Slashdot Mirror
The Dangers Of Protecting Free Speech
endisnigh writes: "Stephen K. Gielda of www.cotse.com has posted a very interesting article about the trials and tribulations (and attacks, sometimes physical) of running his website, which is mostly dedicated to computer reference and security, but which also gives users the ability to post anonymously to usenet." Considering that litigants can have content pulled (and cause accounts to be yanked) under the DMCA, that organizations can harrass individuals for public opposition, and that anonymity is increasingly hard to find in general, it's sobering to see how much trouble is involved in attempting to provide what Gielda calls "anonymity with accountability."
On the other hand, all posts may not be available all of the time if a poster is off-line. And people are responsible for their backups.
It is still BETA and experimental, but usable nontheless. Check it out at here and help in its development.
Usually the problem with anonymity is spamming. postnet seems to solve that.
Thanks
BTW, fuck privacy - you don't need it if you ain't guilty.
And what happens when someone in power decides you are guilty -- except that you are innocent? Are you going to say that people in government won't abuse their power? How many Russians died under the rule of Stalin? (Answer: 100 million)
Privacy is protection from tyranny. Your attitude is indicative of the belief that powerful governments are the source of compassion and never do wrong. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.
Reason and Evidence.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
There are varying degrees of anonymity and accountability. For example, if I were to check off "Post Anonymously" on this post, I would be increase my anonymity and decrease my accountability, but I have no illusions that this would be to the absolute extremes. Slashdot may very well store my UID with the post, for all I know.
Ideally, you want to be anonymous to people who you can't trust to behave responsibly (e.g. the seething mob horde), and be accountable to those who you do trust to be responsible (e.g. a server admin with a reputation for ethical behavior and trustworthiness).
Thus, you can have some amount of both, without there being contradiction.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The webmaster in question states "ordinary people" are the problem, not governments or coprorations. This may seem a surprise to some.
However, it shouldn't be - because be they ordinary people, government people, or corporate people, the operative word is *people*. The greedy, the oppressive, the self-rigtheous are people too, and they can be found anywhere and their behavior is always the same. Some just have the tools or position to make their pathology into policy.
The oppressor can exist at any level of society. It's up to those of us who don't like the oppressor to not let him gain power - and even more important, to not become like him in the process.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Certainly it is very sad to see some assholes abusing the site, maybe for his own sanity, and protection, he should make everyone register with an ISP email address before allowing them to post anonymously. That would probably cut down some attacks. He could clarify that no information will be posted, sold, etc., and this is solely for theirs, and his protection
Want Root?
Isn't the whole point of being anonymous to decrease you accountability?
Erm, no. He clearly states that his purpose is to promote open discussion, and that if you try to exploit his services by making death threats and such, then you will be held accountable. How else can you protect yourself against the idiots on Usenet?
--
--
#nohup cat
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Saying something unpopular is protected by the Constitution, death threats are not. It really isn't all that complicated from the outside.
Personally, I'd be thrilled if I got enough traffic to warrant the occasional death threat.
Geez, whose country wants to ban software made by Scientologists?
Maybe if you explained exactly what you think is a violation of the Constitution I could respond in more detail. But I don't see anything in this article that has anything to do with what you're saying. Under US law, Usenet loons are free to flame each other to cinders, but they're not allowed to make death threats or bomb threats. Except for Slashbots, most Americans are perfectly aware that that's how the system works and consider it a perfectly appropriate implementation of "free speech."
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
It's interesting to not that Mr. Gielda doesn't cite corporations or the US Government as the biggest problem, but instead cites ordinary people who for one reason or another can't accept the fact the people should be free to say and think what they want.
I'd hate to think that a service like this which helps give a voice to people in countries where freedom of speech doesn't exist could be destroyed by people with thin skins.
Hopefully one day we'll actually show enough responsibility to deserve the rights we have, but I'm not holding my breath.
Beware typoes.
If you're looking to avoid accountability for your actions and statements, yes.
Of course, Mr. Gielda's unenviable position is to protect and maintain the right to anonymity in the face of individuals who use anonymity to threaten to murder the children and spouses of their enemies; who use anonymity to try and crack and DoS the servers of their enemies; who use anonymity to intimidate, slur, slander, spoof, and defame their enemies; who use anonymity as a weapon of intolerance and cowardice instead of as a voice for the oppressed, small, and afraid.
If it weren't for the tireless efforts of individuals like Mr. Gielda, I assure you that our valuable right to anonymous speech would be heavily curtailed today. Without dedicated individuals fighting an endless battle against those who wish only to take anonymity and turn it into immunity from reproach, governments would quickly step in and put an end to the "menace of anonymous attacks," as well as all anonymity online.
Anonymity is the shield that protects those who would be unjustly harmed or persecuted for their actions. There are few greater signs of cowardice and selfishness than one who uses anonymity to evade accountability for their own unjust actions.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Anonymity is a tool to help permit the freedom of unpopular speech, a person has no obligation to be accountable to the "mob rule" of the general population, only to a fair government, and honest legal systems. In fact it is questionable if there is a moral or ethical obligation to abide by the laws of undemocratic countries.
Limited anonymity is a better balance between unrevokable anonymity and no freedom of speech.
The US Supreme Court has upheld that anonymous speech is important to free speech.
Unfortantly many people want to shoot the messager (Mr. Gielda) when his users send annoying or unpopular messages.
I'm in the process of persuading my ISP to drop everything from cotse.com.
Isn't this exactly what the author said people try to do? Post trash under a cotse name to try to get the site in trouble? Did you consider that you are being used?
Nope, no sig
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
When nuance becomes the only objective we lose the ability to function
Mr. Gielda and his Cotse service are really the black sheep of the remailer community. All you have to do to see this is spend some time in the venerable group alt.privacy.anon-server , where remailer operators (remops) and others interested in security and privacy congregate. Gielda has his supporters, but nearly everyone in the community views him with suspicion. After all, he admits to keeping tracking data on his users, which is the opposite of what remailers are for. They were designed to prevent tracking. If I chain a message through good remailers, I know that that message is untraceable, and that my speech, however unpopular, is protected. If I send a message through Gielda's shitty Cotse thing, then the minute my unpopular speech results in the government asking him who I am, with a warrant (all too easy to get today--just recall the Independant Media Center case recently), he'll fold like a cheap suit. That in no way equates to protecting free speech, which is what a real remailer does.
v acy.anon-server&as_uauthors=carbonymous&num=100 I'm the one named "Carbonymous Howard" and unfortunately Google truncates each article in the thread so that you'll have to click on some links to get the rest of the articles.
For a good discussion on the opinions of both sides, I recommend a thread I posted in under another nic some time ago. http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.pri
At any rate, Gielda isn't exactly a beloved guy in the privacy field, and it's sad to see him get the spotlight when there are plenty of *real* privacy and free speech advocates who deserve it more. To meet them, just hang out in alt.privacy.anon-server for a while.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
it's sobering to see how much trouble is involved in attempting to provide what Gielda calls "anonymity with accountability"
Isn't the whole point of being anonymous to decrease you accountability? Using software to mask your IP, or even simply posting anonymously on here are both methods of decreasing accountability.
It's no small wonder why Mr. Gielda's job is so difficult.
As a German, I just can't help but wonder about Americans. It seems that the land of the free doesn't know its own rights and continually tolerates breaches of constitutional law.
Not only that, they allow laws to be enforced which are krassly against the constitution. Of course, there will always be a small minority which will profit from these laws.
But remember: Freedom goes as far as the freedom of others is not endangered.
-- sigs are like parking spaces - all the good ones are occupied
Here are some important US Court Cases involving Speech, incase you want to read up on this stuff more than just slashdot editorials and newspaper articles.
Schenk v United States (249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed 470) - Debut of Clear and Present Danger Test
Gitlow v New York (268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138) - Overthrow of Government Speech protected
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (940 F.Supp. 836 (D.Md. 1996) - A district court case, that allows for people who publish material advocating criminal activity to be sued for aiding and abetting, never made it to the US Supreme Court.
Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement (Lost my notes on this) - Discusses the Heckler's Veto.
Edwards v. South carolina (327 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct 680) - Time, Place and Manner restrictions. Discussion of what constitutes a Public Forum.
Adderly v. Florida (385 U.S. 39, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed. 2d 149) - More Time, Place, and Manner. In this case, Prisons aren't a traditional Public Forum.
International Society for Krishna Conciousness, Inc. v Lee (505 U.S. 672, 112 S.Ct. 2701) - Has to do with leafletting at airports. More forum stuff.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc. (512 U.S. 753, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593) - Limiting of speech around abortion clinics.
Cohen v. California (403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284) - "Fuck the Draft" case.
That's all I feel like posting right now...maybe later I'll go into the Symbolic speech stuff, and publisher rights, etc. Use this for a good starting point if you really like this stuff.
---
is anyone in a position of authority going to save us?? are you waiting around?