Re: Florida case involves on-line anonymity

[Ry Jones <rjones@airgap.net>]

Don said:
> I find it depressing that the ACLU would be defending the right to
> defile people anonymously, under the guise of "free speech." I

What good is political speech if you can't say it without retribution?
I wouldn't want to criticize Nixon or Clinton in a public way without
being anonymous. Doing so would be a good way to get an audit! Who was
that Deep Throat character, anyways? Some Anonymous Coward? Feh. They
should have just come out and said what they said in public. I'm sure
there would have been no retribution whatsoever!

> understand why the ACLU should defend the right of all kinds of weird
> organizations in North Idaho to speak out, as long as they take
> responsibility for the opinions. That's what the ACLU is supposed to do,

Are you a member of the ACLU? If not, you can't say much about what
they do. Even though I disagree with some of the work they do I'm
still a member.

> I find it encouraging that the Internet is to quite an extent still
> free, but that shouldn't allow and encourage criminal and unethical
> behavior.

Who defines criminal and unethical behaviour? Was Deep Throat
criminal? probably. Unethical? Depends on your point of view. What
about the Halloween documents? What about the whistle-blowers in the
DoD? What about anyone who appears on 60 minutes with hexels over the
face? Leaking trade secrets can be prosecuted (it's theft) and leaking
state secrets can be prosecuted. So all of those acts were criminal.
Depending on which side of the table you are on, were they unethical?

This reminds me of the whole "child porn exists therefore we must ban
encryption" argument. Are we willing to define how we function as a
society based on the fact that pedophiles exist? How much security
would you try to buy with your freedom? That criminal and unethical
behaviour exists on the internet is hardly a reason to destroy
anonymity. Plus, hushmail et al will always exist.

> And, at some point, if we don't want to trash many of the
> remaining Main Street stores, some kind of practical tax on e-commerce
> should be instituted. The alternative is to look elsewhere for tax
> revenue, such as to income taxes, so as to not unfairly burden the local
> stores.

If local stores can't compete they'll go out of business. My
competitors are well funded going concerns and if I can't compete with
them I'll go under. Boo hoo!

Besides, sales tax *IS* due on everything you buy on the internet.
It's just that you (and I) don't pay it. That's how the cops in WA got
away with busting people over by Stateline who were buying WA tax-free
smokes and bringing them into the state.

> Now we have no-kidding-around commercials on
> what is called "public television." That was Ronald Reagan's suggestion
> for how public television should support itself, and we seem to have
> accepted it.

That's because the public (that's you and me) have abdicated OUR
responsibilities to manage the airwaves to some PHBs and PNGs at the
FCC. If you don't like the way things are going, work to change it.
Don't blame Reagan if you don't like the commercials.

-- 
Ry Jones
Airgap Networks / Moscow, ID
208 882 2367 (office) 419 730 2199 (fax)