| George Orwell 2005-10-24, 9:33 am |
| In article <3JD72CIW38639.3398726852@reece.net.au>
Carole Samgrass <carolusmagnus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, this is certainly a complex situation. As someone who uses
> remailers, I do see that they have a useful place in our wonderful
> internet, but as we all know, are also subject to abuse of the
> most awful kind!
>
> But to return to your example, what worries me just a little bit
> is when I think of the proportion of damage suffered by the poor
> "Mike Smith" whose name is being forged by the anonymous person
> using the remailer, and compare that with the damage suffered by
> another "Mike Smith" whose post is deleted because he shares the
> same name as the unfortunate "Mike Smith" whose name is being
> forged by the anonymous person.
>
> I am just an old person who knows just enough about remailers to
> get into trouble  but it does seem to me that the "Mike Smith"
> whose message, be it to or fro "Mike Smith", has disappeared into
> the 'bit bucket' of the remailer, it does seem to me that he is
> suffering much less by losing his message than the unfortunate
> "Mike Smith" is suffering who has his name forged by some
> anonymous person.
>
> So, it seems to me, and I speak in all humility as someone who is
> far, far from an expert in these matters which are things I leave
> to you young people to understand, but it does seem to me, that
> there may be a question, a legitimate question, as to whether or
> not the "Mike Smith" whose name is being forged, deserves
> protection by the remailer operator even at the expense of the
> other "Mike Smith"'s messages being deleted.
>
> So I suppose what I am saying is that we cannot simply dismiss the
> idea of 'blocking' certain messages just because doing so will
> cause other messages which have to do with someone with the same
> name but different email address of the first person to be
> deleted.
>
> We must think about the relative damages done to each of them and
> then make a decision as to 'bit bucket' or not 'bit bucket'!
>
> Well, reading that, I see it is a bit cumbersome, but I hope I
> have made myself clear.
>
> I must say that this is an argument I have never found congenial
> and my dear husband, may he rest in peace, who taught me
> everything I know about our internet, he used to say that if you
> accept that 'slippery slope' argument then you can apply it to
> saying that if we deny youngsters of 18 the right to buy alcohol
> and make them wait until they are 21. then if we do that then we
> are on a slippery slope and who can tell! we may then decide that
> they cannot buy alcohol until they are 25 or 30 or 40!!
>
> So once again I think it must be a matter of the judgment
> exercised by each 'remop' as to the proportion of damage and how
> best he should act based on his judgment based on his
> understanding of that proportion.
>
> Oh, dear, I do run on, and ask your forgiveness for the garility
> of an old woman but I do so much appreciate the selfless devotion
> of our remailer operators and only hope they can exercise the
> proper consideration of each issue as it occurs.
>
Eelbash we still know this is you. Better luck next time.
I did like the attempt at pretending you're an old woman though. It's
a shame that you mentioned that you're female too much in your post,
*real* females have no need to do that.
|