Subject: [Raven] www.revolution.com

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 11:44:27 -0500

A recent New York Times story by Elisabeth Rosenthal, titled
www.revolution.com, has some relevance to the idea of state-issued /
controlled IP addresses. An excerpt:

"Chinese take advantage of the relative anonymity provided by the Internet
to say things they might not utter in other public forums. Although it is
theoretically possible for a chat room to tell what phone number a comment
is coming from, many people gain access through Internet cafes and it would
be difficult to connect a particular comment with a particular individual.

Many experts say the quick growth of the Internet will push local media to
be more open."

On a similar topic, the legal status of anonymous political speech in the
U.S. is dealt with in some detail in the following briefing paper at the
Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-054es.html. You may
disagree with their politics, but they've done some of our homework for us.

Merry Christmas!

Richard Payne

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:47:50 +0100

On 24 Dec 99, at 11:44, Richard Payne wrote:

..

> disagree with their politics, but they've done some of our homework for us.

Ah homework...

I quote from the "Executive Sumary":

    Given the importance of anonymity as a component of
    free speech, the cost of banning anonymous Internet
    speech would be enor-mous. It makes no sense to treat
    Internet speech differently from printed leaflets or
    books. 

I don't know how it works in America but in The Netherlands 
printed material by law needs the name and city of the 
publisher on it or the true name of the writer.

What happens here is that a writer may write under a 
pseudoniem, another name than his own, but there should 
always be a real "person/company" "in charge".

Same should happen via the Internet: I can use the e-mail 
accountname I wish as long as my providers knows my real 
name.

Or another analogy: A journalist may quote or write down 
what someone who wishes to be anonymous tells him as long 
as he takes responsibility for what's printed.

I also have no problems with "anomizers" as long as the one 
who brings the information takes responsibility for it.

Without basic responsability law enforcement becomes 
"impractical"...

+++chefren

p.s. For further homework: http://www.penet.fi/

---

From: "Matthew G. Saroff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:50:21 -0600 (CST)

> publisher on it or the true name of the writer.
	The supreme court has declared such requirementsd
unconstitutional.
	I'm glad I live in a place with real civil rights.
-- 
Matthew Saroff
At some point in the future, the total number of lawsuits being prosecuted
by the Church of Scientology will exceed the population of the world
Extrapolating on current trends, this will occur on April 1, 2003.

---

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:49:19 -0500

> publisher on it or the true name of the writer.

My point was, in fact, how it works in America. It is unrealistic to think
that the Netherlands and Australia, which together have just over 1/2% of
the world's population, are the key jurisdictions to watch on these topics.

Richard Payne

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:20:30 -0500

>the world's population, are the key jurisdictions to watch on these topics.

Correct. Or we could recommend the Singaporean practice of caning to the 
Netherlands as a "standard".  This discussion is leads me to appreciate 
even more the differences between a government comprised to the King's 
liking over tea with lords, and one comprised by the violent overthrow of 
the prior government and the principle of limited and defined powers of 
government which flowed therefrom.

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a 
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the 
very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for 
independence."
Charles Austin Beard, 1874 - 1948
--
--------------------------
Ed Stone
[email-masked]
--------------------------

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:46:27 +0100

On 28 Dec 99, at 7:49, Richard Payne wrote:

..

> the world's population, are the key jurisdictions to watch on these topics.

You can keep saying the Netherlands are the only country 
complying to EU recommandations concerning tappability but 
that has nothing to do with the truth. Within about 2 years 
or even shorter those recommandations have to be 
implemented in all EU countries.

I guess about 400.000.000 people in Europe and Australia. 
6.000.000.000 in the world. 4/60 or at least 6.7%

EU will grow fast the coming years. Former East-Block 
countries are adapting fast and for example Turkey, a 
country with quite some people, is remaking all it's laws 
according to EU regulations at an enormous pace.

As far as I see it more than half of the countries and 
people that comprise the current "Internetworld" demand 
tappable Internet communication within a few years.

And what I have understood from CALEA, that comes pretty 
close already.

+++chefren

---

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:18:23 -0500

> implemented in all EU countries.

As you state yourself, it has everything to do with the truth. If it hasn't
been passed yet in countries other than the Netherlands, then it hasn't been
passed, and saying that it has is a bit misleading.

Do you have a reference for the two year figure? As far as I know, nothing
happens to the Internet unless and until national laws require tappability
of the Internet, which could be never in some countries. Also, as I asked
before, does the two years run from when the resolution was secretly passed,
or from the time approximately two years later when the people (democracy,
remember?) first found out about it?

I know you want to treat this as a done deal for the whole EU, but it isn't.

> according to EU regulations at an enormous pace.

I agree that EU is likely to grow fast. If people in former Eastern bloc
countries can't figure out the problems with pervasive tapping, nobody can.

> And what I have understood from CALEA, that comes pretty

I'm not sure what CALEA comes "pretty close" to, but it does not apply to
ISP's, as Chris Savage and others (including me) have repeatedly noted.

BTW, do you have any further information on when IPSEC and SSL are going to
be made illegal, and where?

Richard Payne

---

From: "Richard Payne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:18:23 -0500

Richard Payne

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 01:13:37 +0100

On 28 Dec 99, at 17:18, Richard Payne wrote:

> > Within about 2 years

I'm looking and sending out requests to figure this out.

I hope others here can do so too.

+++chefren