On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:48:02PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote:
> 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.
I am sure that your neighbour buying a dog would hurt you emotionally
too if you were afraid of them.
> 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.
And so the possibility that this might happen is sufficient to deny
people a guarantee of free speech? Would it be different if the
motivation of people was not to enjoy you being mauled, but to educate
them as to how to treat dog-inflicted wounds? If so, it is the
motivation of the viewer of the image that causes you pain, not the fact
that it is being distributed. It is also worth pointing-out that a
video of you being mauled could probably be distributed completely
legally without your permission in many countries even without Freenet's
help.
> 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?
True, but this is why I made my initial analogy with your neighbour
buying a dog. Wouldn't it hurt to know that your neighbour had bought a
dog *purely* because he knew that you were afraid of dogs and wanted to
frighten you? I am sure that might be even more painful than knowing
that people were distributing an image of you being mauled - yet does
that give you the right to prevent your neighbour from getting a pet?
> 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.
My assertion is that the *direct* damage that can be done by someone
transmitting some information to someone else who wants it anonymously
is relatively limited, and that the price of being able to prevent such
communication is extremely high (namely censorship). Now, if someone is
anonymous, and they transmit some misleading information, then it is the
receiver's fault for believing it, not the transmission mechanism's
fault for allowing it to be transmitted anonymously.
> 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?
Of course they are doing you harm, but it is not a direct result of the
information being distributed anonymously, rather it is a direct result
of people believing untrustworthy information.
> > 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.
We have a legislative framework which tries to ensure free-speech, and
it has failed. In many other countries institution of such a framework
is impossible since the government wouldn't allow it. The whole premise
upon which Freenet is founded is that government's should not have the
power to prevent free speech (implying that they should not have the
responsibility of ensuring it).
> "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."
As I said, the *direct* damage that can be achieved by permitting the
transmission of information between willing communicators, with
anonymity if they so-wish, is limited.
> 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.
Who decides what is positive and what is negative? In China,
distributing the bible would be considered a negative use of Freenet.
> I think the problem is not that everybody needs access to anonymity, I
> think the problem is more that there is not enough accountability.
Sorry to invoke Godwin's law, but everyone knew who was exterminating
the Jews during WW2, but that didn't prevent it. I don't see how
accountability is a substitute for anonymity.
> Governments could not oppress their citizens if there was some reliable
> mechanism for ensuring accountability.
And pigs might fly. What is your point?
> 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.
Let me know when you figure it out, then I will reconsider your
arguments.
> In the meantime, making sure everyone has access to anonymity is akin to
> making sure that everyone has access to guns.
Rubbish. Guns make it easier to kill, anonymity makes it safer to talk.
> 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.
Really, please give an example of how Freenet could be used for
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 am beginning to suspect that you are trolling now. How many
politicians do you know that have been discredited by a completely
anonymous unauthenticated source?
Ian.
PGP signature
