[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] FYI: Anonymity, identity and authority



Judyth and all fellow members,

  I believe that Canada is a country or sovern state, of was yesterday.
ICANNATLARGE.ORG is not.  Hence such comparisons are
not of much intrinisc value or use.

  Yet as when most members joined ICANNATLARGE.ORG
they were assumed to be "Real" individuals or people.  It is obvious
that some members/subscribers of this ML however are not
"Real" Individuals.  Of course those folks have been pointed out
before and usually use non-discript E-Mail addresses such as
????@Yahoo.com.  However this very problem is exactly one
reason why E-Mail voting is a poor and dangerous idea.

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This may help to place my opinions in their social context,
> which may not be obvious to people living elsewhere who
> expect police to routinely demand papers or explanations
> from citizens going about their own business:
>
> In response to a demand from the Toronto chief of police
> for stricter conditions and harsher penalties for
> public protests, on April 28th Canada's
>
> > Federal Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon, turned him
> > down, saying that there is no need to make it a
> > "criminal offence to be anonymous in public. There is
> > no obligation in Canada to identify one's self, to
> > carry identity papers, or refrain from anonymity while
> > in a public place."
>
> Obviously, proof of citizenship, age and identity is
> needed to establish voting rights. However, freedom of
> assembly, freedom of expression, etc. are not subject
> to the same restrictions -- you don't need to *prove*
> you have those rights under our Charter of Rights (in
> practice, they are not restricted to citizens); the
> burden of proof that you've committed an offense is on
> the accuser, not the accused; and a desire to prevent
> possible future crimes does not justify the curtailment
> of an individual's rights unless there is some
> substantiated evidence that he or she intends to commit
> those crimes.
>
> Perhaps this will help to explain why I respectfully
> disagree with my fellow-Canadian, Sotiris, who seems
> to believe only those willing to pay $100 to have their
> identity notarized should be eligible to join a group
> protesting the lack of democracy and openness within
> ICANN.
>
> It seems to me that condition would be onerous
> for many but it also strikes me as very unCanadian.
>
> For example, I could join any of Canada's federal or
> provincial political parties on simply supplying my
> name, address and telephone number and forking over
> CDN $10 (or less!) in cash. To the best of my knowledge,
> none of those parties (with the possible exception of
> the white-supremacist and Stalinist fringes) makes any
> investigation into one's background or demands to see
> one's passport; as a member, I could cast a vote for
> a leader or convention delegate simply on showing my
> membership card.
>
> I've been called as a witness in court on a few occasions
> and my word that I am who I say I am was deemed sufficient
> under the law. On occasion, I've been asked my name by a
> policeman (taking statements about noise complaints, etc.)
> but no proof of my identity was demanded. Nor am I used
> to having such proofs demanded by people I do business with:
> the only exception would be the banks, which require it
> because they are obliged to report to the tax authorities.
>
> Therefore, I find the idea repellent that a group like this
> might take the position that we are all guilty until we can
> prove our innocence -- especially at our own expense, and
> to the satisfaction of a company which operates for its own
> benefit rather than any legitimate authority over us.
>
> Yes, it does make sense to confirm in some way that the people
> in the group are real people and that they are not trying
> to cast multiple votes under different identities but NO,
> I do not wish to be part of a so-called activist group
> which believes in the presumption of guilt and the absence
> of the rule of law in its dealings with its own members.
> Somehow, that just doesn't seem like the right spirit in
> which to approach individual Internet users and encourage
> them to be good Netizens within a democratized Internet
> governance.
>
> HTH,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de