Subject: Anonymity on the Internet FAQ (1 of 4)
Supersedes: <net-anonymity/part1_765886103@rtfm.mit.edu>
Date: 30 Apr 1994 14:08:30 GMT
Expires: 4 Jun 1994 14:07:33 GMT
X-Last-Updated: 1993/05/13

Archive-name: net-anonymity/part1
Version: 1.0


(c) Copyright 1993 L. Detweiler.  Not for commercial use except by
  permission from author, otherwise may be freely copied. Not to be
  altered.  Please credit if quoted.

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

Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.


Anonymizing
-----------

<1.1> What are some known anonymous remailing and posting sites?
<1.2> What are the responsibilities associated with anonymity?
<1.3> How do I `kill' anonymous postings?
<1.4> How is anonymous `whistleblowing' being explored?
<1.5> Why is anonymity such a problem?
<1.6> What is the history behind anonymous servers?

History
-------

<2.1> What happened with the Kleinpaste anonymous server?
<2.2> What happened with the Clunie anonymous server?
<2.3> What happened with the Helsingius server (hiatus, shutdown)?
<2.4> What is the ``Helsingius-Kleinpaste Conflict''?
<2.5> What did the (in)famous Helsingius user an8785 do (pre-Depew)?
<2.6> What happened between (in)famous user an8785 and R. Depew?
<2.7> What was the Depew-ARMM Censorship Incident?
<2.8> What was the Second Depew-ARMM Fiasco?
<2.9> What was Richard Depew's inspiration for ARMM?

* * *


ANONYMIZING
===========


_____
<1.1> What are some known anonymous remailing and posting sites?

  Currently the most stable of anonymous remailing and posting sites
  is anon.penet.fi operated by julf@penet.fi for several months, who
  has system adminstrator privileges and owns the equipment. 
  Including anonymized mail, Usenet posting, and return addresses 
  (no encryption).  Send mail to help@anon.penet.fi for information.
 
  Hal Finney has contributed an instruction manual for the cypherpunk
  remailers on the ftp site soda.berkeley.edu (128.32.149.19):
  pub/cypherpunks/hal's.instructions. See also scripts.tar.Z (UNIX
  scripts to aid remailer use) and anonmail.arj (MSDOS batch files to
  aid remailer use).

  Standard cypherpunk remailers allow unlimited chaining by including
  `::' characters in the message to denote nested headers.  The
  intermediate host strips this from the message body and uses fields
  (particularly the to: destination) in the new message header. See
  the Finney manual for more information.
  

  ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
  -----------------------------
    Anonymized mail.  Request information from above address.
    
  elee7h5@rosebud.ee.uh.edu
  -------------------------
    Experimental anonymous remailer run Karl Barrus
    <elee9sf@Menudo.UH.EDU>, with encryption to the server.  Request
    information from that address.
    
  hal@alumni.caltech.edu
  ----------------------
    Experimental remailer with encryption to server and return
    addresses.  Request information from above address.

  hh@soda.berkeley.edu
  hh@cicada.berkeley.edu
  hh@pmantis.berkeley.edu
  ----------------------
    Experimental remailer.  Include header `Request-Remailing-To'.

  nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu 
  ----------------------
    Experimental remailer allowing indefinite levels of chaining.  Run
    by Chael Hall.  Request information from above address.

  phantom@mead.u.washington.edu 
  -----------------------------
    Experimental remailer with encryption to server.  `finger' site
    address for information.

  Notes
  =====
  
  - Cypherpunk remailers tend to be unstable because they are often
    running without site administrator knowledge. Liability issues
    are wholly unresolved. Generally don't support return addresses.
  
  - So far, all encryption is based on public-key cryptography and PGP
    software (see the question on cryptography). 

  - Encryption aspects (message text, destination address, replies)
    vary between sites.

  - Multiple chaining, alias unlinking, and address encryption are
    mostly untested, problematic, or unsupported at this time.

_____
<1.2> What are the responsibilities associated with anonymity?

  
  Users
  -----

  - Use anonymity only if you have to. Frivolous uses weaken the
    seriousness and usefulness of the capability for others.
  - Do not use anonymity to provoke, harass, or threaten others.
  - Do not hide behind anonymity to evade established conventions on
    Usenet,  such as posting binary pictures to regular newsgroups.
  - If posting large files, be attentive to bandwidth considerations.
    Remember, simply sending the posting to the service increases
    network traffic.
  - Avoid posting anonymously to the regular hierarchy of Usenet; this
    is the mostly likely place to alienate readers. The `alt'
    hierarchy is preferred.
  - Give as much information as possible in the posting (i.e.
    references, etc.) Remember that content is the only means for
    readers to judge the truth of the message, and that any
    inaccuracies will tend to discredit the entire message and even
    future ones under the same handle.
  - Be careful not to include information that will reveal your
    identity or enable someone to deduce it.  Test the system by
    sending anonymized mail to yourself.
  - Be aware of the policies of the anonymous site and respect them. 
    Be prepared to forfeit your anonymity if you abuse the privilege.
    Be careful that you can trust the system operator.
  - Be considerate and respectful of other's objections to anonymity.
  - ``Hit-and-run'' anonymity should be used with utmost reservation.
    Use services that provide anonymous return addresses instead.
  - Be courteous to the system operator, who may have invested large
    amounts of time, be personally risking his account, or dedicating
    his hardware, all for your convenience.

  Operators
  ---------

  - Document thoroughly acceptable and unacceptable uses in an
    introductory file that is sent to new users.  Have a coherent and
    consistent policy and stick to it. State clearly what logging and
    monitoring is occurring. Describe your background, interest, and
    security measures. Will the general approach be totalitarian or
    lassaiz-faire?
  - Formulate a plan for problematic ethical situations and anticipate
    potentially intense moral quandaries and dilemmas. What if a user
    is blackmailing someone through your service? What if a user
    posts suicidal messages through your service? Remember, your
    users trust you and use your service to protect their identities.
  - In the site introductory note, give clear examples  of situations
    where you will take action and what these actions will be (e.g.
    warn the user, limit anonymity to email or posting only, revoke
    the account, 'out' the user, contact local administrator, etc.)
  - Describe exactly the limitations of the software and hardware.
    Address the bandwidth limitations of your site. Report candidly
    and thoroughly all bugs that have  occurred.  Work closely with
    users to isolate and fix bugs. Address all bugs noted below under
    ``(in)stability of anonymity''.
  - Document the stability of the site---how long has it been running?
    What compromises have occured? Why are you running it? What is
    your commitment to it?
  - Include a disclaimer in outgoing mail and messages. Include an
    address for complaints, ideally appended to every outgoing item. 
    Consult a lawyer about your liability.
  - Be committed to the long-term stability of the site. Be prepared
    to deal with complaints and `hate mail' addressed to you.  If you
    do not own the hardware the system runs on or are not the system
    adminstrator, consult those who do and are.
  - Be considerate of providing anonymity to various groups.  If
    possible, query group readers.
  - Keep a uniformity and simplicity of style in outgoing message
    format that can be screened effectively by kill files.  Ensure
    the key text `Anon' is  somewhere in every header.
  - Take precautions to ensure the security of the server from
    physical and  network-based attacks and infiltrations.

  Readers
  -------
  
  - Do not complain, attack, or discredit a poster for the sole reason
    that he is posting anonymously, make blanket condemnations that
    equate anonymity with cowardice and criminality, or assail
    anonymous traffic in general for mostly neutral reasons (e.g. its
    volume is heavy or increasing).
  - React to the anonymous information unemotionally. Abusive posters
    will be encouraged further if they get irrationally irate
    responses.  Sometimes the most effective response is silence.
  - Notify operators if very severe abuses occur, such as piracy,
    harassment, extortion, etc.
  - Do not complain about postings being inappropriate because they
    offend you personally.
  - Use kill files to screen anonymous postings if you object to the
    idea of anonymity itself.
  - Avoid the temptation to proclaim that all anonymous postings
    should be barred from particular groups because no `possible' or
    `conceivable' need exists.

  References
  ----------
  
  See e.g. ftp.eff.org:/pub/academic/anonymity:

  > This article is an excerpt from an issue of FIDONEWS on individual
  > privacy and the use of handles. It accepts the need of a system
  > operator to know the name of a user; but suggests that the use of
  > a handle is analogous to a request to withhold the name in a
  > letter to the editor. The article concludes with a set of
  > guidelines for preserving the right to be anonymous.

_____
<1.3> How do I `kill' anonymous postings?

  James Thomas Green <jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu>:

  > Try putting this in your kill file:
  >  
  >  /Anon/h:j
  >  /Anonymous/h:j
  > 
  > This will search the headers of the messages and kill any that
  > contain `Anon' or `Anonymous' in them.  Not perfect and won't
  > kill followups. 
  
  Note that anonymous server operators have the capability to mask
  anonymous postings under which the above method will not work; so
  far this practice is not widespread, but it may become more common
  as a countermeasure to widespread anonymous filtering.
  

_____
<1.4> How is anonymous `whistleblowing' being explored?

    Recently the idea of a newsgroup devoted to `whistleblowing' or
    exposing government and commercial abuses has received wide and
    focused attention, and group formation is currently underway.  In
    the basic scenario the group would allow people to post
    pseudonymously using remailers, and even establish reputations
    based on their authentifiable digital signatures. The traffic may
    eventually reach reporters in the mainstream news media. 
    deltorto@aol.com has volunteered to attack multiple aspects of this
    project, including distributing easy-to-read documentation on
    posting, anonymization, and encryption.
  
    A visible trend in the government initiated by the Clinton
    administration is encouraging many aspects of an `electronic
    democracy' or `modemocracy'. See ``White House lets you turn on
    your PC, tune in to politics,'' March 18 1993 New York Times.
  
_____
<1.5> Why is anonymity such a problem?

  
  Anonymity so far has tended to further polarize existing
  distinctions in existing Usenet traffic. For example, serious uses
  such as sexual abuse counseling in newsgroups have increased. One
  psychotherapist reportedly objected to restrictions on anonymity
  because he was in the process of exploring it as a theurapeutic
  tool for his patients, and criticized people seeking restrictions
  on its availability. Many previously obscure aspects of Usenet and
  the internet have come under sharp scrutiny with the introduction
  of new capabilities for anonymity.
  
  Harrassment & Censorship
  ------------------------
  
  Frivolous and harassing cases have increased with the introduction
  of  widespread and accessable anonymity. Usenet readers seem to
  become most agitated and enraged when people use these services to
  post messages aimed at insulting or offending specifically the
  members of groups where they are posted. For example, a poster
  might describe ways of attacking cats on the cat-lovers group.
  (note however that these messages appeared long before the services
  through forging, but the servers tend to make it easier and almost
  encourage it). These instances tend to live on in the memories of
  the readers long after the original poster has been silenced from
  complaints (either simply leaving or being censored by local
  administrators in response to negative email).  In this way, the
  services are particularly attractive to `sociopaths'.  Perhaps
  somewhat unexpectedly, the most vocal public opposition is against
  anonymous posting, and anonymous remailing has generally avoided
  much controversy to date.
  
  Foreign Sites
  -------------
  
  Although every global anonymous posting site to date has come under
  extremely severe fire from hordes of network administrators, i.e.
  enough to shut them down (semi-) permanently, still the longest
  running one (anon.penet.fi, located in Finland) is foreign, a
  situation which D. Clunie notes as particularly ironic in that
  foreign countries appear to be embracing a medium for freedom of
  speech  more enthusiastically than and contrary to the general
  conservatism and opposition at U.S. sites. Another oft-noted irony
  (or to some, hypocrisy) arises with people who complain about news
  posters and anonymous sites, who generally prefer to do so `behind
  the scenes'; i.e. anonymously. In fact, the death of major sites
  (e.g. the Clunie and Helsingius servers) has left the operators
  concealing the identities of their attackers.
  
  Intrinsic Popularity
  --------------------
  
  The existence and popularity of anonymous servers suggest they are
  filling a definite vacuum.   Future news software may incorporate
  some of their mechanisms for untraceability. In fact, the
  proliferation of these servers can be interpreted as a remedying a
  deficiency in news software to easily post anonymous messages. The
  idea of routing messages to an intermediate, distant host simply to
  remove identifying headers and preserve anonymity, under fragile
  trust of the site operator, is clearly awkward, unwieldy, and
  unnecessary. That such tortuous paths are taken regularly by many
  users and maintained by dedicated and conscientious operators,
  despite enormous costs, chores, and headaches, suggests that the
  demand is strong, persistent, and permanent---a definite `need'.
  
  U.S. Taboos
  -----------
  
  The anonymous server software itself can be run anywhere, but
  apparently extremely few system operators have the latitude to run
  anonymous services from their connection providers, and the
  atmosphere arising from U.S. agency policies and actions may be
  generally hostile to these services. These restrictions are
  generally somewhat informal and concealed, and fall mostly in the
  form ``if a lot of people complain then you aren't allowed to do
  it.'' The Internet started as a research network and the tension
  between 'serious' scientific aims and informal ones has raged
  endlessly since its inception.  A global patchwork of network
  jurisdictions tends to favor both sides. Pressure can be applied to
  local sites that generally are weak in opposition to admonishments.
  On the other hand, messages can reach a given destination over a
  wide variety of paths where only one is necessary.
  
  Authentication Trends
  ---------------------
  
  However, the trend in some news software development has moved
  toward increasing user validation, suggesting a fundamental
  disparity in evolved designer and user expectations. In fact,
  Usenet reader and news administrator opinions have been
  consistently divided on the issue with those in the former category
  largely in favor of the services and unlimited use, while those in
  the latter often demanding limited availability or gradual, formal
  approaches to introduction (newsgroup readers vote on acceptance). 
  New proposals to facilitate the use distinctions of `serious,
  authenticated articles' and `informal, unverifiable posts' have
  emerged, and future Usenet software may integrate these
  complementary uses more harmoniously by differentiating them more
  explicitly.
  

_____
<1.6> What is the history behind anonymous servers?
 

  The functions of anonymous posting vs. anonymous remailing are
  closely intertwined but on the Internet followed independent lines
  of historical development. Anonymous mailing has always been
  intrinsic to the internet SMTP mechanisms (Simple Mail Transfer
  Protocol).  Formalized anonymous remailer functions, including
  encryption mechanisms, apparently originate with the Cypherpunk
  group started in mid-1992. The function of anonymous remailers has
  been compared to a device called the `cheesebox' that was invented
  during the Prohibition era in the U.S.  Phil Karn
  <karn@servo.qualcomm.com> writes: ``The `cheesebox' was a popular
  means to thwart telephone call tracing. It connected two lines in
  the back of an uninvolved business. It was the conceptual
  predecessor of today's anonymous email remailer.'' 

  Originally anonymous posting/reply services (also called Anonymous
  Contact Service, ACS), were introduced for individual, particularly
  volatile newsgroups, where anonymity is almost the preferred method
  of communication, such as talk.abortion and alt.sex.bondage.  One
  of the first was one by Dave Mack started in ~1988 for
  alt.sex.bondage. Another early one was wizvax.methuen.ma.us run by
  Stephanie Gilgut (Gilgut Enterprises) but was disbanded due to 
  lack of funds.  The system provided anonymous return addresses.
  n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) took up the functions of this server,
  including reinstating the anonymous alias file. The group
  ``alt.personals has been chewing through servers like there's no
  tomorrow.'' (K. Kleinpaste)
  
  With the introduction of the Clunie and Helsingius servers, the
  complementary functions of remailing and posting were unified into
  single servers. The idea of pseudonymous posting (the capability
  for not just one-way communication but responses and two-way
  dialog) carried naturally over to email.

  The history of anonymous servers on the internet is strewn with
  characters and casualties, particularly with the unprecedented
  globally-serving type, which are revolutionary in some aspects and
  merely evolutionary (or even stationary) in others. Subsequent
  questions address specific aspects of the history of this type of
  anonymous server.
  

HISTORY
=======


_____
<2.1> What happened with the Kleinpaste anonymous server?


  Spurred by the disappearance of `wizvax' and interested in
  researching the idea, Karl Kleinpaste
  <Karl_Kleinpaste@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu> developed his own system
  from scratch in six hours. By this time the idea of extending the
  server to new, more `mainstream'  groups was starting to emerge,
  and he explored the possibility partly at the specific request  by
  multiple users for anonymity in other groups. ``The intended
  advantage of my system was specifically to allow multiple group
  support, with a single anon identifier across all.  This was
  arguably the single biggest deficiency of previous anon systems.'' 
  K. Kleinpaste posted a message on rec.nude asking users whether an
  anonymous service would be welcome there, and judged a consensus
  against it. 

  K. Kleinpaste introduced what he calls a ``fire extinguisher'' to
  `squelch' or `plonk' abusive users in response to complaints, and
  used this in three cases. Nevertheless, after a few months of
  intense traffic he was eventually overwhelmed by the abuses of his
  server. ``Even as restricted as it was, my system was subjected to
  abuses to the point where it was ordered dismantled by the
  facilities staff here. Such abuses started right after it was
  created.''

  K. Kleinpaste reestablished his server in ~April 1993 with a very 
  large usage policy forbidding many uses. Mr. Kleinpaste frequently
  refers to `abusers' publicly and his guidelines for their removal
  or  exposure.

  Thanks to Carl Kleinpaste 
  <Karl_Kleinpaste@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu> for contributions here.


_____
<2.2> What happened with the Clunie anonymous server?

  An innovative anonymous posting system with sophisticated
  functionality was set up in Oct. 1992 by D. Clunie
  <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au> that used PGP software for public-key
  cryptography in both directions (to/from) the server to achieve the
  highest degree of confidentiality seen so far. However, a major
  complaint originating from an unidentified but critical U.S. site
  (presumably one involved in the link) in ~Jan 1993 led to an
  ultimatum to D. Clunie, forcing him to shut down operation after
  only a few months.

  The letter alluded to a heavy volume of traffic associated with the
  anonymous server, potentially dominating the limited available
  communications bandwidth, and elevating  its expense beyond the
  justifiable (the half circuit cost of the  link is reportedly over
  $1 million per year).   The pax.tpa.com.au site is based in
  Australia and the bandwidth of the AARNet Internet link for the
  entire continent at the time of the server operation was 500
  megabits/sec, roughly half the capacity of local area network
  Ethernet connections.  Nevertheless Mr. Clunie states that the
  ``small load on the server never approached `dominating the
  bandwidth','' branding that point of the complaint  ``largely
  theoretical and unsupported by any statistics.''  
  
  A part of the letter is as follows (Mr. Clunie quotes the letter
  anonymously):

  > They allow people all over the internet to send mail through a
  > filter that replaces the user's real address with an anonymous
  > address on their machine.  This results in additional traffic
  > (mail going from the US, to Australia, and back to the us, and
  > one more time around for replies) on the Pacific link which is
  > congested, and it's not clear what legitimate use an anonymous
  > mail forwarding facility would have.  In other words, it loads up
  > the link, and hides people's identities so they can't be
  > responsible for what they say.  Not the best situation to have.

  Commenting on the letter, D. Clunie wrote ``I can't complain about
  the traffic issue, though I take exception to the criticism of
  anonymous mail forwarding.  I was not in a position to argue ... as
  my feed site was threatened with disconnection if the service was
  not terminated.'' Mr. Clunie later released his software into the
  public domain, and comments on the Helsingius server:


  Thanks to David Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au> for contributions
  here.
  
_____
<2.3> What happened with the Helsingius server (hiatus, shutdown)?

  In ~Nov 1992, Johan Helsingius (julf@penet.FI) set up the most
  controversial anonymous site to date. anon.penet.fi is based on
  scripts and C code written by K. Kleinpaste and supports anonymized
  mail, posting, and return addresses. He initially wanted to confine
  the service to Scandinavian users but expanded it to worldwide
  accessability in response to 'lots' of international requests.
  Mr. Helsingius comments:

  > 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. 
  
  J. Helsingius policy of allowing anonymous posting to every Usenet
  newsgroup has been met with strong and serious ideological
  opposition (e.g. by news adminstrators in news.admin.policy).
  Because of the relative newness and recent emergence of the medium,
  abuses by anonymous posters tend to have higher visibility than
  ``routine'' abuses. His total commitment to preservation of
  anonymity is also controversial.

  Despite piercingly irate and outraged complaints, and even the vocal
  opposition and verbal abuse of K. Kleinpaste and eminent news
  operators, J. Helsingius has largely avoided use of the ``fire
  extingisher'' and the ``group bouncer'' mechanisms that limit the
  scope of the service. As of ~March 1993 the anon.penet.fi site is
  best described as `inundated': it has registered over 13,000 users
  in its initial three months of operation, forwards ~3000 messages a
  day, and approximately 5% of all Usenet postings are anonymized
  through the site. The immense popularity is probably largely due
  to the capability for `global' anonymity which has allowed users to
  find creative uses in diverse areas not previously envisioned.

  Based on fast-moving dialogue and creative suggestions by members of
  the `cypherpunks' group, J. Helsingius has identified many security
  weaknesses and valuable new features for the service, and is
  currently in the process of code development and testing. He is
  planning on upgrading the IBM compatible 386 machine to a 486 soon
  to handle the voluminous load and is  considering integrating a new
  system with very sophisticated functionality, including multiple
  email aliases, alias allocation control, public-key encryption,
  etc.

  Week-long Hiatus 
  ----------------

  Johan Helsingius was  subject to extraordinary pressure to dismantle
  his server in ~Feb 1993. At one point K. Kleinpaste threatened
  publicly to organize a sort of vigilante group of irate news
  operators to  send out revocation commands on all messages
  originating from the site.
  
  > 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 a**! 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.
  >
  > 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.
  
  J. Helsingius has also alluded to receiving threats of flooding
  the server. The server has crashed several times, at least once
  due to a saturation `mailbombing' through it by an anonymous
  user. Mr. Helsingius reports spending up to 5 hours per
  day answering email requests alone associated with the service's
  administration. In response to the serious threats such as that
  above he disabled global group access temporarily for one week and
  encouraged his users to defend the service publicly.  But he has
  generally eschewed public debate on Usenet in general, preferring
  that his users publicize and defend it; and news.admin.policy in
  particular, stating that he considers it predominantly
  representative of the biased interests of  news administrators
  interested in `centralized control'.

  Global Shutdown
  ---------------

  At the end of March 1993 Mr. Helsingius posted a solemn note on
  several newsgroups announcing the dismantling of anonymous posting
  service from his site (while retaining remailing features), stating
  that ``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.'' He also blamed a ``miniscule minority'' of
  ``immature and thoughtless individuals (mainly users from U.S.
  universities),'' for ``abuse of the network'' that ``caused much
  aggravation and negative feelings toward the service.''  He noted
  that at the time of shutdown the service was forwarding 3500
  messages per day on the average from many thousands of users, with
  postings to 576 newsgroups, receiving complaints involving postings
  from 57 individuals. (anon.penet.fi  statistics on number of actual
  users are controversial because of the site's `double-blind' system
  that automatically anonymizes replies to anonymous messages,
  possibly inflating the statistics with  irregular or uncommitted
  users.)

  Mr. Helsingius voiced apologies to ``users on the network who have
  suffered from the abusive misuse of the server'' and the ``whole
  net community'' for ``keeping a far too low profile on the network,
  preferring to deal with the abuse cases privately instead of making
  strong public statements,'' regretting the lack of a ``publicly
  visible display of policy with regards to the abuse cases.''  At
  the same time, he noted that ``I am deeply concerned by the fact
  that the strongest opposition to the service... came from network
  administrators.''

  Shortly after posting his public apology and shutdown notice Mr. 
  Helsingius reported receiving over 350 messages of ``overwhelming
  support'' in favor of resuming the service and 6 against which have
  ``vastly improved my chances of resuming full operation''.
  Currently  he has resumed service to a subset of newsgroups.  He
  expressed his desire to re-establish the full service with
  sophisticated new features, commended efforts by other operators to
  start their own servers but warned of the policy of some to who
  ``feel the best way to deal with abusers is to expose them to the
  net'' in spite of his own stance that ``public stocks belong to the
  middle ages.''

  Prominent system operator Jon Noring <noring@netcom.com> claimed to
  have traded email with the ``well-known and highly regarded net
  personality'' Mr. Helsingius cited as paramount in creating a
  politically hostile situation to the server.  Mr. Noring posted
  some edited excerpts from `somebody':

  > Despite what you may have heard, I did not play a "major" role --
  > I sent one mail message to Julf urging him to shut the service
  > down.  I did what any other person with knowledge of the net
  > might do, too -- I cc'd the administrator of his service
  > provider.  The shutdown occurred because of some interaction
  > between Julf and the admins -- probably aided by mail from other
  > objectors.  I played no active role in the events.
  > 
  > I am drowning in a backlog of work, so I can't go into all the
  > details here, nor am I particularly interested in entering into a
  > long debate -- the bandwidth is too low and my time is too
  > constrained.  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.
  > 
  > 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 have seen neighbors and friends come under
  > great suspicion and hardship because of anonymous notes claiming
  > they used drugs or abused children.  I have seen too many
  > historical accounts of witch-hunts, secret tribunals, and pogroms
  > -- all based on anonymous accusations.  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.  You will not find the recipients of anonymous mail
  > being the supporters of such a proposal.  If the only people who
  > would support the idea are those who might use it, is it proper?

  The identity of `somebody' has never been publicly revealed to date
  due to the anonymity preserved by Noring, Helsingius, and others.

  Thanks to Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi> for contributions here.

_____
<2.4> What is the ``Helsingius-Kleinpaste Conflict''?
  
  K. Kleinpaste and J. Helsingius were involved in a private and 
  public schism based on their views of anonymous servers and the
  proper role of the operator in management an in many ways is
  illustrative of the underlying roots of controversy on the issue. 
  J. Helsingius was generally in favor of no content-based
  restrictions on the server. K. Kleinpaste shut down his server
  because of strong revulsion at some of these uses.  Mr. Helsingius
  increased his control over the server partly in response to
  highly-publicized `abuses' and uproar among administrators. Mr.
  Helsingius continues his strong  commitment to preserving anonymity
  in all cases (once hinting in  introductory material he would do so
  even in the face of a legal warrant), whereas Mr. Kleinpaste has
  expressed interest in publicly exposing users he identifies as
  abusers.  The pair differ in their views on the proper role of
  the site administrator's responsibilities toward other site
  administrators, with Mr. Helsingius favoring a low-profile policy,
  minimal `official' publicity, and independence from other operators
  interested in imposing `centralized control'.  Mr. Kleinpaste in
  contrast favors official announcements of server operations,
  publicity of offenses, and compromise on scope and function among
  the community consensus of news operators.

  The overall issue essentially addresses the role of the  anonymous
  server operator and degree of control s/he should exercise, with
  Mr. Helsingius in favor of virtually no restrictions and minimal 
  operator intervention, and Mr. Kleinpaste in favor of a wide
  variety of restrictions and penalties, perhaps developed with
  deference to consensus, but ultimately chosen and  administered
  under the personal  judgement of the site operator.  The issue was
  historically intensified by Mr. Helsingius' modifications  of Mr.
  Kleinpaste's software.  The conflict is also to a large degree
  analogous to views on Usenet operation, with some in favor of an
  anarchic, free, decentralized system and others in favor of more
  regulated mechanisms to ensure `accountability' and penalize
  `abuse'.

  Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kleinpaste):
  
  > Funny, how beating the rest of the Usenet over the head with a
  > stick is OK if it's anon.penet.fi and universal anon access.  But
  > somehow people on the other side of the same equation (not even
  > arguing to shut it off entirely, but rather just to have some
  > control applied to the abuses that manifest themselves) aren't
  > allowed to do that.
  >
  > Why is it that everybody else has to put up with the impoliteness
  > and insensitivity of the misuse of anon.penet.fi? Whose
  > definitions of "polite" and "sense" apply, and why? Why is
  > universal anon access considered to be within the realm of this
  > fuzzy concept of "politeness" in the first place?
  > 
  > I think Johan has long since crossed the line into being a rude
  > b******!, and I told him so in private mail a little while ago.
  > 
  > At this point, I deeply regret [a] having created an anonymous
  > system supporting >1 newsgroup and [b] having given the code to
  > Johan.  I didn't copyright it, but I thought that some concept of
  > politeness and good sense might follow it to new
  > homes.  Interesting that Johan's ideas of politeness and good
  > sense seem to have nearly no interesection with mine. I could
  > even cope with universal anon access _if_ Johan would be willing
  > to engage in abuse control, but somehow that seems to be outside
  > the range of reality...

  julf@penet.fi (Johan Helsingius):
  
  > There is no way for me to convey how sad and upset your message
  > made me. I do, to some extent, understand your feelings, but it
  > still feels really bad. Running the server requires getting used
  > to a lot of flames, but mindlessly abusive hate mail is so much
  > easier to deal with than something like this, as I do respect and
  > value your views and opinions to a high degree. No, I'm not
  > asking for sympathy, I just wanted you to know that I am really
  > giving your views quite a lot of weight.
  > 
  > When I asked for the software, I was actually only going to
  > provide the service to scandinavian users. But a lot of people
  > requested that I keep the service open to the international
  > community. I now realize that I ought to have contacted you at
  > that point to ask how you feel about me using your stuff in such
  > a context. Again, I really want to apologise. And I will replace
  > the remaining few pieces of code thet still stem from your
  > system. Unfortunately there is no way to remove the ideas and
  > structure I got from you.
  > 
  > Again, I am really sorry that the results of your work ended up
  > being used in a way that you don't approve of. And I will be
  > giving a lot of hard thought to the possibility of shutting down
  > the server alltogether.

  Outside of obvious enmity the debate has largely resulted in
  compromises on both sides, with Helsingius refining his initial
  universal-group and `hands off' policies and Kleinpaste
  re-establishing a server with documented procedures admitting and
  warning of subjectivity in the policy and potential consequences.
  
_____
<2.5> What did the (in)famous Helsingius user an8785 do (pre-Depew)?

  In a highly controversial and publicized case in ~Feb 1993, the
  anonymous user `an8785' posted a supposed transcript of desperate
  crew dialogue during the Challenger shuttle disaster via
  anon.penet.fi to sci.astro. Despite that the transcript had been
  posted in the same place up to a year earlier (then
  non-anonymously) and actually originated not with the poster but a
  New York news tabloid, subsequent responses consisted largely of
  vociferous outrage at the poster's use of anonymity, reverberating
  through many newsgroups. One responder, who also posted anonymously
  through anon.penet.fi, claimed to be closely related to family
  members of the deceased astronauts, and quite shocked and
  devastated by the posting, although the responder's identity cannot
  be confirmed and the statement could have been invented by an8785's
  enemies to embarrass and humiliate an8785.
  
  The original poster, under the same anonymous handle, later conceded
  that the story ``seemed likely to have been fabricated,''
  suggesting the plausible possibility that the original intent was
  not to provoke outrage but gauge reactions on the authenticity of
  the story (albeit crudely), free of personal risk from perceived
  association with the item.  The ensuing commotion generated queries
  for the original article by late-entering readers. The anonymous
  user later posted deliberately offensive comments at his
  detractors, saying they were the kind that "couldn't see the humor
  in childhood leukemia" and should "get a life---get 7! ha ha!"

  (Thanks to an8785@anon.penet.fi for contributions here.)


_____
<2.6> What happened between (in)famous user an8785 and R. Depew?


  an8785 posted the address of the supervisor of site operator R.
  Depew, inviting Usenet readers to register complaints in response
  to the latter's threat (later carried out) to issue commands to
  globally cancel anonymous messages on Usenet. Reaction was very
  hyper and divided as some commended an8785 for a `strictly  factual
  post', others calling the posting a blatant example of anonymous
  cowardice, some suggesting that an8785's actions were directly
  analogous to the heated calls to pressure site operators of abusers
  pursued earlier by anonymity foes (as e.g. by Depew), others
  claiming the situation was wholly dissimilar, with still others
  remarking on the irony that Depew would be protected by anonymity,
  suggesting its prime use is the protection from accusations from
  other anonymous users, and finally R. Depew asserting that an8785's
  actions were illegal harrassment under U.S. laws and fanatically
  but unsuccessfully attempting to pry the secret of the individual's
  identity from J. Helsingius.
    
  In a somewhat bizarre coincidence and convergence of many historical
  elements, Mr. Depew at one point accused J. Helsingius, ``someone
  who would have a motive to cause me as much trouble as possible,''
  of being an8785:
  
  > You (and most USENET readers) 
  > 
  > have seen the cowardly postings by "an8785" calling on readers to
  > contact the chairman of my department and the director of
  > computer services at my institution by mail or phone to complain
  > about me.
  > 
  > You may also have seen (though it was easy to miss) a weak apology
  > from this same user, who, despite the apology, has refused to
  > cancel these deeply offensive postings which remain scattered
  > about in who-knows-how-many newsgroups.
  > 
  > You have also seen a few posters challenge "an8785" to reveal his
  > identity. This person has *some* sense of honor... else he would
  > not have posted his weak apology... but his sense of
  > self-preservation clearly overrides his sense of honor.
  > 
  > You may also have seen other posters calling upon Julf,
  > admin@anon.penet.fi to reveal the identity of this cowardly
  > anonymous poster. Has he complied?  Of course not.  Is he even
  > willing to show his face in this newsgroup to explain why?  Of
  > course not.
  > 
  > I have a strong suspicion as to the identity of "an8785". Someone
  > who would have a motive to cause me as much trouble as possible.
  > 
  > Someone who would *know* that Julf would never reveal his
  > identity. J'accuse Johan Helsingius, aka "Ze Julf", of being none
  > other than the despicable "an8785".
  > 
  > If Johan remains silent, my case is closed.
  > 
  > The only evidence to the contrary that I will accept will be the
  > true identity of "an8785"
  > 
  > Julf - I challange you to prove my accusation against you is false.

  In commenting on the posting Felix Gallo <felixg@coop.com> wrote
  ``Such brilliance has never before crossed the path of Usenet.''
  Mr. Depew was not simply attempting to provoke a revelation from
  Julf by false accusations, but by genuine suspicion and conviction,
  as evidenced by a later post:

  > Fellow net-citizens.  My "J'accuse" postings must have struck a
  > raw nerve.  I present to you the following attempt to blackmail
  > me.
  > 
  > Carefully note the time-frame that is mentioned.  Anyone who has
  > used the anon-server knows that there is a long delay in relaying
  > messages if they go back-and-forth. The only way 10 minutes
  > could be possible were if it were a one-way trip.  Who is the
  > only person for whom a one-way trip is possible?
  
  Mr. Helsingius disabled the an8785 account after the Depew address
  posting but continued to keep the identity secret.  To this date
  the exact identity of an8785 is still a mystery with Mr. Helsingius
  preserving anonymity.
  
  See also the ``Depew ARMM'' questions.


_____
<2.7> What was the Depew-ARMM Censorship Incident?

  In mid-March 1993 the news adminstrator d***! Depew, who had been
  writing disapproving notes on global anonymity on news.admin.policy
  specifically attacking Johann Helsingius' policy, announced that he
  had invented software dubbed ARMM, standing for Automatic
  Retroactive Minimal Moderation. As originally envisioned and
  designed, the program was to send out `cancel' messages targeting
  anonymous posts. Mr. Depew as a news administrator had the
  capability of sending `cancel' commands using mechanisms  not
  available to regular Usenet users.
    
  Responding to Dave Hayes' and others' objections, Mr. Depew wrote:

  > I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive
  > Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion
  > that the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that
  > don't want it is through moderation.  It cancels articles posted
  > from anon.penet.fi. I've tested it on recycled postings with a
  > "local" distribution and it works nicely.  I propose to arm
  > "ARMM" with an unrestricted distribution for the "sci" hierarchy
  > this weekend if Julf doesn't accept the proposed compromise or a
  > reasonable alternative by then. 
  >
  > The best time to put out a fire is while it is still small.  :-)
 
  One-time anonymous server operator D. Clunie
  <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au> voiced some of the most vehement and vocal
  opposition to carrying out the plan:
  
  > I really think you are getting carried away with a non-issue here,
  > and inflamming the situation is going to make you extremely
  > unpopular ...
  >  
  > I think I will probably just turn off response to cancel messages
  > totally if you go ahead with this scheme, and I encourage other
  > news administrators to do the same ... they were a bad kludge in
  > the first place and still are. It seems to me they are rarely
  > used for other than controversial purposes like you are proposing
  > (I don't like other people's postings so I won't let anyone else
  > read them).

  Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: 
  
  > Controversial, sure, but my reason for activating the Automated
  > Retroactive Minimal Moderation script, if Julf remains unwilling
  > to accept any compromise, is simply to demonstrate that the
  > status quo with regards to anonymous postings from a particular
  > site *can* be effectively enforced.
  > 
  > 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.
  >
  > There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be
  > anyhow.  :-)
  
  D. Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
  
  > There should be and there will be ... you are way out of line here
  > Richard, regardless of how many smileys you tack on the end of
  > your message.
  
  Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > No. It is Julf who is way out of line here... and has been for
  > four months, now. He has finally met someone who has gotten fed
  > up with his silly game, and is willing to call his bluff.
  
  Under the Depew scheme message cancellations were to be accompanied
  by a letter to the anonymous target containing Mr. Depew's views on
  the controversy of anonymous posting and justifications for his
  unilateral measure, with the overall effect of ``restoring the
  pre-Julf status quo.'' (This measure apparently was in response to
  objections from administrators that the cancelling scheme was
  concealed from the posters.) In the message Mr. Depew writes
  further: ``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.''

  > Julf has not accepted the principle of compromise on the issue of
  > the default setting for his server for technical newsgroups. 
  > Thus, ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation"
  > script, has been activated ...
  > 
  > I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
  > My argument is with Julf and is about the default setting for
  > entire hierarchies; it is not with you or your particular
  > postings.

  After Mr. Depew started the program it proceeded to cancel two
  Usenet messages originating from the anon.penet.fi server.  After
  Mr. Depew activated it, and in response to  his threats, the
  controversial an8785 behind the Challenger story posted Mr. Depew's
  address of employment and the name and phone number of his
  supervisor (obtained from unidentified sources) and called for
  people to complain of his assault.

  While the previous outcry on news.admin.policy over anon.penet.fi
  policy was enough to enlarge traffic in the group many times, the
  first `Depew episode' triggered phenomenal outcry, condemnation,
  and character `assassination' against Mr. Depew in hundreds of
  messages, by many who had been `lurking' in the previous debate
  but, while doubtful of the true value of anon.penet.fi, were
  uniform and unequivocal in their intolerance for Mr. Depew's
  actions, frequently referred to as inherently destructive to  the
  spirit of Usenet, and equivalent to `censorship' or `terrorism' via
  illegitimate (`forged') cancel commands. Many news operators
  expressed the intent to adjust their software to ignore any such
  directives.
  
  Mr. Depew objected to references of his intent or effect of
  `censorship' and sent email to posters stating that the subject
  ``RICHARD DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net'' was
  libelous and asked them to cancel their articles.  ``My  "civil
  disobedience" had nothing to do with censorship.  You have simply
  fallen for the lie of an anonymous slanderer.''

  Some apologists such as J. Maynard defended Mr. Depew's actions and
  maintained that his approach was not unacceptable considering the
  circumstances and that the fault lay in inadequate `testing'. 
  Catherine Anne Foulston <cathyf@is.rice.edu> wrote ``It's a form of
  vandalism, perhaps sabotage, and it's obnoxious, but it is not
  censorship.''  Nevertheless under the firestorm of outrage Mr.
  Depew withdrew the program after a very short time (less than 
  several hours).

  Thanks to Richard Depew  <red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us>  for 
  contributions here.

_____
<2.8> What was the Second Depew-ARMM Fiasco?

  Eerily and pathetically close to a date of April 1 1993 Mr. Depew
  employed a revised version of the ARMM program intended to kill and
  repost anonymous messages with reformatted headers and a notice
  ``Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation (tm) by ARMM5. Press 'n'
  to skip.'' replacing the beginning of the message.  Many news 
  operators expressed grave concerns over this new scheme, and
  criticized him scathingly for breaking promises of leaving the
  overall concept alone. Mr. Depew decided to run the program only on
  his own postings to demonstrate its utility and harmlessness. 

  After invoking the ARMM 2 version, however, the program quickly
  became trapped in an infinite loop of `readjusting'
  already-tampered messages, creating a new message to the
  news.admin.policy group every time.  The barrage exploded to about
  180 messages over a period of a few hours  before Depew was
  contacted over the phone by some news administrators and he halted
  the program. Subject headers in each message grew after each
  iteration to the point that late messages in the thread tended to
  crash some newsreaders and possibly even some servers.  Some
  readers compared the effect to the Morris Internet Worm incident
  although the scale (while global)  was far less.

  In commemoration of the momentous event, perhaps best summarized
  as `painfully hilarious', Joel Furr <jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu> wrote an
  entry for a future encyclopedia of Usenet history and hacker
  culture:
   
  > :ARMM: n.  A USENET posting robot created by d***! Depew of Munroe
  > Falls, Ohio. Originally intended to serve as a means of
  > controlling posts through  anon servers (see also {anon
  > servers}).  Transformed by programming ineptitude into a monster
  > of Frankenstein proportions, it broke loose on the night of March
  > 31, 1993 and proceeded to spam news.admin.policy with something
  > on the order of 200 messages in which it attempted, and failed,
  > to cancel its own messages.  This produced a recursive chain of
  > messages each of which tacked on:
  >     
  > * another "ARMM:" onto the subject line 
  > * a meaningless "supersedes" header line 
  > * another character in the message id (producing message ids
  >   several lines long) 
  > * a ^L 
  > 
  > This produced a flood of messages in which each header took up
  > several screens and each message id got longer and longer and
  > longer and each subject line started wrapping around five or six
  > times.  ARMM was  accused of crashing at least one mail system
  > and inspired widespread resentment among those who pay for each
  > message they have downloaded.
  
  Included for posterity are a few sentiments from an involved
  analysis of the problem by Richard E. Depew
  <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>: 
  
  > You have undoubtedly noticed the flood of ARMM posts that I caused
  > last night.
  > 
  > I offer my deepest apologies for this flood.  I messed up badly. I
  > made mistakes in both implementation and testing. That was truly
  > bone-headed implementation error!
  >    
  > I seem to have a real talent for spectacular screw-ups!
  >    
  > I agree, though, that my fate is richly deserved. The net loony
  > bin seems to be the safest place for me right now.
  >    
  > Thanks for your understanding.  It was an honest mistake.

  Francisco X DeJesus <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>:

  > Yes, I noticed. Everyone on USENET noticed. Even some people who
  > never read news heard the laughter of those who do and noticed.
  > 
  > This whole deal is one of those things that's so sad, it's funny.
  > Like the story you posted of the driver going to make a wrong
  > turn and giving you the finger... you are that driver, and we are
  > all trying to tell you you are heading in the wrong direction.
  > However, unlike the driver in your story, you never turn, going
  > the wrong way onto oncoming traffic instead. Well, at least the
  > crash made the evening news and everyone will know your name now.

_____
<2.9> What was Richard Depew's inspiration for ARMM?

  Experts are sharply divided on the issue of the true inspiration for
  ARMM, perhaps stemming largely from Mr. Depew's own convoluted,
  contradictory, imaginative accounts of his motivations.   Mr.
  Depew at first wrote of developing the software in direct response
  to J. Helsingius' server:

  > Julf's anonymous server seems to me to be contributing to the
  > erosion of civility and responsibility that have been the
  > hallmarks of the more traditional parts of USENET.  More than
  > that, Julf has refused to even discuss a compromise to his
  > position that all hierarchies should be open, by default, to his
  > server. 
  > 
  > I think it *is* important to demonstrate that USENET *does* have a
  > defense against a self-styled cyberpunk who refuses to cooperate
  > with the rest of the net. Whether USENET can find the *will* to
  > oppose him remains an open question.  I simply intend a brief
  > demonstration of one defense mechanism.

  Later however increasingly Mr. Depew's postings came to reveal a
  basic preoccupation and  fascination with the ARMM concept in
  itself, irrespective of any supposed violations of `netiquette' on
  the part of J. Helsingius. For example, in one long and rambling
  message he built up an extended metaphor between the presence of
  anonymous servers on Usenet with pathogenic viruses and a
  laboratory biology experiment:

  > 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.

  Apparently alluding to the initial ARMM operation and the ensuing
  uproar, Mr. Depew wrote:

  > The clinical trial was successful, at least in temporarily
  > eradicating the pathogen from the patient's brain, but the
  > patient unexpectedly suffered a severe allergic reaction, so I
  > halted the test out of compassion.

  Nevertheless he remained visibly enamored with the intrinsic idea of
  cancelling or `filtering' posts.  In fact, no posting originating
  from  him has *ever* expressed unequivocally abandoning the project.
  As time passed after the incident his postings became increasingly
  abstract and in one supplied an extended, abstruse metaphor
  representing his overall experience:

  > Friends,
  > 
  > While driving to work through heavy fog, I became engaged in a
  > little incident that struck a chord of recognition.
  > 
  > Apparently the driver of the auto in front of me didn't see the
  > sign, perhaps because the fog was so thick.  He stopped at the
  > bottom of the off-ramp with his left indicator still blinking,
  > and with his vehicle angled to the left as if he were *really*
  > intent on making a left turn into two lanes of oncoming traffic
  > in thick fog.
  > 
  > Worried that a serious accident might result from this mistake, I
  > pulled up close to his rear bumper and honked my horn at him,
  > twice, and activated my *right* turn indicator.
  > 
  > The driver looked into his rear-view mirror and "gave me the
  > finger".
  > 
  > However, he must have subsequently noticed either my turn-signal
  > or the "one-way" sign, because he activated his right signal and
  > made a right turn, safely.
  > 
  > Why am I posting this incident to news.admin.policy?  Gee, I don't
  > know...  perhaps I confused this group with
  > rec.autos.driving.  :-)

  Finally, to the morbid embarrassment of a noted early cyberspatial
  period historian, Mr. Depew eventually wrote:

  > I have received many inquiries into the inspiration for the
  > Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation script (ARMM), usually
  > of the form:
  > 
  > "How the #### did you ever come up with such a hair-brained(sic)
  > idea?".  
  > 
  > I may have answered curtly, but I was secretly flattered at the
  > idea of having hair on top, again.  It certainly beats
  > bunny-droppings!
  > 
  > For the long answer to this question, I refer you to the FAQ on
  > privacy and anonymity compiled by "L.".  "L." has done a
  > commendable job of recording both sides of the debate, and you'll
  > hardly notice that he so alphabetically-challenged that he can't
  > remember how to spell his first name.  It's probably because he
  > just cribs from the rest of us.
  > 
  > Astonishingly, this document has recorded the writings of my
  > muses!

* * *

This is Part 1 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 <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.
All rights reserved.

Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!faqserv
From: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: Anonymity on the Internet FAQ (2 of 4)
Supersedes: <net-anonymity/part2_765886103@rtfm.mit.edu>
Followup-To: poster
Date: 30 Apr 1994 14:08:35 GMT
Organization: TMP Enterprises
Lines: 1391
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu
Expires: 4 Jun 1994 14:07:33 GMT
Message-ID: <net-anonymity/part2_767714853@rtfm.mit.edu>
References: <net-anonymity/part1_767714853@rtfm.mit.edu>
Reply-To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: bloom-picayune.mit.edu
X-Last-Updated: 1993/05/13
Originator: faqserv@bloom-picayune.MIT.EDU
Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu alt.privacy:10191 alt.privacy.anon-server:700 alt.answers:2644 news.answers:18831

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

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

Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.


<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 <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
   
  > 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 <doug@cc.ysu.edu>:
  
  > 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 <bohrer@maui.mcc.com>:
  
  > What really galls me is that you don't mention legitimate,
  > RESPONSIBLE uses of anonymity.

  Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.on.ca>:
  
  > 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 <longo@sfpp.com>:
  
  > 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 <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
  
  > 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 <edhall@rand.org>:
  
  > 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 <elee9sf@Menudo.UH.EDU>:
   
  > 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.

  <00acearl@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>:
  
  > 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 <shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu>:

  > 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 <det@sw.stratus.com>:

  > 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 <davidh@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>:

  > 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 <M.R.Schenk@research.ptt.nl>:
  
  > 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 <jik@mit.edu>:

  > 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<kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
  
  > 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 <longo@sfpp.com>:

  > 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 <hmpetro@uncc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
  
  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>
  
  > 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 <not@inmos.co.uk>:
  
  > 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.

  <barnhill@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>:

  > 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 <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
  
  > 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 <johnson@access.digex.com>:

  > 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 <hulthage@morue.usc.edu>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > 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 <eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu>:

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

  Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu>:
  
  > 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 <brad@clarinet.com>:
  
  > 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.

  <an8729@anon.penet.fi>:

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

  Dan Hoey <hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>:
  
  > 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 <C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>:
  
  > 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 <terry@geovision.gvc.com>:
  
  > <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.

  <an8785@anon.penet.fi>:
  
  > 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 <spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu>:
  
  > 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 b****! 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 <BDU100F@ODUVM.BITNET>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>

  > 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 <jik@mit.edu>:
  
  > 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 <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>:

  > 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 an1234@anon.penet.fi is no different than having
  > foo@bar.com, when bar.com is a dialin; all you can do is send
  > mail to the user and the site admin to b****!, 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 <stoodt@cis.umassd.edu>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:

  > 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
  > d***! Depew? ROFL.

  Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:

  > 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 <paulf@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > 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 <andy@apache.dtcc.edu>:

  > 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 <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:

  > 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 <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:

  > 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 <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>:
  
  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

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

  <jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:

  > 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 <daniel@borland.com>:

  > 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 <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:

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

  <jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:

  > 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 <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
 
  > Sorry. I categorically reject this argument. Anonymous postings
  > netwide are a  significant change in the net culture. You will
  > not convince me otherwise.

  <sward+@cmu.edu>:

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

  Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>:
  
  > 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 an.id@anon.server).  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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu: 
  
  > 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'?

  <KONDARED@PURCCVM.BITNET>:
    
  > 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 <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
  
  > 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 <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:

  > 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 <jik@athena.mit.edu>
  
  > 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 <stoodt@cis.umassd.edu>:

  > 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<kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:

  > 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 <tjbryce@unix.amherst.edu>:
  
  > 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 <chuq@Apple.COM>:
  
  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <dave@frackit.UUCP>:
  
  > 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? 

  <an8785@anon.penet.fi>:
  
  > I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to 
  > hide behind your affiliations.   

  Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu>:

  > 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 <mandel@netcom.com>

  > 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 <jthomas@NETSYS.COM>:
  
  > Although revelation is generally preferable to anonymity, there
  > are numerous reasons that are sufficiently strong to discredit
  > the "cowardice" thesis. 

  Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
 
  > "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 <satkins@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu>:
  
  > 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 <michael@umbc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <strnlght@netcom.com>:
  
  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
  
  > 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 <daniel@borland.com>:

  > 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 <knut@iti.org>:
  
  > 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 <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:

  > 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 <tim@osiris.usi.utah.edu>:

  > 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 <barr@pop.psu.edu>:
  
  > 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 <longo@sfpp.com>:

  > 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 <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
  
  > 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 <kadie@cs.uiuc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <rita@eff.org>:

  > 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 <cap@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <emerth@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
  
  > 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.

  <jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:
  
  > 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 <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:

  > 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.

  <barnhill@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>:

  > 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 <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
  
  > 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 <felixg@coop.com>:
  
  > "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 <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
  
  > 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 <scs@adam.mit.edu>:
  
  > 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 <brad@clarinet.com>:
  
  > 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 <brad@clarinet.com>:
  
  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > 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 <gandalf@cyberspace.org>:
  
  > 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.

  <jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu>:
  
  > 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 <mimir@stein.u.washington.edu>:
  
  > 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 <anne@alcor.concordia.ca>:
  
  > 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 <nk24+@andrew.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi, 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 <lhp@daimi.aau.dk>:

  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu>:

  > 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?


  <an8729@anon.penet.fi>:
  
  > 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 <tarl@sw.stratus.com>:
  
  > 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 <ogil@quads.uchicago.edu>:

  > 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 <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
  
  > 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 <shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu>:

  > 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 <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>:
  
  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > Weak reasoning.
  > With freedom comes responsibility.

  Dave Hayes <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>:
  
  > 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 <mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com>:
  
  > 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 <mack23@avalon.eecs.nwu.edu>:
  
  > 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.

  <C445585@mizzou1.missouri.edu>:

  > 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 <mack23@avalon.eecs.nwu.edu>:

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

  Ron Dippold <rdippold@qualcomm.com>:
  
  > Are you including Depew as an effect of the anon-servers?
  
  Wes Groleau <groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com>

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

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.
All rights reserved.

Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!faqserv
From: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: Anonymity on the Internet FAQ (3 of 4)
Supersedes: <net-anonymity/part3_765886103@rtfm.mit.edu>
Followup-To: poster
Date: 30 Apr 1994 14:08:40 GMT
Organization: TMP Enterprises
Lines: 1442
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu
Expires: 4 Jun 1994 14:07:33 GMT
Message-ID: <net-anonymity/part3_767714853@rtfm.mit.edu>
References: <net-anonymity/part1_767714853@rtfm.mit.edu>
Reply-To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: bloom-picayune.mit.edu
X-Last-Updated: 1993/05/13
Originator: faqserv@bloom-picayune.MIT.EDU
Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu alt.privacy:10188 alt.privacy.anon-server:697 alt.answers:2639 news.answers:18826

Archive-name: net-anonymity/part3
Last-modified: 1993/5/9
Version: 1.0

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

Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.


<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 <jbotz@mtholyoke.edu>: 
  
  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:

  > 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 <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
  
  > 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 <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>:

  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > 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 <bobmacd@netcom.com>:

  > Another  operator of an ACS equipped his with a "fire
  > extinguisher" which he did use once or twice to eliminate public
  > posting from certain a**holes.  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 <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
  
  > The site admin is postmaster@anon.penet.fi ... 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: cat@wixer.cactus.org>:

  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:
  
  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 "ideas@penet.fi" 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 <anonymus+0@charcoal.com>:

  > The following "commandments" were suggested during a discussion on
  > anonymous servers in news.admin.policy; credit, thanx, and
  > appreciation to Laura Lemay <lemay@netcom.com>
  > 
  > 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 <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:

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

  Karl Kleinpaste <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <evan@telly.on.ca>
  
  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <edhall@rand.org>:

  > 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 <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>:
  
  > 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 <PSION@HOLONET.NET>:

  > 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 <an0@anon.penet.fi>:

  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
  
  > 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 <bsalkin@nyx.cs.du.edu>:

  > 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 <sears@tree.egr.uh.edu>:
  
  > 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 <tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com>:
  
  > 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 <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 (Karl_Kleinpaste@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu):
  
  > ...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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <sean@gomez.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>

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

  Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>:

  > 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 <zoid@deep.rsoft.bc.ca>:

  > 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.
  
  <styri@balder.nta.no>:

  > 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 <brad@clarinet.com>:
  
  > 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 <emcguire@intellection.com>:
  
  > 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 <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
  
  > 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 <emcguire@intellection.com>:
  
  > Good question.  Nobody has decided. I have no definite plan to do
  > this, just wanted the technical data.

  John Hascall <john@iastate.edu>:
  
  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:
  
  > 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 <det@sw.stratus.com>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>:
  
  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 a**! 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 <julf@penet.fi>:
  
  > 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 <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
  
  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <cap@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
  
  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
  
  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <daniel@borland.com>:

  > 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 <eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu>:

  > 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 <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>:

  > 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.

  <grady@netcom.com>:

  > 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 <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > 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?

  mjo@msen.com <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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > 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 <lhp@daimi.aau.dk>:
  
  > 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 (dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au)
  
  > 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 <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>:
  
  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>: 
  
  > 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 (dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au)

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
 
  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:

  > Neither you nor d***! 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. d***! doesn't have the right to
  > issue cancels for them, and you don't have the right to moderate
  > them.

  Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <daniel@borland.com>:

  > Geez, d***!, 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 <noring@netcom.com>:
  
  > 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 <twpierce@unix.amherst.edu>:
  
  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:
  
  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > 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 <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>:
  
  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > 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 <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
  
  > 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 <twpierce@unix.amherst.edu>:
  
  > 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 <ogil@quads.uchicago.edu>:

  > 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 <noring@netcom.com>:
  
  > 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 <guru@halcyon.com>:

  > 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 <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > 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 <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:

  > 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 <vincent@cad.gatech.edu>:

  > 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 <Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > 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 <tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com>:

  > 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 <mandel@netcom.com>:
  
  > 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 <tarl@sw.stratus.com>:

  > 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 <jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu>:

  > 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 <dave@frackit.UUCP>:
  
  > 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.

  <00acearl@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu>:

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

  Wes Morgan <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
  
  > I wondered why people would want to post anonymously to technical
  > groups.  

  Tal Kubo <kubo@zariski.harvard.edu>:
  
  > 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 <satkins@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu>:
  
  > 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 d***! 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 <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
  
  > 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 <johnson@access.digex.com>:
  
  > 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 <lestat@wixer.cactus.org>:

  > 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 <sderby@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <avs20@ccc.amdahl.com>:
  
  > 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 <us273532@mmm.serc.3m.com>:
  
  > 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 admin@anon.penet.fi to turn
  > the service back on...
  > 
  > Thank you.

  Kate Gregory <xtkmg@trentu.ca>:
  
  > 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 <hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>:
  
  > 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 <bbs-hrick@jwt.oau.org>:
  
  > 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 <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>:
  
  > 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 <bobmacd@netcom.com>:

  > 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 <syusim@bcm.tmc.edu>:

  > 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 <gt0963d@prism.gatech.EDU>:

  > 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 <scs@adam.mit.edu>:
  
  > 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 <morgan@engr.uky.edu>:
  
  > 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 <bohrer@maui.mcc.com>:
  
  > 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 <jmunson@uwsuper.edu>:

  > 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.

  <an1017@anon.penet.fi>:

  > 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 <julf@penet.fi>:

  > 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 <nosberg@scott.skidmore.edu>:

  > 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 <medley@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>:
  
  > 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 <eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu>:
  
  > 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 <evan@telly.on.ca>:
  
  > 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 <anonymus+0@charcoal.com>:
  
  > 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 <strnlght@netcom.com>:

  > 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 <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > We have just seen a prime example of the harm that can come from
  > anonymous posting in the case of an8785.  This b******!, 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 b******! 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 <knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>:
  
  > 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 <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.
All rights reserved.

Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!faqserv
From: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: Anonymity on the Internet FAQ (4 of 4)
Supersedes: <net-anonymity/part4_765886103@rtfm.mit.edu>
Followup-To: poster
Date: 30 Apr 1994 14:08:43 GMT
Organization: TMP Enterprises
Lines: 1386
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu
Expires: 4 Jun 1994 14:07:33 GMT
Message-ID: <net-anonymity/part4_767714853@rtfm.mit.edu>
References: <net-anonymity/part1_767714853@rtfm.mit.edu>
Reply-To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: bloom-picayune.mit.edu
X-Last-Updated: 1993/05/13
Originator: faqserv@bloom-picayune.MIT.EDU
Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu alt.privacy:10189 alt.privacy.anon-server:698 alt.answers:2641 news.answers:18828

Archive-name: net-anonymity/part4
Last-modified: 1993/5/9
Version: 1.0

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

Compiled by L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.


<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?

<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?


_____
<6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM?

  
  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Julf's anonymous server seems to me to be contributing to the
  > erosion of civility and responsibility that have been the
  > hallmarks of the more traditional parts of USENET.  More than
  > that, Julf has refused to even discuss a compromise to his
  > position that all hierarchies should be open, by default, to his
  > server.  
  > 
  > I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive
  > Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion
  > that the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that
  > don't want it is through moderation.  It cancels articles posted
  > from anon.penet.fi. I've tested it on recycled postings with a
  > "local" distribution and it works nicely.  I propose to arm
  > "ARMM" with an unrestricted distribution for the "sci" hierarchy
  > this weekend if Julf doesn't accept the proposed compromise or a
  > reasonable alternative by then.  

  Francisco X DeJesus <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>:
  
  > this ARMM script is another bad idea. If there is a way to  simply
  > "ignore" control messages (cancels, at least) from the specific
  > site where this bass-ackwards non-service to the net is
  > originating from, please let me (and every other news admin who's
  > not an expert but wants to do something about this) know...

  Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:

  > Fascinating idea, both in programming and in application of
  > ethical values.  So this shellscript will, in essence, not only
  > affect your own users but also users netwide?  And you make a
  > threat to Julf as well?  This sounds a lot like terrorism:  "I'm
  > going to blow up your citizens (read: users) if you do not agree
  > to my demands!"  "Minimal Moderation" in the sense of ARMM is
  > like calling a missile "Peacekeeper".
  > 
  > Censorship is not the way to go about things, neither is the
  > "ARMMing" of cybernetic missiles.  It is a difficult problem, the
  > only solution to which is to rely on the precedent: freedom.

  Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
  
  > My site pays for news, and would prefer to get it uncensored by
  > Mr. Depew. We pay to get a full newsfeed for our money, not just
  > one with those messages Mr. Depew thinks are o.k. for us to read.

  Rick Harrison <bbs-hrick@jwt.oau.org>:
  
  > Anyone who would volunteer to render a "service" such as
  > cancelling other people's messages must be a control freak.
 
  Mike Schenk <M.R.Schenk@research.ptt.nl>:
  
  > And for canceling all postings from the anon server. This is, in
  > my opinion a very severe case of censorship. While, I am aware
  > that the net is not a real democracy I've always thought that it
  > wasn't a police state either. 

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>
  
  > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi, does
  > not soon block anonymous postings ... then I will activate an
  > "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script that will
  > cancel postings ...
  > 
  > 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 ...

  David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>:
  
  > I support the automatic cancelling of anonymous posts to those
  > newsgroups whose members vote in the majority so to do.

  Michael L. Kaufman <kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu>:
  
  > Ah, but that is not what Mr. Depew was advocating.  Mr Depew wants
  > to cancel all anonymous post to newsgroups that don't vote not to
  > cacel them. The difference is important. He has a view and he is
  > not saying, "if your group agrees with me, this is what I will
  > do." He is saying, "I am just going to assume that everyone
  > agrees with me unless I hear otherwise." Furthermore, he chose
  > not to wait and see how the various votes would go. 

  Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com>:
  
  > There are laws ... which prohibit users from deleting files on
  > computers when they do not have authorization to do this.
  > 
  > It's ... clear that many site admins consider only the poster and
  > a few other people at most authorized to cancel a posting.
  > 
  > So if you cancel like this, you may well ... be committing a
  > computer intrusion offence.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
    
  > There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be
  > anyhow.  :-)

  David Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:

  > I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I
  > haven't experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might
  > have to. In fact I think I will probably just turn off response
  > to cancel messages totally if you go ahead with this scheme, and
  > I encourage other news administrators to do the same ... they
  > were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. It seems to
  > me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes
  > like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I
  > won't let anyone else read them).
  >  
  > I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going
  > to happen to your institution's news and mail servers if you go
  > ahead with this plan.
  >  
  > ... you are way out of line here Richard, regardless of how many
  > smileys you tack on the end of your message.
 
  Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:

  > That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate.  They have
  > many legitimate uses.  Cancelling inappropriate postings is one
  > of these legitimate uses. 
  > 
  > ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, has
  > been activated ...


_____
<6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'?


  <Ray.Lampman@FullFeed.Com>:
 
  > RICHARD DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
  >  
  > For the past few weeks, there has  been  an  on-going  debate  in
  > news.admin.policy  concerning  anonymous  postings  to newsgroups
  > which have not invited such postings. It is an understatement  to
  > say there has been disagreement.
  > 
  > This debate has recently resulted in the automated CENSORSHIP  of
  > postings  by  one of the principles of the debate. This system of
  > automated CENSORSHIP, called  ARMM,  the  "Automated  Retroactive
  > Minimal  Moderation" script, has been activated (Sat, 13 Mar 1993
  > 14:28:00 GMT) by Richard E. Depew (red@redpoll.neoucom.edu). ARMM
  > automatically cancels or deletes postings which it "judges" to be
  > in-appropriate or un-acceptable.

  Catherine Anne Foulston <cathyf@is.rice.edu>:

  > It is NOT censorship, any more than a private individual sneaking
  > into the library and cutting objectionable (to him) articles out
  > of all the magazines is censorship.  It's a form of vandalism,
  > perhaps sabotage, and it's obnoxious, but it is not censorship.
  > 
  > Could whoever did that news-server-wide cancel script, that would
  > let me filter out these anon-cancels, please repost it?  Certain
  > anonymous posters are obnoxious and annoying, but not as much so
  > as someone cancelling articles not their own for no other reason
  > than that the articles are anonymous.  I'd like to filter out
  > those cancels from my site.

  David Condon <dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu>:
  
  > The person who proposed forging cancels, and who actually did
  > forge a few, is a news admin of some sort. By virtue of having a
  > higher level of both access and expertise than the average user,
  > that makes his act more akin to a _librarian_ vandalising books
  > than Joe Random Patron doing so.  Virtually all librarians would
  > consider such an act an egregious breach of professional ethics,
  > and most would not hesitate to call it "censorship," even if
  > purists assert that that term is only appropriate when carried
  > out by the state.

  Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
  
  > M. Richard Depew has, by his own admission, created a weapon
  > capable of eradicating all messages from a certain site.  I use
  > the term "weapon" in the cybernetic sense - it "kills"
  > information, not people.
  > 
  > M. Depew seems to believe this to be his responsibility,
  > somehow... his contribution to the safety and continued security
  > of the USENET, maybe?  He proposes that he be allowed to keep and
  > bear (and fire) a weapon capable of rendering many people
  > "unpersons", in the sense that they are not free to post their
  > opinions.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Roy,
  > 
  > Please cancel your recent article entitled: Subject: Re: RICHARD
  > DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net.
  > 
  > That title is libelous. My "civil disobedience" had nothing to do
  > with censorship.  You have simply fallen for the lie of an
  > anonymous slanderer. A public apology would be greatly
  > appreciated.
  
  John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > Your "civil disobedience" was conducted under the guise of
  > "moderator of the sci hierarchy" (an official position), and
  > caused the removal of material you considered objectionable. That
  > is, sir, a definition of censorship.
  > 
  > It was automated, and it happened on "the Net". 
  > 
  > The ONLY remaining point in question is whether you really are
  > Richard Depew. If you admit to that, then the Subject: above is
  > true.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Well, I see the articles are still there ...
  > 
  > To prove that I *did* learn something from the brouhahah that
  > surrounded the introduction of ARMM, I am giving "a two week
  > notice" that if those articles are not canceled within the next
  > 24 hours, I am going to escalate.  I'll take comments on my
  > proposed escalation and promise to reconsider if anyone can make
  > any *good* arguments against my plan.
  > 
  > I hate to do this, because I understand that my name already is
  > "mudd" and any further disturbance is likely to lead to my total
  > discrediting.
  > 
  > I've got this *great* new idea.  I call it the UDP, for USENET
  > Depew Penalty. If these people don't cancel their articles soon, 
  > I'll invoke the UDP:
  > 
  > I'll ban them from my Christmas Card List!
  
  <afzal@divsun.unige.ch>

  > I presume you are going to post to ALL sci groups telling them
  > that this "service" now exists and that  their only way of
  > "declining" is to prove to YOU that they have had a vote whereby
  > the majority have said that they accept anonymous posting.
  > Cancelling posts of others seems to me to be a breach of
  > netiquette (especially if  people in the groups concerned are not
  > informed of this cancelling).
  
  Jim Cowling <jcowling@ophelia.UVic.CA>:
  
  > Even if you disgree with the label "censor" or "censorship", you
  > must agree to this statement:
  > 
  >   Richard Depew's ARMM system prevents the UseNet community from 
  >   reading publicly-posted messages without their consultation.
  > 
  > This alone is ethically and morally bankrupt, and illegal on so
  > many levels that I wouldn't be surpirsed if I could press felony
  > charges immediately, even as a foreginer.

  John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > d***!, when will you get the point? 
  > 
  > Nobody elected you moderator of any group, much less an entire
  > hierarchy. Stop pretending that it was OK for you to try to be
  > one.
  > 
  > If you start your ARMM demon again, I am positive there will be
  > more than one person starting their own. You WILL NOT like who
  > they target.
  > 
  > If you think the anonymous "problem" is bad, just wait until the
  > ARMM wars start.

  David Weingart <phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu>
  
  > (Had I been on the Net when ARMM was active, I certainly would
  > have been less polite...how DARE anyone decide what I should and
  > should not read in an unmoderated group)
  > 
  > No, I'm not an admin, just a net.head, and I consider the concept
  > of ARMM to be disgusting.
  
  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>
  
  > I owe an apology to "an4312":
  >
  > You, sir or madam, are the second civilian to be caught in the
  > cross-fire between Julf and myself.  I tried to warn
  > non-combatants off the battle field, but failed in your case.
  > 
  > I apologize.
  > 
  > Do you require immediate medical attention?
  > 
  > Let's assess the damage.  One real posting to the "sci" hierarchy
  > was cancelled.  I've apologized to the author.  His priceless
  > prose has been delayed from public view for a few hours.  Is this
  > *really* something that you want to get me fired for doing?


_____
<6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable?

  <an8785@anon.penet.fi>:
   
  > If you do not think Richard E. Depew's (red@uhura.neoucom.edu)
  > threat to censor the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning
  > a "canceling war," a good idea, please write directly to:
  > ...
  > Express your concern for this threatened instance of network
  > vandalism and damage to academic freedom throughout the world by
  > a reputed representative of his organization.

  Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
  
  > d***! Depew is  accepting full responsibility for his actions. You
  > are not. He is the true man  of courage here. You are the worst
  > sort of coward, starting a battle and  hiding under a rock while
  > the bullets fly.

  Rob Sartin <sartin@88open.org>:
  
  > The coward asked folks to flood d***! Depew's superiors with mail
  > and phone  calls. 
  
  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > You (and most USENET readers)  have seen the cowardly postings by
  > "an8785" calling on readers to contact the chairman of my
  > department and the director of computer services at my
  > institution by mail or phone to complain about me.

  Felix Gallo <felixg@coop.com>:
  
  > There's nothing 'cowardly' about it.  The postings are simple
  > and factual.  If you like, I'll claim I'm an8785, and take
  > full responsibility for all his or her actions.  It wouldn't
  > bother me a bit.
  
  Steve Simmons <scs@iti.org>:
  
  > Though I disagree with Depews actions, he stood up and took the
  > heat.  an8785 engaged in an act of moral cowardice, and is now
  > hiding behind the shield of anonymity.    Previously my opinion
  > was that the an8785 should simply be disabled.  Given that an8785
  > has actively urged people to take actions to harm Depew and
  > refused to adequately reverse those actions, I now think an8785
  > should be unmasked.  Should Depew come to actual harm, the
  > anonymous service might find itself in interesting waters.

  Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:

  > I disagree.  an8785 did what s/he felt was necessary, and voicing
  > one's opinions (even anonymously) is the better path than not
  > doing so.  

  Perry E. Metzger <pmetzger@snark.shearson.com>:
  
  > In any case, I really can't see anything wrong with someone
  > posting the list of the board of trustees of your institution if
  > they like, anonymously or non-anonymously. If you feel what you
  > are doing is right, then you must be prepared to justify it to
  > people who can stop you.
  > 
  > As for "blackmail", I'd say that ironically refering to your own
  > actions in the way described can hardly be construed as extortion
  > under any statute I am familiar with.
  
  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > In other words, anonymous servers with inadequate safegards
  > protect law-breakers from the consequences of their actions. 
  > *That* is what I oppose.

  Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
  
  > I agree that servers that shield lawbreakers are a potential
  > problem.  I *don't* agree with your implied assertion that Julf
  > has shielded anyone who's broken the law (an8785 included) nor do
  > I agree that the existance of that possible problem gives you the
  > right to take unilateral netwide action against all postings
  > issued through anonymous servers.


_____
<6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered?

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > The time has come to share a few of the insights I have gained
  > from this whole messy affair.  
  > 
  > In *this* note I want to offer an olive-branch to Julf.
  > 
  > Someone else said I was on a "quixotic crusade".  *That* struck a
  > responsive chord.  I'll accept that characterization with pride: 
  > call me an electronic Don Quixote trying to fight evil and rescue
  > the oppressed in a chivalrous but unrealistic way.  :-)
  > 
  > I'd like to call it the confrontation of "Don Quixote and the Guru
  > of anonymity".  The "evil" that I was fighting was not the Guru,
  > but those few sociopaths who were abusing his service.  While I
  > was tilting at windmills, the Guru was meditating on his mountain
  > top.
  > 
  > Unfortunately, one of the windmills was an8785.  The scene
  > metamorphosed into "Bambi meets Godzilla" -- **THUMP**.
  > 
  > Someone called it the confrontation of the "net-cop" vs. the
  > "net-outlaw".  I think that's a little harsh.  :-)

  Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com>:
  
  > Well, "net-outlaw" is a little harsh on Julf.  But "net-cop" is an
  > extreme euphemism.  What d***! was playing was "net-vigilante
  > armed with assault weapons", and this sort of thing is simply out
  > of bounds.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Out of bounds, sure, but undeniably within long established USENET
  > tradition.  :-)

  Mark Brader <msb@sq.sq.com>

  > ... one reason I'm posting this is to make it clear that, if
  > "automated moderation" is to be implemented through cancel
  > messages, it is simply not acceptable.  Indeed, I would consider
  > it ample cause for the removal of the cancelling site from
  > Usenet.
  > 
  > The fact that d***! was willing to stand behinds his actions is
  > creditable, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the actions were
  > wrong for Usenet, *even if* the anonymous service was everything
  > that d***! thought it was.  The cancels are just too damaging to
  > Usenet's distribution algorithm -- and I would like to see d***!
  > say he agrees with this paragraph.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > OK, I agree.
  > 
  > I made several mistakes, and I have apologized for them.  I have
  > "sentenced" myself to "community service" for a few weeks to try
  > to repair some of the harm I caused.
  > 
  > I *would* appreciate a few apologies from the "lynch mob",
  > however.  Few if any of the participants have yet to understand
  > that I was only trying to get Julf to talk about a possible
  > compromise. The mob overreacted very badly two weeks ago.  I was
  > being rude and provocative, but what I got in return exceeded all
  > bounds of decency.

  John Stanley <stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > What you got in return for your self-appointed moderation of an
  > entire hierarchy was much less than the last auto-cancellor got,
  > and less than you deserve.

  Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
  
  > In my opinion, you gave up the right to expect decency when you
  > took advantage of the open nature of this electronic community
  > and attempted to unilaterally impose your views of what's right
  > and what's wrong upon it. Your actions deserved the reaction they
  > received, and you're not likely to get any apologies for that
  > reaction.

  Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > How would you and Julf like to join me and a few other friends in
  > a T-shirt pyramid scheme: ARMMway distributors?  You can have Oz.
  > :-)
  > 
  > Our corporate mascot will be a turkey wearing one of these
  > T-shirts.  Our ad will be a poster showing this turkey and our
  > corporate slogan: "How can you soar with eagles when you have to
  > work with turkeys?".  I'd think every system administrator will
  > want one.

  Vincent Fox <vincent@cad.gatech.edu>:
  
  > The whole thing I dislike about the Depew vs Anon thing is that
  > both sides were forcing it on me wholesale. If this anon-thing
  > had kept up being spread across all newsgroups, you can bet your
  > a**! I would have put a filter on to drop all anon-postings on the
  > floor for *my* server. On the other hand I am apalled at Depew's
  > plan to forge cancels since he also is trying to force his ideas
  > on me. *I'll* make those decisions thank you both very much
  > gentlemen. 

  Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@Apple.COM>:
  
  > I mean, what Depew is doing is obnoxious, but I can tell him so to
  > his face (and he can tell me to stuff it to my face, if he
  > wishs). On the othe side, though, we have a character
  > assasination attempt going by someone who has no name. That's
  > being an upright citizen?
  > 
  > I think both sides are being real twitheads, and both side are
  > showing the worst aspects of USENET culture. May everyone's disks
  > crash, and may the replacements be misrouted to Angola.
  
  Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > The clinical trial was successful, at least in temporarily
  > eradicating the pathogen from the patient's brain, but the
  > patient unexpectedly suffered a severe allergic reaction, so I
  > halted the test out of compassion.

  Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
  
  > Is this what you teach your students?  That it's somehow "okay"
  > for them to spend a few weeks in the lab breeding up "harmless"
  > organisms and then releasing them into the general population? 
  > Handing out free samples of a vaccine that kills the thing off
  > doesn't make it right to let it out of the lab in the first
  > place.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Julf and I have been engaged in bilateral negotiations to forge a
  > "peace treaty" between us.  
  > 
  > USENET is a cooperative anarchy.  If enough of you do your part,
  > we are confident that we can apply the important lessons we have
  > learned from recent events and set a better example for future
  > anonymous servers and automated moderation demons.
  > 
  > I am a humble servant of the net.  I have learned my lesson. 
  > 
  > Time to cobble up Edition 4 of ARMM in case any group ever votes
  > to use it.

_____
<6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM?

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > ARMM has evolved.  Expect a post on the subject shortly.  I am
  > trying to rustle up a volunteer to serve as the "target" of
  > another demonstration.  I expect you will find the latest
  > incarnation of ARMM to be acceptable.
  
  Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
  
  > You just absolutely refuse to get the point, don't you Richard? 
  > Unless you have an explicit consensus that ARMM is welcomed by
  > the people it is going to affect, you have absolutely no business
  > activating it on this network. Period.  *You don't have any right
  > to make these decisions for the rest of us!*

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Spoken like a true fanatic, Lazlo.
  > 
  > I should have expected that my attempt to calm things down would
  > frighten the extremists.

  John Stanley <stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>:

  > I haven't the slightest doubt that I will find the latest
  > incarnation of ARMM to be as totally repugnant as your first
  > attempt at self-appointed moderation. 
  > 
  > It seems that you have now proven that you still think that ARMM
  > is a good thing and are continuing to try to get it accepted.
  > 
  > You just still don't get it, do you d***!. You didn't have, and
  > still don't, the right to decide to cancel postings that you
  > don't like.

  Lasse Hiller|e Petersen <lassehp@imv.aau.dk>:
  
  > If I can have a wish, I'd wish you'd delete your ARMM and never
  > write one again, and certainly never activate one. It is not and
  > will never be the right way to deal with general anonymous
  > servers.
  
  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > I've decided to follow in the honorable tradition of the
  > pioneering microbiologists who tested their hypotheses, and their
  > possibly pathogenic isolates, and their experimental vaccines, on
  > themselves!  (As you probably know, several of them died from
  > their own experiments.)
  > 
  > I have just now armed ARMM5 to "minimally moderate" my own posts,
  > and nobody else's.   This moderation will be restricted to the
  > single newsgroup, news.admin.policy.
  > 
  > I don't, at the moment, see how anyone can object to *this*
  > demonstration, but I expect *someone* will find a way.  :-)

  Juha Laiho <jlaiho@ichaos.nullnet.fi>:
  
  > What do you think about this approach? At least it looks ok to me,
  > if it's used properly. No more final cancellation of messages,
  > but some way to put a warning in the beginning of a message. Now
  > forget any possible personal hatred for the creator of that
  > software, and think about the idea.

  John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>:
  
  > Hmmm. It sounds like Mr. Depew is not only planning on cancelling
  > other people's articles, but taking the article and editing it
  > and then forging it back onto the net.
  > 
  > This is supposed to be better?

  Ken Weaverling <weave@apache.dtcc.edu>:

  > *Please*, I humbly request that you not activate this ARMM thing.
  > 
  > I have not posted on this subject. I, like many other sys admins,
  > do not have a lot of time to twiddle with things.  In fact, I
  > don't have ANY time. My users are always at my thoughts, I am
  > understaffed, and I can't keep up.
  > 
  > Asking me to learn what ARMM is, how to alter my feed files to
  > accept,  not accept, ignore, or whatever it does, is asking a
  > lot. A REAL LOT.
  > 
  > I, as many other news admins, will not do anything.  This means
  > that by default, your ARMM whatever it is will operate and do its
  > nasty deeds. I feel that the "cure" is far worse than the
  > disease.  
  > 
  > Somehow, in the grand scheme of things, this is wrong. 

  G. Lee Owen <gowen@jade.tufts.edu>:
  
  > Mr. Depew, I've just read your "evolution of ARMM" and I think I
  > have a fairly good grasp of what you are trying to say.  It seems
  > to me that ARMM has evolved to the point of overkill. 
  > 
  > I think ARMM has evolved into a rube goldberg machine, an
  > overcomplicated solution, where all we need to do is sit down,
  > discuss what we all want anon sites to do, and formalize a
  > consensus. 
  > 
  > I admired the cooperation that julf@penet.fi and red@redpoll
  > reached a few days ago.  Lets work further on that model, and
  > reach a constructive compromise. 


_____
<6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco?


  Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Friends (if I have any left at this point),
  > 
  > <Blush>
  > 
  > You have undoubtedly noticed the flood of ARMM posts that I caused
  > last night.
  > 
  > I made mistakes in both implementation and testing. That was truly
  > bone-headed implementation error! I seem to have a real talent
  > for spectacular screw-ups!
  > 
  > I agree, though, that my fate is richly deserved.  The net loony
  > bin seems to be the safest place for me right now.
  > 
  > Thanks for your understanding.  It was an honest mistake.

  Francisco X DeJesus <dejesus@avalon.nwc.navy.mil>:
  
  > The problem isn't you screwing up, it's you screwing EVERYONE ELSE
  > up.

  Joel Furr <jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
  
  > In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments
  > on the March 30 ARMM Massacre.  Last _night_, on the other hand,
  > I had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a
  > low droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's
  > Monsters on the surrounding environs.  Frankenstein's Monsters
  > here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about
  > stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same
  > word over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM.

  Duke Robillard <duke@osf.org>:
  
  > So, do you suppose d***! has now sent out more bogus messages than
  > every bad anon post every made, combined?
  
  Richard E. Depew <red@uhura.neoucom.edu>:
  
  > Nope.  Nowhere close.  However, I expect to make it into the "top
  > 25 posters by number of articles" list for the first time.  There
  > is just no way I can compete in volume, however. Hmmmm... maybe
  > ARMM6 should carry a GIF file...  

  Karl Krueger <kkrueg@ukelele.GCR.COM>:
  
  > What is the reason for this nonsense?
  > 
  > ...  a destructive cyberspatial act on a massive scale has
  > occurred. 
  > 
  > I assume that it is not deliberate viciousness, because I believe
  > M. Depew to be well-intentioned, if a little misguided.  It seems
  > to me to be a simple bug - ARMM is re-ARMMing its own output.

  <wrowe@reed.edu>:

  > Who the hell is responsible for this major-league mishap?
  > 
  > Please, if I see the letters ARMM again I'm gonna kill someone.


_____
<6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered?

  Joel Furr <jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
  
  > Alt.fan.d***!-depew is hereby newgrouped.  This group is intended
  > to serve as a forum for the MANY, MANY fans of Mr. Richard Depew
  > of Munroe Falls, Ohio, who has made himself famous for:
  > 
  > * unilaterally asserting the authority to cancel ANY anonymous
  >   posts made to groups he likes to read
  > * his God complex
  > * spamming news.admin.policy with a robot poster that attempted to
  >   cancel its own articles but failed and instead generated
  >   articles containing subject lines and headers dozens of screens
  >   long.  

  Ed Hall <dhall@rand.org>:
  
  > I'd like to comment, though, that even though Mr. Depew's blunder
  > might seem a bit comic on the morning after, I doubt many people
  > have forgotten the serious side: he was using the mechanisms of
  > the net as his own private toy.  That, in my honest opinion, is a
  > distinctly anti-social act, even in a place known for its
  > anti-social acts--the Net.
  > 
  > The whole episode is a bit like a burglar getting stuck in the
  > chimney; we might laugh, but we still want him treated as a
  > burglar.  In Mr. Depew's case, I'd be happy if he just stopped
  > mucking with control messages, both now and forevermore.  If he
  > doesn't--well, I'm sure there are others here who will figure out
  > something.

  Timothy C. May <tcmay@netcom.com>:
  
  > My God! You mean you were actually logged-in and reading
  > news.admin.policy as all this was happening? In real time?
  > 
  > That's like happening to be outside and looking up as a giant
  > meteor goes overhead...others can *read* about it or see it
  > replayed on t.v., but you actually *experienced* it! You were
  > *there*. (Of course, watch for tens of thousands of false claims
  > as the years go by..."Yep, there I was, logged in, when all of a
  > sudden smoke started comin' out of my computer. Yes sirree, it
  > was a sight to behold.")
  > 
  > To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a
  > "microMorris," but still an interesting one. 

  George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>:
  
  > ------------------------------------------------------------------
  > |          Official March 30th ARMM Massacre Scorecard           |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  Dear Mr. Depew:                                               |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  We have determined that you have earned the following score   |
  > |  in the Usenet Activities Contest:                             |
  > |                                                                |
  > |     6488 Supercedes @ 1 point each:              6488 pts.     |
  > |     2 Clueless Newbies (1) @ 30 pts:               60 pts.     |
  > |     28 Flaming Non-newbies (2) @ 25:              700 pts.     |
  > |     Recursive Runaway Award (3) :                 500 pts.     |
  > |     Bonus: New World Record for Largest Cascade: 1000 pts.     |
  > |          Total:                                 8,748 pts.     |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  This has earned you the rank of: Aspiring Usenet Legend       |
  > |                                                                |
  > |  Thank you for your continuing to grace Usenet with your       |
  > |  presence.  Your daemon's antics have made our day here.       |
  > ------------------------------------------------------------------



_____
<7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown?

  <beezer@cc.utah.edu>:
  
  > Being a former sysadmin of two years, I can understand the
  > bulls***! the anon.penet.fi server was put through.  The 'gawds
  > above' reacted more out of ego and fear of the FCC than out of
  > fairness.
  >
  > Your service has been appreciated.

  <mathew@mantis.co.uk>:

  > Excuse me, but I fail to see why the legal climate in the United
  > States justifies meddling with the administrative policy of a
  > site in Finland.  Could someone explain?

  Derrick J. Brashear <db74+@andrew.cmu.edu>:

  > To all of you who had a hand in the demise of anon.penet.fi in any
  > way shape or form, allow me to congratulate you. You've succeeded
  > in screwing over 10000 legitimate users of the anon server
  > because: a) a few, and I mean a few, posted abusive or
  > inappropriate messages b) people didn't find anonymous messages
  > appropriate outside alt.* and a handful of other groups.
  > 
  > Who loses? All the people who used anon.penet.fi for what it was
  > intended for. Yet those responsible will likely escape unscathed,
  > and as of 2 AM US Eastern Standard Time, no "notable usenet
  > personality" has stepped forward to take responsibility for the
  > shutdown of the server.
  > 
  > Once again, thank you. 

  Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
  
  > I am disappointed that the anon server was completely shut down in
  > the manner that actually occurred. While I think Julf's service
  > needed to be cut back, I  would much rather that this have
  > happened of Julf's own free will, becuase he  saw it as the Right
  > Thing, instead of being imposed from outside.

  Jon Noring <noring@netcom.com>:
  
  > And it seems to me that things were getting settled.  Julf was
  > finally beginning to respond to several criticisms (some
  > justified) as to how he was conducting his service.  Again, this
  > is a blow to Usenet since outside power was used to enforce a
  > certain Usenet structure, rather than letting the users of Usenet
  > decide what is best.  This unfortunately sets a dangerous
  > precedent. It also takes more control of Usenet out of the hands
  > of the users and puts it in the hands of the control-phreaks.

  Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>:
  
  > This is truly the proof by example of the elitist nature of
  > USENET. It is also an example of "my way is the only way and the
  > right way"-itis.  Most news administrators of this type exist as
  > such only to feed their egos, and not as they are in a position
  > of service.

  Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:

  > I know everyone's calling for the head of the "personality"
  > involved, but I'd like to hear a little more about what *exactly*
  > is making it "politically impossible" for anon.penet.fi to
  > continue operation.  The above paragraph paints things in tones a
  > little too scandalous to take seriously without more evidence --
  > it strikes me as quite possible that a routine complaint
  > (*conincedentally* from Net Personality <X>) reached someone in a
  > position of power over penet who decided that the service was
  > causing too much controversy for the site.  No conspiracies
  > there.
  
  <styri@balder.nta.no>:
  
  > I too would be very interested in knowing what really happened. I
  > don't care who the "extremely highly regarded net personality"
  > would be, but it would be nice to know what kind of "situation"
  > was "created".
  > 
  > Just for the record: It was sad that the anon server went down in
  > flames, but it was not without reason. I think there is a case
  > for a pseudonym service on Usenet, but it will take some more
  > thinking and discussion to figure out how it should work. I think
  > we are a bit wiser after Julf's experiment and that we should use
  > the knowledge we gained in a positive way.

  Tom Bryce <tjbryce@unix.amherst.edu>:
  
  > I don't believe it for a d***! minute when people say abuse of the
  > anonymous posting service was what caused anon.penet.fi to be
  > shut down. 
  > 
  > It's just a lesson in power, the net administrators don't like
  > having certain things taken out of their control and power and
  > the user be d***!ed, they're going to keep things in line. Tough
  > s***!, I say. You don't have to know who I am, and if I'm abusing
  > the network anonymously, take the proof to the admin- instrator
  > of the anonymous service, and have them lock me out. 
  > 
  > Julf's posting was way too apologetic. You've nothing to apologize
  > for, I hope you or someone else gets another one going.
  
  Karl Kleinpaste <anonymus+0@charcoal.com>:

  > Generally, these server deaths have been due to abuses by an
  > extremely small number of maladjusted individuals who have done
  > something sufficiently heinous to attract the attention of Those
  > Who Matter.  TWM is a context-sensitive group, and has consisted
  > of, at various times and in relation to various anonymous
  > servers: the facilities management group of the site in question;
  > politically powerful individuals with influence regarding the
  > network connection of the server host; large numbers of irate
  > users inundating the server or its adminstrator in mail. 

  <an10757@anon.penet.fi>:

  > I have SEEN Mr. Big's letter to Julf, and I have SEEN the articles
  > pulled out of talk.politics.mideast.  If you read that group, you
  > know it's about 451 degrees in there.  The articles consist
  > mostly of a nym fighting with some guy at a big University. ...
  > there was nothing you wouldn't expect to find there, and the fact
  > that one of the participants was a nym was totally irrelevant,
  > and certainly violated no laws, or even Usenet decorum, such as
  > it is, Mr. Big's self-important,, inflated opinion to the
  > contrary notwithstanding.
  > 
  > Mr. Big's gripe has nothing to do with the content of the
  > articles, that's all bulls***!, just a sham.  The only thing he
  > cares about is that one of the flamers is a nym.  I agree with
  > whoever called him a bigot and a hypocrite.



_____
<7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown?

  Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>:
  
  > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down.
  > Postings to netnews and mail to arbitrary addresses has been
  > blocked. To enable users who know each other only by their anon
  > ID's to arrange alternate communication paths, mail to anonymous
  > users will still be supported for two weeks. After this period
  > all database entries will be deleted.

  Solomon Yusim <syusim@bcm.tmc.edu>:
  
  > I think it is also outrageous and deeply embarrassing to the whole
  > net community as to the secretive, back-handed, and authocratic
  > measures of how this shutdown had happened.

  Leonard Norrgard <vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi>:

  > This stinks.  I'm sure something could've been worked out without
  > going to this extreme.  I'm sorry to see it happen, and in this
  > way.

  Howard S Shubs <hshubs@cis.umassd.edu>:

  > I think that the loss of this anonymous server is a shame.

  David A. Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>:
  
  > This is very sad.
  > 
  > Having been the victim of a similar attack on my anonymous server
  > I sympathize.
  > 
  > Even your most vocal detractors in this group would seem to regard
  > this as an unfortunate outcome.

  Hannu Sepp{nen <hjseppan@hila.hut.fi>:

  > Demanding him to reveal the net person(s) behing the shutting down
  > of anon.penet.fi is not the point; there are always people around
  > that use their power for forcing... I'm concerned about the fact
  > that such forcing can be done, anonymously... It can be done,
  > because that person has a clear target, Julf. If the idea of
  > anonymous servers is supposed to be kept alive, it requires
  > several sites running such, in different organizations, in
  > different countries... That would be the only way to avoid what
  > happened to Julf?

  Dr. Cat <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
  
  > I do have to say I'm most sorry for a good friend of mine who had
  > a very pressing need to use an anon service in the near future,
  > for personal reasons I can't go into.  If anyone knows of any
  > alternatative anon servers she could use instead, please email me
  > information on them.  Julf's was the only one I knew about.

  Rob Knauerhase <knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>:
  
  > I'm constantly amazed at all the people who are outraged that the
  > anon server has gone down, but are unwilling to do anything about
  > it.  For crying out loud, Karl Kleinpaste's sources are available
  > -- you don't even have to be sophisticated endough to write it or
  > even understand it -- get them and put one up yourself.  If
  > you're not a sysadmin, then start campaigning the admins on your
  > machine.  But _please_ stop whining that this one is gone.
  
  <EUCLID@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>:

  > I, too, thank Julf, and am sorry to see the anon server go.  There
  > are subjects of discussion for which anonymity is appropriate
  > (e.g. sexual abuse, suicide, etc.).  Abuse of the service is
  > regretable, but i think an alternative way of handling that
  > beside shutting it down could have been found.
   
  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > It was never my aim to completely shut down anon.penet.fi.  I was,
  > and remain, a proponent of compromise - of setting some
  > reasonable limits on the uses of anonymity.  It was fanatics like
  > yourself who insisted on "all or nothing" that brought down
  > anon.penet.fi.

  Lazlo Nibble <lazlo@triton.unm.edu>:
  
  > I do not insist, and never have insisted, on an "all or nothing"
  > approach to anonymous posting.  My fanaticism is limited to the
  > idea that *you*, as an individual, have no business determining
  > what people at other sites can read unless the people in charge
  > of those sites expressly empower you to make that decision.
  
  Paul Hughes <hughes@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>:

  > I wanted to register my formal complaint with anyone who felt it
  > was a valid, justified action in closing the anonymous server.  I
  > object to the treatments Julf and the remaining non-abusive
  > members of the anonymous community have had to endure...ranging
  > from simple categorization to near slander.  I also believe many
  > people are hurt by this recent event.  All of the abuse and
  > recovery groups, alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards, and even the a.b.p.e
  > group (whose usage of  the anon server was of questionable merit
  > anyway), I predict, will find at  least temporary slow downs in
  > net.traffic due to people afraid to ask for help because of
  > private concerns that need only be their own.  Educational,
  > healthy purposes for posting anonymously are now going to
  > frighten many back into a hiding period, wishing for a new server
  > to free them to speak with people who can identify with their
  > problems.

  Bert Medley <medley@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>:
  
  > In any case, if I were a person who did not believe in such a
  > service, I would have used a Kill file rather than shut the
  > service down.  THERE ARE MANY VALID REASONS FOR SUCH A SERVER TO
  > EXIST.

  Dana Tyler <dwt8413@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>:

  > To: Julf@penet.fi
  >
  > Sorry to hear what has happened to your server. I think the net
  > community as a whole will suffer from it's loss. Posting to
  > alt.personal groups as well as other risque groups such as
  > alt.sex.movies will slow to nothing. I think the people of the
  > world have a right to express thier opinions while revealing
  > their identity. It eliminates pressure from one's peers to
  > conform to norms of scociety. I'll really miss it.

  Richard M. Hartman <hartman@ulogic.UUCP>:

  > This is too bad.  I have been perhaps one of the most vocal
  > against your service, but I have ALWAYS maintained that it was
  > not anon postings per se that I was against, as the MANNER in
  > which the service had been started, and the lack of strong policy
  > statements.

  Richard E. Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu>:

  > The Guru was leaving his mountain.
  > 
  > I was shocked.  I was disappointed.  I was saddened.  I was also
  > proud of Julf for the way he admitted errors and took
  > responsibility. He has nothing to be ashamed of.  A few of his
  > users betrayed him.
  > 
  > A hurried exchange of email showed that several of my allies felt
  > the same way -- that *this* wasn't what we had been arguing for
  > -- we didn't want a complete shut-down, what we wanted was to
  > make the anonymous service more accountable and thereby more
  > acceptable.

  Alexander Chislenko <sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu>:
  
  > I could hardly overstate my respect to Julf's work. I expect that
  > any future textbook on the history of the Net will mention
  > anon@penet.fi and Julf personally.

  Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>:
  
  > I'm probably not the only one who has been really surprised at the
  > very strong reaction in support of anonymous services that the
  > suspension of the anonymous posting service at anon.penet.fi
  > caused. This proof of support  (evidenced, among other things, by
  > the fact that I have received more than 350 personal mail
  > messages since the announcement of the suspension of the service.
  > Of these, only 6 have been against resuming the service) have
  > vastly improved my chances of resuming full operation. I really
  > want to thank everybody who expressed their support for the
  > service, both on news and in e-mail.  I don't have the words to
  > express how much I appreciate it!


_____
<7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown?

  Ze Julf <julf@penet.fi>:
  
  > 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.
  
  Jay Maynard <jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu>:
  
  > I call for the "net personality" responsible to come forward and
  > accept  responsibility publicly for this action, and explain his
  > reasoning (which may  well be valid, but we won't know until we
  > hear it).

  Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
  
  > There is no such thing as a "highly regarded" reputation...anyone
  > who did this act is a net.a**hole and deserves any condemnation
  > he or she gets. They obviously are not acting for the good of the
  > USENET community. 

  David A. Clunie <dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au>
  
  > Tell us who the b******! was this time ! He or she may have been a
  > "very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality"
  > but they won't be for much longer.

  Leonard Norrgard <vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi>:

  > *I* expect to see this person step forward and and admit it, if
  > they're that well-respected.

  Howard S Shubs <hshubs@cis.umassd.edu>:

  > Who and what happened?  Why didn't you give this info in public? 
  > Is the person who stopped you ashamed of his/her actions?  

  <styri@balder.nta.no>:

  > I'll add some fuel to the flame war at this point. Julf is making
  > a very vague statement, aiming at a group of people. He does not
  > state what really happened, that would probably have been easy
  > without telling us the identity of this "extremely highly
  > regarded net personality".
  > 
  > I don't know _why_ Julf doesn't reveal the identity of this
  > person, but the way he phrased his article it looks like he's
  > attacking some kind of backbone cabal or high profile person. On
  > the other hand, Julf may have had only good intentions by not
  > telling us the identity. However, that doesn't justify his
  > description of the prson as an "extremely highly regarded net
  > personality."

  H Keith Henson <hkhenson@cup.portal.com>:
  
  > I wish to express my appreciation to Julf for running
  > anon.penet.fi. It is a shame that those opposed could not evolve
  > better ways to cope than just shuting him down.  I also request
  > that the person(s?) who did so would step forward and engage in
  > discussion as to why they felt this to be necessary.

  Dr. Cat <cat@wixer.cactus.org>:
  
  > I'll add my voice to those who want to know who did this to Julf,
  > and why. Further, I would really like to know HOW it was done. 
  > It sounds like there may have been some heavy-handed,
  > manipulative user of power involved.  But certainly I'm willing
  > to hear the "well known net personality" give their side of the
  > story before passing judgement.

  Pat Myrto <pat@rwing.UUCP>:
  
  > Other than some folks being irritated by some anon postings, what
  > was the problem?  Surely not as irritating as some un-named
  > individual dictating that only activity that *HE* approves of may
  > occur on the net...
  > 
  > Surely this person does not want to hide behind anonymity
  > _himself_, does he, seeing as he apparantly strongly opposes
  > others using it? Actions are a much stronger indicator of where
  > someone is at than statements, and it would be nice to know who
  > is, in effect, dictating overall net.policy, and who gave him
  > this authority...

  <EUCLID@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>:

  > if the people responsible for shutting down the service decline to
  > indentify themselves, that would be an example of blatant
  > hypocrisy.

  <mathew@mantis.co.uk>:

  > I think that the highly regarded net personality should announce
  > his name here.  Surely it would be hypocrisy of the highest order
  > for him to try to remain anonymous?
  
  Eddy Robinson <Baphomet@temple.demon.co.uk>:

  > I find it highly ironic that so many people were flamed for 
  > advocating anonymity, whether they used it or not; and now Julf
  > is referring to a "net-personality" presumably in a diplomatic
  > attempt to preserve that person from a flamefest. If this centres
  > around a particular poster (as opposed to the 500th complainant
  > about anonymity or something), then I fail to see why they do not
  > "have the courage of their convictions" and stand up to take the
  > credit.

  Tom Gift <tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>:
  
  > Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical that the alledged net
  > luminary who is quoted as saying there's no legitimate need for
  > anonymity is him(her)self not willing to publicly take
  > responsibility for his/her actions in this mess?

  Alexander Chislenko <sasha@ra.cs.umb.edu>:
  
  > I find it very ironic that people who forced Julf to shut down the
  > anonymous service, choose to stay  *anonymous* themselves. Looks
  > like they think that their reasons for using anonymity in this
  > case are more legitimate than any other reasons anybody else
  > might ever have.

_____
<7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown?

  Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@sw.stratus.com>:
  
  > A reality check; The "net personality" didn't shut Julf down. At
  > most, such a person could ask others (who do have power over
  > Julf) to review Julf's policies and make their own decisions.
  > From Julf's article, that appears to be what happened.
  
  Michael Friedman <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>:
  
  > Will you conspiracy theorists please make some effort to get a
  > clue? Julf is almost certainly lying or, at the very least,
  > distorting the truth.
  > 
  > In fact, Julf's new announcement that his service is resuming
  > clearly indicates that he made the decision to eliminate the
  > original service.
  > 
  > In short, Julf, I think you lied.

  John Kennedy <warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu>:

  > I happen to think it's amazingly funny.  Here you have a whole lot
  > of people, fighting tooth and nail for a service and this
  > mysterious net entity manages to get it shut down.
  > 
  > Suddenly, you have people you've never seen crawling out of the
  > woodwork crying foul, and demanding to know said net-person's
  > name. Some of these are almost certainly people who used the
  > anonymous service to protect their _own_ identity from just this
  > sort of abuse.  _Regardless_ of how this person behaved, he
  > deserves his anonymous status, don't you think?
  
  Elioc S. Nevets <scoile@mason1.gmu.edu>:
  
  > He has the right to complain; he has the right to remain
  > anonymous. Maybe he didn't make himself known to the USENET
  > community at-large because he knew people like you wouldn't be
  > able to understand that all he did was complain, that he did not
  > shut down the anon.server, and that he has not authority to. 
  > Just because he exercises his right to free speech, standing up
  > for what he believes in, and complains, doesn't mean he has to
  > submit himself to public debasement.

  <news@wolves.Durham.NC.US>:

  > This is getting so boring.
  > 
  > Julf, with some admirable restraint, gives us the bare outline of
  > what happened to convince him that his anonymous server machine
  > should be shut down.
  > 
  > Everyone *now* jumps in to say that the person who triggered this
  > action is a net.idiot (or other unkind epithets), some of them
  > being the same folks who were jumping on Julf's case for being
  > too liberal with the way he ran the machine.
  
  Michael Friedman <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>:
  
  > I'm saying we can't trust him because he lies.

