![[Politech logo]](http://www.politechbot.com/image/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.
[I am starting to compile a list of resources, court cases, essays, and so on related to anonymity. I'm trying not to be U.S.-centric or technology-specific. If anyone has some links or writings they would like to contribute to this venture, please let me know. I'll give credit as appropriate. I have a now-outdated list at http://www.well.com/user/declan/nym/ --Declan] ********* >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:52:59 -0400 >To: declan@well.com >From: Ron Schwarz <rs@clubvb.com> >Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the > Internet > >A booze seller advocates prohibition. > >How... ironic. >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:40:29 -0400 (EDT) >From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com> >To: declan@well.com >Cc: politech@vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the Internet > >Does anyone recall that Sony was sued by movie studios when it introduced >the original Betamax--even though they purposely omitted i/o from the >original model? Supposedly, videotape was going to be the downfall of >movies. Studios would be bankrupted by illicit copying. > >Today we see the studios making a huge amount of money from this same >medium; and I know of few people who bother to make video copies. Why? >Because after the initial attempt to charge extortionate amounts for >tapes, the tapes are now available for a price which consumers consider >fair. Also, of course, you can rent. > >When I did an interview with Ken Thompson (father of Unix) five years ago) >he had just finished working on an improved music compression algorithm >(which AT&T failed to market properly). Thompson envisaged a huge music >database of every song ever recorded, which would be available for 5 cents >a copy for download, via some kind of always-on net connection. For 5 >cents, who's going to bother to make illicit copies? Who will even bother >to own music anymore? And the database would be so huge, its size alone >would protect it from wholesale theft. > >Alas this kind of thinking has never been well received by those whose >mantra seems to be, "It's mine, mine, mine, all mine!" > >--C >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:03:29 -0400 (EDT) >From: Glenn Hauman <geneh@bb.com> >X-Sender: geneh@panix2.panix.com >To: declan@well.com >Cc: politech@vorlon.mit.edu >Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the Internet > > >"And if the Internet should require an unjust and unfair paradigm in order >to perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble and collapse." > >Funny, Mr. Bronfman-- I was going to say the same thing about a company >that just got fined by the FTC for price-fixing, and got lambasted in >Congressional hearings by their own artists because their copyrights were >stolen out from under them and turned into works-for-hire. Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 16:01:25 -0400 (EDT) To: declan@well.com From: Doug Carroll <doug@interlog.com> Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the Internet Bronfman's comments overlook the fact that most of the Internet was invented as public domain, and that includes the protocols, and much of the software. Seagrams is a parasite on the wealth created by sharing info freely. He doesn't mention the stifling effect of near monopoly music giants on how much we can hear, and from whom, at what cost. Why is a CD double US cost in Europe? Greed, and monopoly. How many great bands decline extortionistic contract terms, and can't get distribution? The ref to the DVD-Css case doesn't mention the injustice of the DMCA, passed by well-funded legislators for the industry, against the interests of consumers or developers. Hearing a defense of privacy next to "Real Networks" is surprising, as Real was caught sending private user info back to their servers, without a shred of permission, as reported on Politech. Bronfman skirts around why anonymity is needed - to speak and act freely against wrongs, as has long been established in US history. Let's hope constitutional protections will prevail against greed and corruption of legislators in this case as in others. [Background on Real Networks is in the politech archive http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=jukebox and http://www.politechbot.com/p-00695.html --DBM] >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:09:37 -0400 >To: declan@well.com, politech@vorlon.mit.edu >From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> >Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the > Internet > > >>Excerpt from the Seagram CEO's remarks: >> >> Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict the anonymity >> behind which people hide to commit crimes. Anonymity must not be >> equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right to privacy. We have >> no such right to anonymity. > >Mercifully, the Supremes strongly disagree. In addition, "identity" is a >species of property as well -- if you choose not to reveal it. Forced ID >is a "property rights violation" worse than copying IP. > >The biggest screamer in a list of screamers. This speech deserves a >point-by-point which I will do tomorrow. > >My brother heard the speech live. > >DCF >---- >"The Multinational Unites the Human Race" > >From: Matthew_G_Saroff@raytheon.com >To: declan@well.com >Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the Internet >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:59:30 -0500 > >Once again, we see the push for intellectual property rights stomping on >people's right to privacy. > >The way things are going, I expect a whistleblower in the next few years >to be sent to jail for divulging company proprietary data. The behavior >of the Church of Scientology, where intellectual property laws have been >used to squelch dissent, is just the tip of the iceberg. >-- >Matthew G. Saroff >The Opinions Expressed are not those Raytheon. >Which is why the stock is tanking >(972)205-4859 >User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:18:54 +0200 >Subject: Re: FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the Internet >From: Jmm <jmm@transfert.net> >To: <declan@well.com> > >Hi, > >juste in case you haven't already seen this : > >___________ >http://www.theregister.co.uk/000531-000015.html >Posted 31/05/2000 3:14pm by Tim Richardson > >Euro MPs scrap anonymous email ban plan > >European politicians have scrapped a plan to ban anonymous e-mail, as >predicted by The Register earlier this month. > >The Council of Ministers - made up of senior politicians from member states >- rejected proposals passed by the European Parliament, which would have >outlawed the use of anonymous e-mail addresses. > >The proposals were said to be unworkable after the European Parliament's >Committee for Citizens' Freedoms Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, said that >banning anonymous e-mail would help combat the activities of cybercriminals. > >Exact details of the rejected proposals have yet to be made public due to >the (b)eurocratic nature of European government. ® > >Related Story >Euro anonymous email plans are 'unworkable' > >---- >jean marc manach >)Transfert >00 33 1 42 21 59 69 >(st) 01 42 21 59 59 >http://www.transfert.net > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------