NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/7995

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 1.8 KB | 38 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!fig
From: [e-mail] (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:54:20 GMT
Lines: 24

[e-mail] (Roger Maynard) writes:


>Admittedly, I am coming into this thread a little late but why don't you
>simply charge a premium for "pseudonymity".  That way people who genuinely
>desire to remain anonymous could pay for the privilege.  If you make the
>premium high enough then those who desire anonymity on a "whim" will have
>to think twice.

The reason the WELL did not handle it this way when I was managing it is
because cost was not the major consideration.  The major consideration
was the social dynamic.  We molded WELL policy around the comfort of our
users.  Of our vocal and *identifiable* users.

As Mike Godwin said above, the WELL is a commercial service.  It reserves
the right to make (or not make) policies as it sees fit.  Given that,
about the most you can say negatively about its anonymity policy is that
it is "weird".  There is no proof that it is right, wrong, unethical or
exemplary.  It is what it is.
--
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     [e-mail]
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          [phone] (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  [phone] (fax)