Good point, Ted, what we're after is some "community standards" for cyberspace, and what I'm suggesting is the fairly libertarian standard that goes like this: Prefer technological solutions and self-protection solutions over rule-making, where they are feasible. This is based on the notion that the more rules there are, the more people will call for the "net police" to enforce them. If we can encourage community standards which emphasize a prudent level of self-protection, then we'll be able to make do with fewer rules and a less intrusive level of policing. Some more specific versions of this: Self-protection Protection via rules --------------- -------------------- "Don't read the newsgroup Forbid all newsgroups which a if it offends you" reasonable person would find offensive. Allow anonymous posting Use software to Forbid all in all newsgroups; use allow anonymity in anonymous posting. information filters. some groups only. Handle volume bombs by Track down volume bombs using digital postage and and disconnect the offender. information filters. Trace harrassing notes to Tell people to just ignore or filter the source. out harrassing material. I guess it's a matter of preference. I wonder if it's asking too much to achieve general agreement among us cypherpunks? -- Marc Ringuette (mnr@cs.cmu.edu)