home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!mnemonic
- From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
- Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
- Message-ID: <1992Dec24.003821.4726@eff.org>
- Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
- Sender: usenet@eff.org (NNTP News Poster)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
- Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
- References: <1992Dec22.231114.17085@eff.org> <1h87qlINN53p@agate.berkeley.edu> <1ham10INNdi5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:38:21 GMT
- Lines: 36
-
- In article <1ham10INNdi5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur) writes:
-
- > My concern is the one that has been expressed about a general
- >attitude by private systems that some seem to have. I personally do not
- >believe that anonymity is a bad thing, even if it leads to a few more
- >colorful conversations than if full accountability were enforced.
-
- This statement in itself suggests a misunderstanding about the WELL:
- as users can attest, there is no shortage of "colorful conversations"
- there.
-
- >Given the recent
- >passage of stalker laws, how soon will it be before having your real
- >name and address (electronic) available to anyone who fingers a system
- >will be considered a security threat?
-
- If your concern is stalkers, you should have no trouble getting anonymity
- from WELL management. In the meantime, ask your system adminstrator to
- limit the information that finger displays.
-
- >If you say these are the situations where the WELL would let
- >someone have a "pseudonymous" account, well and good, but why should a
- >subscriber have to wait to prove they need one?
-
- Who said subscribers have to "prove" anything?
-
-
- --Mike
-
-
-
- --
- Mike Godwin, |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
- mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
- (617) 864-0665 |
- EFF, Cambridge | --Robert Frost
-