Subject: SFTTL
Message:
From: Doug Porter <dporter(_at_)well(_dot_)sf(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
...
SFVPM (Send Flames Via Personal Mail). To save time I'm only going to
respond to the important parts of your message.
Doug and pem-dev-ites,
I really enjoy reading the flames and would encourage every one to Send
Flames To The List (SFTTL). This opinion is not based solely on my
appreciation for well written put-downs, but also on my view of mailing
lists as small electronic communities.
On this mailing list, we know each other primarily by the words we exchange
electronically. Through these words we develop personal relationships and
expectations of our electronic neighbors. Our modern society has destroyed
many aspects of our shared sense of community. Computer networking
recreates small neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are based on common
interest rather than physical proximity.
In a small community I am a strong advocate of the pillory.
Pillory - a device consisting of a wooden board with holes
for the head and hands, in which petty offenders
were formerly locked and exposed to public scorn.
The public visibility of a persons action, both good and bad, establish the
context for future personal interactions. A pillory would be ineffective in
most modern communities. Our cities have simply become too large and lack
effective town squares for people to gather on a regular basis. Our
newspapers and video channels now provide some services equivalent to the
pillory. For example, *Americas Most Wanted* and the *National Inquirer*
both establish our expectations of specific individuals through a public
display mechanism. These television shows are focused on a very large
*national community*. Our e-mail based communities are more like a small
village where we have a chance to know all of our participating neighbors.
This electronic proximity comes with a burden of responsibility. Our
electronic names arrive in mailboxes with expectations based on our previous
interactions. This is why authentication of our electronic identities is
critical to the broad application of electronic messaging. Quality
communications require more than a single statement. Authentication binds
together our contributions and allows them to be placed in a larger context.
I also personally feel strongly that forcing people to show their papers
before we let them use the messaging infrastructure we're building is
repugnant. It damages both privacy and free speech. The Persona
alternative will be treated as a clown suit, as we've already seen on
this list.
Doug
Free speech should be balanced by an accountability for the words we speak.
Even private and anonymous electronic communications should be
authenticated. As residents of an electronic community we need to be able
to establish a continuity in our communications. While I may not know the
real name of an anonymous corespondent, it is important that successive
messages be linked together. For example, imagine an anonymous *whistle
blower* mechanism using private PEM messages. Privacy and strong anonymity
are obviously critical to such an application, but so is authentication.
Authentication would allow an informant to develop a reputation, either good
or bad, for the quality of information provided. Successive messages would
be identifiable, not to the individual, but to the previous messages send
under a specific *alias*.
*Flames* establish a community context for both the *flamer* and *flamed*.
Placing our opinions into the public record forces accountability for our
words. Someday we may need to invent the virtual equivalent of a gavel,
sergeant-at-arms, or even pillory to moderate our electronic communities.
Until then, *flames* provide a useful mechanism in of our mailing lists.
So please SFTTL.
Paul