Re: EFF whitepaper

["Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom () unitedlayer com>]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
> And this affects those of us with not-so-old, not-so-slow machines how?

By the fact that there is no way in hell that he could relay a large
amount of spam...

> The bottom line is that Gilmore, and the EFF, have taken a very soft
> stance on spam, believing it to be less important than "free speech" or
> "anonymous speech".

By definition, the EFF's main concern is free speech and privacy.

>  http://eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
>
> Wow. So, any collateral damage is unacceptable?

To me, and people who rely on email for reliable communication, yes
absolutely. Collateral damage is unacceptable, period.

Its even worse when administered punitively (like SPEWS/etc) because its
done with the intent of disrupting other people's lives. If you're going
to fight something, and you feel its worthwhile, fight it on the
high-road.

> In a nutshell, email requires accountability. The EFF apparently thinks
> that is too high a price to ask for email.

I think you're missing the point. Anonymous communication saves lives,
allows people to "blow the whistle", and in general it serves the greater
good to have it exist. Email already has an "audit trail" built into it,
and you can at least track it to some extent if you know what you're
doing. Does email need a DNA signature for the sender? In my mind no, you
can get that if you use PGP signatures and look how few people actually
use that.