Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:18:32 +0000 Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2014 18:27, "Evgeny Khramtsov" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:59:37 -0700 > > michael p <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm all for privacy, but I realize I need to trade some in order > > > to use other people's free as in beer services. If people expect > > > free services to also allow anonymous registration and not > > > somehow to become bastions of spammers, they have unreasonable > > > expectations (IMHO, but I'm welcome to be corrected). > > > > Exactly. It is impossible to build SPAM free anonymous network, > > because you need an identity to block. The stronger the identity > > the less SPAM you have. > > Hmmmm... I think the general principle is that you need scarcity. > Identity is one such source, and telephone numbers another. I suspect > that there's both ways to exploit phones without using the number, > and other sources of scarcity. My point was that you need to sacrifice private in order to get less SPAM.
