Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/internet/aipart3

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 67KB | 1,444 lines

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

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

Compiled by L. Detweiler <[e-mail]>.


<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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > The site admin is [e-mail] ... 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: [e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 "[e-mail]" 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 <[e-mail]>:

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

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

  Karl Kleinpaste <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 ([e-mail]):

  > ...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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

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

  Brad Templeton <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

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

  John Hascall <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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?

  [e-mail] <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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 ([e-mail])

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 ([e-mail])

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

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

  Wes Morgan <[e-mail]>:

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

  Tal Kubo <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 [e-mail] to turn
  > the service back on...
  >
  > Thank you.

  Kate Gregory <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>.
All rights reserved.