| Anonymous 2004-10-25, 8:45 pm |
| In article <pkfqn017ilu07mr2itgo5ccteq383bvpft@4ax.com>
George Mason <gmason@cyberspace.yourpanties.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:21:08 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous
> <nobody@paranoici.org> wrote:
>
>
> Who said anyone needs a reason? Who said they can't use them even if
> they don't have to?
>
>
> It's not only likely, it's probable. It may not even be government
> doing it. I think that for the average person the spammers and data
> collectors are the ones you need to be anonymous from. And some of
> them are pretty smart.
>
> But then again, what difference does it make? Can't people just use
> remailers and other anonymous methods because they want to? Isn't
> speaking anonymously part of that freedom of speech, and don't many
> places restrict the things you need to be able to speak anonymously
> like encryption?
>
> I think you have it bass ackwords, my friend. It's that protected
> right that allows anonymity, and anonymity is nothing more than
> exercising that right. The two go hand in hand.
Very good post.
I use remailers extensively. Only on *one* occasion have I used them as a
matter of necessity, and it produced the desired effect. On three other
occasions I have helped otherwise clueless acquaintances use them (out of
necessity) because of my expertise. I feel it is my duty to remain up to
speed and in practice. You never know when it'll be needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
|