Archive-name: net-anonymity/part2
Last-modified: 1994/5/9
Version: 1.0

ANONYMITY on the INTERNET
=========================

Compiled by L. Detweiler <[email protected]>.


<3.1> What is the value or use of anonymity?
<3.2> Does anonymity uphold or violate the Usenet status quo?
<3.3> Is anonymity conducive or neutral to `abuse'?
<3.4> Does anonymity require courage or cowardice?
<3.5> Is anonymity associated with free speech?
<3.6> Should anonymous postings be censored?
<3.7> Can restrictions on anonymity be enforced? (How?)
<3.8> What are the effects of anonymity?


_____
<3.1> What is the value or use of anonymity?

 David Clunie <[email protected]>:

 > Many seem to question the value of anonymity. But who are they to
 > say what risks another individual should take ? There is no
 > question that in this rather conservative society that we live
 > in, holding certain views, making certain statements, adopting a
 > certain lifestyle, are likely to result in public censure,
 > ridicule, loss of status, employment, or even legal action. Given
 > the heterogeneity of the legal jurisdictions from where the many
 > contributors to usenet post, who knows what is legal and what is
 > not ! Some say that anonymous posters are "cowards" and should
 > stand up and be counted. Perhaps that is one point of view but
 > what right do these detractors have to exercise such censorship ?

 Doug Sewell <[email protected]>:

 > Why is it censorship to not expect someone to speak for
 > themselves, without the cloak of anonymity. This is at best a
 > lame argument.
 >
 > You tell me why what you have to say requires anonymity.  And you
 > tell me why the wishes of a majority of non-anonymous users of a
 > newsgroup should be disregarded when they don't want anonymous
 > posts.
 >
 > Anonymous users have LESS rights than any others. They are not
 > legitimate usenet participants. I would not honor RFDs, CFVs,
 > control messages, or votes from one.

 Bill Bohrer <[email protected]>:

 > What really galls me is that you don't mention legitimate,
 > RESPONSIBLE uses of anonymity.

 Evan Leibovitch <[email protected]>:

 > Yes. They exist. They compose of a small fraction of the Usenet
 > community, yet the moves so far to accomodate them have caused as
 > much grief and hurt as they have prevented.
 >
 > The need for a certain amount of discretion on some groups on
 > Usenet exists, just like with letters to the editor, you can
 > retain anonymity if you request but the *editors* must have your
 > name and address on file.

 Bob Longo <[email protected]>:

 > If someone does not have enough conviction in his beliefs to post
 > them without hiding behind an anonymous service, maybe he
 > shouldn't be making the post.
 >
 > Sorry, but it appears that people are uniting against anonymous
 > posting - not for it.

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>:

 > I beg to differ.
 >
 > Where have you been? We've been arguing this for weeks. There are
 > two sides  that it boils down to:
 >
 > "The validity of concepts and ideas expressed are based upon the
 > poster's  identity"
 >
 > "The validity of concepts and ideas expressed are not related to
 > the poster's  identity"

 Ed Hall <[email protected]>:

 > That's a false dichotomy.  Ideas and concepts should be judged on
 > merit, but a component of that merit is just who it is who
 > presents those ideas and concepts.
 >
 > I personally don't see a gross threat to the net in anonymous
 > postings, but unless there is a clear reason for anonymity I
 > regard them with a great deal more suspicion than average.
 >
 > I think there is a reasonable middle-ground.  Using anonymity to
 > protect oneself from actual harm resulting from social
 > intolerance is an example of an important and legitimate use.
 > But using it simply to put ones opponents at a disadvantage so
 > one can attack them with impunity is severely rude, at best.
 > Although I don't believe in outlawing rudeness, I see no reason
 > to come to its comfort, either.

 Karl Barrus <[email protected]>:

 > Some argue that the opinions of the people who hide behind a veil
 > of anonymity are worthless, and that people should own up to
 > their thoughts. I agree with the latter point - in an ideal
 > world we would all be sitting around engaging in Socratic
 > dialogues, freely exchanging our opinions in an effort to
 > learn.  But in an ideal world nobody will threaten you for your
 > thoughts, or ridicule you.
 >
 > But we live in a world where the people who don't agree with you
 > may try to harm you.  Let's face it, some people aren't going to
 > agree with your opinion no matter how logically you try to
 > present it, or how reasoned out it may be.  This is sad since it
 > does restrict people from voicing their opinions.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Instead of making this a "free-er medium" by allowing posters to
 > "protect themselves" with anonymity, simply require that all
 > posters be prepared to discuss their sources of information and
 > take the heat for unsubstantiated dribble.  This seems to be the
 > way things are currently done;

 Melinda Shore <[email protected]>:

 > It seems obvious to me that anonymity is often a good thing,
 > especially in areas where people do have something valid to say
 > but have legitimate reasons to fear the consequences if their
 > identity is known (and yes, it does happen).

 David Toland <[email protected]>:

 > If someone feels a need to post anonymously, I have no real
 > problem with that per se.  I may take that fact into account when
 > reading some types of subject matter, but I do not make an a
 > priori judgement based on it.
 >
 > Some people will automatically discount an anon posting.  Let
 > them. Others of us don't care who wrote it (usually), as long as
 > it is intelligently presented, or witty, or even amusingly
 > unusual.

 David Klein <[email protected]>:

 > I have seen pieces of the anon thread for the last two weeks on
 > the net, and I do not understand what the big deal is. The pros:
 > a person can post to a group with a potentially sensitive subject
 > and not have to worry about personal contacts finding out. The
 > cons: someone could potentially harass someone.

 Mike Schenk <[email protected]>:

 > I think the anon server is a blessing to the net. It gives people
 > the oppurtunity to post anonymously in the sense that their name
 > is not known. However, it is still possible to send email to them
 > so you can tell if you dissaprove of a certain posting. So they
 > are anonymous but reachable.

 J. Kamens <[email protected]>:

 > If someone REALLY needs to post a message anonymous in a newsgroup
 > in which this usually isn't done, they can usually find someone
 > on the net to do this for them. They don't need an automated
 > service to do it, and the automated service is by its nature
 > incapable of making the judgment call necessary to decide whether
 > a particular posting really needs to be anonymous.

 Karl Krueger<[email protected]>:

 > The existence and continued popularity of an anonymous server
 > shows that there is a demand for it.  People wish to have the
 > ability to avoid getting fired, sued, or shot for expressing
 > their opinions.

 Bob Longo <[email protected]>:

 > the only person qualified to judge the validity of the anon
 > poster's reasons is the anon poster himself.  You are very lucky
 > that you are secure enough in your social position and career
 > that you can say and write whatever you want to any time any
 > place without fear of ridicule or censure.  Some people aren't.
 > Some people just don't wish to tell a few million people around
 > the world, or a few dozen at work, etc. details about their
 > private lives or some personal opinions or beliefs.

 Herbert M Petro <[email protected]>:

 > Perhaps those people should undergo therapy in order to built
 > their self-esteem and come to recognize their own self-worth.
 > Such people should be pitied for their overwhelming need to be
 > approved of by others.

 Dr. Cat <[email protected]>:

 > Sure, many people have no need for the useful roles of an anon
 > server, and may be subject to some of the harmful ones.  But to
 > judge solely on the role something plays in one's own life, with
 > no consideration for others, seems extremely self-centered.

 Richard M. Hartman <[email protected]>:

 > Most of us have not been saying that anonymous posting should be
 > "banished from the net", merely that there should be some minimum
 > guaranteed set of controls and accountability.  Plus agreement
 > (or at least discussion) on where they are appropriate.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>

 > Funny, but there were controls and accountability for
 > anon.penet.fi. The admin there had shut off abusive users.
 >
 > The only problem people had with that is that the accountability
 > wasn't under their control.

 Brian O'Donovan <[email protected]>:

 > The benefit of having an anon service is that people are being
 > (shall we say) `openly anonymous', which I feel is far more
 > healthy than having to forge or abuse an identity.  Closing anon
 > services will not prevent  malicious use of the net.
 >
 > I'm afraid I cannot offer my services, or those of the company I
 > work for, but for what it's worth, you have my support.

 <[email protected]>:

 > The legitimacy of anonymous posting has been presented in a
 > variety of ways for at least the last couple of years, debated
 > within the groups where such posting occours, and it certainly
 > appeared to me that a concensus had arisen that in cases where
 > employer retribution, student harrassment, potential
 > re-victimization or other considerations pertained, anonymous
 > posting was an acceptable way in which to conduct business.

 Wes Morgan <[email protected]>:

 > And you say that if you feel strongly enough about it, put your
 > name on it.  I say, "Until you have something real to lose [Your
 > career for life], you will never see the values of being
 > anonymous."

 E. Johnson <[email protected]>:

 > Well, I have mixed feelings about this entire question.  Of
 > course, everyone should have the right to anonymity; if someone
 > doesn't want to stand up for what they have said (and I can
 > understand that under some circumstances), that is their choice.
 > One the other hand, I think the USE of the anon service (not its
 > availability) is not a good idea (except maybe on the alt.sex
 > hierarchy and similar places) because it does reduce the
 > credibility of one's opinion.  It seems to say that "I don't
 > really know what I'm talking about and I don't care" even if the
 > person does.

 Ingemar Hulthage <[email protected]>:

 > I think it would be a big mistake to prohibit anonymous posting
 > and email in general.  There are some long-standing precedences
 > for anonymous publishing.  Many authors use pen-names and there
 > are cases where the real identity of an author is still secret or
 > remained secret for a long time.  Most newspapers publish
 > 'letters to the editor' and allow them to be anonymous or signed
 > by initials only. The responsibility of a journalist not to
 > reveal his sources is almost universally recognized.  In the
 > academic world one can point to the custom of anonymous peer
 > reviews of articles, proposals etc.

 [unknown]

 > "Revolutions are not won by people sitting in a back room plotting
 > and scheming.  They are won by those that are willing to take
 > personal risk and publicly speak out against what they deem
 > unjust."

 "somebody":

 > I am a firm believer in privacy, but that is not the same thing as
 > anonymity. Anonymity can be used to violate another's privacy.
 > For instance, in recent years, I have had harassing anonymous
 > notes and phone calls threatening XXX beause of things I have
 > said on the net ...  I am in favor of defeating the reasons
 > people need anonymity, not giving the wrong-doers another
 > mechanism to use to harass others.
 >
 > ... any such service is a case of willingness to sacrifice some
 > amount of privacy of the recipients to support the privacy of the
 > posters.
 >
 > If the only people who would support the idea are those who might
 > use it, is it proper?

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the only people
 > who support anonymous posting are those who use it.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Most of us have the best interests of the net in mind, agree that
 > anonymous postings have their place, and agree that cooperative
 > anarchy is a wonderful experiment.

 Jonathan Eifrig <[email protected]>:

 > Let's face it: we are _all_ anonymous to some degree on the Net.

 Matthew P Wiener <[email protected]>:

 > I've usually taken at least lurking interest in USENET-gone-stupid
 > flame wars, but this anonymity flap leaves me completely bored.
 > Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally boring going
 > on?


_____
<3.2> Does anonymity uphold or violate the Usenet status quo?


 Brad Templeton <[email protected]>:

 > I can think of no disadvantage caused by anon posting sites that
 > doesn't already exist, other than the fact that they do make more
 > naive net users who don't know how to post anonymously the old
 > way more prone to do it.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Anonymity does hinder some methods of controlling other posters'
 > actions.  People who seek such control will naturally oppose it.

 Dan Hoey <[email protected]>:

 > While there has never been any real security against anonymous or
 > forged postings on Usenet, the process has until now been
 > sufficiently inconvenient, error-prone, and undocumented to limit
 > its use by persons who have not learned the culture of the net.

 Alexander EICHENER <[email protected]>:

 > anonymous posting has not created major problems aside from
 > angering irate people (like you?) who would rather ban
 > anonymous/pseudonymous posting altogether because "real men can
 > stand up for what they said" or comparable puerile arguments as
 > others have brought up.

 Terry McGonigal <[email protected]>:

 > <sigh>...  Just how many anon services are needed?  Will
 > *everybody* start running one soon?  What's the purpose?  Who
 > stands to benefit when there are N anon services, then 2*N, then
 > N^2, out there.  Where *has* this sudden fasination with anon
 > services come from?
 >
 > For better or (IMHO) worse, it looks like we'er gonna get stuck
 > with these things, and as much as I don't like the idea (of
 > services like this becoming the norm) I don't really think
 > there's much to be done since it's obvious that anyone who wants
 > to can set one up with a bit of work.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Is the problem that some are used to "punishing" posters who are
 > upsetting in some vague way by complaining to the (usually
 > acquiescent) sysadmin or organizations that the poster belongs
 > to? That surely is the most gutless approach to solving
 > problems, but my experience on the net shows that the same users
 > who vilify anonymous postings are the first to write obsessively
 > detailed grievances to the poster's supervisor when his or her
 > tranquility is disturbed by some "intrusive" or subversive post
 > or another.
 >
 > Anonymous postings prevent just this kind of intimidation.

 Steve Pope <[email protected]>:

 > I am finding this bias against pseudonymity boring. Our friend
 > posting through penet has a point.  The old guard would like to
 > keep their network the way it always has been... and this new
 > thing, these pseudonymous servers, cuts into their turf.  So they
 > whine and bitch about it, and every time there's the slightest
 > abuse (such as somebody's .sig being too long), they try to
 > parlay that into an argument against pseudonymity.
 >
 > I'll go on record as saying: three cheers for the admins at anon
 > servers like penet, pax, and n7kbt... and for all the access
 > service providers who are willing to preserve their clients
 > privacy.
 >
 > And a pox on those who try to defeat and restrict pseudonymity.

 Bruce Umbaugh <[email protected]>:

 > How is posting through anon.penet.fi *fundamentally* different
 > from posting through any other site?
 >
 > Please, do, help me see what I'm missing.  Show me, if you can,
 > how a pseudonymous (for that is what this is) site merits such
 > hostility.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>

 > A better question is: why should YOU get to second guess the
 > results of a valid newsgroup vote (ones held years ago, in some
 > cases) to decide that certain people may not post even though the
 > groups decided when they were formed that anyone could post?
 >
 > This is amazing. All these poeple complaining about a change in
 > the status quo (that really isn't), and you want a blanket change
 > in the status quo (that really would be).

 J. Kamens <[email protected]>:

 > It seems obvious to me that the default should be *not* to allow
 > anonymous postings in a newsgroup.  The Usenet has always
 > operated on the principle that the status quo should be kept
 > unless there's a large number of people who want to change it.

 David Weingart <[email protected]>:

 > People have said that anonymous posting netwide is something new.
 > This is garbage; such things have existed as long as I've been on
 > the Net (about 3 years).  BBS systems and local dialin systems do
 > little verification.  There are, as someone pointed out, several
 > freely accessible NNTP servers out there, and it takes very
 > little to hack your new program to fake everthing you want in the
 > headers (Good lord, look at the group list in alt sometimes!).
 > Having [email protected] is no different than having
 > [email protected], when bar.com is a dialin; all you can do is send
 > mail to the user and the site admin to bitch, and the odds are
 > the site admin won't do anything.
 >
 > So far, I've not seen a single convincing argument that the
 > "status quo" of the Net was changed by anon.penet.fi going up.
 > anon.penet.fi is just another site ...

 Michael Stoodt <[email protected]>:

 > The status quo IS for sites to be able to add themselves to the
 > net at will; and for the site and its users to take
 > responsibility for their actions on the net.  anon.penet.fi and
 > its users are not assuming the same level of responsibility that
 > local.bbs.com does.
 >
 > The status quo was that there was the PRESUMPTION of
 > accountability for users.  Maybe some sites didn't enforce this
 > as much as some would have liked, but anon.penet.fi is
 > specifically designed to avoid any such accountability.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > Wrong. The site has an admin. He has responsibility for that site.
 > You simply don't like how he handles his site. Well, news flash:
 > it isn't your responsibility to handle his site. You don't get to
 > make the rules for him. You make your rules, you decide how to
 > handle your users. He makes his rules, he handles his users.
 >
 > What accountability? To their admin, perhaps. To YOU? Hardly. To
 > Dick Depew? ROFL.

 Richard M. Hartman <[email protected]>:

 > At the time of the charters of most existing groups, global
 > anonymous access was NOT available, and was NOT considered in the
 > charter.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > I hate to bring facts into this discussion, but yes, indeed, for
 > as long as the net has been around, anonymous posting has been
 > available. Part of the process of creating a group is to decide
 > whether the group is moderated or not, so yes, indeed, the
 > question of who may post to the group is considered in the
 > formation of every group.
 >
 > A change in the status quo "in the interest of preserving the
 > status quo" is a lie.

 Paul Flaherty <[email protected]>:

 > The author clearly states "global anonymous" as opposed to merely
 > "anonymous"; the two differ significantly in ease of access.
 >
 > Aside from access, the new "global anonymous" services differ
 > significantly by the degree of anonymity from the old forged
 > postings;  anyone with a good networking background could trace
 > forged postings, while the new services are quite a bit more
 > secure.

 John Stanley <[email protected]>:

 > Even with the limited "global", anonymous posting has been around
 > for as long as the net has.
 >
 > The "new" services (which really aren't anything new) make the
 > anonymous poster more "responsible" than many old methods of
 > posting. At least this way you can send mail to the anonymous
 > poster complaining about whatever you want.

 ANDREW GREENSHIELDS <[email protected]>:

 > Those may be good reasons for posting anonymously.  I don't think
 > anyone has said that they want to ban *all* anonymous postings
 > *forever*.  The issue here, as far as I see it, is who is going
 > to take responsibilty for articles whose sole intent is to
 > injure?

 Perry E. Metzger <[email protected]>:

 > No one will. No one needs to. The notion that an anonymous posting
 > needs to be traceable to its source is a product of the
 > unification of the old time conservative desire to squelch free
 > speech with the new fangled politically correct liberal desire to
 > squelch free speech.

 Jay Maynard <[email protected]>:

 > Julf unilaterally imposed a change on those groups  - that they
 > accept anonymous postings - and did not inform the people who
 > read  those groups of that change, and did not ask them if they
 > desired the change.
 >
 > Richard's default is the correct one: he would require a vote to
 > change the  pre-Julf status quo. Your default would impose a
 > change on folks and then  demand that they vote to restore the
 > status quo.

 Afzal Ballim <[email protected]>:

 > Jay, by your reasoning why isn't it changing the status quo if a
 > new node is added to the net and people start posting from it?
 > Okay, you say that we don't KNOW who the people are behind
 > postings from Julf's site. But so what? The charter of
 > unmoderated groups says nothing about restricting postings from
 > sites where the identity of users is not generally accessable
 > from outside. If they did, then Julf would have changed the
 > "status quo". As many have pointed out, what Richard had proposed
 > means that sites downstream from a feed that cancelled a message
 > would not got those messages. This seems far more radical a
 > change to the status quo than posts from  anonymous users turning
 > up in a group.

 Karl Kleinpaste <[email protected]>:

 > You didn't find a anonymous userids throughout the Usenet until
 > Johan came along.

 <[email protected]>:

 > No, Julf has not imposed a change.  Anonymous postings and
 > anonymous posting sites have existed for many years before Julf's
 > site went up.  Julf is MAINTAINING the status quo with his site.

 Daniel Veditz <[email protected]>:

 > You didn't find them with big red tags saying "Lookit me--I'm
 > anonymous!" maybe, but they've always been there.  I've seen tons
 > of pseudonymous posters--people with cryptic assigned class IDs
 > with no signature, people who have bought their own system and
 > use cutsie names...
 >
 > The only differences are:
 >  - Julf made it easier to post pseudonymously and advertised
 >  - It's more obvious that these are pseudonymous
 >  - They all appear to be a single site and thus make a good target

 Jay Maynard <[email protected]>:

 > Nope. Anonymous posting sites that existed were set up for a
 > single,  consenting newsgroup. Julf's is the first netwide
 > anonymous site.

 <[email protected]>:

 > I intend to statrt up my own Internet site by the end of
 > September.  I intend to allow anonymous posting.  I will be
 > maintaining the status quo.
 >
 > Julf does not have to ask anyone if they desire a change -- he
 > isn't changing anything, and in any case he's not breaking any of
 > the "rules" of Usenet,  because there are no hard-and-fast rules
 > on UseNet.

 Jay Maynard <[email protected]>:

 > Sorry. I categorically reject this argument. Anonymous postings
 > netwide are a  significant change in the net culture. You will
 > not convince me otherwise.

 <[email protected]>:

 > The unmoderated groups already accepted ANY sort of posting -
 > including anonymous postings - long before Julf started his
 > server ...

 Karl Kleinpaste <[email protected]>:

 > Such a claim ignores the fact that, in general, anonymous (or
 > pseudonymous) postings didn't go anywhere but the lone newsgroup
 > supported by the individual anonymous server in question.  Yes,
 > you always _could_ forge articles by suitable invocation of
 > rnews, or assault on the nearest posting-permitted NNTP server.
 > But people didn't, generally.  Social habit prevented exercises
 > in poor taste.

 David Weingart <[email protected]>:

 > There have _always_, so far as I can tell, been innapropriate and
 > offensive postings to newsgroups. (And, as I've pointed out from
 > my particular experience, these postings are usually from
 > non-anonymous users (non-anonymous in the sense that there is no
 > instantly-obvious giveaway eddress like [email protected]).  They
 > didn't start with anonymous servers, they'll continue without it.
 >
 > The best thing you can do to flamers is ignore them.

 Richard Depew <[email protected]:

 > The issue of an irresponsible system administrator trying to
 > impose his anonymous server on readers of thousands of newsgroups
 > is not a trivial one.   My proposal to restore the status quo in
 > a hierarchy that has protested anonymous postings may not make me
 > popular with anonymous posters, but I haven't seen a single
 > message claiming that any sci newsgroup has invited anonymous
 > postings.



_____
<3.3> Is anonymity conducive or neutral to `abuse'?

 <[email protected]>:

 > I think anonymous posts do help in focusing our attention on the
 > content of one's message. Sure lot of anonymous posts are abusive
 > or frivolous but in most cases these are by users who find the
 > anon facility novel. Once the novelty wears off they are stopping
 > their pranks...

 Wes Morgan <[email protected]>:

 > I've received *hundreds* of anonymous email messages over the last
 > few years; fewer than 20 of them were "reasonable posts made with
 > good motives." It's  getting more and more difficult to remember
 > why we need anonymity at all; the abusers are (once again)
 > lousing things up for those who truly need the service  (or those
 > who would put it to good use).

 Wes Morgan <[email protected]>:

 > I don't mind seeing the miscellaneous hatred/prejudice/racism;
 > those things are part of our nature.  However,  the notion of
 > providing anonymity's shield for these ideas repulses me. If
 > they have such strong feelings, why can't they put their name(s)
 > on  their postings? ... Quite frankly, I loathe communication
 > with people who refuse to use their names.

 Jonathan I. Kamens <[email protected]>

 > NNTP servers that allow posting from anyone are NOT "a service to
 > the net." They do the net a disservice.
 >
 > Terminal servers have the same problems as open NNTP servers --
 > they allow people who want to do illegal/immoral/unethical things
 > on the Internet to do so without accountability.
 >
 > There are, by now, public access sites all over this country, if
 > not all over the world, that allow very inexpensive access to the
 > Usenet and the Internet.  There is no reason for NNTP servers to
 > allow anyone to post messages through them, and there is no
 > reason for terminal servers to allow anyone to connect to them
 > and then make outbound connections through them.  Perhaps when it
 > was harder to get to the Internet or the Usenet, open servers
 > could be justified, but not now.

 Michael Stoodt <[email protected]>:

 > Open NNTP servers are bad, for they allow the same avoidance of
 > accountability that anon.penet.fi does.  Actually, they're worse,
 > for it's rare for them to be able to filter Control headers and
 > such; they're very useful for those cretins practicing sendsys
 > terrorism and such.

 Karl Krueger<[email protected]>:

 > That idea (of "asbestos longjohns", the mythical protection form
 > flamage) can be seen as an abstraction of what the anon service
 > is.  It is not as if anonymous posters are somehow "protected" -
 > they still get their replies.  All an anonymous poster is
 > protected from is "real world" damage - the kind of thing that
 > any USENETteer should be protected from anyway.

 Tom Bryce <[email protected]>:

 > There'll always be abuse of the net with or without anonymous
 > services, and tighter verification of ID, more sternly dealing
 > with and locking out abusers of the services, limiting posts
 > anonymously to a certain amount a day to keep people from
 > flooding the network, and the like, the abuse can be cut down to
 > a  minimum, and the freedom it gives people to post on the
 > newsgroups without inhibition or fear is well worth it.

 Chuq Von Rospach <[email protected]>:

 > This debate is showing up exactly what's wrong with anonymous
 > postings: for every legitimate use of them, there are dozens of
 > cases where people use it to hide from the responsibility of
 > their actions.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Anonymous servers have an important function in certain
 > newsgroups, and most people who use them do so responsibly.
 > However, these servers attract sociopaths who use them to avoid
 > responsibility and accountability for their actions.

 "somebody"

 > I am, in general, against unrestricted anonymous service.  There
 > are too many abusive people on the net to make it work.
 >
 > I do not believe we have the appropriate technology to make an
 > anonymous service work on the net.  Furthermore, I remain
 > completely unconvinced that there is a legitimate need, nor is
 > the level of maturity in the user population sufficiently level
 > where it can be effectively used. It may only be a small
 > percentage of people who cause the problems, but that is true of
 > nearly everything in history.


_____
<3.4> Does anonymity require courage or cowardice?


 Dave Ratcliffe <[email protected]>:

 > Sure most adults are willing to post under their own names. Why
 > would they want to hide behind an anonymous posting service?
 > Ashamed of what they have to say or just trying to rile people
 > without fear of being identified?

 <[email protected]>:

 > I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to
 > hide behind your affiliations.

 Rich Kulawiec <[email protected]>:

 > This is ludicrous.  If you do not have the courage of your own
 > convictions, and are not willing to back those convictions up by
 > using your own name, why should anyone pay the slightest
 > attention to you?  (I certainly won't.) Either you have the guts
 > to back up what you say, or you don't; and if you don't, then you
 > should probably just be quiet.

 Tom Mandel <[email protected]>

 > I think you, sir or madam or whatever you are, are full of it.
 > Anonymity is the veil behind which people too cowardly to
 > identify themselves with their analyses or opinions hide.

 Jim Thomas <[email protected]>:

 > Although revelation is generally preferable to anonymity, there
 > are numerous reasons that are sufficiently strong to discredit
 > the "cowardice" thesis.

 Karl Krueger <[email protected]>:

 > "Hiding behing Julf's server"?  No... For many, bouncing things
 > off the anon server is routine protection, just like using PGP is
 > for others.  It's security.
 >
 > Is it "immature" to "hide behind" this server?  Of course not, no
 > more is it than it is to send the police an anonymous letter if
 > one is informing on a Mafia don.  People do get in realspace
 > "trouble" for what they say in the USENET cyberspace, you know.
 >
 > Tell me, if you could get fired for posting something, say, a
 > criticism of an illegality (or unethicality) perpetrated by your
 > boss, wouldn't you want a way to make the action known to the
 > public, anonymously?  Anonymousness is not patently cowardice!
 > If one believes that the "outside world" will attack one, one
 > will use an anonymous method!

 Shannon Atkins <[email protected]>:

 > Like I said, if you don't have the balls to post it under your own
 > name, it isn't worth posting.  It simply isn't important enough
 > to post about.
 >
 > I'm not really sorry if I have offended any of the nameless,
 > faceless, spineless PC clone-zombies out there in netland by
 > having an opinion.

 Michael Miller <[email protected]>:

 > There are some people with whom one should not publicly disagree
 > under one's own name.  When you want to disagree with such a
 > person, cowardice is simply the intelligent way to do it.
 >
 > Of course, people will hide behind anonymity to post drivel, but
 > many people already post drivel without anonymity.  Some
 > anonymous posters are stupid cowards and some are smart cowards.
 > Do you really want to ignore all the smart cowards?



_____
<3.5> Is anonymity associated with free speech?


 David Sternlight <[email protected]>:

 > Note again that invoking civil rights or free speech is a big red
 > herring on this issue--nothing in this prevents people from
 > posting directly--only through an anonymous filter.
 >
 > This is not a matter of free speech since writers are free to post
 > under their names.

 Richard M. Hartman <[email protected]>:

 > So many people (Americans) have used the "right" to free speech in
 > defense of this anon server (which does not apply since it is a
 > provision limiting the actions of the government, not
 > individuals)

 Daniel Veditz <[email protected]>:

 > Whoa, is freedom of conscience and of speech merely a privilege
 > granted by some governments, or is it a true human right
 > regardless of whether or not recognized by various governing
 > bodies?
 >
 > In any case I agree that "free speech" considerations are
 > irrelevant to this anon server issue.

 Knut Langsetmo <[email protected]>:

 > It is interesting to see that so many champions of 'free speech'
 > have opposed the anon server.  I for one can testify that there
 > have been severe reprecusions for things that I have said.  In
 > particular, I was fired for suggesting that communism was a good
 > idea, "advocating communism".  All the talk of having the 'guts'
 > to stand behind what you say is just posturing by those who have
 > never said anything  that people who have power over their lives
 > might object to.

 David Clunie <[email protected]>:

 > I am amazed that Julf hasn't had to put up with more flak at his
 > end over his consumption of bandwidth. The Fins have always been
 > awfully tolerant about this sort of thing. It is a sad day when
 > the Europeans have to teach the rest of the Western world about
 > freedom of speech ! It amazes me that there is not a single
 > anonymous server of the type that Julf runs (ie. easy to use and
 > universal posting) anywhere in the entire US. Pretty sad. I don't
 > understand why. I would have thought some commercial site would
 > have the guts to try. What do they fear ? Disconnection or legal
 > liability for the posts and mail that they pass on ?
 >
 > I consider the demise of [my] service to have been rather
 > unfortunate, and I wish the Finnish remailer luck ! It is a pity
 > that there are very few if any similar services provided with in
 > the US. I guess that's the benefit of having a constitution that
 > guarantees one freedom of speech and a legal and political system
 > that conspires to subvert it in the name of the public good.

 Tim Burns <[email protected]>:

 > Recently, the anoymous network service at anon.penet.fi was closed
 > down. I feel that act severely compromised the free speech rights
 > of those who use the network.  Acting to shut down such services
 > which allow people to discuss sensitive issues is a grave abuse
 > of power, and a threat to the internet community as a whole.  I
 > am very sad that this happened, and beg the internet community to
 > unite in support of free network services such as anon.penet.fi.

 David Barr <[email protected]>:

 > Exactly whose free speech rights were violated? I hate to see
 > people throw around the word "free speech" with little thought as
 > to what they are actually saying.  Free speech applies only to
 > the press, not to those who wish to say what they want on someone
 > else's press. The shutting down of anon.penet.fi was a lot of
 > things, but it did not violate anyone's free speech rights.

 Bob Longo <[email protected]>:

 > You have got to be kidding!  Compromised free speech RIGHTS?  No
 > one is stopping anyone from stating their views or posting.  Do
 > you think it is a RIGHT to blast anonymous postings all over the
 > net with no accountability? Somehow I don't think you will find
 > that right in any legal definition of the freedom of speech.

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>:

 > I think the poster meant "the ideal of free speech" not "the
 > restricted legal definition of free speech". With true free
 > speech, it doesn't matter what you say you are free to say it. It
 > doesn't look like people are stable enough to handle this
 > concept, though.

 Carl M Kadie <[email protected]>:

 > At least in the U.S., anonymity has been seen by the courts as
 > related to freedom of expression and freedom of association ...

 Rita Marie Rouvalis <[email protected]>:

 > I've been watching this debate heat up over that past 3 or 4 years
 > now as Usenet has exploded in size.  The freedom of expression of
 > many Usenet readers is actually being denied by abusive users
 > because smaller sites are being forced to cut parts of their
 > feeds due to volume.
 >
 > I think "freedom of expression" is a straw man in this case.  No
 > one has raised issue with the content of the message (at least in
 > this thread) -- only the manner in which it was posted. It would
 > be interesting to make an analogy to grafitti in this case.

 Christopher Pilewski <[email protected]>:

 > The internet is a medium of expression.  It needs ideas in order
 > to have any useful purpose.  And, many people need anonymity to
 > express their ideas freely.  This is why any election (of any
 > validity) is by secret ballot!  Privacy is not just an aspect of
 > freedom, it is a provider of freedom.  Privacy is important.  You
 > do not have freedom of expression if (Your boss will fire you;
 > Your co-workers will harass and humiliate you; Or, the government
 > maintains files about you) for expressing your views. Sadly, all
 > of the above can happen without privacy and anonymity.

 Ze Julf <[email protected]>:

 > Due to the lawsuit-intensive climate in the US, many anonymous
 > services have been short-lived. By setting up anon.penet.fi in
 > Finland, I hoped to create a more stable service. Anon.penet.fi
 > managed to stay in operation for almost five months. The service
 > was protected from most of the usual problems that had forced
 > other services to shut down. But there are always going to be
 > ways to stop something as controversial as an anon service. In
 > this case, a very well-known and extremely highly regarded net
 > personality managed to contact exactly the right people to create
 > a situation where it is politically impossible for me to continue
 > running the service.

_____
<3.6> Should anonymous postings be censored?

 Merth Eric <[email protected]>

 > Seems to me that the issue is not really about accountability but
 > whether some people like how other people choose to  communicate.
 > This service was the first real move toward an open forum that I
 > had seen.  It is unfortunate that some people could not tolerate
 > its existance.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Whatever your opinion of anonymous posting, you MUST agree that no
 > individual has the right to determine what someone else can or
 > can not read.

 Karl Krueger <[email protected]>:

 > What can be done to defend the freedom that USENET has enjoyed
 > from itself?  Since USENET is, by definition, anarchic, existing
 > as a whole only because of mutual cooperation from all users,
 > everyone must be involved.  The state of USENET is very similar
 > to the state of the USA - people need to get involved on the most
 > basic levels.  Individual citizens of cyberspace must become
 > knowledgeable about what is actually going on.  Threats to USENET
 > freedom should not merely be flamed and then passed by, but must
 > be actively prevented.  When threats like the recent ARMM threat
 > emerge, normal users must react.
 >
 > While ARMM was opposed 3:1 in news.admin.policy, it is scary that
 > as many as 1/4 of the voting population (which was, admittedly,
 > small) were pro-censorship.  There may come a time when such
 > efforts as M. Depew's will be greeted with open arms.  This is
 > scary.

 <[email protected]>:

 > The use of the issues of anonymity and potential copyright
 > violation has been at best spurious to the clear agenda of those
 > who in their infinite wisdom have chosen to become the moral
 > arbiters of society, which is to disrupt any and all
 > communication which they percieve as threatening.

 Perry E. Metzger <[email protected]>:

 > Unfortuntately, there are lots of people out there who think that
 > they should be regulating what sort of thing other people are
 > permitted to read, and they seem to be alive and well and
 > operating on Usenet. Horror of horrors! People might post
 > offensive things anonymously and get away with it! We must stop
 > this plague, the PC censors tell us.
 >
 > I know that the notion of freedom of speech is a radical notion to
 > some people. I understand that the idea that words are not knives
 > and cannot physically injure people is a mere three hundred years
 > old or so and thus still difficult for some people to grasp.
 > However, understand this -- this Usenet site administrator will
 > not sit idly by and allow fools decide for me what I can and
 > cannot read.

 Felix Gallo <[email protected]>:

 > "deeply offensive" is in the eye of the beholder, and *THAT* is
 > what the entire problem is.  I reserve the right to choose for
 > myself what I consider deeply offensive, and consider myself
 > quite competent at pressing the appropriate keys to ensure that I
 > don't have to look at things I no longer want to see.

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>:

 > The real threat of anonymity is the expressing of ideas which the
 > consensus does not wish to be expressed.
 >
 > Those who will not express those ideas (i.e. some of those who
 > cite  "responsible" posting practives) are threatened by their
 > very  existence...especially if they agree with "non-approved"
 > ideas.  This would expose them to the loss of external validation
 > from the operating consensus.

 Steve Summit <[email protected]>:

 > The saddest thing, in a way, is that the paranoid control freaks
 > I'm now shuddering at the complicity of are pretty much
 > "justified:" the legal climate in the United States is getting so
 > obscenely perverted that they practically do have to be this
 > paranoid and repressive lest they get their sites and their
 > livelihoods shut down by equally paranoid control freaks who have
 > managed to work themselves up into a froth of righteous
 > indignation about something allegedly wrong but allegedly
 > preventable which some worthless nonentity might be able to
 > perpetrate with the apparent aid of some harmless, idealistic,
 > but defenseless Finn.

 Brad Templeton <[email protected]>:

 > If somebody abuses the service of such a person to disrupt the net
 > and hide, they will get their name revealed and their access cut
 > off.   This is moderation in a post-sense, which has a lot of
 > merit.
 >
 > (Indeed, I have recommended post-moderation as a superior scheme
 > for many moderated newsgroups.  It is how all online services,
 > except Prodigy, work.)

 [anonymous]

 >It is not moderation and it is not filtering.  It is censorship,
 >and it is based on ignorance and bigotry.

 Brad Templeton <[email protected]>:

 > Read your USENET history before you accuse me, of all people, of
 > even suggesting censorship.   If you'll recall, when this debate
 > started, I said that anon servers were no big shakes and
 > supported their right to exist and their importance.   What an
 > odd line to find used on me after that.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > I certainly don't want to do anything that I am not "authorized"
 > to do.  If you can suggest a better way to "minimally-moderate",
 > I'd appreciate it if you would share your ideas with us.


______
<3.7> Can restrictions on anonymity be enforced? (How?)

 Eric Schilling <[email protected]>:

 > The main point I would like to make here is that while we can go
 > through and revise the news sw to "reject anon posts to technical
 > newsgroups" or some such thing, I think the attempt will prove
 > futile. Each attempt to modify news can result in a changed
 > approach by anon service providers to thwart the change.  I think
 > this would be pointless.

 <[email protected]>:

 > This whole debate is a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing"
 > because, even if you all decide to ban anonymous posting servers,
 > it is not enforceable.  The only people who conceivably could
 > enforce retrictions are those that control the international
 > links.
 >
 > Policy changes should be made by cooperation, not by attempting
 > to dictate. ...you need to persuade those who run the services
 > to act like this through friendly persuasion, not by trying to
 > beat them over the head with a stick (especially a stick you
 > don't even have).

 Al Billings <[email protected]>:

 > I wouldn't help people get rid of anon postings as a group. If you
 > don't like what someone says, then you put THAT anon address in
 > your kill file, not all of them. Of course, if and when I get an
 > anon site going, I'm just going to assign fake names like
 > "jsmith" instead of "anon5564" to avoid most of the hassles.
 > You'll never know it is anonymous will you?

 Anne Bennett <[email protected]>:

 > I must admit to some astonishment at this argument. I see the
 > value of anonymous postings under some circumstances, yet believe
 > strongly that these should be identified as such, so that people
 > who do not wish to read material from people who won't identify
 > themselves, don't have to.
 >
 > I fail to see what good you would be accomplishing, and indeed
 > surmise that you will cause many people inconvenience and
 > annoyance, by hiding the anonymity of postings from your
 > anonymous site. Would you care to justify where the hell you get
 > the gall to try to prevent people from effectively filtering
 > their news as they see fit?

 Nicholas Kramer <[email protected]>:

 > It seems obvious to me that Julf will never make his anonymous
 > server agreeable to all. Seeing's how at present the overseas
 > lines are being used for this, and that there is an abundance of
 > people willing to put their money where their mouth is, why
 > doesn't someone in North America set up a new anonymous site WITH
 > THEIR OWN RULES. Set up an anonymous server that, say, doesn't
 > allow anonymous postings to comp.* groups, or has the "default"
 > as no anonymous. It seems to me that one of the best ways to kill
 > off a radical idea is to endorce half of it and let the other
 > half wither away. Besides, if there is a "more reasonable" anon
 > server around, I'm sure more sites wouldn't have second thoughts
 > about killfiling anon.penet.fi.

 Dr. Cat <[email protected]>:

 > Can the anon servers be banished from the net forever?  Don't
 > count on it.  Today, tomorrow, next year, it may be possible to
 > keep systems like anon.penet.fi from being widely used.  But does
 > anyone here think that some easy method for creating messages
 > totally anonymously won't be widespread on the networks of a
 > hundred years from now? The technology to make it happen is easy,
 > the technology to keep it from happening is hard and will get
 > harder.  Widespread anonymity will happen sooner or later.  Count
 > on it.  You can bury your head in the sand and say "It isn't
 > acceptable because bad things can be done with it", or you can be
 > pragmatic and say "This is coming, so what is the best way to
 > deal with the consequences of it"?

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, [email protected], does
 > not soon block anonymous postings to the "sci" hierarchy, then I
 > will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation"
 > script that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his
 > server.  ...
 >
 > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this.  I have not
 > read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they
 > were out of line in any way other than being anonymous.
 >
 > You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post to
 > the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal
 > Moderation" is in effect:
 >
 > *1  convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default
 >   settings for different hierarchies.  I promise to turn off the
 >   ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything
 >   reasonably responsive).

 Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <[email protected]>:

 > I HATE to see my name being connected with this.
 >
 > Who, just WHO, do you think you are?
 >
 > I _proposed_, _suggested_ a compromise. You make it sound like an
 > ULTIMATUM. I am appaled and ashamed.

 Karl Kleinpaste <[email protected]>:

 > blockage from an anonymous server is not a death sentence.  Find
 > another anon server.  Post under your own name.  Pick on an open
 > NNTP server and forge elsehow.  Find a friend who will post for
 > you in some fashion.  There's a boatload of solutions to the
 > problem of getting your ever-so-valuable words posted to any
 > newsgroup you want.

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > Meanwhile, anonymous servers are evolving into less virulent forms
 > themselves, thus reducing the need for something like ARMM.
 > However, I believe that various antidotes against breaches of
 > netiquette ranging from mild but repeated offenses to abusive
 > net-sociopaths should remain in our armamentarium, "just in
 > case".
 >
 > What we need next is a mechanism for diagnosing net-pathogens, and
 > for prescribing the appropriate net-medication.  Otherwise, a
 > net-doctor is likely to face charges of net-malpractice.  :-)
 >
 > To the "magic bullet"!

 Alexander Chislenko <[email protected]>:

 > Of course, it is possible to set up a distributed anonymous
 > encrypted remailing system that cannot be stopped or compromised
 > by taking over any given number of sites.  Of course, anonymous
 > postings will always exist in a growing variety of forms on the
 > Net whose functional structure very soon will be drastically
 > different from today's.

 "somebody":

 > I believe some regional network service providers in the US
 > prohibit users to use anonymous postings or mail as part of their
 > contracts.  Does yours?



_____
<3.8> What are the effects of anonymity?


 <[email protected]>:

 > Since I began posting anonymously (to show support for general
 > principles of personal privacy) I have been subject to far more
 > abuse and attack than I ever received before. People seem to
 > find it easier to flame and insult someone whose name they don't
 > know. Perhaps it's easier to pretend that there is no person
 > behind the email address who feels the sting of abusive comments.

 Tarl Neustaedter <[email protected]>:

 > Anonimity leads to fun psych experiments; the literature is filled
 > with all the various things that people will do anonymously that
 > they won't otherwise. Including one notorious study involving
 > torture that would not have passed today's ethical standards. Fun
 > stuff, in any case.
 >
 > FINE. LEAVE US OUT OF IT.

 Brian W. Ogilvie <[email protected]>:

 > The service provides a mechanism for forwarding mail to the
 > original poster. Since most Usenet readers don't know John Smith
 > from Jane Doe except by their opinions and their address, the
 > effect of having an anonymous posting to which mail replies can
 > be directed is minimal, except for those who personally know the
 > poster--and ... the lack of anonymity could be serious. Any
 > mechanism like this is liable to abuse, but the benefits as well
 > as the costs must be weighed.

 Perry E. Metzger <[email protected]>:

 > The tragedy of pseudonymous posting is that, once used, it must
 > always be used.  ...  This is going to be a problem for
 > pseudonymous posters; we'll start recognizing them by their
 > grammatical habits or choice of words, and they'll wind up using
 > pseudonyms all the time, in *everything* they post.
 >
 > I had thought of pseudonymity as a cloak, to be used at will; now,
 > it's starting to look like a deadman switch that has to be used
 > at all times.
 >
 > People speak of the 'freedom' of pseudonymity; here's an example
 > of its restrictions.

 Melinda Shore <[email protected]>:

 > The problem ... is less one of authority than it is
 > responsibility.  People who dissasociate their identities from
 > their postings no longer need to be as responsible, and the
 > results of that are the kinds of content-free flamers that show
 > up, for example, in the gay-related newsgroups.

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>:

 > What a primal example of human nature. I have three questions for
 > you folks.
 >
 > Do people really say different things to each other based upon
 > whether their identity is or isn't known?
 >
 > Are people really so affected by what other people say that the
 > verbage is labeled "abuse"?
 >
 > Most importantly, on a forum that prizes itself on the freedom of
 > communication that it enjoys, is there really such a thing as
 > freedom of communication?

 Karl Kleinpaste <[email protected]>:

 > Weak reasoning.
 > With freedom comes responsibility.

 Dave Hayes <[email protected]>:

 > Responsibility isn't real if it is enforced. True responsibilty
 > comes with no coercion.

 "somebody":

 > These problems are not a service.  Freedom without responsibility
 > leads to barbarism, and the way anonymous services are structured
 > is to remove the checks that impose personal responsibility.

 Fred McCall <[email protected]>:

 > It seems to me that one of the big 'needs' of anonymous servers on
 > the net is as protection against the sort of person that uses
 > anonymous servers.
 >
 > Hey, maybe there's something to this anonymity thing after all,
 > but only as a defense against the sort of people who seem to be
 > using it...

 Chris Walsh <[email protected]>:

 > The S/N ratio on usenet is, IMHO, so low that complaints about
 > posts from  anon servers are basically using the anon-servers as
 > a whipping boy.  Clearly, any mechanism which decreases the
 > difficulty of posting in an "untraceable" way will increase the
 > quantity of drivel made available, but it will also increase the
 > quantity of useful-but-sensitive material as well.  Perhaps the
 > net effect (pardon the pun) will be a slight decrease in the S/N
 > ratio, but unless an appreciable proportion of posts use the
 > anon-servers, I fail to see how this is so much more dreadful
 > than what we already have that anyone would get their shorts
 > twisted over it.  I can see how it might produce momentary
 > flurries of drivel in certain groups, but these groups already
 > have such flurries regularly.

 <[email protected]>:

 > In the larger context, it seems like, as USENET/internet grows,
 > we're going to continue to have problems with abuse AND with the
 > need for anonymity.  I say this because as we expand, we get more
 > people (thus more people who may be abusers of the system), and
 > also because as we grow we start having more important things go
 > around here.  Sexual-abuse discussions are a lot more personal
 > than discussions on whether PKP's patent on RSA is valid or not.
 > In the future, more personal and more important discussions
 > (maybe sci.* groups with prestige similar to that of scientific
 > journals) will crop up.

 Chris Walsh <[email protected]>:

 > Can anyone email me an example of a newsgroup whose traffic was
 > noticeably worsened, S/N ratio wise, by the anon-servers?

 Ron Dippold <[email protected]>:

 > Are you including Depew as an effect of the anon-servers?

 Wes Groleau <[email protected]>

 > Several newsgroups were noticeably worsened by ARMM-5b ("b" for
 > boo-boo) which--as everybody knows--was caused by anon-servers
 > :-)

 Richard E. Depew <[email protected]>:

 > The consensus seems to be that a general anonymous posting service
 > such as that at anon.penet.fi seems sufficiently corrosive of the
 > trust and civility of the net that this particular experiment
 > should be ended.  Perhaps the next time the question comes up we
 > can say: "We tried it - we learned it does more harm than good -
 > and we stopped it."

* * *

This is Part 2 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 <[email protected]>.
All rights reserved.

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.