-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

lefty@apple.com (Lefty) says,

lef> and then treats us to what he purports to be Mr. Nalbandian's phone lef> number lef> and address. ... lef> Whoever you are, nobody, you're a hypocrite and a coward.

Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.toad.com> replies:

Well, it wasn't me, but in any event I dispute this. The use of anonymous remailers does not make one a coward, any more than the use of a pseudonym does (or is your given name "Lefty")?

As for the privacy aspect, I believe it may serve the interests of those who desire privacy to point out privacy lapses. Not all the time, but sometimes you have to say, "the emperor has no clothes".

For example, would you object to this:

an4544@anon.penet.fi = XXXX XXXXXXX <XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXXXXX> an68863@anon.penet.fi = XXXX XXXXXXX <XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXXXXX> an51751@anon.penet.fi = XXXX XXXXXXX <XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXXXXX>

[My deletions in X's]

The anonymous remailer is not so anonymous, is it? Should I have kept the information to myself, or am I right to publicize it?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a

[...]

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with: The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian in Tempe, AZ. They are listed, published, and publicly available. I guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the user? Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy? How much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies? (If indeed it is the same Jim Nalbandian) Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence. It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published information. Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information Liberation Front." In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above this sort of criticism. (I should note that I do not express any personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other). Mr(s). Anonymous' actions are a separate matter. Mr(s). Anonymous outed penet.fi accounts that were created with the express intent of shielding identity. This to me is a more offensive issue. Indeed Mr(s). Anonymous is (probably) correct when (s)he makes the point that the penet.fi remailer isn't very secure, but this point could have been made without the ramifications of outing those who might not look on it too fondly. I hope none of them are frequent alt.sexual.abuse.recovery users. Mr(s). Anonymous should probably consider exposing the method of compromise and the specific compromise to the parties and ask them to come forward to the list to verify the security hole. Taking it upon him(er)self to make that outing decision is more than obnoxious if it was done without consent. Even positing the addresses that were compromised wouldn't have been bad if they were not associated with actual addresses. In short Mr(s). Anonymous, if security was your goal, you didn't have to hurt people to accomplish it. Stands to reason that your motivations lie elsewhere. In short Lefty: Privacy comes to those who seek it. Crypto helps those who help themselves. As for cowards, did you ever complain when anyone violated copyright law via an anonymous account? In short nodody: Be nice. Call Mr. Nalbandian first next time, THEN out him. Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for: None. "nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs. Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money. Mr(s). Anonymous may have burdened the community with a net social cost. Damaged reputations from the outing, damaged repute for remailers that might be so abused. I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s letter. A considerable social gain in my view. Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain. -uni- (Dark)