[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] FYI: Anonymity, identity and authority
Poppycock! I stated no such thing.
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
But, here in Ontario, you cannot vote in ANY MUNICIPAL, PROVINCIAL, OR
FEDERAL ELECTION involving any of those same parties unless you prove
your identity! I suspect it's the same in Quebec. So what is your point,
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
Try voting for any level of government and we'll see how far you get
without producing ID. Why don't you take issue with the various
election authorites in Canada for presuming you to be guilty until you
provide them with some ID then? Please, Judyth, spare us the spintalk.
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.
Legitimacy is a two-edged sword, Judyth. If this organization cannot
vouchsafe and adequately verify the uniqueness and identity of our
membership, then ICANN is free to continue ignoring us in favour of
groups like ISOC etc., which can and do verify their membership.
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.
Isn't ISOC a body of "good Netizens" then?
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
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org