Danny Amor's Online Library/Danny Amor's Online Library - Volume 1.iso/html/faqs/faq/net-anonymity/part2

Text File | 1995-07-25 | 58.3 KB | 1,398 lines

Subject: Anonymity on the Internet FAQ (2 of 4)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.answers,news.answers
From: [e-mail] (L. Detweiler)
Date: 30 Apr 1994 14:08:35 GMT

Archive-name: net-anonymity/part2
Last-modified: 1993/5/9
Version: 1.0

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

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


<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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > What really galls me is that you don't mention legitimate,
  > RESPONSIBLE uses of anonymity.

  Evan Leibovitch <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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<[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > Let's face it: we are _all_ anonymous to some degree on the Net.

  Matthew P Wiener <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > Anonymity does hinder some methods of controlling other posters'
  > actions.  People who seek such control will naturally oppose it.

  Dan Hoey <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > <sigh>...  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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 [e-mail] is no different than having
  > [e-mail], 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > You didn't find a anonymous userids throughout the Usenet until
  > Johan came along.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > Nope. Anonymous posting sites that existed were set up for a
  > single,  consenting newsgroup. Julf's is the first netwide
  > anonymous site.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > Sorry. I categorically reject this argument. Anonymous postings
  > netwide are a  significant change in the net culture. You will
  > not convince me otherwise.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > The unmoderated groups already accepted ANY sort of posting -
  > including anonymous postings - long before Julf started his
  > server ...

  Karl Kleinpaste <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

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

  > 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'?

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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<[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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?

  <[e-mail]>:

  > I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to
  > hide behind your affiliations.

  Rich Kulawiec <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > Although revelation is generally preferable to anonymity, there
  > are numerous reasons that are sufficiently strong to discredit
  > the "cowardice" thesis.

  Karl Krueger <[e-mail]>:

  > "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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > "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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, [e-mail], 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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?


  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > Weak reasoning.
  > With freedom comes responsibility.

  Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > 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.

  <[e-mail]>:

  > 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 <[e-mail]>:

  > Can anyone email me an example of a newsgroup whose traffic was
  > noticeably worsened, S/N ratio wise, by the anon-servers?

  Ron Dippold <[e-mail]>:

  > Are you including Depew as an effect of the anon-servers?

  Wes Groleau <[e-mail]>

  > Several newsgroups were noticeably worsened by ARMM-5b ("b" for
  > boo-boo) which--as everybody knows--was caused by anon-servers
  > :-)

  Richard E. Depew <[e-mail]>:

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