NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8560

Text File | 1993-01-10 | 7.3 KB | 145 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!world!mkj
From: [e-mail] (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:53:55 GMT
Lines: 134

>>Everyone always brings up this supposed risk of harm from anonymous
>>users.  I don't get it.  Imagine a BBS whereon everyone uses a
>>pseudonym; how can anyone harm anyone?
>
>Just turn your own example around which started this:
>
>You get into a disagreement with mickey_mouse@bell. MM threatens to
>nail your cat to your door. You don't give it any mind (but you save
>the msg.) You get home that night and there's your cat nailed to the
>door. So you call Bell and say "hey, who is this mickey_mouse guy I
>want to report him/her/it to the police...etc". And they say "damned
>if we know, he's one of those anonymous users you sued us over not
>having last year so we changed our policy."

This is so simple I'm not sure how to make it clearer.  I postulated
a BBS where *everyone* was pseudonymous by default.  If "mickey"
doesn't know who I am, how the hell did he find my address?  (OK,
before some of you ultra-hackers out there decide to show me, I know
there are ways, but the people who are capable of it are rare.)

Furthermore, I never suggested that the system administrators
shouldn't know the users' real names.  In fact, I think most systems
probably should keep a list of the real names -- on a secure offline
system, available only in case of emergency or a legal warrant.
What they definitely should NOT do is to broadcast the information
to the whole @#$%&*! network as a matter of policy!

Now, if I decide on my own to use my real name on the nets, that's
my problem, nobody else's.  But if a system encourages or entices or
pressures people into that kind of exposure -- for example, by
inviting people to use the system, perhaps even advertising or
promoting it, and then imposing a real-name policy without insuring
that new users know all the ramifications -- then the system becomes
at least partially responsible for any unfortunate results.  That's
my whole thesis in a nutshell.

>So we just give in and encourage a paranoid society where no one dare
>let anyone know who s/he is?

It's not a question of letting "anyone" know; it's a question of
letting EVERYONE know!  Remember, there's something like 20,000
readers in many newsgroups; the last time I looked at Brian Reid's
stats, the most popular groups were each seen by over 200,000 peo-
ple!  In an audience that large, you are bound to find examples of
every personality type: agents of various governments, religious
fanatics, the mentally ill, con artists, assorted nuts and predators
et al ad infinitum.  When you post here under your real name, you
are handing out potential invitations to ALL of them!  As a recent
tagline noted, total paranoia is total clarity.

Celebrities and other media professionals give up a lot of privacy
in exchange for the rewards of their careers, but even they retain
the right to use stage names and to try to protect their real iden-
tities, their homes and families, as best they can.  Amateur confer-
ence participants should have at least as much right to do the same.

Al Pacino has a good line in his newest flick; something like,
"There are two kinds of people in this world, those who run and
hide, and those who stand up and face the music.  Hiding is better".

>I'm not sure I buy your equation of anonymity with privacy. I don't
>believe we can run a society where one's personal security hangs
>entirely on their anonymity, and that's what you are really saying.
>Oh, some things, surely I don't want people to know everything about
>me, and I want to keep channels for that info controlled (e.g. the
>whole flap about the videotapes that congressman rented.)

You are right on the money, and this rapidly becomes a very deep
subject.  I don't have all the answers.  But consider the role the
networks are likely to play in our future -- banking, entertainment,
purchases, personal communications, things we can't even dream of.
Widespread personality profiling will become automated, cheap and
ubiquitous.  How will we maintain the privacy of even our innermost
thoughts, unless we can shield ourselves with anonymity here?

Moreover, I think you are wrong if you think that we can keep the
channels for ANY info controlled in the absence of anonymity.  They
certainly aren't controlled now, and the "privacy legislation" that
everyone is clamoring for will provide little but a false sense of
security.  This may be why the info bureaus support it.

But there are rational ways to run a society with a substantial
amount of anonymity.  David Chaum's article in a recent Scientific
American (Aug 92?) on an anonymous transaction protocol, using
"smart cards" and public encryption and signature techniques, is a
good example.  Will society ever actually adopt such protections?  I
doubt it, but I'm not ready to entirely give up.

>I think tho what you are actually talking about is FREE anonymity. Do
>you agree that you can have all the anonymity you want *at a price*?
>
>Perhaps anonymity as you describe is merely a commodity, and the only
>real issue here is that you believe its cost is too high (yet you
>certainly seem to recognize its value)?

Perhaps the question is whether we will commoditize privacy on the
nets or anywhere else.  It is certainly valuable, and as its value
becomes better known, there will be those who will attempt to sell
it.  We should evaluate what is in the best interests of society.

Currently, privacy does not seem to be available for any monetary
price.  The only people who have any privacy left are those who do
not participate normally in society, i.e. minors, the homeless,
criminals, etc.

>>it true in general that a merchant who sells sexually explicit
>>material, or any other prohibited material (such as cigarettes), to
>>a minor is liable, even if the minor misrepresents him/herself?
>
>Yes, but that is exactly the distinction I was drawing, that's why I
>used the example of sending in a subscription card to an explicit
>magazine. I believe there is some distinction that in the case of a
>retailer s/he can plainly see that the person is (or might be) a
>minor, while in the case of certain types of mail-order one recognizes
>that it's just not that easy. If anything I would tend to use that as
>an argument to ease up on the retailer's responsibility

Once again, if we make it that easy for merchants to sidestep their
responsibilities, there is no sense trying at all.  If a liquor or
cigarette or adult book merchant wants to sell to minors, by your
logic he could just hire a blind clerk, or set up his business in
some way to easily sidestep the responsibility.  If the legal re-
sponsibilities of a merchant are worth creating in the first place,
it is certainly worth enforcing them better than this.

>P.S. Point of Information - It is true that Compuserve is basically
>anonymous, right?

I've heard that you can finger people on Compuserve, and get their
real names that way, but I've never tried it.  Dunno.

                                   ---  mkj