💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › internet › FAQ › aipart3 captured on 2022-04-29 at 11:37:26.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Archive-name: net-anonymity/part3 Last-modified: 1994/5/9 Version: 1.0 ANONYMITY on the INTERNET ========================= Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>. <4.1> What are the responsibilities of anonymous server operators? <4.2> What kind of rules should the server operator maintain? <4.3> Should the anonymous server operator maintain high `visibility'? <4.4> Should the anonymous server operator ever reveal identities? <4.5> What should system operators do with anonymous postings? <5.1> How does anonymity relate to group moderation? <5.2> Should group votes be held on allowing anonymity? <5.3> Should anonymous posting to all groups be allowed? <5.4> Does anonymity have a place in `serious' or `scientific' areas? <5.5> What are some testimonials for anonymity? <5.6> What are some testimonials against anonymity? _____ <4.1> What are the responsibilities of anonymous server operators? Jurgen Botz <jbotz@mtholyoke.edu>: > I think that what ... these points show clearly is that an > anonymous posting service has a great deal of responsibility, > both towards its clients and towards the Net as a whole. Such a > service should (IMHO) have a set of well-defined rules and a > contract that its clients should sign, under the terms of which > they are assured anonymity. Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi>: > I have tried to stay out of this discussion, and see where the > discussion leads. But now I rally feel like I have to speak up. > ... I have repeatedly made clear ... that I *do* block users if > they continue their abuse after having been warned. In many cases > the users have taken heed of the warning and stopped, and in some > cases even apologized in public. And when the warning has not had > the desired effect, I have blocked a number of users. Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>: > Is M. Julf acting in an irresponsible manner by not taking action > against objectionable uses of his server? Of course not! His > server serves as a common carrier, a service that impassively and > disinterestedly passes information, like a smoothly-running > machine. M. Julf is, in fact, avoiding the political flamefront > by not intruding into his users' business! If he did, he would > be a censor! David A. Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>: > Presumably this was why the anonymous server I ran that allowed > encryption to and from posting and receiving sites with total > anonymity was so popular - it meant that even an unscrupulous > postmaster who read other people's mail could not see posts and > replies even in the mail queue and spool areas ... they were > encrypted right up to the user's workstation. If the decryption > was run offline (ie. not on the mail server but on the user's > desktop) then even keystroke capturing would not allow the evil > administrator to intercept the message ! Afzal Ballim <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>: > Julf, when I came into this fray you were being painted as someone > who wanted to give totally unrestrictive anonymous posting > abilities to people, without there being any notion of > responsibilty attached to it. More recently, some people have > said that this is not the case, and that you will deal with > irresponsible posting in the same way as any other sysadmin would > do. I haven't seen a posting from you in a long time on this > matter. Can you please clear up what is your policy? Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > There have also been a lot of postings claiming that, despite > complaints, Johan has taken no action against posters (in > contradiction with the implied promise in the signature appended > to each message). Robert MacDowell <bobmacd@netcom.com>: > Another operator of an ACS equipped his with a "fire > extinguisher" which he did use once or twice to eliminate public > posting from certain assholes. While I firmly believe that Julf > should stand by his guns and continue to support anonymous > posting to anywhere, it is *also* appropriate for him to block > posting from anyone who's proven himself to be dangerous. Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>: > The site admin is postmaster@anon.penet.fi ... who appears to be > almost completely unwilling to rein in his users, and refuses to > participate in discussions about his service. By the time he > imposes his minimum sanction on a particular user, the damage has > been done, and there is no reason someone shouldn't use the > anonymous service to break the law: he can do so, secure in the > knowledge that he will never be held accountable for the crime. Dr. Cat <From: cat@wixer.cactus.org>: > I don't know if Julf's level of "reasonableness" is really a > relevant issue. After all, isn't it just as possible a system > administrator at a "normal" site that doesn't host any anon > server could be totally unreasonable about helping out with valid > requests you might make of him/her? The issue of whether people > are "reasonably helpful" in resolving problems or not, and what > should be done about them if they aren't, is a seperate issue > from whether anon servers should exist or not. Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > I have noticed with an increasing concern the fact that people use > the anonymous service at anon.penet.fi to post copyrighted > pictures in a.b.p.e. This exposes both the server and the net as > a whole to lawsuits, and is definitely inappropriate use of the > service. I hereby warn that anybody posting copyrighted material > will be blocked from the server. > > There has also been some concern about the volume of binary > postings using the server. I really hope that users will have the > common sense not to flood the group (and the server) with too > much material at one go, but I might have to implement some kind > of limiting mechanism into the server if things don't improve. Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down. > > ... I really want to apologize both to all the users on the > network who have suffered from the abusive misuse of the server, > and to all the users who have come to rely on the service. Again, > I take full responsibility for what has happened. Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > I would like to take advantage of the current break in the service > to implement the improvements and changes I had planned for > anon.penet.fi Mark II. Among changes I already have in the > pipeline is support for PGP and PEM encrypted messages, digital > signatures, and "public" and "private" anon ID's, as well as a > cleaner user interface. > > Meanwhile, I would like ask *you* for help. I have set up the > address "ideas@penet.fi" to receive input, suggestions for > improvements, comments etc., so please let me know what kind of > features you would like to see (both technical and > policy-related) in the new server by sending your input to that > address. > > I would also suggest that those groups that had started or had > been thinking about doing a vote on the desirability of anonymity > for that group continue with their plans and let me know the > results. _____ <4.2> What kind of rules should the server operator maintain? Karl Kleinpaste <anonymus+0@charcoal.com>: > The following "commandments" were suggested during a discussion on > anonymous servers in news.admin.policy; credit, thanx, and > appreciation to Laura Lemay <lemay@netcom.com> > > 2. Thou shalt not bait. > 5. Thou shalt not cause undue distress to the members of any > newsgroup. > 7. Thou shalt not cause the anonymous server to come under fire. > > All of this seemingly-excessive formalism comes down to one really > very simple premise that your mother tried to teach you before > you got to kindergarten: > > Play nice. > > That's all. Play nice, act responsibly, don't flame needlessly > (or, at least, very often), think about what you're doing, and > don't lose touch with the fact that the Usenet is not Real > Life(tm). David Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>: > What this says is that _you_ set the standards for > interpretation. Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>: > It's my server, running on my system, with my butt hanging out in > the breeze if anything goes wrong. Of _course_ I set the > standards for interpretation, you twit. > > ... it's a seat-of-the-pants analysis at every step, life's like > that. If you can't figure out a way to put the phrase "play > nice" into a workable context, you have demonstrated that you > have a serious need to re-take Remedial Social Graces 101. > > What it comes down to is, If you can't raise the topic in a > careful, thoughtful, and tactful way so as not to abusively peg > the flamage meter on first assault, then I don't think you have > much business using my server. And that's my call. > > I've done nothing more than lay down the ground rules, very fuzzy > and open-to-interpretation and why-dont-we- > work-this-out-together ground rules, on what should not go > through my server. Nothing more. The world will not end if you > screw up, induce a flame war, and I block you from the server for > a week or so as a result. Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.on.ca> > It would be hypocritical of me to say that a well-working aliasing > system (not a true anonymous service) couldn't fulfill the > requirements for anonymity in terms of people wanting to stay in > the "closet" (and I don't just mean in matters of homosexuality). > Having set one up in for rec.arts.erotica, I know what's > involved, and I've seen the need. > > I have no problem (never did) with the aliasing service used for > alt.sex.bondage that predates Julf's service by quite a while. > It's specific to the group and allows (even encourages) verbal > aliases. It's admin was trusted as someone who could balance > privacy and responsibility. > > It was the no-holds-barred service I objected to, with no > publlcly-posted FAQ that I ever saw, probably because you > couldn't possibly post it in every group hit by penet's anon > posters. > > Given the choice of a badly-run aliasing system or none at all, I > would choose none. Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>: > The goal in making these rules/guidelines/recommendations is not, > by any means, to be insulting, or to play the part of a control > freak, or to be generally irritating. The goal is survival only, > survival of the server so that it may continue to provide its > intended services to the vast majority of honorable, decent, > adult users. > > There is by now quite a backlog of experience to show that > anonymous servers are difficult, dangerous beasts. > > Anonymous servers have a tendency to die. We should prevent this. Ed Hall <edhall@rand.org>: > So a reasonable set of rules, such as Karl has proposed for his > service, make a lot of sense. True, there is judgement > involved--as there is in any situation where people's needs are > balanced against each other. Karl could make a royal mess of > things by interpreting the merely disagreeable as actual > harassment. But just as long as the "penalty" is restriction and > not revelation, the anonymous poster can simply seek other means > with little harm done. Francisco X DeJesus <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>: > I think that a server in which anonymity is guaranteed, PROVIDED > you abide by certain rules would be far from useless. Just state > what the rules are, plainly and clearly, and state what the > consequences of breaking them would be. Such a service is what > most people here would have liked, and I doubt it would get a > 'bad name' if the rules and limitations were reasonable. > > Now back to the regularly scheduled flame war... Doug Linder <PSION@HOLONET.NET>: > If the policies were fair and clearly defined, I don't think > anyone would have a problem with them - at least not the average > users. And the threat of exposure would keep the bratty > anarchist college kids from getting way out of line. Julf <an0@anon.penet.fi>: > I am a firm believer in everybody's right to express themselves > freely (why else would I put in lots of money and effort into > running this blasted server?), but posting purely abusive > messages intended to irritate people on purpose is not what the > service is intended for. Childish tricks like that was exactly > the reason the server got closed down, and will only lead to more > and more newsgroups banning anonymous postings alltogether. > > I therefore ask you to refrain from this kind of postings. If you > do continue with the abusive messages, I am forced to block your > access to the server. Please feel free to contact me if you want > to discuss the matter. _____ <4.3> Should the anonymous server operator maintain high `visibility'? Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > I guess one of the things I like LEAST about this guy is his > refusal to take part in the discussion that his service has > spawned. I have seen a total of two postings from him (if I > missed any, I apologize). > > Even more, the fact that he did not discuss the new service and > it's potential impact BEFORE he implemented it. Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi>: > I have answered a lot of personal mail related to server abuse, > and as a result of that, blocked a number of abusive users. I > have also withdrawn the service from several newsgroups where the > users have taken a vote on the issue. I have not made any > comments on news.admin.policy, partly because the > newly-implemented password feature (as a emergency measure > against a security hole) has kept me really busy answering user > queries the last two weeks, and partly because I feel it is not > for me to justify the service, but for the users. The problem > with news.admin.policy is that the readership is rather elective, > representing people whith a strong interest in centralised > control. Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > This seems to be a rather bigoted attitude. I would consider that > this group is for anyone who wishes to discuss how the net should > be controlled. Saying that we only have an interest in > "centralized control" is a clear indication of bias. You are > perfectly welcome to join in the discussions here to promote your > views on control. Barry Salkin <bsalkin@nyx.cs.du.edu>: > I'm also grateful to Julf. His server was a boon to many people > who did NEED anonymity, as well as people to whom it was merely > convenient, as evidenced by its messages of support. ... I would > also like to express my admiration for the way he conducted > himself - rarely replying to public flames publicly, and always > being reasonable. ... He may have made mistakes, (this is still > debateable), but I feel the net.at.large could learn a great deal > from his noble attitude. Paul S. Sears <sears@tree.egr.uh.edu>: > I would like to be the first to publicly thank Julf for making a > public statement about his intentions. The shows that he does > care and is responsible (accusations that I stated he did not > demonstrate which I posted earlier). It is not necessarily > what his actions are, but the fact that he acknowledges that > there _might_ be a problem and is doing what he deems as > necessary and in the best interests of everyone involved. > > By this action alone, Julf has quelled all of my previous concerns > about anonymous posting sites... Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com>: > The server has come back in a FAR more restricted form, and Johan > seems to be far more pro-active about controlling abuse. Some of > it may be merely appearance, he seems to have taken to heart > comments about being _visibly_ in control. Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>: > Julf -- I also want to express my deep gratitude to *you*. You > have, by posting this warning, demonstrated that you are serious > about your promise to curb abusive users. I have full confidence > in your integrity and commitment to running anon.penet.fi in a > responsible manner. > > Don't worry, Julf, you are still on my Christmas card list ... > :-) Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>: > I soured on Julf himself because of his apparent refusal even to > discuss the matter in public, and because the very few times that > he had anything to say at all, it was always pretty much to say > (as I read it), "it runs like this, and it _will_not_ change." Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > In retrospect I realize that I have been guilty to keeping a far > too low profile on the network, prefering to deal with the abuse > cases privately instead of making strong public statements. > Unfortunately I realized this only a couple of days before being > forced to shut down the service, but the results of a single > posting to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d gave very positive > results. I take full blaim for my failure to realize the > psychological effects of a strongly stated, publicly visible > display of policy with regards to the abuse cases. For this I > have to apologize to the whole net community. _____ <4.4> Should the anonymous server operator ever reveal identities? Carl Kleinpaste (Karl_Kleinpaste@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu): > ...were I to be in the position of offering such a service again, > my promises of protection of anonymity would be limited. Not on > the basis of personal opinion of what gets posted, but on the > basis of postings which disrupt the smooth operation of the > Usenet. The most obvious and direct recourse would be to `out' > the abusive individual. Less drastic possibilities exist -- the > software supports a "fire extinguisher" by which individuals can > be prevented from posting. > > I know full well that my attitude is such that certain folk will > consider themselves to be prevented from using it. That's fine. > That's their choice. No loss to either of us. They'll find > another anon server, or do without. Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > A lot of people have contacted me to ask for help in setting up a > similar service, or to inform me of their plans to set up a > service. I really applaud and support these efforts, but I also > encourage the anon service operators to make their policies very > clear to their users. One example is that some potential anon > service operators feel the best way to deal with abusers is to > expose them on the net. Personally I feel that the idea of public > stocks belong to the middle ages, and that it provides a very > dangerous way to expose somebody by sending faked abusive > messages (and yes, it is trivially easy to fake the identity of > the sender of both e-mail and netnews articles even without an > anon server). There are also different policies regarding logging > messages, the physical security of the server etc. Sean Barrett <sean@gomez.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> > Way to go, Julf! Here is one user you can count on for complete > support! Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>: > With that in mind, the operator has to realize that there can be > guidelines about abuse of the anon server. That's already true, > since I can't imagine somebody letting others use their anon > server for really illegal traffic, unless they agree with the > traffic and want to support it. > > One can easily enforce such policies by denying access, or far > worse, revealing the identities of abusers. Dave Kirsch <zoid@deep.rsoft.bc.ca>: > I think one of the successes of the anon.penet.fi server was > because Julf didn't reveal any users' identity. If he did, he > would have been flamed to death and his service given a 'bad > name.' > > For an anonymous posting service to be respected and in any way > successful, anonymity MUST be guaranteed. If it wasn't, then > the service is basically useless. <styri@balder.nta.no>: > My respect towards Julf is increasing, btw. He's bound to have got > his share of shouting, name calling, finger pointing and flak > these last months that keeping his mouth shut about the identity > of some of the abusers must have been hard at times. Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>: > Rather, it seems to be the case that due to fairly large net > opposition, only anonymity services that have some sort of > restrictions will get to exist. > > Other solutions proposed, such as services that lay down rules and > threaten to reveal names if the rules are broken may well be > satisfactory. "somebody": > There is an interesting problem with control and moderation. The > only way to ensure it is to threaten to expose the identity of > violators. However, who determines where the line is crossed, and > if violating the privacy for all posts by that person is > justified by the content of a few? It would make an interesting > ethics debate at some point.... _____ <4.5> What should system operators do with anonymous postings? Ed McGuire <emcguire@intellection.com>: > I would like to know how to junk all articles posted by the > anonymous service currently being discussed. Ideally I would > actually tell my feed site not to feed me articles posted by the > anonymous service. Assuming the C News Performance Release, what > is a simple way to accomplish this? Or where should I look to > learn how to do it myself? David Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>: > That's a bit draconian isn't it ? Have your users unanimously > decided that they would like you to do this or have you decided > for them ? Ed McGuire <emcguire@intellection.com>: > Good question. Nobody has decided. I have no definite plan to do > this, just wanted the technical data. John Hascall <john@iastate.edu>: > Since when is Usenet a democracy? If someone wants to run an > anonymous service, that's their business. If you want to put > that host in your killfile, that's your business. If a newsadmin > wants to blanket-drop all postings from that site, that's between > them and the other people at that site. If everyone ignores a > service, the service effectively doesn't exist. Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>: > It's bloody fascinating that (all?) the proponents of unimpeded > universal anon posting access can't seem to find any middle > ground at all. Why is there such a perception of absolutism? > Where does this instant gratification syndrome come from, "I want > anon access and I want it NOW"? Who are the control freaks here? David Toland <det@sw.stratus.com>: > Why is this such a holy cause? Why the overwhelming urge to > police the net (a vain pursuit IMO)? Why silence a voice just > because the speaker is afraid to show himself, whether or not you > agree with his or her reasons for hiding? Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > please listen to the consensus of the news administrators in this > group: any newsgroup should be consulted *before* letting your > server post messages to that group. Alexander EICHENER <C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>: > There is no pompous "consensus of *the* news administrators" > here - maybe you would like to invent one. There is a sizeable > number of people who are concerned about the possible (and, to a > minor extent, about the actual abuse of the server as it is > configured now). These concerns are respectable; Johan is dealing > with them. ... There are some (few) who rage with foam before > their mouth and condemn the service altogether. And a number who > defend it, pointing out, like Kate Gregory, that even a group > like misc.kids. can benefit from pseudonymous postings. K. Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>: > I think I'm feeling especially rude and impolite. If it's good > for Johan, it's good for me. After all, he didn't ask the > greater Usenet whether universal anon access was a good idea; he > just did it. ... Yes, I'm a seriously rude pain in the ass now, > and I think I'll arm the Usenet Death Penalty, slightly modified, > not for strategic whole-site attack, but tactical assault, just > "an[0-9]*@anon.penet.fi" destruction. Only outside alt.*, too, > let's say. > > To parrot this line...people have been doing things like the UDP > (that is, cancelling others' postings) for years, no one could > ever stop them, and it's only politeness and good sense that has > prevented them up to now. > > There are 2 newsadmins ready to arm the UDP. They've asked for my > code. I haven't sent it yet. Only one site would be necessary to > bring anon.penet.fi to a screeching halt. Anyone can implement > the UDP on their own, if they care to. Politeness and good sense > prevents them from doing so. I wonder how long before one form of > impoliteness brings on another form. Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > It would be trivially easy to bring anon.penet.fi to a screeching > halt. In fact it has happened a couple of times already. But as > we are talking threats here, let me make one as well. A very > simple one. If somebody uses something like the UDP or > maliciously brings down anon.penet.fi by some other means, it > will stay down. But I will let the users know why. And name the > person who did it. OK? As somebody said on this thread: "You have > to take personal responsibility for your actions", right? Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>: > The desire of the news administrators of the world to save me from > possible grief is touching -- but misguided. I need and want no > censorship of my newsfeed. Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>: > I am deeply concerned by the fact that the strongest opposition to > the service didn't come from users but from network > administrators. I don't think sysadmins have a god-given mandate > to dictate what's good for the users and what's not. A lot of > users have contacted me to thank me for the service, describing > situations where anonymity has been crucial, but I could never > have imagined in my wildest dreams. At the same time quite a few > network administrators have made comments like "I can't imagine > any valid use for anonymity on the net" and "The only use for > anonymity is to harrass and terrorize the net". Christopher Pilewski <cap@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu>: > The whole idea of closing down anon.penet.fi because a few people > were irresponsible is absurd. It is akin to ... closing down the > highway system because a few people speed. > > I should also mention that the internet has a small number of > wide-eyed, tiny-brained control-freaks running lose on it. (You > guys know who you are.) Arguments about freedom won't have any > meaning to them. They neither approve of nor understand freedom. > My argument is not even aimed at them. It is aimed at reasonable > people who happen to take the view opposed to mine. Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>: > For the sake of the NET's posterity and that of future users, > allow freedom to reign. If Julf's service is a Bad Thing for the > NET, it will eventually die out of its own lack of productivity. > There is no need to try to lobotomize it. Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > What admins have a responsibility to is the smooth operation of > the network. Actually an anon service COULD be good for the > users -- I was just trying to "dictate" what I thought was good > for the anon service (in my own way) <g>. Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > I went into the lab to look for an anti-pathogen that would > inhibit the growth of the pathogen. I found one -- the Usenet > Death Penalty. This was clearly dangerous stuff, so I tried to > attenuate it -- to improve its therapeutic index. > > The UDP was designed to totally eradicate postings from a given > site from all of USENET. I didn't want to do that -- I only > wanted to protect the part I valued most highly -- the brain. So > I attenuated the UDP so it would only affect the "sci" hierarchy. Dan Veditz <daniel@borland.com>: > I can certainly see a group not liking anonymous posts, but let > the group decide to moderate them away, not you. It's not much > different from unwanted proseletyzers on the religious groups. Jonathan Eifrig <eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu>: > Do we _really_ want to start assigning liability to providers for > the posts that their users create? Sounds like a recipe for > disaster to me. If this were the state of the law, how many > undergraduates would have Usenet access then? I doubt many > universities would take the risk. Michael Friedman <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>: > Finally, in a total breach of what he claimed in his post, Julf > says that he will resume a general, unrestricted service as soon > as he gets his own connections to the appropriate networks. <grady@netcom.com>: > So... are you saying that Julf hasn't passed the > stupidity/conformity examination required for proper membership > among the elite Backboner Cabal? Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>: > My "net-probation" offer clearly says that if I feel the need to > change my mind on this, I won't do it suddenly. Instead, I'll > announce my intent to news.admin.policy a week in advance, so I > can take the comments and suggestions of other thoughtful news > admins into account before making a final decision. > > I will *shelve* ARMM for the forseeable future. I will let you > know if the irresistable urge to commit net-suicide should strike > me in the future. > > How could you have a problem with this? > > Heck, if this works out well (as measured by personal survival > criteria), I may make this a permanent commitment, but I want to > see whether it works first, by conducting a more limited > experiment. > > I promise to take into serious consideration any remarks that are > framed in polite language. _____ <5.1> How does anonymity relate to group moderation? mjo@msen.com <Mike O'Connor>: > About the only time I'd support restricting Usenet groups would be > in the event that I was the moderator and wanted to be > extra-careful that someone from an Anonymous server didn't manage > to post to a moderated Usenet newsgroup. John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>: > Why shouldn't anonymous postings be allowed to moderated groups? > For those groups, there IS a moderator who HAS been elected to > filter the material that gets distributed. Anonymous posters who > post inappropriate material do nothing but get their postings > rejected by the moderator. > > Those that post appropriate material should get their postings > approved. Why shouldn't they be? By definition, the content is > appropriate for the newsgroup. > > The current moderation system is more than capable of handling > anonymous posting. No new system needs to be invented to deal > with the few problem users who are anonymous. Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <lhp@daimi.aau.dk>: > If a newsgroup wants to be noise- and nuisance-free, then it > should call for moderation. This should happen on a per-newsgroup > basis, and not as a general USENET ban on anonymous postings. Of > course one principle of moderation might be to keep out all > anonymous postings, and could be achieved automatically. It would > still be _moderation_. Personally I would prefer moderation > criteria being based on actual content. David A. Clunie (dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au) > If a "group" doesn't want to receive certain posts it should > become moderated - there are clearly defined mechanisms on > non-alt groups for this to take place. An automated moderator > excluding posts from certain (eg. anonymous) sites or individuals > could easily be established. If anyone wants to take such a > draconian approach then they are welcome to do so and good luck > to them. I doubt if I will be reading their group ! David Weingart <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>: > the unmoderated groups can and should accept postings regardless > of origin...that's the point of having no moderator. If the > _moderator_ of a moderated group decides not to accept anon > postings (and it's within the groups charter), then fine, and > that should be in the FAQ (if it's not in the charter, the > moderator should be replaced ASAP). Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > You may not like my "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" > script, but you must at least admit that it is simply an > automated version of moderation - a well-accepted practice in > newsgroups that want to keep an acceptable signal/noise ratio. > You may protest that I have bypassed the usual mechanisms for > establishing moderation, and you would be right. I have brused > some USENET traditions while trying to protect others. David A. Clunie (dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au) > No-one has appointed you as the moderator of all the non-alt > groups retrospectively or otherwise, and no-one is likely to > appoint anyone else in such a position either. Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > You are right, no one has appointed me to the post of > minimal-moderator. It is a volunteer position with, I assure > you, miserable fringe benefits. I will gladly relinquish the > position when the opportunity arises. :-) John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>: > Neither you nor Dick Depew nor anyone who happens to volunteer > were elected to moderate any postings to unmoderated groups. > Moderating the postings to a group which has voted to be > unmoderated is an action directly in opposition the the chosen > method of operation for a group. Dick doesn't have the right to > issue cancels for them, and you don't have the right to moderate > them. Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > It seems that *they* thought a moderator would junk *all* > anonymous postings. So, I decided to beat a sword into a > plowshare, and give them a taste of what they were wishing for. > > *POOF* -- Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation Dan Veditz <daniel@borland.com>: > Geez, Dick, this is exactly what we tried to tell you before you > activated ARMM--an unmoderated group has invited anyone, > anywhere, to contribute, and when groups get too noisy *for > whatever reason* members of the group can decide to moderate > *that group*. _____ <5.2> Should group votes be held on allowing anonymity? Jon Noring <noring@netcom.com>: > in general, I fear even letting newsgroup readers vote on either > allowing or not allowing anonymous posting, since a priori they > *cannot* know all the motives of *legitimate* posters, and I do > not believe that any system should ever be instituted that would > inhibit the posting of legitimate and informative posts. Tim Pierce <twpierce@unix.amherst.edu>: > Of course, how does one determine whether a "group" requests the > service? A flat majority of posters voting in favor? A positive > margin of 100 votes? Or what? No one speaks for a newsgroup. Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > It is facist to suggest that a newsgroup is best able to decide > whether it wants to allow anonymous postings instead of having > them forced upon them by an service administrator? Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi>: > I have also blocked access to groups where the readership has > taken a vote to ban anonymous postings, although I feel changing > the newsgroup status to moderated is the only permanent solution > for newsgroups that want to "formalize" discussion. Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > Does this ... mean that you are volunteering to issue a Request > For Discussion to ban anonymous postings or to moderate each of > the 4000+ newsgroups that your server can reach? I don't think > so, but this illustrates the trouble that your server is causing! Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > I suggest that future RFD's consider the question of anonymous > access as a separate issue from moderated/unmoderated. I feel > that the two types of control are entirely different and not to > be equated with one another. > > I also suggest that, in the interest of preserving the status quo, > either: > > 1) ALL groups except those previously served by dedicated > anonymous servers be considered "inaccessable by anonymous > posting" unless and until that status is changed by > a vote in news.groups. > > 2) (less draconian) All groups in sci, news & comp hierarchies > be considered as above. talk & misc default to "accessible", > and I'm open to suggestions about "rec". Afzal Ballim <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>: > What you are proposing is a change in behaviour of certain > newsgroups (that they do not get anonymous posts) but without > informing the people WHO READ THOSE GROUPS of this change. You're > default is that groups should vote to change your change. I think > that the default should be the opposite: that groups should vote > to deny anonymous voting and that such votes should be respected > by those who set up anonymous servers. I would also hope that > providers of anonymous posting services would realise that they > must shoulder a burden of responsibility for those who are using > their service so that misuse can be minimised John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>: > The precedent exists, and the votes have already been held. ... > Every unmoderated group has already voted to allow anonymous > posting. _____ <5.3> Should anonymous posting to all groups be allowed? Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>: > I'm not suggesting that we should ban anonymous servers; as I've > said, there are several situations in which anonymity is a Good > Thing (tm). > > However, the notion that anonymity's shield should be > automatically extended to every Usenet discussion is ridiculous; > it opens the door to further abuse. Tim Pierce <twpierce@unix.amherst.edu>: > I'm not convinced by the arguments that an anonymous posting > service for all newsgroups is inherently a bad idea, simply > because it's a diversion from the status quo. Since the status > quo previously permitted anonymous posting to *no* newsgroups, > any anonymous posting service would reject the status quo. > > For any newsgroup you name, I bet I can envision a scenario > involving a need for secrecy. If an accurate content-based > filter of each anonymous posting could be devised to screen out > those that don't require secrecy, wonderful. But it can't be > done. Brian W. Ogilvie <ogil@quads.uchicago.edu>: > Limiting the service to alt groups, or specific groups, would not > help those who want advice on sensitive issues in more > 'professional' newsgroups. Jon Noring <noring@netcom.com>: > Though many have personal philosophical arguments against > anonymous posters, their arguments have not been compelling > enough to convince me that omni-newsgroup anonymous posting > should be banned or severely restricted. Though I cannot prove > it, it seems to me that those who do not like anonymous posting > (in principle) do so for reasons that are personal (read, > psychological discomfort) rather than for reasons related to > maintaining the "integrity" of Usenet. > > Remember, it is impossible to be able to ascertain all the > conceivable and legitimate motives for anonymous posting to > newsgroups one normally would not deem to be "sensitive". Dennis Wicks <guru@halcyon.com>: > As has been pointed out before, there is a reason why someone > would want to post anonymously to any given news group and it is > close to tyranny for the "readers" of any given group to "decide" > not to allow anonymous postings. I, and many others I am sure, > read news groups that we hardly ever post to. But when I decide > that I have something to post, and I feel that I have good and > sufficient reasons to do so anonymously, nobody else has the > right to decide whether or not those reasons are valid. The only > person who can do so is me. Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>: > All I REALLY would like to do is put "anonymous postings accepted: > Y/N" on the RFDs AND change the default assumption for groups on > the "serious" hierarchies (comp, sci, news) to NO. > > And finally, bear in mind that I am not against anonymous postings > per se. I am against the assumption that ALL groups should be > served by default. This could always be changed by a vote in > news.groups for any individual group. I think that sci, comp & > news should be defaulted to NO, rec I don't really care about, > talk & misc should be defaulted to YES. John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>: > The group votes have already been held. The "default assumption" > for unmoderated groups is that anyone may post. Only by changing > the English language so that "anyone" no longer includes "anyone" > can you change the "default assumption" of who may post to a > group. Vincent Fox <vincent@cad.gatech.edu>: > I wold certainly support anonymous service for > alt.sexual.abuse.recovery, etc. SCI.MED is certainly not an > appropriate place for UFO conspiracy theories. And the > "whistle-blower" argument is pretty thin. If you want to to blow > the whistle on some conspiracy or criminal actions, do it through > the newspaper or the courts! Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>: > I didn't "sour" on the idea of universal anon access; I was never > sweet on it in the first place. I have never once, ever, in any > posting, objected to anon access where the inhabitants of the > group in question welcomed it. My objection is, and always has > been, to infliction of universal anon access _as_a_default_. > Nothing stronger. Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > Anonymous servers are part of the normal flora of USENET. The > normal flora are fine, and even beneficial, in their place. A > *global* anonymous server is not part of the normal flora. It > was a new phenomenon. I thought of the anonymous messages from > anon.penet.fi to newsgroups that had not invited them to be like > the spreading of an organism that is part of the normal flora of > the skin into the blood stream which is normally sterile. Sepsis > is a serious threat to the health of the infected individual even > in the absence of serious symptoms. I felt USENET was at great > risk. Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com>: > I will admit, I would sleep a lot better if Johan hadn't made > allusions to re-starting it on a global basis when he gets a > different feed. In its current form, his service is a net benefit > to the net. It was only in the net-wide incarnation that it > became a magnet for criticism, by inflicting the results on > people who had no interest in anon server experiments. _____ <5.4> Does anonymity have a place in `serious' or `scientific' areas? Tom Mandel <mandel@netcom.com>: > I cannot speak for others but I regard anonymous postings in a > serious discussion as pretty much worthless. ...views that hide > behind the veil of anon are hardly worth the trouble of reading. Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@sw.stratus.com>: > some of us find anonimity in technical > matters to be profoundly offensive; anonimity in different forums > has different meanings. If I get a phone call from someone who > won't identify himself, I hang up. If I get U.S. mail with no > return address, it goes into the garbage unopened. If someone > accosts me in the street while wearing a mask, I back away - > carefully, and expecting violence. In a technical discussion, > anonimity means that the individual isn't willing to associate > himself with the matter being discussed, which discredits his > utterances and makes listening to them a waste of time. Joe Buck <jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu>: > You obviously have never submitted an article to a refereed > journal, where you will receive anonymous reviews through a server > (the editor) that behaves much like the one in Finland (e.g. you > may reply and the editor will maintain the anonymity). ... Your > comparison of someone who wants to express him/herself on a > technical issue anonymously with a person who approaches you on a > dark street with a ski mask is just emotionally overwrought > nonsense; such posters pose no physical threat to you. Dave Ratcliffe <dave@frackit.UUCP>: > What possible need would someone have for posting anonymously to a > sci.* group? > > Anonymous posting have their place in CERTAIN groups. If I or > anyone else needs to tell you what those groups are then you've > been on another planet breathing exotic gases for too long. <00acearl@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>: > Remember, this is a newsgroup for posters writing about SCIENTIFIC > issues. Anonymous discussion of scientific issues leads to bad > science. Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>: > I wondered why people would want to post anonymously to technical > groups. Tal Kubo <kubo@zariski.harvard.edu>: > One obvious reason is that personal disagreements could assume > professional proportions. I've witnessed situations where > something very similar has happened: two people who first > interacted as antagonists in heated discussions over the net, met > in person. The results were not pretty. Luckily that was merely > a social situation; but imagine the same problem compounded by > professional implications. For example, an academic might > criticize another's work over the net, only to have his > non-anonymous posting come back to haunt him in a tenure or grant > decision or some such professional activity. I'm told that at > business schools, students are advised to be polite to be each > other, because the person they snub today might be their boss > tomorrow. Shannon Atkins <satkins@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu>: > This sort of anonymity serves no purpose other than providing a > way for "adults" to avoid responsibility. Anon posters who > desire to flame or criticize other people don't have to weigh the > possible consequences of their posts - the use of good judgment > goes out the window. My policy goes something like this: if I > don't feel strongly enough about the issue at hand to make a > personal statement, I don't post, and if the consequences of a > post seem to great or I simply don't have the balls to post it, > I don't post. Naturally, this cuts down on my posting volume > somewhat, and I try not to waste bandwidth firing off > inappropriate and unfounded accusations and observations unlike > the more abusive sect within the group of anon usersmore. I > guess it just requires too much responsibility for some people to > realize that you don't snub someone without a damn good reason - > name-calling won't substitute for arguing a point successfully. > People may not like you for pointing out their flaws in logic, > but they will probably respect you. Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>: > While I fully support whistleblowers, I have to ask a simple > question. I ask this from the perspective of the whistleblowers > themselves, not as a third party looking in........ > > IS USENET THE PROPER PLACE FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES? > > ... the notion of Usenet as a channel for professional > whistleblowing or career disputes seems to be a disservice; I > just don't see it as the proper forum, and it offers little more > than the feeling of having something off your chest. E. Johnson <johnson@access.digex.com>: > Obviously, no one posts anonymously on groups like > sci.physics.research or sci.nonlinearity. That is not because no > controversial opinions are discussed (although most that are are > beyond the reach of the rest of us :>), but because, in general, > these people understand what they are saying AND ARE PREPARED > DISCUSS AND/OR DEFEND IT. Lyle J. Mackey <lestat@wixer.cactus.org>: > I personally don't believe that pseudonymous postings are > appropriate in a serious discussion area. If there is a > LEGITIMATE reason for concealing the posters' identity, perhaps, > but simply because they're not so sure if they want their name > attached doesn't qualify as LEGITIMATE in my book. (Oh, and if > you can come up with a legitimate purpose for anonymous postings, > please, enlighten me.) Stuart P. Derby <sderby@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>: > Three of our (the U.S.'s) founding fathers, Madison, Hamilton, and > Jay, seemed to think "anonymous posting" was OK. The Federalist > papers were originally printed in New York newspapers with > authorship attributed to "Publius". I wonder if you would find > their purpose "LEGITIMATE"? _____ <5.5> What are some testimonials for anonymity? Atul V Salgaonkar <avs20@ccc.amdahl.com>: > I am very grateful and appreciative of this service , courtesey of > penet.fi. Some important questions about my personal > life/career/job were resolved due to kind help of other people > who had been thru similar situations. In return, I have also > replied to anon postings where I thought I could make a positive > contribution. > > In general, anon service is a great, in my opinion, although like > any tool some people will not use it responsibly. I suggest that > it should be kept alive. Wasting bandwidth is less important than > saving lives, I think. Elisa J. Collins <us273532@mmm.serc.3m.com>: > I have been informed that the anonymous posting service to many > newsgroups has been turned off as a result of discussions in this > newsgroup over people abusing it. > > I had been posting to a nontechnical misc newsgroup about an > intimate topic for which I felt I required privacy. I have > received immeasurable help from the people in that newsgroup, and > I have never used anonymity to behave in an abusive, immature, or > unethical fashion toward anyone. > > Please, folks, believe me, I *need* this service. Please > consider my point of view and permit admin@anon.penet.fi to turn > the service back on... > > Thank you. Kate Gregory <xtkmg@trentu.ca>: > In misc.kids there are three threads going on started by anonymous > posters. One was about changing jobs so as to work less hours, > job sharing and so on, from a woman who didn't want anyone at her > current place of work to know she was thinking of looking for > work elsewhere. The next was from a woman who is thinking of > having a baby sometime soon and doesn't want coworkers, friends, > family etc etc to know all about it, but who wants advice. The > third is about sex after parenthood -- actually this was started > by people posting in the usual way but then it was pointed out > that the anonymous posting service might let more people > participate. > > Misc.kids doesn't seem to be suffering any harm from the presence > of anonymous posters; in fact it seems to have been helped by it. Dan Hoey <hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>: > a recent use of the anonymous posting service on sci.math seemed > seemed to be a student asking help on a homework problem. It has > now been attributed to a teacher, asking for an explanation of a > dubious answer in his teaching guide. He says his news posting > is broken, so he is using the anonymous service as a mail-to-news > gateway. Rick Harrison <bbs-hrick@jwt.oau.org>: > I read "sci.electronics" regularly and have found the occasional > anonymous postings about pirate radio transmitters and > electronic-genital stimulation to be much more interesting than > the typical postings there. In other newsgroups like "sci.crypt" > (cryptography) I imagine anonymous posts could be used by people > who wanted to leak information to the public without getting > fired or penalized for such acts. David Weingart <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>: > Seriously, the amount of traffic from anon users on the sci groups > is so low as to make it a non-problem; I've seen a ton (or tonne, > if you're from a metric area) of roboposts and egregious > statements from non-anon users on the sci hierarchy (flip through > sci.skeptic and sci.physics sometime), and given that track > record, it seems that it would make sense for the NON-anonymous > users to be banned from the Net, since more of them do > antisocial things like lying, flaming, and writing apps to cancel > other people's messages. Robert MacDowell <bobmacd@netcom.com>: > So far there's been no indication of a specific *problem*, just a > lot of hypothetical hyperventilating on the part of numerous > paranoids here. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen any > anon-posts that were actually a problem. Solomon Yusim <syusim@bcm.tmc.edu>: > I think it's most unfortunate what was done to Julf and his > server. A few of my patients told me that they're using the > server in order to connect with others and form support groups > about issues about which they couldn't even think of speaking > publicly. They may not be willing to say this here openly, but I > feel that it behooves me to say this on their behalf. Deeptendu Majumder <gt0963d@prism.gatech.EDU>: > I never had much reason to read this newsgroup. anon service, for > me, was a way to post to groups where I do not have posting > privileges through normal channel (like this one). Groups like > alt.suicide.holiday where I have met people whose experiences had > helped me to deal with lot of my depressive feelings..No I am not > suicidal..but depressive ,yeah at times..anonymity was not a need > for me. But I do think it was very unfortunate the way the > shutdown was conducted..A country where people are so dependent > on shrinks...and green $$..all because nobody has the time to > be a friend.. Steve Summit <scs@adam.mit.edu>: > Little story: I am, or once thought I was, a well-regarded > comp.lang.c "personality." (I still maintain its FAQ list.) But > I was getting bored with posting (again, what I thought were) > excessively high-quality articles to it, and I was getting too > concerned with upholding whatever reputation I though I had, > bending over way backwards to insert misunderstanding- and/or > flame-preventing disclaimers, and stuff. Lately, however, I had > been thinking it would be great fun to post similarly high- > quality articles anonymously -- among other things, there's a > certain (childish) thrill involved in being "somebody else" and > being a little bit secret. In fact, just tonight I composed two > such articles, which were the ones which bounced with the "server > shut down" message. Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>: > Another oft-cited case is the mathematics professor who complained > about his office, lack of net access, et cetera; this has been > put forth as another valid example of 'necessary' Usenet > anonymity. > > How about the mathematics professor who posted anonymous to verify > a solution in the textbook he was using? As I understand it (I > didn't see the original posting), he would have been embarassed > to admit that he didn't understand the given solution. Bill Bohrer <bohrer@maui.mcc.com>: > Then again, what *about* some net.terrorist posting hurtful > obscenities on a "support" group anonymously? Or the "Kill the > Fags" posts that pop up all over the place? In my years of > net.cruising though, the KTF crowd as I've dubbed them seem quite > certain of their moral righteousness, or at least the backing of > the ugly net.mob; they rarely seem to post anonymously John A. Munson <jmunson@uwsuper.edu>: > As things stand there seems to be a whole lot more angst over the > activities of 57 anonymous "abusers" than there ought to be. As > long as there are unmoderated groups, there will be abusive > posts, regardless of whether or not there is anonymous posting > available. <an1017@anon.penet.fi>: > I feel that the users that abuse the service are a minority. I > believe there are better ways to deal with them than shutting > down the entire operation and denying a large segment of the > UseNet population use of the service. > > I am not is as skilled or knowledgeable as most of you when it > comes to UseNet so maybe there are issues I am not taking into > consideration. But from what I've seen of the banter on this > group there has been no good reason to shut these services down > and deny access to thousands of other users that don't have your > powers. Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi>: > But of course this political situation is mainly caused by the > abuse of the network that a very small minority of anon users > engaged in. This small group of immature and thoughtless > individuals (mainly users from US universities) caused much > aggravation and negative feelings towards the service. This is > especially unfortunate considering these people really are a > minuscule minority of anon users. The latest statistics from the > service show 18203 registered users, 3500 messages per day on the > average, and postings to 576 newsgroups. Of these users, I have > received complaints involving postings from 57 anonymous users, > and, of these, been forced to block only 8 users who continued > their abuse despite a warning from me. Nancy Osberg <nosberg@scott.skidmore.edu>: > Thank you for so clearly targeting US universities as the source > of the problem for anon service shutting down. I have responded > to a few people who posted here anonymously and I don't believe I > have ever said or done anything illegal, harmful, degrading, or > abusive. I think it would have been much nicer to leave that > part of your posting out instead of including an ENTIRE group of > people who are not ALL responsible for the problem. Bert Medley <medley@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>: > The problem, in many people's eyes, wasn't "abuse" but > "accountability". They used "abuse", with several flagrant > examples, as the reason. I saw no posted actual documented > statistics of abusive posts versus rational or non-abusive posts. > The small sample I had on this group leads me to believe that > the number of abusive posts were inline with the ratio of > non-anon posts. _____ <5.6> What are some testimonials against anonymity? Erik Oliver <eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu>: > And further that the penet server is not a good or useful service > as it stands now, but just a veil to shield people from taking > responsibility. For example, the poster who wanted to be able to > ask for information about illegal cable decoders.... HMMMM... > Yes, we should really protect this sort of behaviour. Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.on.ca>: > The morally righteous one are not the ones who do damage, you know > ahead of time where they're coming from, and can choose to either > confront or ignore what they say. > > Indeed, I have seen a rise in KTF ["Kill the Fags"] in alt.sex > from anonymous postings, as well as KTJ postings in > soc.culture.jewish. There'd also been a steady rise in the "two > word" postings, from people who didn't have anything intelligent > to add to a conversation, but figured that a few well-placed > smartass remarks would have everyone a-titter. > > Have I kept examples? No, it's hardly the kind of thing I'd want > to archive. Karl Kleinpaste <anonymus+0@charcoal.com>: > At this point, I am seriously uptight about server abuse and the > seemingly inevitable death-by-abuse which such servers suffer. > Consider that in just the last 12 months, there has been the > death of the alt.personals server at layout.berkeley.edu, the > alt.sex.bondage server at wizvax.methuen.ma.us, the > multiple-group server on Godiva, and now the universal-group > server on anon.penet.fi. > > It appears that a ratio of abusive:legitimate users sufficient to > cause an anonymous server's death is approximately > 1:2000. Hence, the sensitivity to abuse of the server is tuned > well into the "hyper" range of the dial. David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>: > viciously offensive and scatological anti-Arab posts have appeared > in talk.politics.mideast, and viciously offensive and sadistic > posts have appeared in rec.pets.cats. In both cases the purpose > was to offend, and the poster refused to desist when asked. > Further, the policy of the anonymous site is to warn such > people--well after much damage has been done. Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: > We have just seen a prime example of the harm that can come from > anonymous posting in the case of an8785. This bastard, who > started the whole discussion in news.admin.policy by posting his > "Challenger transcript" to sci.astro -- thereby leading several > readers of that newsgroup to ask news.admin.policy whether > something "can be done" about him, posted a greatly exaggerated > version of my limited "demonstration" of ARMM to the far corners > of USENET including such newsgroups as comp.org.eff.talk, > alt.privacy, sci.space, sci.astro, rec.arts.books, alt.evil, > alt.politics.homosexuality, talk.religion.misc, alt.censorship > and, rec.arts.sf.written. These postings included the names and > addresses of my boss and the system administrator of my > work-place, despite the fact that my postings carried an > organization header that read "Organization: Home, in Munroe > Falls, OH". > > This anonymous bastard was spreading libel, harassing me in these > newsgroups, and inciting a lynch mob to harass my colleagues at > work with the clear aim of getting me fired or otherwise > disciplined. I am convinced that what he did is clearly illegal > under several US statutes, and if he were a non-anonymous poster > I could have sought satisfaction in the courts with charges of > libel, harassment, and incitement to harassment, and I could have > sought damages and an injunction to prevent similar attacks in > the future. However, because he was posting through > anon.penet.fi, and because Julf refused to divulge his identity, > there was absolutely nothing I could do about him. "somebody": > The service at penet was being used to slander and harass people > who had no recourse to stop it until damage was done -- if even > then (I have reports that complaints were not resolved). I sent > Julf parts of two messages that would probably result in > *criminal* legal action in Canada, Great Britain, and maybe the > US -- not against him, but possibly against sites carrying the > messages in Usenet. Furthermore (and I cannot give details at > this time) there is at least one case where the service was being > used to support and organize an active conspiracy to violate > several Federal laws in a major way. Rob Knauerhase <knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>: > The problem, as has been endlessly discussed, was the abuse of a > mostly unnecessary service. Had it been limited to > alt.I'm.afraid.to.use.my.name, it would have perhaps been > acceptable. However, that was not the case. > > I bid anon.penet.fi good riddance.