Raz:
> How about execution?
> In some parts of the world, the (correct?) identification of the
> creators of particular pieces of intended-to-be anonymous speech is
> likely to have this result. The problem is spam, the elimination of
> anonymous speech is not a desirable side-effect of solving the spam
> problem, in my opinion.
I wasn't suggesting the elimination of anonimity.
The use of anonymous identities still requires responsibilities.
I imagine that if you launched a denial of service attack on an
anonimizing remailer, protection of your identity would not be
a high priority.
Think about it. You are offered a bargain, partial anonymity
provided you don't abuse the system.
There is also the question of identity, or the possibility of
multiple identities. In an online environment, this may not
relate to a physical identity, and still be acceptable (hence
probably satisfies your criteria of anonymous)
Spam is only one aspect of anti social behaviour. There is a range
of behaviour, from excessive flaming, through to denial of service.
There could be a whole range of possibilities that we can't do on the
internet now because we can't easily establish levels of trust.
Jamie
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
