Peter,
Disagree re disclosure: we don't even require names, and despite the risk of
anonymity being abused, the consensus on link remains that anonymity is a
right. So why should a correspondent, whose handle is familiar on Link,
offer up a declaration of interest as well as a name?
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter J. Cherny [mailto:peterc@arquebus.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2001 11:53
To: Jillian Slater; link@www.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] Battle looms over net censorship
At 08:32 27/07/01 +1000, Jillian Slater wrote:
> ...
>There's a difference between "robust debate" and misrepresentation or
bullying.
> ...
I think we're starting to drift into ad-hominem areas, but ...
My concerns were the defense of the refusal to provide
take-down URLS and meaningful information info by the ABA,
while not declaring the relationship (if any) between the entities
mentioned.
The invocation of the "child-porno" spectre seemed just a diversion from
the real issue - a TOTAL lack of info about the ABA's activities in this
area.
Given the recent seminars conducted by commslaw and NetAlert, and attended
by
David, I would have expected a more detailed disclosure when taking
the defensive position he appears to have adopted.
I'm contemplating becoming a "Filter Vendor" if for no other reason than
to see what contractual restrictions are placed on the agreement and/or
the data ! (and, yes, I do have the credentials and skill to do that).
pjc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:07 EST