Archive-name: net-anonymity/part3
Last-modified: 1994/5/9
Version: 1.0

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

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


<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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > The site admin is [email protected] ... 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: [email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 "[email protected]" 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 <[email protected]>:

 > The following "commandments" were suggested during a discussion on
 > anonymous servers in news.admin.policy; credit, thanx, and
 > appreciation to Laura Lemay <[email protected]>
 >
 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > What this says is that _you_ set the standards for
 > interpretation.

 Karl Kleinpaste <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 ([email protected]):

 > ...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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>

 > Way to go, Julf!  Here is one user you can count on for complete
 > support!

 Brad Templeton <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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.

 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > Good question.  Nobody has decided. I have no definite plan to do
 > this, just wanted the technical data.

 John Hascall <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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.

 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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?

 [email protected] <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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 ([email protected])

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 ([email protected])

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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.

 <[email protected]>:

 > Remember, this is a newsgroup for posters writing about SCIENTIFIC
 > issues. Anonymous discussion of scientific issues leads to bad
 > science.

 Wes Morgan <[email protected]>:

 > I wondered why people would want to post anonymously to technical
 > groups.

 Tal Kubo <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 [email protected] to turn
 > the service back on...
 >
 > Thank you.

 Kate Gregory <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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.

 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[email protected]>:

 > 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 <[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.