Archive-name: net-anonymity/part2 Last-modified: 1994/5/9 Version: 1.0 ANONYMITY on the INTERNET ========================= Compiled by L. Detweiler . <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 : > 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 : > 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 : > What really galls me is that you don't mention legitimate, > RESPONSIBLE uses of anonymity. Evan Leibovitch : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > Some argue that the opinions of the people who hide behind a veil > of anonymity are worthless, and that people should own up to > their thoughts. I agree with the latter point - in an ideal > world we would all be sitting around engaging in Socratic > dialogues, freely exchanging our opinions in an effort to > learn. But in an ideal world nobody will threaten you for your > thoughts, or ridicule you. > > But we live in a world where the people who don't agree with you > may try to harm you. Let's face it, some people aren't going to > agree with your opinion no matter how logically you try to > present it, or how reasoned out it may be. This is sad since it > does restrict people from voicing their opinions. <00acearl@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>: > Instead of making this a "free-er medium" by allowing posters to > "protect themselves" with anonymity, simply require that all > posters be prepared to discuss their sources of information and > take the heat for unsubstantiated dribble. This seems to be the > way things are currently done; Melinda Shore : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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: > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 > 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 : > 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. : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > Let's face it: we are _all_ anonymous to some degree on the Net. Matthew P Wiener : > 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 : > 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. : > Anonymity does hinder some methods of controlling other posters' > actions. People who seek such control will naturally oppose it. Dan Hoey : > 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 : > 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 : > ... 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. : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 > 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 : > 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 : > People have said that anonymous posting netwide is something new. > This is garbage; such things have existed as long as I've been on > the Net (about 3 years). BBS systems and local dialin systems do > little verification. There are, as someone pointed out, several > freely accessible NNTP servers out there, and it takes very > little to hack your new program to fake everthing you want in the > headers (Good lord, look at the group list in alt sometimes!). > Having an1234@anon.penet.fi is no different than having > foo@bar.com, when bar.com is a dialin; all you can do is send > mail to the user and the site admin to bitch, and the odds are > the site admin won't do anything. > > So far, I've not seen a single convincing argument that the > "status quo" of the Net was changed by anon.penet.fi going up. > anon.penet.fi is just another site ... Michael Stoodt : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > You didn't find a anonymous userids throughout the Usenet until > Johan came along. : > 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 : > 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 : > Nope. Anonymous posting sites that existed were set up for a > single, consenting newsgroup. Julf's is the first netwide > anonymous site. : > 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 : > Sorry. I categorically reject this argument. Anonymous postings > netwide are a significant change in the net culture. You will > not convince me otherwise. : > The unmoderated groups already accepted ANY sort of posting - > including anonymous postings - long before Julf started his > server ... Karl Kleinpaste : > 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 : > There have _always_, so far as I can tell, been innapropriate and > offensive postings to newsgroups. (And, as I've pointed out from > my particular experience, these postings are usually from > non-anonymous users (non-anonymous in the sense that there is no > instantly-obvious giveaway eddress like an.id@anon.server). They > didn't start with anonymous servers, they'll continue without it. > > The best thing you can do to flamers is ignore them. Richard Depew 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'? : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 > 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 : > 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: > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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? : > I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to > hide behind your affiliations. Rich Kulawiec : > 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 > 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 : > Although revelation is generally preferable to anonymity, there > are numerous reasons that are sufficiently strong to discredit > the "cowardice" thesis. Karl Krueger : > "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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 > 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. : > 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 : > 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. : > 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 : > 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 : > "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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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. : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi, does > not soon block anonymous postings to the "sci" hierarchy, then I > will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" > script that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his > server. ... > > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this. I have not > read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they > were out of line in any way other than being anonymous. > > You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post to > the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal > Moderation" is in effect: > > *1 convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default > settings for different hierarchies. I promise to turn off the > ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything > reasonably responsive). Lasse Hiller|e Petersen : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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? : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > 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 : > Weak reasoning. > With freedom comes responsibility. Dave Hayes : > 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 : > 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 : > 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. : > 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 : > Can anyone email me an example of a newsgroup whose traffic was > noticeably worsened, S/N ratio wise, by the anon-servers? Ron Dippold : > Are you including Depew as an effect of the anon-servers? Wes Groleau > Several newsgroups were noticeably worsened by ARMM-5b ("b" for > boo-boo) which--as everybody knows--was caused by anon-servers > :-) Richard E. Depew : > 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 . All rights reserved.