On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 09:12, Walter Schmidt wrote: > "A tells B - B quotes A but does not give identity of A" > > This way A's identity remains unknown to all but B. I can decide what > weight to assign to A's quote, partly on my assessment of B's own activity > and partly on B's (apparent) motives for "doing this" for A. AND (big > and), I remain knowing that our list/database does not include anonymous > entries. this is called "designating a proxy" in legal terms. this matters predominantly for elections and polls. I mean, do we believe someone who says they are the "designated proxy" for thousands of anonymous users? I'd balk at that. However, it might be acceptable if 2 or 3 "trusted" people vouched for an anonymous individual. I'm in favor of allowing anyone with an email to vote with the understanding that those who have not submitted any further credentials (signed affidavit with mailing address, trusted PGP signature/web of trust, etc.) will be the first to be cut from the count in cases of suspected election fraud. Unfortunately, in countries where: 1) all traffic is proxied through a few IPs and 2) free speech isn't... real users could be disenfranchised along with impostors. I don't think there is any way to prevent this without the real users producing some other of credential (perhaps through the aforementioned web of proxies). -s
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part