On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:31:24PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Mark J. Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > The goal of Freenet is anonymous publishing and reading. What use do
> > law-abiding people have for anonymity? Not much. Not much compared to
> > the many uses thought-criminals have for anonymity.
>
> This answer is not sufficient. Consider:
>
> * Employees who endure inhumane or even illegal practices in their
> workplace might be afraid to speak out because they cannot face
> the economic consequences of termination.
>
> * Victims of incest, sexual assault or physical abuse may be afraid
> to speak out because they are embarrassed or ashamed.
>
> * Citizens who suffer human rights violations at the hands of their
> government may be unable to speak out without facing torture or
> death.
>
> Anonymity can enable these people to be heard.
Awwww, hyperbole is the official language of freenet-chat, haven't you
heard? ;) Maybe it changed when I wasn't looking...
You're right, there are significant uses for anonymity that don't fall
under the category of government-prohibited speech.
> > There is absolutely no need to be "careful" because the code speaks for
> > itself. Freenet is a network designed to help criminals evade the
> > police.
>
> Of the three examples I gave above, only the last one casts the user of
> Freenet in the role of the "criminal". But I doubt anyone reading this
> would say that the Freenet user should be forced to divulge her identity
> in that case.
/me turns off his freenet-chat flamethrower.
I'm no lawyer, so I shouldn't babble about how to handle lawsuits. I'll
confine myself to observing that the Freenet philosophy
to guarantee consenting individuals the free, unmediated and
unimpeded reception and impartation of all intellectual, scientific,
literary, social, artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural
expressions, opinions and ideas without interference or limitation
by or service to state, private, or special interests
is very clear, and any claim that we were really very fond of copyright
law would be incredible.
Again, I agree, if we omitted the "state" from that passage, it would
still be plausible. And then we should take reasonable steps to allow
the government to censor, since we obviously don't mind.
--
"Laws which can be broken without any wrong to one's neighbor are
counted but a laughing-stock; and so far from such laws restraining the
appetites and lusts of mankind, they rather heighten them." --Spinoza
PGP signature
