💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › internet › FAQ › aipart4 captured on 2022-03-01 at 15:29:12.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Archive-name: net-anonymity/part4
Last-modified: 1994/5/9
Version: 1.0
ANONYMITY on the INTERNET
=========================
Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.
<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?
<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?
_____
<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Julf's anonymous server seems to me to be contributing to the
> erosion of civility and responsibility that have been the
> hallmarks of the more traditional parts of USENET. More than
> that, Julf has refused to even discuss a compromise to his
> position that all hierarchies should be open, by default, to his
> server.
>
> I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive
> Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion
> that the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that
> don't want it is through moderation. It cancels articles posted
> from anon.penet.fi. I've tested it on recycled postings with a
> "local" distribution and it works nicely. I propose to arm
> "ARMM" with an unrestricted distribution for the "sci" hierarchy
> this weekend if Julf doesn't accept the proposed compromise or a
> reasonable alternative by then.
Francisco X DeJesus <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>:
> this ARMM script is another bad idea. If there is a way to simply
> "ignore" control messages (cancels, at least) from the specific
> site where this bass-ackwards non-service to the net is
> originating from, please let me (and every other news admin who's
> not an expert but wants to do something about this) know...
Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> Fascinating idea, both in programming and in application of
> ethical values. So this shellscript will, in essence, not only
> affect your own users but also users netwide? And you make a
> threat to Julf as well? This sounds a lot like terrorism: "I'm
> going to blow up your citizens (read: users) if you do not agree
> to my demands!" "Minimal Moderation" in the sense of ARMM is
> like calling a missile "Peacekeeper".
>
> Censorship is not the way to go about things, neither is the
> "ARMMing" of cybernetic missiles. It is a difficult problem, the
> only solution to which is to rely on the precedent: freedom.
Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
> My site pays for news, and would prefer to get it uncensored by
> Mr. Depew. We pay to get a full newsfeed for our money, not just
> one with those messages Mr. Depew thinks are o.k. for us to read.
Rick Harrison <bbs-hrick@jwt.oau.org>:
> Anyone who would volunteer to render a "service" such as
> cancelling other people's messages must be a control freak.
Mike Schenk <M.R.Schenk@research.ptt.nl>:
> And for canceling all postings from the anon server. This is, in
> my opinion a very severe case of censorship. While, I am aware
> that the net is not a real democracy I've always thought that it
> wasn't a police state either.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>
> I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi, does
> not soon block anonymous postings ... then I will activate an
> "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script that will
> cancel postings ...
>
> Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this. I have not
> read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they
> were out of line in any way ...
David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>:
> I support the automatic cancelling of anonymous posts to those
> newsgroups whose members vote in the majority so to do.
Michael L. Kaufman <kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu>:
> Ah, but that is not what Mr. Depew was advocating. Mr Depew wants
> to cancel all anonymous post to newsgroups that don't vote not to
> cacel them. The difference is important. He has a view and he is
> not saying, "if your group agrees with me, this is what I will
> do." He is saying, "I am just going to assume that everyone
> agrees with me unless I hear otherwise." Furthermore, he chose
> not to wait and see how the various votes would go.
Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>:
> There are laws ... which prohibit users from deleting files on
> computers when they do not have authorization to do this.
>
> It's ... clear that many site admins consider only the poster and
> a few other people at most authorized to cancel a posting.
>
> So if you cancel like this, you may well ... be committing a
> computer intrusion offence.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be
> anyhow. :-)
David Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
> I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I
> haven't experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might
> have to. In fact I think I will probably just turn off response
> to cancel messages totally if you go ahead with this scheme, and
> I encourage other news administrators to do the same ... they
> were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. It seems to
> me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes
> like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I
> won't let anyone else read them).
>
> I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going
> to happen to your institution's news and mail servers if you go
> ahead with this plan.
>
> ... you are way out of line here Richard, regardless of how many
> smileys you tack on the end of your message.
Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
> That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate. They have
> many legitimate uses. Cancelling inappropriate postings is one
> of these legitimate uses.
>
> ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, has
> been activated ...
_____
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?
<Ray.Lampman@FullFeed.Com>:
> RICHARD DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
>
> For the past few weeks, there has been an on-going debate in
> news.admin.policy concerning anonymous postings to newsgroups
> which have not invited such postings. It is an understatement to
> say there has been disagreement.
>
> This debate has recently resulted in the automated CENSORSHIP of
> postings by one of the principles of the debate. This system of
> automated CENSORSHIP, called ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive
> Minimal Moderation" script, has been activated (Sat, 13 Mar 1993
> 14:28:00 GMT) by Richard E. Depew (red@redpoll.neoucom.edu). ARMM
> automatically cancels or deletes postings which it "judges" to be
> in-appropriate or un-acceptable.
Catherine Anne Foulston <cathyf@is.rice.edu>:
> It is NOT censorship, any more than a private individual sneaking
> into the library and cutting objectionable (to him) articles out
> of all the magazines is censorship. It's a form of vandalism,
> perhaps sabotage, and it's obnoxious, but it is not censorship.
>
> Could whoever did that news-server-wide cancel script, that would
> let me filter out these anon-cancels, please repost it? Certain
> anonymous posters are obnoxious and annoying, but not as much so
> as someone cancelling articles not their own for no other reason
> than that the articles are anonymous. I'd like to filter out
> those cancels from my site.
David Condon <dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu>:
> The person who proposed forging cancels, and who actually did
> forge a few, is a news admin of some sort. By virtue of having a
> higher level of both access and expertise than the average user,
> that makes his act more akin to a _librarian_ vandalising books
> than Joe Random Patron doing so. Virtually all librarians would
> consider such an act an egregious breach of professional ethics,
> and most would not hesitate to call it "censorship," even if
> purists assert that that term is only appropriate when carried
> out by the state.
Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> M. Richard Depew has, by his own admission, created a weapon
> capable of eradicating all messages from a certain site. I use
> the term "weapon" in the cybernetic sense - it "kills"
> information, not people.
>
> M. Depew seems to believe this to be his responsibility,
> somehow... his contribution to the safety and continued security
> of the USENET, maybe? He proposes that he be allowed to keep and
> bear (and fire) a weapon capable of rendering many people
> "unpersons", in the sense that they are not free to post their
> opinions.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Roy,
>
> Please cancel your recent article entitled: Subject: Re: RICHARD
> DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
>
> That title is libelous. My "civil disobedience" had nothing to do
> with censorship. You have simply fallen for the lie of an
> anonymous slanderer. A public apology would be greatly
> appreciated.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> Your "civil disobedience" was conducted under the guise of
> "moderator of the sci hierarchy" (an official position), and
> caused the removal of material you considered objectionable. That
> is, sir, a definition of censorship.
>
> It was automated, and it happened on "the Net".
>
> The ONLY remaining point in question is whether you really are
> Richard Depew. If you admit to that, then the Subject: above is
> true.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Well, I see the articles are still there ...
>
> To prove that I *did* learn something from the brouhahah that
> surrounded the introduction of ARMM, I am giving "a two week
> notice" that if those articles are not canceled within the next
> 24 hours, I am going to escalate. I'll take comments on my
> proposed escalation and promise to reconsider if anyone can make
> any *good* arguments against my plan.
>
> I hate to do this, because I understand that my name already is
> "mudd" and any further disturbance is likely to lead to my total
> discrediting.
>
> I've got this *great* new idea. I call it the UDP, for USENET
> Depew Penalty. If these people don't cancel their articles soon,
> I'll invoke the UDP:
>
> I'll ban them from my Christmas Card List!
<afzal@divsun.unige.ch>
> I presume you are going to post to ALL sci groups telling them
> that this "service" now exists and that their only way of
> "declining" is to prove to YOU that they have had a vote whereby
> the majority have said that they accept anonymous posting.
> Cancelling posts of others seems to me to be a breach of
> netiquette (especially if people in the groups concerned are not
> informed of this cancelling).
Jim Cowling <jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:
> Even if you disgree with the label "censor" or "censorship", you
> must agree to this statement:
>
> Richard Depew's ARMM system prevents the UseNet community from
> reading publicly-posted messages without their consultation.
>
> This alone is ethically and morally bankrupt, and illegal on so
> many levels that I wouldn't be surpirsed if I could press felony
> charges immediately, even as a foreginer.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> Dick, when will you get the point?
>
> Nobody elected you moderator of any group, much less an entire
> hierarchy. Stop pretending that it was OK for you to try to be
> one.
>
> If you start your ARMM demon again, I am positive there will be
> more than one person starting their own. You WILL NOT like who
> they target.
>
> If you think the anonymous "problem" is bad, just wait until the
> ARMM wars start.
David Weingart <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>
> (Had I been on the Net when ARMM was active, I certainly would
> have been less polite...how DARE anyone decide what I should and
> should not read in an unmoderated group)
>
> No, I'm not an admin, just a net.head, and I consider the concept
> of ARMM to be disgusting.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>
> I owe an apology to "an4312":
>
> You, sir or madam, are the second civilian to be caught in the
> cross-fire between Julf and myself. I tried to warn
> non-combatants off the battle field, but failed in your case.
>
> I apologize.
>
> Do you require immediate medical attention?
>
> Let's assess the damage. One real posting to the "sci" hierarchy
> was cancelled. I've apologized to the author. His priceless
> prose has been delayed from public view for a few hours. Is this
> *really* something that you want to get me fired for doing?
_____
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?
<an8785@anon.penet.fi>:
> If you do not think Richard E. Depew's (red@uhura.neoucom.edu)
> threat to censor the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning
> a "canceling war," a good idea, please write directly to:
> ...
> Express your concern for this threatened instance of network
> vandalism and damage to academic freedom throughout the world by
> a reputed representative of his organization.
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> Dick Depew is accepting full responsibility for his actions. You
> are not. He is the true man of courage here. You are the worst
> sort of coward, starting a battle and hiding under a rock while
> the bullets fly.
Rob Sartin <sartin@88open.org>:
> The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail
> and phone calls.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> You (and most USENET readers) have seen the cowardly postings by
> "an8785" calling on readers to contact the chairman of my
> department and the director of computer services at my
> institution by mail or phone to complain about me.
Felix Gallo <felixg@coop.com>:
> There's nothing 'cowardly' about it. The postings are simple
> and factual. If you like, I'll claim I'm an8785, and take
> full responsibility for all his or her actions. It wouldn't
> bother me a bit.
Steve Simmons <scs@iti.org>:
> Though I disagree with Depews actions, he stood up and took the
> heat. an8785 engaged in an act of moral cowardice, and is now
> hiding behind the shield of anonymity. Previously my opinion
> was that the an8785 should simply be disabled. Given that an8785
> has actively urged people to take actions to harm Depew and
> refused to adequately reverse those actions, I now think an8785
> should be unmasked. Should Depew come to actual harm, the
> anonymous service might find itself in interesting waters.
Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> I disagree. an8785 did what s/he felt was necessary, and voicing
> one's opinions (even anonymously) is the better path than not
> doing so.
Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
> In any case, I really can't see anything wrong with someone
> posting the list of the board of trustees of your institution if
> they like, anonymously or non-anonymously. If you feel what you
> are doing is right, then you must be prepared to justify it to
> people who can stop you.
>
> As for "blackmail", I'd say that ironically refering to your own
> actions in the way described can hardly be construed as extortion
> under any statute I am familiar with.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> In other words, anonymous servers with inadequate safegards
> protect law-breakers from the consequences of their actions.
> *That* is what I oppose.
Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
> I agree that servers that shield lawbreakers are a potential
> problem. I *don't* agree with your implied assertion that Julf
> has shielded anyone who's broken the law (an8785 included) nor do
> I agree that the existance of that possible problem gives you the
> right to take unilateral netwide action against all postings
> issued through anonymous servers.
_____
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> The time has come to share a few of the insights I have gained
> from this whole messy affair.
>
> In *this* note I want to offer an olive-branch to Julf.
>
> Someone else said I was on a "quixotic crusade". *That* struck a
> responsive chord. I'll accept that characterization with pride:
> call me an electronic Don Quixote trying to fight evil and rescue
> the oppressed in a chivalrous but unrealistic way. :-)
>
> I'd like to call it the confrontation of "Don Quixote and the Guru
> of anonymity". The "evil" that I was fighting was not the Guru,
> but those few sociopaths who were abusing his service. While I
> was tilting at windmills, the Guru was meditating on his mountain
> top.
>
> Unfortunately, one of the windmills was an8785. The scene
> metamorphosed into "Bambi meets Godzilla" -- **THUMP**.
>
> Someone called it the confrontation of the "net-cop" vs. the
> "net-outlaw". I think that's a little harsh. :-)
Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com>:
> Well, "net-outlaw" is a little harsh on Julf. But "net-cop" is an
> extreme euphemism. What Dick was playing was "net-vigilante
> armed with assault weapons", and this sort of thing is simply out
> of bounds.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Out of bounds, sure, but undeniably within long established USENET
> tradition. :-)
Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com>
> ... one reason I'm posting this is to make it clear that, if
> "automated moderation" is to be implemented through cancel
> messages, it is simply not acceptable. Indeed, I would consider
> it ample cause for the removal of the cancelling site from
> Usenet.
>
> The fact that Dick was willing to stand behinds his actions is
> creditable, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the actions were
> wrong for Usenet, *even if* the anonymous service was everything
> that Dick thought it was. The cancels are just too damaging to
> Usenet's distribution algorithm -- and I would like to see Dick
> say he agrees with this paragraph.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> OK, I agree.
>
> I made several mistakes, and I have apologized for them. I have
> "sentenced" myself to "community service" for a few weeks to try
> to repair some of the harm I caused.
>
> I *would* appreciate a few apologies from the "lynch mob",
> however. Few if any of the participants have yet to understand
> that I was only trying to get Julf to talk about a possible
> compromise. The mob overreacted very badly two weeks ago. I was
> being rude and provocative, but what I got in return exceeded all
> bounds of decency.
John Stanley <stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> What you got in return for your self-appointed moderation of an
> entire hierarchy was much less than the last auto-cancellor got,
> and less than you deserve.
Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
> In my opinion, you gave up the right to expect decency when you
> took advantage of the open nature of this electronic community
> and attempted to unilaterally impose your views of what's right
> and what's wrong upon it. Your actions deserved the reaction they
> received, and you're not likely to get any apologies for that
> reaction.
Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
> How would you and Julf like to join me and a few other friends in
> a T-shirt pyramid scheme: ARMMway distributors? You can have Oz.
> :-)
>
> Our corporate mascot will be a turkey wearing one of these
> T-shirts. Our ad will be a poster showing this turkey and our
> corporate slogan: "How can you soar with eagles when you have to
> work with turkeys?". I'd think every system administrator will
> want one.
Vincent Fox <vincent@cad.gatech.edu>:
> The whole thing I dislike about the Depew vs Anon thing is that
> both sides were forcing it on me wholesale. If this anon-thing
> had kept up being spread across all newsgroups, you can bet your
> ass I would have put a filter on to drop all anon-postings on the
> floor for *my* server. On the other hand I am apalled at Depew's
> plan to forge cancels since he also is trying to force his ideas
> on me. *I'll* make those decisions thank you both very much
> gentlemen.
Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@Apple.COM>:
> I mean, what Depew is doing is obnoxious, but I can tell him so to
> his face (and he can tell me to stuff it to my face, if he
> wishs). On the othe side, though, we have a character
> assasination attempt going by someone who has no name. That's
> being an upright citizen?
>
> I think both sides are being real twitheads, and both side are
> showing the worst aspects of USENET culture. May everyone's disks
> crash, and may the replacements be misrouted to Angola.
Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
> The clinical trial was successful, at least in temporarily
> eradicating the pathogen from the patient's brain, but the
> patient unexpectedly suffered a severe allergic reaction, so I
> halted the test out of compassion.
Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
> Is this what you teach your students? That it's somehow "okay"
> for them to spend a few weeks in the lab breeding up "harmless"
> organisms and then releasing them into the general population?
> Handing out free samples of a vaccine that kills the thing off
> doesn't make it right to let it out of the lab in the first
> place.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Julf and I have been engaged in bilateral negotiations to forge a
> "peace treaty" between us.
>
> USENET is a cooperative anarchy. If enough of you do your part,
> we are confident that we can apply the important lessons we have
> learned from recent events and set a better example for future
> anonymous servers and automated moderation demons.
>
> I am a humble servant of the net. I have learned my lesson.
>
> Time to cobble up Edition 4 of ARMM in case any group ever votes
> to use it.
_____
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> ARMM has evolved. Expect a post on the subject shortly. I am
> trying to rustle up a volunteer to serve as the "target" of
> another demonstration. I expect you will find the latest
> incarnation of ARMM to be acceptable.
Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
> You just absolutely refuse to get the point, don't you Richard?
> Unless you have an explicit consensus that ARMM is welcomed by
> the people it is going to affect, you have absolutely no business
> activating it on this network. Period. *You don't have any right
> to make these decisions for the rest of us!*
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Spoken like a true fanatic, Lazlo.
>
> I should have expected that my attempt to calm things down would
> frighten the extremists.
John Stanley <stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> I haven't the slightest doubt that I will find the latest
> incarnation of ARMM to be as totally repugnant as your first
> attempt at self-appointed moderation.
>
> It seems that you have now proven that you still think that ARMM
> is a good thing and are continuing to try to get it accepted.
>
> You just still don't get it, do you Dick. You didn't have, and
> still don't, the right to decide to cancel postings that you
> don't like.
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <lassehp@imv.aau.dk>:
> If I can have a wish, I'd wish you'd delete your ARMM and never
> write one again, and certainly never activate one. It is not and
> will never be the right way to deal with general anonymous
> servers.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> I've decided to follow in the honorable tradition of the
> pioneering microbiologists who tested their hypotheses, and their
> possibly pathogenic isolates, and their experimental vaccines, on
> themselves! (As you probably know, several of them died from
> their own experiments.)
>
> I have just now armed ARMM5 to "minimally moderate" my own posts,
> and nobody else's. This moderation will be restricted to the
> single newsgroup, news.admin.policy.
>
> I don't, at the moment, see how anyone can object to *this*
> demonstration, but I expect *someone* will find a way. :-)
Juha Laiho <jlaiho@ichaos.nullnet.fi>:
> What do you think about this approach? At least it looks ok to me,
> if it's used properly. No more final cancellation of messages,
> but some way to put a warning in the beginning of a message. Now
> forget any possible personal hatred for the creator of that
> software, and think about the idea.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> Hmmm. It sounds like Mr. Depew is not only planning on cancelling
> other people's articles, but taking the article and editing it
> and then forging it back onto the net.
>
> This is supposed to be better?
Ken Weaverling <weave@apache.dtcc.edu>:
> *Please*, I humbly request that you not activate this ARMM thing.
>
> I have not posted on this subject. I, like many other sys admins,
> do not have a lot of time to twiddle with things. In fact, I
> don't have ANY time. My users are always at my thoughts, I am
> understaffed, and I can't keep up.
>
> Asking me to learn what ARMM is, how to alter my feed files to
> accept, not accept, ignore, or whatever it does, is asking a
> lot. A REAL LOT.
>
> I, as many other news admins, will not do anything. This means
> that by default, your ARMM whatever it is will operate and do its
> nasty deeds. I feel that the "cure" is far worse than the
> disease.
>
> Somehow, in the grand scheme of things, this is wrong.
G. Lee Owen <gowen@jade.tufts.edu>:
> Mr. Depew, I've just read your "evolution of ARMM" and I think I
> have a fairly good grasp of what you are trying to say. It seems
> to me that ARMM has evolved to the point of overkill.
>
> I think ARMM has evolved into a rube goldberg machine, an
> overcomplicated solution, where all we need to do is sit down,
> discuss what we all want anon sites to do, and formalize a
> consensus.
>
> I admired the cooperation that julf@penet.fi and red@redpoll
> reached a few days ago. Lets work further on that model, and
> reach a constructive compromise.
_____
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?
Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
> Friends (if I have any left at this point),
>
> <Blush>
>
> You have undoubtedly noticed the flood of ARMM posts that I caused
> last night.
>
> I made mistakes in both implementation and testing. That was truly
> bone-headed implementation error! I seem to have a real talent
> for spectacular screw-ups!
>
> I agree, though, that my fate is richly deserved. The net loony
> bin seems to be the safest place for me right now.
>
> Thanks for your understanding. It was an honest mistake.
Francisco X DeJesus <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>:
> The problem isn't you screwing up, it's you screwing EVERYONE ELSE
> up.
Joel Furr <jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments
> on the March 30 ARMM Massacre. Last _night_, on the other hand,
> I had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a
> low droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's
> Monsters on the surrounding environs. Frankenstein's Monsters
> here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about
> stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same
> word over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM.
Duke Robillard <duke@osf.org>:
> So, do you suppose Dick has now sent out more bogus messages than
> every bad anon post every made, combined?
Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
> Nope. Nowhere close. However, I expect to make it into the "top
> 25 posters by number of articles" list for the first time. There
> is just no way I can compete in volume, however. Hmmmm... maybe
> ARMM6 should carry a GIF file...
Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> What is the reason for this nonsense?
>
> ... a destructive cyberspatial act on a massive scale has
> occurred.
>
> I assume that it is not deliberate viciousness, because I believe
> M. Depew to be well-intentioned, if a little misguided. It seems
> to me to be a simple bug - ARMM is re-ARMMing its own output.
<wrowe@reed.edu>:
> Who the hell is responsible for this major-league mishap?
>
> Please, if I see the letters ARMM again I'm gonna kill someone.
_____
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?
Joel Furr <jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> Alt.fan.dick-depew is hereby newgrouped. This group is intended
> to serve as a forum for the MANY, MANY fans of Mr. Richard Depew
> of Munroe Falls, Ohio, who has made himself famous for:
>
> * unilaterally asserting the authority to cancel ANY anonymous
> posts made to groups he likes to read
> * his God complex
> * spamming news.admin.policy with a robot poster that attempted to
> cancel its own articles but failed and instead generated
> articles containing subject lines and headers dozens of screens
> long.
Ed Hall <dhall@rand.org>:
> I'd like to comment, though, that even though Mr. Depew's blunder
> might seem a bit comic on the morning after, I doubt many people
> have forgotten the serious side: he was using the mechanisms of
> the net as his own private toy. That, in my honest opinion, is a
> distinctly anti-social act, even in a place known for its
> anti-social acts--the Net.
>
> The whole episode is a bit like a burglar getting stuck in the
> chimney; we might laugh, but we still want him treated as a
> burglar. In Mr. Depew's case, I'd be happy if he just stopped
> mucking with control messages, both now and forevermore. If he
> doesn't--well, I'm sure there are others here who will figure out
> something.
Timothy C. May <tcmay@netcom.com>:
> My God! You mean you were actually logged-in and reading
> news.admin.policy as all this was happening? In real time?
>
> That's like happening to be outside and looking up as a giant
> meteor goes overhead...others can *read* about it or see it
> replayed on t.v., but you actually *experienced* it! You were
> *there*. (Of course, watch for tens of thousands of false claims
> as the years go by..."Yep, there I was, logged in, when all of a
> sudden smoke started comin' out of my computer. Yes sirree, it
> was a sight to behold.")
>
> To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a
> "microMorris," but still an interesting one.
George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Official March 30th ARMM Massacre Scorecard |
> | |
> | Dear Mr. Depew: |
> | |
> | We have determined that you have earned the following score |
> | in the Usenet Activities Contest: |
> | |
> | 6488 Supercedes @ 1 point each: 6488 pts. |
> | 2 Clueless Newbies (1) @ 30 pts: 60 pts. |
> | 28 Flaming Non-newbies (2) @ 25: 700 pts. |
> | Recursive Runaway Award (3) : 500 pts. |
> | Bonus: New World Record for Largest Cascade: 1000 pts. |
> | Total: 8,748 pts. |
> | |
> | This has earned you the rank of: Aspiring Usenet Legend |
> | |
> | Thank you for your continuing to grace Usenet with your |
> | presence. Your daemon's antics have made our day here. |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
_____
<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?
<beezer@cc.utah.edu>:
> Being a former sysadmin of two years, I can understand the
> bullshit the anon.penet.fi server was put through. The 'gawds
> above' reacted more out of ego and fear of the FCC than out of
> fairness.
>
> Your service has been appreciated.
<mathew@mantis.co.uk>:
> Excuse me, but I fail to see why the legal climate in the United
> States justifies meddling with the administrative policy of a
> site in Finland. Could someone explain?
Derrick J. Brashear <db74+@andrew.cmu.edu>:
> To all of you who had a hand in the demise of anon.penet.fi in any
> way shape or form, allow me to congratulate you. You've succeeded
> in screwing over 10000 legitimate users of the anon server
> because: a) a few, and I mean a few, posted abusive or
> inappropriate messages b) people didn't find anonymous messages
> appropriate outside alt.* and a handful of other groups.
>
> Who loses? All the people who used anon.penet.fi for what it was
> intended for. Yet those responsible will likely escape unscathed,
> and as of 2 AM US Eastern Standard Time, no "notable usenet
> personality" has stepped forward to take responsibility for the
> shutdown of the server.
>
> Once again, thank you.
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> I am disappointed that the anon server was completely shut down in
> the manner that actually occurred. While I think Julf's service
> needed to be cut back, I would much rather that this have
> happened of Julf's own free will, becuase he saw it as the Right
> Thing, instead of being imposed from outside.
Jon Noring <noring@netcom.com>:
> And it seems to me that things were getting settled. Julf was
> finally beginning to respond to several criticisms (some
> justified) as to how he was conducting his service. Again, this
> is a blow to Usenet since outside power was used to enforce a
> certain Usenet structure, rather than letting the users of Usenet
> decide what is best. This unfortunately sets a dangerous
> precedent. It also takes more control of Usenet out of the hands
> of the users and puts it in the hands of the control-phreaks.
Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
> This is truly the proof by example of the elitist nature of
> USENET. It is also an example of "my way is the only way and the
> right way"-itis. Most news administrators of this type exist as
> such only to feed their egos, and not as they are in a position
> of service.
Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
> I know everyone's calling for the head of the "personality"
> involved, but I'd like to hear a little more about what *exactly*
> is making it "politically impossible" for anon.penet.fi to
> continue operation. The above paragraph paints things in tones a
> little too scandalous to take seriously without more evidence --
> it strikes me as quite possible that a routine complaint
> (*conincedentally* from Net Personality <X>) reached someone in a
> position of power over penet who decided that the service was
> causing too much controversy for the site. No conspiracies
> there.
<styri@balder.nta.no>:
> I too would be very interested in knowing what really happened. I
> don't care who the "extremely highly regarded net personality"
> would be, but it would be nice to know what kind of "situation"
> was "created".
>
> Just for the record: It was sad that the anon server went down in
> flames, but it was not without reason. I think there is a case
> for a pseudonym service on Usenet, but it will take some more
> thinking and discussion to figure out how it should work. I think
> we are a bit wiser after Julf's experiment and that we should use
> the knowledge we gained in a positive way.
Tom Bryce <tjbryce@unix.amherst.edu>:
> I don't believe it for a damn minute when people say abuse of the
> anonymous posting service was what caused anon.penet.fi to be
> shut down.
>
> It's just a lesson in power, the net administrators don't like
> having certain things taken out of their control and power and
> the user be damned, they're going to keep things in line. Tough
> shit, I say. You don't have to know who I am, and if I'm abusing
> the network anonymously, take the proof to the admin- instrator
> of the anonymous service, and have them lock me out.
>
> Julf's posting was way too apologetic. You've nothing to apologize
> for, I hope you or someone else gets another one going.
Karl Kleinpaste <anonymus+0@charcoal.com>:
> Generally, these server deaths have been due to abuses by an
> extremely small number of maladjusted individuals who have done
> something sufficiently heinous to attract the attention of Those
> Who Matter. TWM is a context-sensitive group, and has consisted
> of, at various times and in relation to various anonymous
> servers: the facilities management group of the site in question;
> politically powerful individuals with influence regarding the
> network connection of the server host; large numbers of irate
> users inundating the server or its adminstrator in mail.
<an10757@anon.penet.fi>:
> I have SEEN Mr. Big's letter to Julf, and I have SEEN the articles
> pulled out of talk.politics.mideast. If you read that group, you
> know it's about 451 degrees in there. The articles consist
> mostly of a nym fighting with some guy at a big University. ...
> there was nothing you wouldn't expect to find there, and the fact
> that one of the participants was a nym was totally irrelevant,
> and certainly violated no laws, or even Usenet decorum, such as
> it is, Mr. Big's self-important,, inflated opinion to the
> contrary notwithstanding.
>
> Mr. Big's gripe has nothing to do with the content of the
> articles, that's all bullshit, just a sham. The only thing he
> cares about is that one of the flamers is a nym. I agree with
> whoever called him a bigot and a hypocrite.
_____
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?
Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>:
> The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down.
> Postings to netnews and mail to arbitrary addresses has been
> blocked. To enable users who know each other only by their anon
> ID's to arrange alternate communication paths, mail to anonymous
> users will still be supported for two weeks. After this period
> all database entries will be deleted.
Solomon Yusim <syusim@bcm.tmc.edu>:
> I think it is also outrageous and deeply embarrassing to the whole
> net community as to the secretive, back-handed, and authocratic
> measures of how this shutdown had happened.
Leonard Norrgard <vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi>:
> This stinks. I'm sure something could've been worked out without
> going to this extreme. I'm sorry to see it happen, and in this
> way.
Howard S Shubs <hshubs@cis.umassd.edu>:
> I think that the loss of this anonymous server is a shame.
David A. Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
> This is very sad.
>
> Having been the victim of a similar attack on my anonymous server
> I sympathize.
>
> Even your most vocal detractors in this group would seem to regard
> this as an unfortunate outcome.
Hannu Sepp{nen <hjseppan@hila.hut.fi>:
> Demanding him to reveal the net person(s) behing the shutting down
> of anon.penet.fi is not the point; there are always people around
> that use their power for forcing... I'm concerned about the fact
> that such forcing can be done, anonymously... It can be done,
> because that person has a clear target, Julf. If the idea of
> anonymous servers is supposed to be kept alive, it requires
> several sites running such, in different organizations, in
> different countries... That would be the only way to avoid what
> happened to Julf?
Dr. Cat <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
> I do have to say I'm most sorry for a good friend of mine who had
> a very pressing need to use an anon service in the near future,
> for personal reasons I can't go into. If anyone knows of any
> alternatative anon servers she could use instead, please email me
> information on them. Julf's was the only one I knew about.
Rob Knauerhase <knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>:
> I'm constantly amazed at all the people who are outraged that the
> anon server has gone down, but are unwilling to do anything about
> it. For crying out loud, Karl Kleinpaste's sources are available
> -- you don't even have to be sophisticated endough to write it or
> even understand it -- get them and put one up yourself. If
> you're not a sysadmin, then start campaigning the admins on your
> machine. But _please_ stop whining that this one is gone.
<EUCLID@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>:
> I, too, thank Julf, and am sorry to see the anon server go. There
> are subjects of discussion for which anonymity is appropriate
> (e.g. sexual abuse, suicide, etc.). Abuse of the service is
> regretable, but i think an alternative way of handling that
> beside shutting it down could have been found.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> It was never my aim to completely shut down anon.penet.fi. I was,
> and remain, a proponent of compromise - of setting some
> reasonable limits on the uses of anonymity. It was fanatics like
> yourself who insisted on "all or nothing" that brought down
> anon.penet.fi.
Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
> I do not insist, and never have insisted, on an "all or nothing"
> approach to anonymous posting. My fanaticism is limited to the
> idea that *you*, as an individual, have no business determining
> what people at other sites can read unless the people in charge
> of those sites expressly empower you to make that decision.
Paul Hughes <hughes@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>:
> I wanted to register my formal complaint with anyone who felt it
> was a valid, justified action in closing the anonymous server. I
> object to the treatments Julf and the remaining non-abusive
> members of the anonymous community have had to endure...ranging
> from simple categorization to near slander. I also believe many
> people are hurt by this recent event. All of the abuse and
> recovery groups, alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards, and even the a.b.p.e
> group (whose usage of the anon server was of questionable merit
> anyway), I predict, will find at least temporary slow downs in
> net.traffic due to people afraid to ask for help because of
> private concerns that need only be their own. Educational,
> healthy purposes for posting anonymously are now going to
> frighten many back into a hiding period, wishing for a new server
> to free them to speak with people who can identify with their
> problems.
Bert Medley <medley@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>:
> In any case, if I were a person who did not believe in such a
> service, I would have used a Kill file rather than shut the
> service down. THERE ARE MANY VALID REASONS FOR SUCH A SERVER TO
> EXIST.
Dana Tyler <dwt8413@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>:
> To: Julf@penet.fi
>
> Sorry to hear what has happened to your server. I think the net
> community as a whole will suffer from it's loss. Posting to
> alt.personal groups as well as other risque groups such as
> alt.sex.movies will slow to nothing. I think the people of the
> world have a right to express thier opinions while revealing
> their identity. It eliminates pressure from one's peers to
> conform to norms of scociety. I'll really miss it.
Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
> This is too bad. I have been perhaps one of the most vocal
> against your service, but I have ALWAYS maintained that it was
> not anon postings per se that I was against, as the MANNER in
> which the service had been started, and the lack of strong policy
> statements.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> The Guru was leaving his mountain.
>
> I was shocked. I was disappointed. I was saddened. I was also
> proud of Julf for the way he admitted errors and took
> responsibility. He has nothing to be ashamed of. A few of his
> users betrayed him.
>
> A hurried exchange of email showed that several of my allies felt
> the same way -- that *this* wasn't what we had been arguing for
> -- we didn't want a complete shut-down, what we wanted was to
> make the anonymous service more accountable and thereby more
> acceptable.
Alexander Chislenko <sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu>:
> I could hardly overstate my respect to Julf's work. I expect that
> any future textbook on the history of the Net will mention
> anon@penet.fi and Julf personally.
Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>:
> I'm probably not the only one who has been really surprised at the
> very strong reaction in support of anonymous services that the
> suspension of the anonymous posting service at anon.penet.fi
> caused. This proof of support (evidenced, among other things, by
> the fact that I have received more than 350 personal mail
> messages since the announcement of the suspension of the service.
> Of these, only 6 have been against resuming the service) have
> vastly improved my chances of resuming full operation. I really
> want to thank everybody who expressed their support for the
> service, both on news and in e-mail. I don't have the words to
> express how much I appreciate it!
_____
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?
Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>:
> Due to the lawsuit-intensive climate in the US, many anonymous
> services have been short-lived. By setting up anon.penet.fi in
> Finland, I hoped to create a more stable service. Anon.penet.fi
> managed to stay in operation for almost five months. The service
> was protected from most of the usual problems that had forced
> other services to shut down. But there are always going to be
> ways to stop something as controversial as an anon service. In
> this case, a very well-known and extremely highly regarded net
> personality managed to contact exactly the right people to create
> a situation where it is politically impossible for me to continue
> running the service.
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> I call for the "net personality" responsible to come forward and
> accept responsibility publicly for this action, and explain his
> reasoning (which may well be valid, but we won't know until we
> hear it).
Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
> There is no such thing as a "highly regarded" reputation...anyone
> who did this act is a net.asshole and deserves any condemnation
> he or she gets. They obviously are not acting for the good of the
> USENET community.
David A. Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>
> Tell us who the bastard was this time ! He or she may have been a
> "very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality"
> but they won't be for much longer.
Leonard Norrgard <vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi>:
> *I* expect to see this person step forward and and admit it, if
> they're that well-respected.
Howard S Shubs <hshubs@cis.umassd.edu>:
> Who and what happened? Why didn't you give this info in public?
> Is the person who stopped you ashamed of his/her actions?
<styri@balder.nta.no>:
> I'll add some fuel to the flame war at this point. Julf is making
> a very vague statement, aiming at a group of people. He does not
> state what really happened, that would probably have been easy
> without telling us the identity of this "extremely highly
> regarded net personality".
>
> I don't know _why_ Julf doesn't reveal the identity of this
> person, but the way he phrased his article it looks like he's
> attacking some kind of backbone cabal or high profile person. On
> the other hand, Julf may have had only good intentions by not
> telling us the identity. However, that doesn't justify his
> description of the prson as an "extremely highly regarded net
> personality."
H Keith Henson <hkhenson@cup.portal.com>:
> I wish to express my appreciation to Julf for running
> anon.penet.fi. It is a shame that those opposed could not evolve
> better ways to cope than just shuting him down. I also request
> that the person(s?) who did so would step forward and engage in
> discussion as to why they felt this to be necessary.
Dr. Cat <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
> I'll add my voice to those who want to know who did this to Julf,
> and why. Further, I would really like to know HOW it was done.
> It sounds like there may have been some heavy-handed,
> manipulative user of power involved. But certainly I'm willing
> to hear the "well known net personality" give their side of the
> story before passing judgement.
Pat Myrto <pat@rwing.UUCP>:
> Other than some folks being irritated by some anon postings, what
> was the problem? Surely not as irritating as some un-named
> individual dictating that only activity that *HE* approves of may
> occur on the net...
>
> Surely this person does not want to hide behind anonymity
> _himself_, does he, seeing as he apparantly strongly opposes
> others using it? Actions are a much stronger indicator of where
> someone is at than statements, and it would be nice to know who
> is, in effect, dictating overall net.policy, and who gave him
> this authority...
<EUCLID@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>:
> if the people responsible for shutting down the service decline to
> indentify themselves, that would be an example of blatant
> hypocrisy.
<mathew@mantis.co.uk>:
> I think that the highly regarded net personality should announce
> his name here. Surely it would be hypocrisy of the highest order
> for him to try to remain anonymous?
Eddy Robinson <Baphomet@temple.demon.co.uk>:
> I find it highly ironic that so many people were flamed for
> advocating anonymity, whether they used it or not; and now Julf
> is referring to a "net-personality" presumably in a diplomatic
> attempt to preserve that person from a flamefest. If this centres
> around a particular poster (as opposed to the 500th complainant
> about anonymity or something), then I fail to see why they do not
> "have the courage of their convictions" and stand up to take the
> credit.
Tom Gift <tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>:
> Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical that the alledged net
> luminary who is quoted as saying there's no legitimate need for
> anonymity is him(her)self not willing to publicly take
> responsibility for his/her actions in this mess?
Alexander Chislenko <sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu>:
> I find it very ironic that people who forced Julf to shut down the
> anonymous service, choose to stay *anonymous* themselves. Looks
> like they think that their reasons for using anonymity in this
> case are more legitimate than any other reasons anybody else
> might ever have.
_____
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?
Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@sw.stratus.com>:
> A reality check; The "net personality" didn't shut Julf down. At
> most, such a person could ask others (who do have power over
> Julf) to review Julf's policies and make their own decisions.
> From Julf's article, that appears to be what happened.
Michael Friedman <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>:
> Will you conspiracy theorists please make some effort to get a
> clue? Julf is almost certainly lying or, at the very least,
> distorting the truth.
>
> In fact, Julf's new announcement that his service is resuming
> clearly indicates that he made the decision to eliminate the
> original service.
>
> In short, Julf, I think you lied.
John Kennedy <warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu>:
> I happen to think it's amazingly funny. Here you have a whole lot
> of people, fighting tooth and nail for a service and this
> mysterious net entity manages to get it shut down.
>
> Suddenly, you have people you've never seen crawling out of the
> woodwork crying foul, and demanding to know said net-person's
> name. Some of these are almost certainly people who used the
> anonymous service to protect their _own_ identity from just this
> sort of abuse. _Regardless_ of how this person behaved, he
> deserves his anonymous status, don't you think?
Elioc S. Nevets <scoile@mason1.gmu.edu>:
> He has the right to complain; he has the right to remain
> anonymous. Maybe he didn't make himself known to the USENET
> community at-large because he knew people like you wouldn't be
> able to understand that all he did was complain, that he did not
> shut down the anon.server, and that he has not authority to.
> Just because he exercises his right to free speech, standing up
> for what he believes in, and complains, doesn't mean he has to
> submit himself to public debasement.
<news@wolves.Durham.NC.US>:
> This is getting so boring.
>
> Julf, with some admirable restraint, gives us the bare outline of
> what happened to convince him that his anonymous server machine
> should be shut down.
>
> Everyone *now* jumps in to say that the person who triggered this
> action is a net.idiot (or other unkind epithets), some of them
> being the same folks who were jumping on Julf's case for being
> too liberal with the way he ran the machine.
Michael Friedman <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>:
> I'm saying we can't trust him because he lies...
>
> Oh, and does anyone still believe his claim about some important
> net-person getting his server shut down? If so, how do you
> explain his sudden ability to restart it?
Jon Noring <noring@netcom.com>:
> to: "somebody"
>
> I am writing you to get your opinion and advice concerning
> universal anonymous posting services such as anon.penet.fi which
> was recently closed down. Of course, I am aware from several
> net.people that you, for whatever reason, played a major role in
> this particular closing...
>
> ... When I first heard of the closure, I was upset and fired off
> a post, before getting the facts, saying not-so-nice things about
> the so-and-so net.personality who was instrumental in the closing
> of anon.penet.fi. But...
>
> ...you must have had a good reason for doing so that had to remain
> unstated. Thus, I apologize for my statements, since I now
> realize that there must be more to this closure than meets the
> eye. Julf even alluded to that as well in his e-mail to me - but
> he's been very tight-lipped about specific details...
>
> (p.s., I'm sure you know by now that there are a lot of angry
> people out there in Usenetia who would hang you from the highest
> tree if they knew you were the famous net.personality (as Julf
> called you) - but of course they don't yet know the background
> information.)
"somebody":
> Despite what you may have heard, I did not play a "major" role --
> I sent one mail message to Julf urging him to shut the service
> down. I did what any other person with knowledge of the net
> might do, too -- I cc'd the administrator of his service
> provider. The shutdown occurred because of some interaction
> between Julf and the admins -- probably aided by mail from other
> objectors. I played no active role in the events.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> I would hate to contradict a well-known net authority, but sending
> mail is an active role.
Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>
> A lot of people have also asked me to reveal the exact events and
> names that caused the suspension of the service. I don't feel
> that that would serve any useful purpose at this point, as things
> have turned out pretty favourable and any public flame wars would
> only mess things up again. I once again repeat that I'm convinced
> the individuals involved acted out of their regard for the best
> of the net, and didn't realize the special circumstances that
> caused their actions to have such an impact.