Stefan Brands writes:
> Also, I would never start insulting another person
> in a discussion in order to alleviate my frustration about
> a disagreement, let alone hide behind a remailer pseudonym
> in such a situation.
The point about insults is well taken, but it is discouraging to
see Stefan raising the old objection about "hiding behind" remailers.
As someone who worked for years to develope technology that can be used
to facilitate the use of pseudonyms and anonymity, he is the last person
who should claim that those who use such tools are hiding.
Daniel Boone, the Alaskan lawyer who posted here recently, fell into
the same error in a posting to the e-gold list. He chided a critical
anonymous poster for having used a remailer.
Once and for all, we should accept that it is not cowardly to post
anonymously. In today's internet climate, mail accounts can be had
for free with any of thousands of different user and domain names.
Why should a message from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" be considered
honorable, and one from an anonymous remailer be a matter of a coward
trying to hide his true identity? Unless Stefan or anyone else making
this objection wants to endorse proposals to force all internet users
to have registered accounts with government approved identification
verification, they must realize that there is no way to know the true
identity of people posting messages.
Of course this is not to argue the converse, that people are somehow
obligated to give attention and respect to anonymous posters. Rather,
the point is that this easy rhetorical attack on an anonymous critic
is cheap and unfair. To claim that a writer is a coward who is hiding
behind the shield of anonymity ought to be a waste of time, at least
among people who understand the net, and certainly among people like
Stefan Brands and Daniel Boone.
