At 5:02 PM -0400 2003/10/24, Alan DeKok wrote:
As I understand the RMX-style proposals, they do not remove any
anonymity. They add accountability, but only under the mutual consent
of the message originator and recipient. If the sender does not wish
to be accountable, they can choose to not send messages to the
recipient.
If you don't want to be held accountable for telling the world
about SARS II, you can choose not to speak.
Sounds like a solution the Chinese government would love.
As was pointed out earlier, the "human rights activist" isn't
randomly spamming people. Instead, (s)he's sending targeted messages
to people who want to receive them. Mutual consent exists, so any
anonymity, privace, and accountability issues become whatever the two
parties agree to.
How many recipients in this world have total control over the
mail system that they use? If the operator of their mail system
chooses to filter all their mail through the Chinese government, what
choice do they have?
--
Brad Knowles, <brad(_dot_)knowles(_at_)skynet(_dot_)be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg