NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8567

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-11 | 7.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu!jsteiner
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:51:04 EST
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Lines: 159

[e-mail] (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:
> [e-mail] (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>
> >> My instincts tell me (1) that the exposure of users to
> >> unnecessary risks is wrong, and (2) that when such a wrong
> >> results in serious harm to someone, there ought to be a legal
> >> remedy.
> >
> >#2 is part of the root of your problem. it's a tendancy to
> >legislate away any wrongdoing or inconvenience. and it doesn't
> >work. legislation should -not- be treated as a cure-all. it is too
> >easily perverted to
>
> The thought I had in my mind was of a phrase which I believe comes
> from old English common law: "No wrong without a remedy".  This is
> obviously a mere ideal, which can never be achieved as a practical
> goal.  But it reflects the philosophy that one purpose of law is to
> remove the need -- and therefore the justification -- for people to
> fight amongst themselves in attempts to achieve their own "justice".

ok. what was the wrong here? assault. we already have laws against
assault. use them. don't assign the liability to someone who did
no wrong at all.

> You seem to be of the opinion that, at least in certain cases, we
> should have the freedom to harm one another without fear of legal
> recourse.  I find this a poor ideal.

no, i am not of that opinion. i am of the opinion that innocent parties
should not be held responsible for the actions of others.

> I find it ironic and incomprehensible that you consider my
> suggestion (if it can be characterized as such) to be a threat to
> those who hold unpopular opinions.  How does that work?  Unless, of
> course, the unpopular opinion you happen to hold is that "never give
> a sucker an even break" is a legitimate business philosophy!

how does this work? let's say we have laws such as the ones you suggest,
where people can be punished or held liable for providing others with
information with which to carry out their crimes. with such a tangle
of laws -everyone- becomes a criminal and it becomes very easy to
bring charges against someone you don't like.

example: Agatha Christie had it in for her husband. so she engineered
her own "murder", and disappeared. the evidence all pointed to her
husband, so he was accused, tried and about to be hanged. fortunately,
someone noticed the (supposedly dead) Agatha in the town she had taken
off to and the execution was canceled. such a scheme would be even easier
if you don't need a manufactured murder to seriously inconvenience someone.
simply ask them which one of your neighbor's houses belongs to the
Joneses, firebomb it, and sue them for providing you with the information
to carry out the deed.

> As a frequent holder of unpopular opinions, I myself find real-name
> policies to be the real threat.  In fact, the primary practical
> purpose of real-name policies is to suppress unpopular speech,
> although sysops usually couch this goal in more palatable terms.
>
> Take for example the words of Cliff Figallo in this conference
> regarding his real-name policies on The WELL.  In a message of Thu,
> 17 Dec 1992 20:32:33 GMT, he wrote:
>
> > Since the WELL makes it clear that users are responsible for what
> > they post on the WELL, we thought it important that they be
> > identifiable.
> > ... by having a real name associated with every account, there is
> > less tendency for users to be abusive of other users.
>
> If this isn't a euphemistic way of saying that they suppressed
> unpopular speech by creating a pervasive threat of retaliations
> among users, I don't know what it is.  (No offense meant, Mr.
> Figallo; I'm sure your intentions were benign, but in my opinion,
> your policy wasn't.)

some retaliations are good. it's known as positive peer pressure, and
it works. even if some of them were criminal the WELL still isn't
liable, as the actions are entirely the responsibility of the individual.

BTW, thank you for posting this. i had suspected you were just another
person disgruntled with the WELL's policies all along... if you don't
like it, don't use it.

> The one freedom which lawful liberty must NOT protect is the freedom
> to harm others unnecessarily.  This includes the "freedom" of the
> majority to persecute those of us who hold unpopular opinions.

who harmed who here? again, we're completely skipping the actions of
the person who committed the -real- crime in order to go after someone
who merely upheld their end of a contract. sounds fishy to me.

> I agree with you in one thing: I am very much against any "parental"
> philosophy of government, such as drug or helmet laws.  I believe we
> have the moral right to take whatever risks we choose -- as long as
> we make that choice freely and with full understanding.

ONCE AND FOR ALL: DID JOHN Q LUSER HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTRACT
HE MADE OR DIDN'T HE?!?! in any case, it's a moot point. he signed it,
he accepted it.

> But it does not necessarily follow that we have the right to lead
> others into danger; nor do I believe that everything which looks
> like consent is always sufficient to be consent for purposes of the
> law.

have a fun time living in a world where nobody can really be sure if
their partners have really consented or not. this should really make
things interesting. "Oh honey, I'm pregnant. But I didn't -think- it
could happen, and wouldn't have consented if I had, so what you did
was rape! Officer, arrest this man!"

> >the inviter has -no- duty.
>
> This does not correspond to the law as I understand it.

what duty do they have except providing full knowledge of the terms
of the contract?

> > ... they are offering a service, with certain
> >terms, that the user is able to accept or decline as he/she wishes.
>
> As I've already said, I think there's also an issue of *informed*
> consent.  Otherwise, why do we see so many warning labels all over
> everything?

*BINGO* because of the litigous atmosphere that pervades this country
today, the very same one you're trying to spread. it's a strange, strange
world where someone who uses a lawnmower as a hedge trimmer & gets his
fingers cut off can sue the company because they didn't warn him not
to do that with his lawnmower.

> If the BELL had put a warning message on their login screen,
> detailing the worst-case drawbacks of real-name policies, I'd have
> less objection.  (I think they'd also have fewer users, and we'd
> soon see fewer boards with real-name policies.)

this is parental. an adult should always assume the worst can happen.
unless you were somehow deceived there is no case.

> >> If so, many of the pro-tections of law would seem to have no
> >> practical applications.  I would expect to see signs at the
> >> entrances to all businesses, saying, "Abandon all hope, ye who
> >> enter here", and thereby ab-solving the proprietors of all
> >
> >again, -what- protections of the law?
>
> Since you are the second person to ask this, it is obvious I was not
> clear.  I intended to refer to the normal protections provided by
> the duties traditionally imposed on an inviter.

anonymity is not guaranteed anywhere.

jason

--
   "I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired
    of being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country
    with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired
    of being told that I am!" - Monty Python
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` [e-mail] ,`,`,`