Path: math.utexas.edu!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rand.org!usenet From: Jim Gillogly <jim@acm.org> Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,news.admin.policy Subject: Re: Anonymous posters & Misinformation = Net pollution Date: 7 Aug 1994 15:17:31 GMT Organization: Banzai Institute Lines: 51 Message-ID: <2o7sni$4!nb@bogus-site.org> References: <32253p$220@news.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: jim@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Host: mycroft.rand.org Keywords: misinformation disinformation propaganda net anon anonymous Xref: math.utexas.edu talk.politics.misc:239321 news.admin.policy:19182 In article <32253p$220@news.u.washington.edu>, McDaniel <mcdaniel@u.washington.edu> wrote:
The problem: Anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or otherwise wasting bandwidth in groups more concerened with fact or atleast genuine concerns (such as political talk groups and sci groups.) .. Opinions?
Since you asked: my opinion is that there are more non-anonymous posters supplying pseudo-news reports or otherwise wasting bandwidth in serious groups. For example, in sci.crypt one poster consistently posts off-topic flamebait, and others consistently take the bait; while there's widespread consternation and killfiling, so far as I know nobody's suggested retroactively moderating him. On the other side, a consistent anonymous poster has produced and released useful crypto and digicash code... I assume his/her identity is masked to avoid ITAR prosecution for sending crypto out of the US without a license. In short, anonymity isn't the problem: cluelessness is the problem. In sci.crypt we may to eventually get rid of off-topic posts by moderating. I would hope the moderators will let anything clueful through, whether it's anonymous or not. I'll point out in passing that an anonymous poster can build up a reputation the same way as anybody else simply by signing articles with the same PGP key each time -- I'd be more confident that a signed message is from Pr0duct Cypher (i.e. the same person who posted as Pr0duct Cypher <last> month) than that an unsigned one is from McDaniel... I could forge one of the latter in a trice. McDaniel also said:
applicable.) OR provide the owners of moderated groups with detailed accounts of the true identity of any anonymous poster who post to a serious newsgroup and make that procedure known to the would-be anonymous user.
This sounds challenging. Many of the for-profit services allow the users to pick their own net identity... it's a feature. Do you know the True Name of the person behind the account evidence@netcom.com? Do you think Netcom would cough it up without a court order? Either AOL or Delphi -- I forget which, now -- allows users to have several different identities for their Net traffic. How would <I> prove <my> identity to this moderator? Maybe by signing my application to post with my PGP key, which is in turn signed by somebody they trust? Seems quite difficult. <I> certainly wouldn't want that burden as a moderator. I suggest you devote your time to finding a way to suppress idiocy and cluelessness on the Net in general... and if you can have it in place before the fall quarter starts, that would be lovely. Jim Gillogly Trewesday, 15 Wedmath S.R. 1994, 15:17