We understand how Freedom will protect the rights of Turkish or Chinese dissidents, at least until Interpol and interlocking police enforcement enter the picture. But what of Canadian dissidents who are doing precisely what their Chinese equivalents are doing/ From their Web site, this excerpt about why Freedom is needed: "How will Freedom improve free speech online? Dissidents in many regimes are persecuted for exercising their right to free speech. Lin Hai was arrested in China on March 25, 1998, and charged with "inciting to overthrow state power" for providing 30,000 Chinese email addresses to a human rights group. Emre Ersoz, a teenager, was sentenced by a Turkish court to 10 months suspended jail time for making comments about the police while participating in a daily on-line forum. Using Freedom, people like Lin Hai and Emre Ersoz can voice their concerns and beliefs without fear of retribution. Similarly, journalists and human rights workers can use Freedom to protect their communications in countries where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not recognized. " OK, so let's consider some hypotheticals (hypos): 1. A dissident in Canada is using Freedom to coordinate an overthrow of state power. Does ZKS honor their above point, or do they pull the plug? 2. A journalist in Canada, or posting into Canada, is using the Freedom system during the highly-publicized Homolka-Teale case of some years back. Does ZKS claim that "journalists and human rights workers can use Freedom to protect their communications in countries where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not recognized."? 3. A U.S. judge issues a gag order in a court case. Someone is using Freedom to post material covered by the gag order. In fact, many suspect the Freedom user is one of the trial attorneys. Does ZKS stand by its point about someone "making comments about the police while participating in a daily on-line forum."/ The point being the activities in both sets of cases, the ZKS examples and my examples, are illegal in their respective countries. I certainly hope ZKS does not claim that Lin Hai gets to incite the overthrow of the Chinese government using Freedom but that Joe Nym does not get to incite the overthrow of the Canadian government. And I surely hope that ZKS is not claiming that Freedom protects Emre Ersoz in Turkey but does not protect Joe Baptista in Canada during the Homolka-Teale case. And, as I emphasized in my last message, the laws of which country or countries? Canadian law, because ZKS is Canadian, or Barbadan law, because Barbados is the country of the user contract? Or U.S. law, because Canada usually capitulates to U.S. law on sensitive issues? And what if the Freedom node from whence the offending material originates is in Turkey? Not illegal in Turkey, maybe illegal in Canada... The parallels are obvious. The weakness of ZKS is its fastidiousness about "applicable laws" when we're talking about the Internet! -Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
