Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?

At 03:17 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
>At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
>>At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
>>> EFF in generally does not issue extremist position 
>>> statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, 
>>> and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks. 
>>
>>If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes
>>of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty.
>>
>>It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba,
>>Iran, or China.
>>
>>It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens,
>>but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people
>>in the street.
>
>Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you
>use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which
>removes accountability) is a problem.  The accountability issue is real and
>should be addressed, not evaded.

"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved."  For many 
decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and 
make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and 
no solution is being implemented for.

I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution 
to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity.  
And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
>"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved."  For many 
>decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and 
>make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and 
>no solution is being implemented for.

amusing the way you phrase that-- you didn't say, "phone", but "pay 
phone". the statement used to hold in general for all "phones", but
then caller id, caller blocking, etc. have been introduced that
make this no longer true. so in a very real sense, anonymity in 
the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been
"solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people
agree caller ID is an advancement).

I think cpunks should hold the view that communication is a matter
of mutual consent between sender and receiver. if a receiver says,
"I don't want any anonymous messages", then should be able to block them.
this is essentially what is happening with the remailers *right*now*,
if you ask any remailer operator. people ask not to receive anonymous
mail, and are put on the blocking lists. imho only the extremists are arguing,
and have always argued, that they should have some ability to put
an anonymous message in front of someone else against their will.

this basic rule becomes more murky when you look at public forums,
because you can't really say whether given individuals reading them want to
hear something anonymous or not. by designing the forum beforehand
to force the situation, you solve this problem. 

I do believe that in the future there will be all types of forums: those in 
which identity is required, those in which it is optional, and those in
which it is always cloaked. this is eminently reasonable imho.
those who argue against one of the 
above's existence (such as saying it involves a ghettoization
of anonymity, that there should always be an ability to be anonymous
in any communication setting) are extremists imho.

the above is almost exactly what Dyson was saying, and I have been
advocating this position for a long time. again, I think anyone who rejects
the above is an extremist. there are different ways to support or restrict
anonymity, some of them extremist. those who argue for no restrictions
anywhere don't have a clue about reality imho.

On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> 
> jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
> >"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved."  For many 
> >decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and 
> >make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and 
> >no solution is being implemented for.

Incidently, this is being "solved."

In D.C. and Chicago the solution is to rip up the payphones and not permit
new ones to be installed.

If anyone objects the officals responsible make a wide gesture and say "We
didn't take away your phones, CRIMINALS took away your phones."

> amusing the way you phrase that-- you didn't say, "phone", but "pay 
> phone". the statement used to hold in general for all "phones", but
> then caller id, caller blocking, etc. have been introduced that
> make this no longer true. so in a very real sense, anonymity in 
> the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been
> "solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people
> agree caller ID is an advancement).
> 

Yet today one can go out and rent a cell phone on the street, or even pay
for one's activation in cash up front without presenting any real identity
documents.

The real question is this, what are you going to do to anihilate anonymous
communication, because if you think its harmful that's what you have to
do.

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li

Not just DC and Chicago, I'm afraid.  If anyone around NYC noticed, there 
are less and less payphones, and all new ones installed, just about, are 
those yellow credit card phones.  Not all of them, but it's now one for 
one, at least.

=Millie=
PS: i wrote a fiction book about this a few years ago -- i should have 
published. People could've said i was the next nostradamus. :( 

On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> 
> > 
> > jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
> > >"Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved."  For many 
> > >decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and 
> > >make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and 
> > >no solution is being implemented for.
> 
> Incidently, this is being "solved."
> 
> In D.C. and Chicago the solution is to rip up the payphones and not permit
> new ones to be installed.
> 
> If anyone objects the officals responsible make a wide gesture and say "We
> didn't take away your phones, CRIMINALS took away your phones."
> 
> > amusing the way you phrase that-- you didn't say, "phone", but "pay 
> > phone". the statement used to hold in general for all "phones", but
> > then caller id, caller blocking, etc. have been introduced that
> > make this no longer true. so in a very real sense, anonymity in 
> > the phone system was considered a "problem" by some that has been
> > "solved" or "modified" by some recent advancements. (yes, most people
> > agree caller ID is an advancement).
> > 
> 
> Yet today one can go out and rent a cell phone on the street, or even pay
> for one's activation in cash up front without presenting any real identity
> documents.
> 
> The real question is this, what are you going to do to anihilate anonymous
> communication, because if you think its harmful that's what you have to
> do.
> 
> --
> I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
> unicorn@schloss.li
> 
> 
>

> >The accountability issue is real and
> >should be addressed, not evaded.
> 
> "Addressed", maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean, "solved."  For many 
> decades, people have been able to walk up to a pay telephone at 3:00 AM and 
> make a harassing phone call to somebody, a "problem" which still exists and 
> no solution is being implemented for.

Yes! Exactly! Of course!  Precisely the example that has come up in EFF's 
own statements on anonymity (which, in absence of a policy on the topic 
have been strictly factual, reporting both sides of the issue).

> I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no solution 
> to the anonymity "problem" that isn't worse than the underlying anonymity.  

That's a common view here, to say the least.  And it's one with which I 
am in 100% agreement.

> And, BTW, I don't consider a pro-anonymity position to be an extremist one.

We don't either, even those of us with questions and conundrums to think 
about.

I do think its extremist to not be willing to even address the questions 
and conundrums, but we're in agrement on that, so not much to argue about,
fortunately.

--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">    Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org">        mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P>        Online Activist    </HTML>