Dave Phillips writes:
> Perhaps I'm just getting old, but it seems to me that if one uses
> the net with other adults to discuss issues of public importance,
> be it technical or political or social, then one should be willing
> to put one's name on the opinion. Apologies in advance to anyone
> who feels this comment to be aside the list's purpose.
> -dave phillips, owner of biosph-l, plearn-l, nasirn-l, grdemp-l
 
I read this list not because I am a list owner, but because I aspire
to such.  Whether I go ahead with my plans depends in part on the
resolution of this privacy/security/anonymity issue.
 
I hold minority political beliefs that could be a danger to me and my
family if this nation should ever fall into totalitarianism.  True, we
are guaranteed the rights to free speech and free assembly in this
country; and as long as I don't break the law, my views should be
protected under the Constitution.  But can we be sure that this will
always be the case?
 
It is my understanding that everything we say on these lists is
archived, possibly forever.  Why should I make it easy for criminal
organizations, in or out of government, to compile fat dossiers
containing all my politically sensitive conversation?
 
I would like to get together with a small group of my friends on the
Internet in a Listserv-type discussion group, and talk about our
hopes, dreams, problems, fears and plans.  Further, I would like to do
so without feeling inhibited by the thought that everyone and his
mother is listening in.
 
Is this unreasonable?  I'm not planning to break the law.  I just want
to exercise my Constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and
privacy.
 
Now if what I suggest is technologically impossible given the current
state of software, so be it.  I'll just continue to participate in
mainstream, noncontroversial lists and watch my tongue.
 
On the other hand, the technology doesn't stay still, does it?  What
is impossible today, may be entirely possible tomorrow.  I have done
some reading about encryption and anonymous posting.  It seems to me
that utilizing encryption AND anonymous posting SOME degree of privacy
could be achieved, keeping in mind that perfect privacy never exists
offline either.
 
Finally, I would like to take issue with Dave Phillips further.  My
wife is a social worker with many years experience in the federal
government.  Her whole life is predicated upon the concept of
confidentiality.  How can she use the Internet to discuss cases?
 
How can the Internet be used to discuss intimate psychological and
social problems among victims of incest, sexual child abuse, etc.
unless some privacy is brought to the Internet?
 
Without privacy, free speech and free assembly are meaningless
concepts.  How about it?  Is the limiting factor the technology or the
prejudices of the people involved?
 
 
 
 
----------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. -----------
----------------- John W. Redelfs, [log in to unmask] -----------------