💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › internet › FAQ › aipart2 captured on 2022-04-29 at 11:37:24.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Archive-name: net-anonymity/part2
Last-modified: 1994/5/9
Version: 1.0
ANONYMITY on the INTERNET
=========================
Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.
<3.1> What is the value or use of anonymity?
<3.2> Does anonymity uphold or violate the Usenet status quo?
<3.3> Is anonymity conducive or neutral to `abuse'?
<3.4> Does anonymity require courage or cowardice?
<3.5> Is anonymity associated with free speech?
<3.6> Should anonymous postings be censored?
<3.7> Can restrictions on anonymity be enforced? (How?)
<3.8> What are the effects of anonymity?
_____
<3.1> What is the value or use of anonymity?
David Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
> Many seem to question the value of anonymity. But who are they to
> say what risks another individual should take ? There is no
> question that in this rather conservative society that we live
> in, holding certain views, making certain statements, adopting a
> certain lifestyle, are likely to result in public censure,
> ridicule, loss of status, employment, or even legal action. Given
> the heterogeneity of the legal jurisdictions from where the many
> contributors to usenet post, who knows what is legal and what is
> not ! Some say that anonymous posters are "cowards" and should
> stand up and be counted. Perhaps that is one point of view but
> what right do these detractors have to exercise such censorship ?
Doug Sewell <doug@cc.ysu.edu>:
> Why is it censorship to not expect someone to speak for
> themselves, without the cloak of anonymity. This is at best a
> lame argument.
>
> You tell me why what you have to say requires anonymity. And you
> tell me why the wishes of a majority of non-anonymous users of a
> newsgroup should be disregarded when they don't want anonymous
> posts.
>
> Anonymous users have LESS rights than any others. They are not
> legitimate usenet participants. I would not honor RFDs, CFVs,
> control messages, or votes from one.
Bill Bohrer <bohrer@maui.mcc.com>:
> What really galls me is that you don't mention legitimate,
> RESPONSIBLE uses of anonymity.
Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.on.ca>:
> Yes. They exist. They compose of a small fraction of the Usenet
> community, yet the moves so far to accomodate them have caused as
> much grief and hurt as they have prevented.
>
> The need for a certain amount of discretion on some groups on
> Usenet exists, just like with letters to the editor, you can
> retain anonymity if you request but the *editors* must have your
> name and address on file.
Bob Longo <longo@sfpp.com>:
> If someone does not have enough conviction in his beliefs to post
> them without hiding behind an anonymous service, maybe he
> shouldn't be making the post.
>
> Sorry, but it appears that people are uniting against anonymous
> posting - not for it.
Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
> I beg to differ.
>
> Where have you been? We've been arguing this for weeks. There are
> two sides that it boils down to:
>
> "The validity of concepts and ideas expressed are based upon the
> poster's identity"
>
> "The validity of concepts and ideas expressed are not related to
> the poster's identity"
Ed Hall <edhall@rand.org>:
> That's a false dichotomy. Ideas and concepts should be judged on
> merit, but a component of that merit is just who it is who
> presents those ideas and concepts.
>
> I personally don't see a gross threat to the net in anonymous
> postings, but unless there is a clear reason for anonymity I
> regard them with a great deal more suspicion than average.
>
> I think there is a reasonable middle-ground. Using anonymity to
> protect oneself from actual harm resulting from social
> intolerance is an example of an important and legitimate use.
> But using it simply to put ones opponents at a disadvantage so
> one can attack them with impunity is severely rude, at best.
> Although I don't believe in outlawing rudeness, I see no reason
> to come to its comfort, either.
Karl Barrus <elee9sf@Menudo.UH.EDU>:
> Some argue that the opinions of the people who hide behind a veil
> of anonymity are worthless, and that people should own up to
> their thoughts. I agree with the latter point - in an ideal
> world we would all be sitting around engaging in Socratic
> dialogues, freely exchanging our opinions in an effort to
> learn. But in an ideal world nobody will threaten you for your
> thoughts, or ridicule you.
>
> But we live in a world where the people who don't agree with you
> may try to harm you. Let's face it, some people aren't going to
> agree with your opinion no matter how logically you try to
> present it, or how reasoned out it may be. This is sad since it
> does restrict people from voicing their opinions.
<00acearl@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>:
> Instead of making this a "free-er medium" by allowing posters to
> "protect themselves" with anonymity, simply require that all
> posters be prepared to discuss their sources of information and
> take the heat for unsubstantiated dribble. This seems to be the
> way things are currently done;
Melinda Shore <shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu>:
> It seems obvious to me that anonymity is often a good thing,
> especially in areas where people do have something valid to say
> but have legitimate reasons to fear the consequences if their
> identity is known (and yes, it does happen).
David Toland <det@sw.stratus.com>:
> If someone feels a need to post anonymously, I have no real
> problem with that per se. I may take that fact into account when
> reading some types of subject matter, but I do not make an a
> priori judgement based on it.
>
> Some people will automatically discount an anon posting. Let
> them. Others of us don't care who wrote it (usually), as long as
> it is intelligently presented, or witty, or even amusingly
> unusual.
David Klein <davidh@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>:
> I have seen pieces of the anon thread for the last two weeks on
> the net, and I do not understand what the big deal is. The pros:
> a person can post to a group with a potentially sensitive subject
> and not have to worry about personal contacts finding out. The
> cons: someone could potentially harass someone.
Mike Schenk <M.R.Schenk@research.ptt.nl>:
> I think the anon server is a blessing to the net. It gives people
> the oppurtunity to post anonymously in the sense that their name
> is not known. However, it is still possible to send email to them
> so you can tell if you dissaprove of a certain posting. So they
> are anonymous but reachable.
J. Kamens <jik@mit.edu>:
> If someone REALLY needs to post a message anonymous in a newsgroup
> in which this usually isn't done, they can usually find someone
> on the net to do this for them. They don't need an automated
> service to do it, and the automated service is by its nature
> incapable of making the judgment call necessary to decide whether
> a particular posting really needs to be anonymous.
Karl Krueger<kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> The existence and continued popularity of an anonymous server
> shows that there is a demand for it. People wish to have the
> ability to avoid getting fired, sued, or shot for expressing
> their opinions.
Bob Longo <longo@sfpp.com>:
> the only person qualified to judge the validity of the anon
> poster's reasons is the anon poster himself. You are very lucky
> that you are secure enough in your social position and career
> that you can say and write whatever you want to any time any
> place without fear of ridicule or censure. Some people aren't.
> Some people just don't wish to tell a few million people around
> the world, or a few dozen at work, etc. details about their
> private lives or some personal opinions or beliefs.
Herbert M Petro <hmpetro@uncc.edu>:
> Perhaps those people should undergo therapy in order to built
> their self-esteem and come to recognize their own self-worth.
> Such people should be pitied for their overwhelming need to be
> approved of by others.
Dr. Cat <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
> Sure, many people have no need for the useful roles of an anon
> server, and may be subject to some of the harmful ones. But to
> judge solely on the role something plays in one's own life, with
> no consideration for others, seems extremely self-centered.
Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
> Most of us have not been saying that anonymous posting should be
> "banished from the net", merely that there should be some minimum
> guaranteed set of controls and accountability. Plus agreement
> (or at least discussion) on where they are appropriate.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>
> Funny, but there were controls and accountability for
> anon.penet.fi. The admin there had shut off abusive users.
>
> The only problem people had with that is that the accountability
> wasn't under their control.
Brian O'Donovan <not@inmos.co.uk>:
> The benefit of having an anon service is that people are being
> (shall we say) `openly anonymous', which I feel is far more
> healthy than having to forge or abuse an identity. Closing anon
> services will not prevent malicious use of the net.
>
> I'm afraid I cannot offer my services, or those of the company I
> work for, but for what it's worth, you have my support.
<barnhill@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>:
> The legitimacy of anonymous posting has been presented in a
> variety of ways for at least the last couple of years, debated
> within the groups where such posting occours, and it certainly
> appeared to me that a concensus had arisen that in cases where
> employer retribution, student harrassment, potential
> re-victimization or other considerations pertained, anonymous
> posting was an acceptable way in which to conduct business.
Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
> And you say that if you feel strongly enough about it, put your
> name on it. I say, "Until you have something real to lose [Your
> career for life], you will never see the values of being
> anonymous."
E. Johnson <johnson@access.digex.com>:
> Well, I have mixed feelings about this entire question. Of
> course, everyone should have the right to anonymity; if someone
> doesn't want to stand up for what they have said (and I can
> understand that under some circumstances), that is their choice.
> One the other hand, I think the USE of the anon service (not its
> availability) is not a good idea (except maybe on the alt.sex
> hierarchy and similar places) because it does reduce the
> credibility of one's opinion. It seems to say that "I don't
> really know what I'm talking about and I don't care" even if the
> person does.
Ingemar Hulthage <hulthage@morue.usc.edu>:
> I think it would be a big mistake to prohibit anonymous posting
> and email in general. There are some long-standing precedences
> for anonymous publishing. Many authors use pen-names and there
> are cases where the real identity of an author is still secret or
> remained secret for a long time. Most newspapers publish
> 'letters to the editor' and allow them to be anonymous or signed
> by initials only. The responsibility of a journalist not to
> reveal his sources is almost universally recognized. In the
> academic world one can point to the custom of anonymous peer
> reviews of articles, proposals etc.
[unknown]
> "Revolutions are not won by people sitting in a back room plotting
> and scheming. They are won by those that are willing to take
> personal risk and publicly speak out against what they deem
> unjust."
"somebody":
> I am a firm believer in privacy, but that is not the same thing as
> anonymity. Anonymity can be used to violate another's privacy.
> For instance, in recent years, I have had harassing anonymous
> notes and phone calls threatening XXX beause of things I have
> said on the net ... I am in favor of defeating the reasons
> people need anonymity, not giving the wrong-doers another
> mechanism to use to harass others.
>
> ... any such service is a case of willingness to sacrifice some
> amount of privacy of the recipients to support the privacy of the
> posters.
>
> If the only people who would support the idea are those who might
> use it, is it proper?
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the only people
> who support anonymous posting are those who use it.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Most of us have the best interests of the net in mind, agree that
> anonymous postings have their place, and agree that cooperative
> anarchy is a wonderful experiment.
Jonathan Eifrig <eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu>:
> Let's face it: we are _all_ anonymous to some degree on the Net.
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu>:
> I've usually taken at least lurking interest in USENET-gone-stupid
> flame wars, but this anonymity flap leaves me completely bored.
> Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally boring going
> on?
_____
<3.2> Does anonymity uphold or violate the Usenet status quo?
Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>:
> I can think of no disadvantage caused by anon posting sites that
> doesn't already exist, other than the fact that they do make more
> naive net users who don't know how to post anonymously the old
> way more prone to do it.
<an8729@anon.penet.fi>:
> Anonymity does hinder some methods of controlling other posters'
> actions. People who seek such control will naturally oppose it.
Dan Hoey <hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>:
> While there has never been any real security against anonymous or
> forged postings on Usenet, the process has until now been
> sufficiently inconvenient, error-prone, and undocumented to limit
> its use by persons who have not learned the culture of the net.
Alexander EICHENER <C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>:
> anonymous posting has not created major problems aside from
> angering irate people (like you?) who would rather ban
> anonymous/pseudonymous posting altogether because "real men can
> stand up for what they said" or comparable puerile arguments as
> others have brought up.
Terry McGonigal <terry@geovision.gvc.com>:
> <sigh>... Just how many anon services are needed? Will
> *everybody* start running one soon? What's the purpose? Who
> stands to benefit when there are N anon services, then 2*N, then
> N^2, out there. Where *has* this sudden fasination with anon
> services come from?
>
> For better or (IMHO) worse, it looks like we'er gonna get stuck
> with these things, and as much as I don't like the idea (of
> services like this becoming the norm) I don't really think
> there's much to be done since it's obvious that anyone who wants
> to can set one up with a bit of work.
<an8785@anon.penet.fi>:
> Is the problem that some are used to "punishing" posters who are
> upsetting in some vague way by complaining to the (usually
> acquiescent) sysadmin or organizations that the poster belongs
> to? That surely is the most gutless approach to solving
> problems, but my experience on the net shows that the same users
> who vilify anonymous postings are the first to write obsessively
> detailed grievances to the poster's supervisor when his or her
> tranquility is disturbed by some "intrusive" or subversive post
> or another.
>
> Anonymous postings prevent just this kind of intimidation.
Steve Pope <spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu>:
> I am finding this bias against pseudonymity boring. Our friend
> posting through penet has a point. The old guard would like to
> keep their network the way it always has been... and this new
> thing, these pseudonymous servers, cuts into their turf. So they
> whine and bitch about it, and every time there's the slightest
> abuse (such as somebody's .sig being too long), they try to
> parlay that into an argument against pseudonymity.
>
> I'll go on record as saying: three cheers for the admins at anon
> servers like penet, pax, and n7kbt... and for all the access
> service providers who are willing to preserve their clients
> privacy.
>
> And a pox on those who try to defeat and restrict pseudonymity.
Bruce Umbaugh <BDU100F@ODUVM.BITNET>:
> How is posting through anon.penet.fi *fundamentally* different
> from posting through any other site?
>
> Please, do, help me see what I'm missing. Show me, if you can,
> how a pseudonymous (for that is what this is) site merits such
> hostility.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>
> A better question is: why should YOU get to second guess the
> results of a valid newsgroup vote (ones held years ago, in some
> cases) to decide that certain people may not post even though the
> groups decided when they were formed that anyone could post?
>
> This is amazing. All these poeple complaining about a change in
> the status quo (that really isn't), and you want a blanket change
> in the status quo (that really would be).
J. Kamens <jik@mit.edu>:
> It seems obvious to me that the default should be *not* to allow
> anonymous postings in a newsgroup. The Usenet has always
> operated on the principle that the status quo should be kept
> unless there's a large number of people who want to change it.
David Weingart <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>:
> People have said that anonymous posting netwide is something new.
> This is garbage; such things have existed as long as I've been on
> the Net (about 3 years). BBS systems and local dialin systems do
> little verification. There are, as someone pointed out, several
> freely accessible NNTP servers out there, and it takes very
> little to hack your new program to fake everthing you want in the
> headers (Good lord, look at the group list in alt sometimes!).
> Having an1234@anon.penet.fi is no different than having
> foo@bar.com, when bar.com is a dialin; all you can do is send
> mail to the user and the site admin to bitch, and the odds are
> the site admin won't do anything.
>
> So far, I've not seen a single convincing argument that the
> "status quo" of the Net was changed by anon.penet.fi going up.
> anon.penet.fi is just another site ...
Michael Stoodt <stoodt@cis.umassd.edu>:
> The status quo IS for sites to be able to add themselves to the
> net at will; and for the site and its users to take
> responsibility for their actions on the net. anon.penet.fi and
> its users are not assuming the same level of responsibility that
> local.bbs.com does.
>
> The status quo was that there was the PRESUMPTION of
> accountability for users. Maybe some sites didn't enforce this
> as much as some would have liked, but anon.penet.fi is
> specifically designed to avoid any such accountability.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> Wrong. The site has an admin. He has responsibility for that site.
> You simply don't like how he handles his site. Well, news flash:
> it isn't your responsibility to handle his site. You don't get to
> make the rules for him. You make your rules, you decide how to
> handle your users. He makes his rules, he handles his users.
>
> What accountability? To their admin, perhaps. To YOU? Hardly. To
> Dick Depew? ROFL.
Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
> At the time of the charters of most existing groups, global
> anonymous access was NOT available, and was NOT considered in the
> charter.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> I hate to bring facts into this discussion, but yes, indeed, for
> as long as the net has been around, anonymous posting has been
> available. Part of the process of creating a group is to decide
> whether the group is moderated or not, so yes, indeed, the
> question of who may post to the group is considered in the
> formation of every group.
>
> A change in the status quo "in the interest of preserving the
> status quo" is a lie.
Paul Flaherty <paulf@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU>:
> The author clearly states "global anonymous" as opposed to merely
> "anonymous"; the two differ significantly in ease of access.
>
> Aside from access, the new "global anonymous" services differ
> significantly by the degree of anonymity from the old forged
> postings; anyone with a good networking background could trace
> forged postings, while the new services are quite a bit more
> secure.
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
> Even with the limited "global", anonymous posting has been around
> for as long as the net has.
>
> The "new" services (which really aren't anything new) make the
> anonymous poster more "responsible" than many old methods of
> posting. At least this way you can send mail to the anonymous
> poster complaining about whatever you want.
ANDREW GREENSHIELDS <andy@apache.dtcc.edu>:
> Those may be good reasons for posting anonymously. I don't think
> anyone has said that they want to ban *all* anonymous postings
> *forever*. The issue here, as far as I see it, is who is going
> to take responsibilty for articles whose sole intent is to
> injure?
Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
> No one will. No one needs to. The notion that an anonymous posting
> needs to be traceable to its source is a product of the
> unification of the old time conservative desire to squelch free
> speech with the new fangled politically correct liberal desire to
> squelch free speech.
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> Julf unilaterally imposed a change on those groups - that they
> accept anonymous postings - and did not inform the people who
> read those groups of that change, and did not ask them if they
> desired the change.
>
> Richard's default is the correct one: he would require a vote to
> change the pre-Julf status quo. Your default would impose a
> change on folks and then demand that they vote to restore the
> status quo.
Afzal Ballim <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>:
> Jay, by your reasoning why isn't it changing the status quo if a
> new node is added to the net and people start posting from it?
> Okay, you say that we don't KNOW who the people are behind
> postings from Julf's site. But so what? The charter of
> unmoderated groups says nothing about restricting postings from
> sites where the identity of users is not generally accessable
> from outside. If they did, then Julf would have changed the
> "status quo". As many have pointed out, what Richard had proposed
> means that sites downstream from a feed that cancelled a message
> would not got those messages. This seems far more radical a
> change to the status quo than posts from anonymous users turning
> up in a group.
Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:
> You didn't find a anonymous userids throughout the Usenet until
> Johan came along.
<jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:
> No, Julf has not imposed a change. Anonymous postings and
> anonymous posting sites have existed for many years before Julf's
> site went up. Julf is MAINTAINING the status quo with his site.
Daniel Veditz <daniel@borland.com>:
> You didn't find them with big red tags saying "Lookit me--I'm
> anonymous!" maybe, but they've always been there. I've seen tons
> of pseudonymous posters--people with cryptic assigned class IDs
> with no signature, people who have bought their own system and
> use cutsie names...
>
> The only differences are:
> - Julf made it easier to post pseudonymously and advertised
> - It's more obvious that these are pseudonymous
> - They all appear to be a single site and thus make a good target
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> Nope. Anonymous posting sites that existed were set up for a
> single, consenting newsgroup. Julf's is the first netwide
> anonymous site.
<jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:
> I intend to statrt up my own Internet site by the end of
> September. I intend to allow anonymous posting. I will be
> maintaining the status quo.
>
> Julf does not have to ask anyone if they desire a change -- he
> isn't changing anything, and in any case he's not breaking any of
> the "rules" of Usenet, because there are no hard-and-fast rules
> on UseNet.
Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
> Sorry. I categorically reject this argument. Anonymous postings
> netwide are a significant change in the net culture. You will
> not convince me otherwise.
<sward+@cmu.edu>:
> The unmoderated groups already accepted ANY sort of posting -
> including anonymous postings - long before Julf started his
> server ...
Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:
> Such a claim ignores the fact that, in general, anonymous (or
> pseudonymous) postings didn't go anywhere but the lone newsgroup
> supported by the individual anonymous server in question. Yes,
> you always _could_ forge articles by suitable invocation of
> rnews, or assault on the nearest posting-permitted NNTP server.
> But people didn't, generally. Social habit prevented exercises
> in poor taste.
David Weingart <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>:
> There have _always_, so far as I can tell, been innapropriate and
> offensive postings to newsgroups. (And, as I've pointed out from
> my particular experience, these postings are usually from
> non-anonymous users (non-anonymous in the sense that there is no
> instantly-obvious giveaway eddress like an.id@anon.server). They
> didn't start with anonymous servers, they'll continue without it.
>
> The best thing you can do to flamers is ignore them.
Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu:
> The issue of an irresponsible system administrator trying to
> impose his anonymous server on readers of thousands of newsgroups
> is not a trivial one. My proposal to restore the status quo in
> a hierarchy that has protested anonymous postings may not make me
> popular with anonymous posters, but I haven't seen a single
> message claiming that any sci newsgroup has invited anonymous
> postings.
_____
<3.3> Is anonymity conducive or neutral to `abuse'?
<KONDARED@PURCCVM.BITNET>:
> I think anonymous posts do help in focusing our attention on the
> content of one's message. Sure lot of anonymous posts are abusive
> or frivolous but in most cases these are by users who find the
> anon facility novel. Once the novelty wears off they are stopping
> their pranks...
Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
> I've received *hundreds* of anonymous email messages over the last
> few years; fewer than 20 of them were "reasonable posts made with
> good motives." It's getting more and more difficult to remember
> why we need anonymity at all; the abusers are (once again)
> lousing things up for those who truly need the service (or those
> who would put it to good use).
Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
> I don't mind seeing the miscellaneous hatred/prejudice/racism;
> those things are part of our nature. However, the notion of
> providing anonymity's shield for these ideas repulses me. If
> they have such strong feelings, why can't they put their name(s)
> on their postings? ... Quite frankly, I loathe communication
> with people who refuse to use their names.
Jonathan I. Kamens <jik@athena.mit.edu>
> NNTP servers that allow posting from anyone are NOT "a service to
> the net." They do the net a disservice.
>
> Terminal servers have the same problems as open NNTP servers --
> they allow people who want to do illegal/immoral/unethical things
> on the Internet to do so without accountability.
>
> There are, by now, public access sites all over this country, if
> not all over the world, that allow very inexpensive access to the
> Usenet and the Internet. There is no reason for NNTP servers to
> allow anyone to post messages through them, and there is no
> reason for terminal servers to allow anyone to connect to them
> and then make outbound connections through them. Perhaps when it
> was harder to get to the Internet or the Usenet, open servers
> could be justified, but not now.
Michael Stoodt <stoodt@cis.umassd.edu>:
> Open NNTP servers are bad, for they allow the same avoidance of
> accountability that anon.penet.fi does. Actually, they're worse,
> for it's rare for them to be able to filter Control headers and
> such; they're very useful for those cretins practicing sendsys
> terrorism and such.
Karl Krueger<kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> That idea (of "asbestos longjohns", the mythical protection form
> flamage) can be seen as an abstraction of what the anon service
> is. It is not as if anonymous posters are somehow "protected" -
> they still get their replies. All an anonymous poster is
> protected from is "real world" damage - the kind of thing that
> any USENETteer should be protected from anyway.
Tom Bryce <tjbryce@unix.amherst.edu>:
> There'll always be abuse of the net with or without anonymous
> services, and tighter verification of ID, more sternly dealing
> with and locking out abusers of the services, limiting posts
> anonymously to a certain amount a day to keep people from
> flooding the network, and the like, the abuse can be cut down to
> a minimum, and the freedom it gives people to post on the
> newsgroups without inhibition or fear is well worth it.
Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@Apple.COM>:
> This debate is showing up exactly what's wrong with anonymous
> postings: for every legitimate use of them, there are dozens of
> cases where people use it to hide from the responsibility of
> their actions.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Anonymous servers have an important function in certain
> newsgroups, and most people who use them do so responsibly.
> However, these servers attract sociopaths who use them to avoid
> responsibility and accountability for their actions.
"somebody"
> I am, in general, against unrestricted anonymous service. There
> are too many abusive people on the net to make it work.
>
> I do not believe we have the appropriate technology to make an
> anonymous service work on the net. Furthermore, I remain
> completely unconvinced that there is a legitimate need, nor is
> the level of maturity in the user population sufficiently level
> where it can be effectively used. It may only be a small
> percentage of people who cause the problems, but that is true of
> nearly everything in history.
_____
<3.4> Does anonymity require courage or cowardice?
Dave Ratcliffe <dave@frackit.UUCP>:
> Sure most adults are willing to post under their own names. Why
> would they want to hide behind an anonymous posting service?
> Ashamed of what they have to say or just trying to rile people
> without fear of being identified?
<an8785@anon.penet.fi>:
> I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to
> hide behind your affiliations.
Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu>:
> This is ludicrous. If you do not have the courage of your own
> convictions, and are not willing to back those convictions up by
> using your own name, why should anyone pay the slightest
> attention to you? (I certainly won't.) Either you have the guts
> to back up what you say, or you don't; and if you don't, then you
> should probably just be quiet.
Tom Mandel <mandel@netcom.com>
> I think you, sir or madam or whatever you are, are full of it.
> Anonymity is the veil behind which people too cowardly to
> identify themselves with their analyses or opinions hide.
Jim Thomas <jthomas@NETSYS.COM>:
> Although revelation is generally preferable to anonymity, there
> are numerous reasons that are sufficiently strong to discredit
> the "cowardice" thesis.
Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> "Hiding behing Julf's server"? No... For many, bouncing things
> off the anon server is routine protection, just like using PGP is
> for others. It's security.
>
> Is it "immature" to "hide behind" this server? Of course not, no
> more is it than it is to send the police an anonymous letter if
> one is informing on a Mafia don. People do get in realspace
> "trouble" for what they say in the USENET cyberspace, you know.
>
> Tell me, if you could get fired for posting something, say, a
> criticism of an illegality (or unethicality) perpetrated by your
> boss, wouldn't you want a way to make the action known to the
> public, anonymously? Anonymousness is not patently cowardice!
> If one believes that the "outside world" will attack one, one
> will use an anonymous method!
Shannon Atkins <satkins@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu>:
> Like I said, if you don't have the balls to post it under your own
> name, it isn't worth posting. It simply isn't important enough
> to post about.
>
> I'm not really sorry if I have offended any of the nameless,
> faceless, spineless PC clone-zombies out there in netland by
> having an opinion.
Michael Miller <michael@umbc.edu>:
> There are some people with whom one should not publicly disagree
> under one's own name. When you want to disagree with such a
> person, cowardice is simply the intelligent way to do it.
>
> Of course, people will hide behind anonymity to post drivel, but
> many people already post drivel without anonymity. Some
> anonymous posters are stupid cowards and some are smart cowards.
> Do you really want to ignore all the smart cowards?
_____
<3.5> Is anonymity associated with free speech?
David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>:
> Note again that invoking civil rights or free speech is a big red
> herring on this issue--nothing in this prevents people from
> posting directly--only through an anonymous filter.
>
> This is not a matter of free speech since writers are free to post
> under their names.
Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
> So many people (Americans) have used the "right" to free speech in
> defense of this anon server (which does not apply since it is a
> provision limiting the actions of the government, not
> individuals)
Daniel Veditz <daniel@borland.com>:
> Whoa, is freedom of conscience and of speech merely a privilege
> granted by some governments, or is it a true human right
> regardless of whether or not recognized by various governing
> bodies?
>
> In any case I agree that "free speech" considerations are
> irrelevant to this anon server issue.
Knut Langsetmo <knut@iti.org>:
> It is interesting to see that so many champions of 'free speech'
> have opposed the anon server. I for one can testify that there
> have been severe reprecusions for things that I have said. In
> particular, I was fired for suggesting that communism was a good
> idea, "advocating communism". All the talk of having the 'guts'
> to stand behind what you say is just posturing by those who have
> never said anything that people who have power over their lives
> might object to.
David Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
> I am amazed that Julf hasn't had to put up with more flak at his
> end over his consumption of bandwidth. The Fins have always been
> awfully tolerant about this sort of thing. It is a sad day when
> the Europeans have to teach the rest of the Western world about
> freedom of speech ! It amazes me that there is not a single
> anonymous server of the type that Julf runs (ie. easy to use and
> universal posting) anywhere in the entire US. Pretty sad. I don't
> understand why. I would have thought some commercial site would
> have the guts to try. What do they fear ? Disconnection or legal
> liability for the posts and mail that they pass on ?
>
> I consider the demise of [my] service to have been rather
> unfortunate, and I wish the Finnish remailer luck ! It is a pity
> that there are very few if any similar services provided with in
> the US. I guess that's the benefit of having a constitution that
> guarantees one freedom of speech and a legal and political system
> that conspires to subvert it in the name of the public good.
Tim Burns <tim@osiris.usi.utah.edu>:
> Recently, the anoymous network service at anon.penet.fi was closed
> down. I feel that act severely compromised the free speech rights
> of those who use the network. Acting to shut down such services
> which allow people to discuss sensitive issues is a grave abuse
> of power, and a threat to the internet community as a whole. I
> am very sad that this happened, and beg the internet community to
> unite in support of free network services such as anon.penet.fi.
David Barr <barr@pop.psu.edu>:
> Exactly whose free speech rights were violated? I hate to see
> people throw around the word "free speech" with little thought as
> to what they are actually saying. Free speech applies only to
> the press, not to those who wish to say what they want on someone
> else's press. The shutting down of anon.penet.fi was a lot of
> things, but it did not violate anyone's free speech rights.
Bob Longo <longo@sfpp.com>:
> You have got to be kidding! Compromised free speech RIGHTS? No
> one is stopping anyone from stating their views or posting. Do
> you think it is a RIGHT to blast anonymous postings all over the
> net with no accountability? Somehow I don't think you will find
> that right in any legal definition of the freedom of speech.
Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
> I think the poster meant "the ideal of free speech" not "the
> restricted legal definition of free speech". With true free
> speech, it doesn't matter what you say you are free to say it. It
> doesn't look like people are stable enough to handle this
> concept, though.
Carl M Kadie <kadie@cs.uiuc.edu>:
> At least in the U.S., anonymity has been seen by the courts as
> related to freedom of expression and freedom of association ...
Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>:
> I've been watching this debate heat up over that past 3 or 4 years
> now as Usenet has exploded in size. The freedom of expression of
> many Usenet readers is actually being denied by abusive users
> because smaller sites are being forced to cut parts of their
> feeds due to volume.
>
> I think "freedom of expression" is a straw man in this case. No
> one has raised issue with the content of the message (at least in
> this thread) -- only the manner in which it was posted. It would
> be interesting to make an analogy to grafitti in this case.
Christopher Pilewski <cap@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu>:
> The internet is a medium of expression. It needs ideas in order
> to have any useful purpose. And, many people need anonymity to
> express their ideas freely. This is why any election (of any
> validity) is by secret ballot! Privacy is not just an aspect of
> freedom, it is a provider of freedom. Privacy is important. You
> do not have freedom of expression if (Your boss will fire you;
> Your co-workers will harass and humiliate you; Or, the government
> maintains files about you) for expressing your views. Sadly, all
> of the above can happen without privacy and anonymity.
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.
_____
<3.6> Should anonymous postings be censored?
Merth Eric <emerth@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
> Seems to me that the issue is not really about accountability but
> whether some people like how other people choose to communicate.
> This service was the first real move toward an open forum that I
> had seen. It is unfortunate that some people could not tolerate
> its existance.
<jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:
> Whatever your opinion of anonymous posting, you MUST agree that no
> individual has the right to determine what someone else can or
> can not read.
Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
> What can be done to defend the freedom that USENET has enjoyed
> from itself? Since USENET is, by definition, anarchic, existing
> as a whole only because of mutual cooperation from all users,
> everyone must be involved. The state of USENET is very similar
> to the state of the USA - people need to get involved on the most
> basic levels. Individual citizens of cyberspace must become
> knowledgeable about what is actually going on. Threats to USENET
> freedom should not merely be flamed and then passed by, but must
> be actively prevented. When threats like the recent ARMM threat
> emerge, normal users must react.
>
> While ARMM was opposed 3:1 in news.admin.policy, it is scary that
> as many as 1/4 of the voting population (which was, admittedly,
> small) were pro-censorship. There may come a time when such
> efforts as M. Depew's will be greeted with open arms. This is
> scary.
<barnhill@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>:
> The use of the issues of anonymity and potential copyright
> violation has been at best spurious to the clear agenda of those
> who in their infinite wisdom have chosen to become the moral
> arbiters of society, which is to disrupt any and all
> communication which they percieve as threatening.
Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
> Unfortuntately, there are lots of people out there who think that
> they should be regulating what sort of thing other people are
> permitted to read, and they seem to be alive and well and
> operating on Usenet. Horror of horrors! People might post
> offensive things anonymously and get away with it! We must stop
> this plague, the PC censors tell us.
>
> I know that the notion of freedom of speech is a radical notion to
> some people. I understand that the idea that words are not knives
> and cannot physically injure people is a mere three hundred years
> old or so and thus still difficult for some people to grasp.
> However, understand this -- this Usenet site administrator will
> not sit idly by and allow fools decide for me what I can and
> cannot read.
Felix Gallo <felixg@coop.com>:
> "deeply offensive" is in the eye of the beholder, and *THAT* is
> what the entire problem is. I reserve the right to choose for
> myself what I consider deeply offensive, and consider myself
> quite competent at pressing the appropriate keys to ensure that I
> don't have to look at things I no longer want to see.
Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
> The real threat of anonymity is the expressing of ideas which the
> consensus does not wish to be expressed.
>
> Those who will not express those ideas (i.e. some of those who
> cite "responsible" posting practives) are threatened by their
> very existence...especially if they agree with "non-approved"
> ideas. This would expose them to the loss of external validation
> from the operating consensus.
Steve Summit <scs@adam.mit.edu>:
> The saddest thing, in a way, is that the paranoid control freaks
> I'm now shuddering at the complicity of are pretty much
> "justified:" the legal climate in the United States is getting so
> obscenely perverted that they practically do have to be this
> paranoid and repressive lest they get their sites and their
> livelihoods shut down by equally paranoid control freaks who have
> managed to work themselves up into a froth of righteous
> indignation about something allegedly wrong but allegedly
> preventable which some worthless nonentity might be able to
> perpetrate with the apparent aid of some harmless, idealistic,
> but defenseless Finn.
Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>:
> If somebody abuses the service of such a person to disrupt the net
> and hide, they will get their name revealed and their access cut
> off. This is moderation in a post-sense, which has a lot of
> merit.
>
> (Indeed, I have recommended post-moderation as a superior scheme
> for many moderated newsgroups. It is how all online services,
> except Prodigy, work.)
[anonymous]
>It is not moderation and it is not filtering. It is censorship,
>and it is based on ignorance and bigotry.
Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>:
> Read your USENET history before you accuse me, of all people, of
> even suggesting censorship. If you'll recall, when this debate
> started, I said that anon servers were no big shakes and
> supported their right to exist and their importance. What an
> odd line to find used on me after that.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> I certainly don't want to do anything that I am not "authorized"
> to do. If you can suggest a better way to "minimally-moderate",
> I'd appreciate it if you would share your ideas with us.
______
<3.7> Can restrictions on anonymity be enforced? (How?)
Eric Schilling <gandalf@cyberspace.org>:
> The main point I would like to make here is that while we can go
> through and revise the news sw to "reject anon posts to technical
> newsgroups" or some such thing, I think the attempt will prove
> futile. Each attempt to modify news can result in a changed
> approach by anon service providers to thwart the change. I think
> this would be pointless.
<jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu>:
> This whole debate is a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing"
> because, even if you all decide to ban anonymous posting servers,
> it is not enforceable. The only people who conceivably could
> enforce retrictions are those that control the international
> links.
>
> Policy changes should be made by cooperation, not by attempting
> to dictate. ...you need to persuade those who run the services
> to act like this through friendly persuasion, not by trying to
> beat them over the head with a stick (especially a stick you
> don't even have).
Al Billings <mimir@stein.u.washington.edu>:
> I wouldn't help people get rid of anon postings as a group. If you
> don't like what someone says, then you put THAT anon address in
> your kill file, not all of them. Of course, if and when I get an
> anon site going, I'm just going to assign fake names like
> "jsmith" instead of "anon5564" to avoid most of the hassles.
> You'll never know it is anonymous will you?
Anne Bennett <anne@alcor.concordia.ca>:
> I must admit to some astonishment at this argument. I see the
> value of anonymous postings under some circumstances, yet believe
> strongly that these should be identified as such, so that people
> who do not wish to read material from people who won't identify
> themselves, don't have to.
>
> I fail to see what good you would be accomplishing, and indeed
> surmise that you will cause many people inconvenience and
> annoyance, by hiding the anonymity of postings from your
> anonymous site. Would you care to justify where the hell you get
> the gall to try to prevent people from effectively filtering
> their news as they see fit?
Nicholas Kramer <nk24+@andrew.cmu.edu>:
> It seems obvious to me that Julf will never make his anonymous
> server agreeable to all. Seeing's how at present the overseas
> lines are being used for this, and that there is an abundance of
> people willing to put their money where their mouth is, why
> doesn't someone in North America set up a new anonymous site WITH
> THEIR OWN RULES. Set up an anonymous server that, say, doesn't
> allow anonymous postings to comp.* groups, or has the "default"
> as no anonymous. It seems to me that one of the best ways to kill
> off a radical idea is to endorce half of it and let the other
> half wither away. Besides, if there is a "more reasonable" anon
> server around, I'm sure more sites wouldn't have second thoughts
> about killfiling anon.penet.fi.
Dr. Cat <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
> Can the anon servers be banished from the net forever? Don't
> count on it. Today, tomorrow, next year, it may be possible to
> keep systems like anon.penet.fi from being widely used. But does
> anyone here think that some easy method for creating messages
> totally anonymously won't be widespread on the networks of a
> hundred years from now? The technology to make it happen is easy,
> the technology to keep it from happening is hard and will get
> harder. Widespread anonymity will happen sooner or later. Count
> on it. You can bury your head in the sand and say "It isn't
> acceptable because bad things can be done with it", or you can be
> pragmatic and say "This is coming, so what is the best way to
> deal with the consequences of it"?
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 to the "sci" hierarchy, then I
> will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation"
> script that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his
> server. ...
>
> 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 other than being anonymous.
>
> You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post to
> the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal
> Moderation" is in effect:
>
> *1 convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default
> settings for different hierarchies. I promise to turn off the
> ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything
> reasonably responsive).
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <lhp@daimi.aau.dk>:
> I HATE to see my name being connected with this.
>
> Who, just WHO, do you think you are?
>
> I _proposed_, _suggested_ a compromise. You make it sound like an
> ULTIMATUM. I am appaled and ashamed.
Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:
> blockage from an anonymous server is not a death sentence. Find
> another anon server. Post under your own name. Pick on an open
> NNTP server and forge elsehow. Find a friend who will post for
> you in some fashion. There's a boatload of solutions to the
> problem of getting your ever-so-valuable words posted to any
> newsgroup you want.
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> Meanwhile, anonymous servers are evolving into less virulent forms
> themselves, thus reducing the need for something like ARMM.
> However, I believe that various antidotes against breaches of
> netiquette ranging from mild but repeated offenses to abusive
> net-sociopaths should remain in our armamentarium, "just in
> case".
>
> What we need next is a mechanism for diagnosing net-pathogens, and
> for prescribing the appropriate net-medication. Otherwise, a
> net-doctor is likely to face charges of net-malpractice. :-)
>
> To the "magic bullet"!
Alexander Chislenko <sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu>:
> Of course, it is possible to set up a distributed anonymous
> encrypted remailing system that cannot be stopped or compromised
> by taking over any given number of sites. Of course, anonymous
> postings will always exist in a growing variety of forms on the
> Net whose functional structure very soon will be drastically
> different from today's.
"somebody":
> I believe some regional network service providers in the US
> prohibit users to use anonymous postings or mail as part of their
> contracts. Does yours?
_____
<3.8> What are the effects of anonymity?
<an8729@anon.penet.fi>:
> Since I began posting anonymously (to show support for general
> principles of personal privacy) I have been subject to far more
> abuse and attack than I ever received before. People seem to
> find it easier to flame and insult someone whose name they don't
> know. Perhaps it's easier to pretend that there is no person
> behind the email address who feels the sting of abusive comments.
Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@sw.stratus.com>:
> Anonimity leads to fun psych experiments; the literature is filled
> with all the various things that people will do anonymously that
> they won't otherwise. Including one notorious study involving
> torture that would not have passed today's ethical standards. Fun
> stuff, in any case.
>
> FINE. LEAVE US OUT OF IT.
Brian W. Ogilvie <ogil@quads.uchicago.edu>:
> The service provides a mechanism for forwarding mail to the
> original poster. Since most Usenet readers don't know John Smith
> from Jane Doe except by their opinions and their address, the
> effect of having an anonymous posting to which mail replies can
> be directed is minimal, except for those who personally know the
> poster--and ... the lack of anonymity could be serious. Any
> mechanism like this is liable to abuse, but the benefits as well
> as the costs must be weighed.
Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
> The tragedy of pseudonymous posting is that, once used, it must
> always be used. ... This is going to be a problem for
> pseudonymous posters; we'll start recognizing them by their
> grammatical habits or choice of words, and they'll wind up using
> pseudonyms all the time, in *everything* they post.
>
> I had thought of pseudonymity as a cloak, to be used at will; now,
> it's starting to look like a deadman switch that has to be used
> at all times.
>
> People speak of the 'freedom' of pseudonymity; here's an example
> of its restrictions.
Melinda Shore <shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu>:
> The problem ... is less one of authority than it is
> responsibility. People who dissasociate their identities from
> their postings no longer need to be as responsible, and the
> results of that are the kinds of content-free flamers that show
> up, for example, in the gay-related newsgroups.
Dave Hayes <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>:
> What a primal example of human nature. I have three questions for
> you folks.
>
> Do people really say different things to each other based upon
> whether their identity is or isn't known?
>
> Are people really so affected by what other people say that the
> verbage is labeled "abuse"?
>
> Most importantly, on a forum that prizes itself on the freedom of
> communication that it enjoys, is there really such a thing as
> freedom of communication?
Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:
> Weak reasoning.
> With freedom comes responsibility.
Dave Hayes <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>:
> Responsibility isn't real if it is enforced. True responsibilty
> comes with no coercion.
"somebody":
> These problems are not a service. Freedom without responsibility
> leads to barbarism, and the way anonymous services are structured
> is to remove the checks that impose personal responsibility.
Fred McCall <mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com>:
> It seems to me that one of the big 'needs' of anonymous servers on
> the net is as protection against the sort of person that uses
> anonymous servers.
>
> Hey, maybe there's something to this anonymity thing after all,
> but only as a defense against the sort of people who seem to be
> using it...
Chris Walsh <mack23@avalon.eecs.nwu.edu>:
> The S/N ratio on usenet is, IMHO, so low that complaints about
> posts from anon servers are basically using the anon-servers as
> a whipping boy. Clearly, any mechanism which decreases the
> difficulty of posting in an "untraceable" way will increase the
> quantity of drivel made available, but it will also increase the
> quantity of useful-but-sensitive material as well. Perhaps the
> net effect (pardon the pun) will be a slight decrease in the S/N
> ratio, but unless an appreciable proportion of posts use the
> anon-servers, I fail to see how this is so much more dreadful
> than what we already have that anyone would get their shorts
> twisted over it. I can see how it might produce momentary
> flurries of drivel in certain groups, but these groups already
> have such flurries regularly.
<C445585@mizzou1.missouri.edu>:
> In the larger context, it seems like, as USENET/internet grows,
> we're going to continue to have problems with abuse AND with the
> need for anonymity. I say this because as we expand, we get more
> people (thus more people who may be abusers of the system), and
> also because as we grow we start having more important things go
> around here. Sexual-abuse discussions are a lot more personal
> than discussions on whether PKP's patent on RSA is valid or not.
> In the future, more personal and more important discussions
> (maybe sci.* groups with prestige similar to that of scientific
> journals) will crop up.
Chris Walsh <mack23@avalon.eecs.nwu.edu>:
> Can anyone email me an example of a newsgroup whose traffic was
> noticeably worsened, S/N ratio wise, by the anon-servers?
Ron Dippold <rdippold@qualcomm.com>:
> Are you including Depew as an effect of the anon-servers?
Wes Groleau <groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com>
> Several newsgroups were noticeably worsened by ARMM-5b ("b" for
> boo-boo) which--as everybody knows--was caused by anon-servers
> :-)
Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
> The consensus seems to be that a general anonymous posting service
> such as that at anon.penet.fi seems sufficiently corrosive of the
> trust and civility of the net that this particular experiment
> should be ended. Perhaps the next time the question comes up we
> can say: "We tried it - we learned it does more harm than good -
> and we stopped it."