informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/internet/FAQ/aipart3

1444 lines
65 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

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.
* * *
This is Part 3 of the Anonymity FAQ, obtained via anonymous FTP to
rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-anonymity/ or newsgroups
alt.privacy, alt.answers, news.answers every 21 days.
Written by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.
All rights reserved.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink