> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:48:02PM +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > > Ian Clarke wrote: > > > Ok, so how would a video of you being distributed over the internet > > hurt > > > you? > > > > Well, I'd say it can hurt me emotionally.=20
> I am sure that your neighbour buying a dog would hurt you emotionally > too if you were afraid of them. Sure. But your neighbour buying a dog doesn't involve you. You didn't have to participate in making that dog available to your neighbour > > 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? I don't know that the guarantee of anonymous free speech is as valuable as an attempt to guarantee free speech in general, but see below. > 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's an interesting point and I guess it relates to copyright. I'd like to have the ability to restrict the availability of images of myself independent of the motivation of the viewer, but I know that you believe copyright is incompatible with Free Speech so we don't have to go there. > 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. That is neither here nor there. The point is that in that case I might have some chance of getting in touch with the people distributing the video and asking them to stop. In the Freenet case I have way of doing that > > 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? As I said above, I don't have to participate in the process of my neighbour buying a pet. Even if he does, I can talk to him about it because I know where he is. If my image is being distributed then I have to be involved in the generation of the images - I mean someone has at least to see me or some image of me in order to derive my likeness. Still, I'm sure that you will say that having the right to control the distribution of images of ourselves is worth giving up if we can get anonymous free speech. > > 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. Yes, but that avoids the point that without recourse to anonymous channels of communication, the action would be far less likely to be taken in the first place. It's not the gun's fault that people get hurt by the bullets right? I don't think you can separate out responsibility from the transmission mechanism. I'm not saying Freenet should not exist, just that it has the potential to do harm. Look I think we are beginning to work out where we both stand. I think that the kind of damage that can be created via pure communication is quite severe. You don't, you think its limited and that the fact that we get anonymous free speech outweighs any of these pitfalls. Fair enough, I think we shall just have to agree to disagree. > > 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. Sure, it seems to be that people are far more likely to take this sort of action if an anonymous communications channel is available. I guess the proof will be in the pudding. We shall see how common this kind of action is once Freenet is widespread and available to all, as it certainly looks like it will be. > > 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. The decision is made by each individual. I'm not arguing that you should suddenly introduce censorship into Freenet to stop it being used for negative reasons. And I take your point that what one person views as negative, is viewed as positive by another. It just seemed to me that there were some actions that taken through an anonymous communications channel that would be seen by everybody as negative. You can use it to attack people's reputations in the security that they will never know who is spreading lies and rumours about them. > > > 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. > And anonymity would have prevented the extermination of the Jews? Knowledge is not accountability. I'm talking about having some mechanism whereby people can be held responsible for their actions. Particularly the government. > > Governments could not oppress their citizens if there was some reliable > > mechanism for ensuring accountability.=20 > And pigs might fly. What is your point? Well, just that there was an alternative philosophical position. I'm not saying its practical, yet. > > In the meantime, making sure everyone has access to anonymity is akin to > > making sure that everyone has access to guns.=20 > Rubbish. Guns make it easier to kill, anonymity makes it safer to talk. Consider the following sentence. Guns make it easier to defned your rights, anonymity makes it easier to spread lies. I mean, hell, I agree with you that guns make it easier to kill, I'm just saying that anonymity can be used to make people worse of as well as better of. > > 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? I thought the following sentence was an example, I'll flesh it out for you. > > 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. Hey, I'm arguing these points because I think that there is an important philosophical issue here. Don't denigrate what I'm saying by suggesting I'm just doing it for fun. I could accuse the whole Freenet project of being an act of trolling in order to create controversy to get enough publicity to get you funding for you programming activity, but I don't, okay, so don't go there. > How many > politicians do you know that have been discredited by a completely > anonymous unauthenticated source? Look I don't know any politicians that have been discredited by a completely anonymous source, because without Freenet, no one has access to a completely anonymous source. I'm talking about what might happen if they did. Maybe you remember the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia. Seems to me that in the presence of Freenet, one possible tactic of his opponents would be to distribute faked images of him performing that act would be a way of piling up the case against him, no? Seems to me that if I had access to a guaranteed anonymous communication channel then just about anybody could start off down this track trying to discredit the politicians or people that were standing in their way. You want people to use Freenet in such a way that they will blow the whistle on oppressive governments, but there is nothing to stop the oppressive government also using Freenet to spread lies and rumours about the people they think are blowing the whistles, or even spreading propaganda. I'm not saying that is not a reason to build Freenet, sure, it might get used for positive things too. I just don't think you know that the effect of building it will be more positive than negative. I just think you might be surprised at the way the tool you are creating gets used. Only time will tell. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
