While I'm usually rude and harsh in my blog posts, and give my oppinion on them without trying to soften my oppinion (just search for "suck" or "asshole" in the blog and you'll see what I mean), I usually tend to avoid political issues. Why? Well, I'm apolitical and anti-partisan, but I respect different political views and sometimes there are hot issues where people with opposite positions are both right. Remember: sometimes you have to choose the better of two evils.
One of those issues is something that, well... I have one point of view about it and some people surprise me by having the oposite view about it. I'm talking about privacy and freedom in the digital world.
The controversy is well known. For instance, let me quote wikipedia on it:
Opponents of online anonymity (e.g., of anonymous remailers or anonymous P2P) suggest that anonymity enables or encourages illegal or dangerous activity (eg, terrorism, drug trafficking, sexual approaches towards minors, and so on). The inference intended by such claims is that, without anonymity, these things would not occur, or would be less likely to do so, and members of society would be safer. This is typically countered by pointing out that prior to the practical availability of this kind of anonymity, all of these things occurred anyway. Actual evidence of a causal or even facilitating connection is limited, and often disputed. There have been several prominent attempts to claim they have, in the press and otherwise; few have included credible evidence, and some have cited mere allegations as 'evidence'.
My position in this kind of issues is clear: you shouldn't take freedom from some people because some other people can do evil stuff with it. Or, on other words, I fight for a world of freedom, including fighting for online privacy and anonymity (for instance by trying to contribute with GNUnet. But then people tell me that GNUnet is evil: something like "that's giving a gun to the hands of a killer". Well, I also don't agree with that. People who want to do something (morally right or wrong) will do it with the means they have. You can't reduce the number of people doing those things but giving them the tools or not, and you can only mold people to not want to do something my socially imposing them a set of values. You shouldn't restrain people of using everything that might be wrongly used, 'cause you're not fixing no problem - you're repressing. More, you're taking freedom off from those who wouldn't use it for "good values".
In the issue, there was a poll made in 2002 where 50% of the people don't care about this kind of issues, and only 12.5% thought that software to provide online anonymity isn't necessary, against 37.5% of those who think like me.