to become agitated by the *perceived* contents, but people
can also choose to starve for a cause. There is no limit to the
persecutions invented by the imagination of humanity. Offense is in the
lie of the beholder.

Libel, slander, sedition, thought crimes: what do these words mean?
Whatever meaning they once had is completely dissolved upon the advent
of true anonymity.

Perhaps if others quiet their minds, they too will hear the sound of
one hand clapping.

> Given: Some graffiti is on the wall.
> 
> Question: who is `responsible' or `liable' for graffiti?
> 
> the `vandal' (or `artist')? the owner of the wall? society? What if no
> means exists whatsoever to identify the originator? or the owner of the
> wall actually *encourages* people to use it for whatever purpose? And
> socially beneficial uses ensue?

How about "A credit card number is on the wall..."?  Interesting discussion...
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG			erc@apple.com			510/659-9560
                            anon-2133@twwells.com
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

>Given: Some graffiti is on the wall.
>Question: who is `responsible' or `liable' for graffiti?

This question already has a known answer.  The author of the words is
the one that is liable for them.  No other parties are liable unless
they had prior knowledge; this would make them conspirators.

In libel cases specifically, if you can prove who the author was, you
can sue.  If you can't, too bad.  Heh, heh, heh.

I asked Mike Godwin about this specifically a few months ago.  I
mention him here to give him to opportunity to correct or elaborate.

Eric

An earlier posting described Differential Cryptanalysis of the
Data Encryption Standard by E. Biham et al.  (ISBN 0-387-97930-1)
It can be ordered from Springer-Verlag (1-800-777-4643) for $39.

>
>In libel cases specifically, if you can prove who the author was, you
>can sue.  If you can't, too bad.  Heh, heh, heh.
>

Be careful here - this does not allow third parties a blanket escape
from liability simply by disclaiming authorship.

As I understand the law of defamation, who *wrote* the words is not all
important; the issue is who is publishing or otherwise causing them
to be published (which would ordinarily include, but not be limited to,
their author).  For example, in NY Times v. Sullivan (the case that
established a different standard of defamation for public figures),
the NY Times didn't write a story, they simply carried an ad that claimed
abuse of power by some officials (in Georgia, I think).  Although it is
often easier to show that the author of defamatory words knew or should
have known them to be false (part of what you need to prove to win a
libel case), liability does not end there.

Knowingly repeating words you should know to be defamatory is still
defamation.

>I asked Mike Godwin about this specifically a few months ago.  I
>mention him here to give him to opportunity to correct or elaborate.
>
>Eric


-matt