Hi Ian, Apologies for the delay in responding, but things got a little busy last week.
Ian Clarke wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 05:47:40PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > There is no analogy whatsoever. We're not talking about somebody getting > > a dog that happens to remind you of your experience. We're talking > > about you being horribly mauled by dogs and somebody videoing that, and > > then distributing that video over the internet. The two actions, your > > neighbour buying a dog, and your neighbour distributing images of you > > being savagely mauled by dogs are completely different activities, and I > > think many people would agree with me that they warranted completely > > different responses. > Ok, so how would a video of you being distributed over the internet hurt > you? Well, I'd say it can hurt me emotionally. Clearly it can't hurt me in the direct physical sense that a hammer can. I'd say the knowledge that people were busy enjoying watching me being mauled by dogs again and again could easily be as psychologically traumatic as the experience of being mauled by dogs. I mean I think we would both agree that being mauled by dogs can do far more than just physical damage. Long after the physical wounds have healed, psychological wounds can persist, no? > > Fair enough. But I'm not talking about banning anything that reminds > > you of the suffering. I'm talking about you having the right to get in > > touch with people who are distributing the images of you actually > > suffering, which seems completely different to me. > The problem is that you need to think, not in terms of what people have > a right to do, but in terms of what is required to *ensure* that they > have that right. So, I have the right to life, but does that mean that > the government should ban anything that might take away that right > (guns, knives, etc). Now, you might decide not to support Freenet on > the basis that it prevents people from identifying the source of > information, and to you the negative implications of that (child > pornography) outweigh the positive implication (freedom of speech), so > you shouldn't run a Freenet node in that case. I guess not. Although I think there is an argument in terms of ensuring some degree of accountability, but see below for that. > > > > > In that case, it is obtaining the images that is wrong, not their > > > > distribution. > > > > Really. You're telling me that if I distribute images of a married > > > > person having an affair in an attempt to destroy his marriage, > > family, > > > status in the community, then the people who support their > > distribution > > > > have no blame or responsibility in the matter? > > > This is perfectly legal, and happens all the time. > > Not if the images are fakes, right. > In the scenario you outlined, there was no indication that the images > might be fake. Right, but that's not a reason not to address the issue. The crucial point is that with access to anonymity the person pursuing this course of action is not accountable for their behaviour. Maybe the psychological trauma of the "mauled by dogs, video available on the internet" case doesn't make the point concretely enough; but if somebody destroys my marriage by distributing fake pictures of me having an affair would you seriously suggest that this person is not doing me any harm? > > Hey, look, I think that Freenet incorporates some interesting and > > excellent technology, I just can't quite figure out why the anonymity > > part is actually necessary. > Almost all censorship is retrospective, the only sure way to prevent > such censorship is anonymity. Anonymous speech is essential for free > speech, this isn't a new idea. It may not be a new idea, but conversely I don't think it is something that is universally accepted either, i.e. that anonymity is necessary for free speech. Another approach is to try and create a legislative framework that ensures free speech. Sure it can be abused, but so can any system. As Freenet tries to create a framework in which free speech is unassailable it opens up doors to other kinds of abuse. So I took the time to go through all the various mails that were sent last week and I have started to draw these conclusions. Anonymity is a tool, and like any tool can be used for good and bad purposes. I get the impression that the Freenet project is all about making anonymity more widely available in the hope that this will provide those people living under oppressive regimes with the tools to try and relieve themselves of that oppression. It is a noble goal and something that I think inspires people to work on and contribute to the Freenet project. However, I think the problem was summed up by Tony Kimball: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/2699 "Systems which insure free electronic expression of ideas (arguably, a basic human right) are necessarily anonymizing. This enables whistle-blowing. But anonymity also leads to the problem Plato has Socrates describe with the fable of the ring of Gyges, which renders the wearer invisible: Many persons, when no longer held accountable, will abuse their freedoms to the harm of others." I think the example of someone using Freenet to disseminate faked images of someone having an affair, commiting a crime etc., demonstrates that the anonymity tool can be put to negative uses as well as positive ones. For a person living under an oppressive regime being accountable for expressing opinions about the government may have such a high price (i.e. their life) that they will not be willing to do so unless some anonymity mechanism is available. Similarly, someone living in a comparatively fair and free society would not disseminate images of their boss or colleague assaulting a minor because they would also have a fairly high price to pay, given that they could be held accountable for their action. In the same way that a gun can be used to defend a right, or to commit a crime, anonymity can be used for positive and negative ends. I think the problem is not that everybody needs access to anonymity, I think the problem is more that there is not enough accountability. Governments could not oppress their citizens if there was some reliable mechanism for ensuring accountability. Ensuring everyone has anonymity deals with the symptom, but not the disease. What we really want is some mechanism that would ensure accountability, but I don't yet know what that would be, or even what form it would take. In the meantime, making sure everyone has access to anonymity is akin to making sure that everyone has access to guns. Oppressed people may take the tool you have given them and use it to free themselves. Others will turn upon each other and use the new tool as a means of oppression. Wouldn't it be ironic if Freenet was used by an oppressive regime to discredit a political opponent, someone who might have actually been instrumental in overthrowing the oppressive regime? I guess it comes down to whether we believe humans are likely to use anonymity as a tool for good or evil. I think that none of us know the answer, and that Freenet is a social experiment the outcome of which remains uncertain. Personally I am going to keep on thinking, struggling to try and find some kind of framework that will ensure accountability, rather than anonymity, since I think therein lies the real problem that the human race is facing. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
