Larry writes:
You say that with a little too much chutzpah. I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. As long as your Bill of Rights includes provisions that allows the privacy of innocent netizens to be invaded there *will* be no Bill of Rights, IMHO.
I'm betting on Paul :).
If you will carefully examine the Digital Bill of Rights it garuantees the privacy and security of citizens. I quote: + The right to security and protection from forged + messages, covert message deletions and other illicit + obstructions. + + The right to protection, should we so choose, from + mail bombing, automatic mailers, large, unrequested + file or data transfers and similar harassments. *If* and only *if* the person (as in the individual) chooses to protect themselves. To do so without the knowledge or consent of the person is illegitimate. I understand some system which impliment RBL allow their clients to choose setting the defaul to OFF. That is completely reasonable. However I understand that most systems install RBL as the default. This is unethical and unacceptable in my opinion. As for whether or not this matter effects network operations I suspect anyone unfairly placed on the RBL list may argue otherwise. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft