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] -----------------