At 11:46 AM 6/25/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, WorldNet User wrote:
AT&T WorldNet service has banned the sending of anonymous email or posting anonymously.
From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies":
(i) Members may not post or transmit any message anonymously or under a false name. Members may not permit any other person (other than an agent acting on Member's behalf and subject to Member's supervision) to access the Service Member's account for any purpose.
I don't have a problem with this, actually, and a brief visit to news.admin.net-abuse.misc would show why. AT&T is selling you access under a given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held accountable.
Why should this be true? I can still walk to a pay telephone, put in a quarter, dial a random number and talk to somebody anonymously. The various Baby Bell companies aren't "held accountable" if it's an obscene phone call. I think that any attempt to hold the Internet to standards higher than existing services is a mistake.
I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable.
Isn't the whole purpose of anonymity (remailers and such) in order to ensure that the messages AREN'T traceable?!?
If AT&T bans or monitors access to anonymous remailers, then that's a different kettle of fish entirely, but they're not doing that.
Yet. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com