The question as to what specifically to prohibit being posted anonymously has come up, and is by far one of our most serious and sensitive considerations. Of course, the decision is largely in the hands of the anonymous server operator, but no generally accepted guidelines currently exist, and we might help some people and advance the cause by codifying `legitimate use'. First, let me assure you my intent and preference is that it should be as liberal as possible. Let's look at some of the options (I'm tiptoeing on eggshells here, please don't flame me too much): 1) operator makes decision for every posting brought to his attention. Things that would test this system: what about revisionists (not ugly-enough term) who claim that the Holocaust never happened? Or someone who is posting extremely provocative but fabricated data? (The first case happened on Prodigy--the censors let it through at one point, and was documented in a column by Alan Dershowitz, famous American lawyer defending e.g. Mike Tyson, and other major celebrities. The second case happened with the now infamous challenger transcript posting, where anonymous user of penet posts without any comment a `transcript' of shuttle crew dialog during the crash.) Here, I think one policy might be that if the poster seems to be repeatedly and blatantly fabricating the data himself, maybe some restriction or warning is in order. But if ever the poster includes `real source' (no matter how trashy) from the outside world, and makes it clear that they are not the originator, only the purveyor (`messenger'), perhaps this is less serious. (I think Mr. Helsingius' current standards in this area should be held up as an outstanding model of commitment to privacy and free speech.) 2) some kind of global system for keeping track of `abusive' posters. Here are some interesting ideas--how about lists circulated among anonymous server operators only (not public) that record barred users by their email address or even real identity? The lists could be categorized and tagged so that the administrator can prohibit use based on the seriousness of the offense. Here are some things that operators `might' look at: 1) ad hominem attacks 2) flame baiting 3) lying outright 4) defying Usenet conventions: posting copyrighted material, binaries to regular groups, massive amounts of data, etc. 5) number or existence of *any* complaints 6) `racist' remarks 7) terrorism 8) `harassment' 9) anything illegal in the poster's country (yes, tricky I know) ad infinitum ad nauseam. Maybe we could try to organize the severity of this kind of stuff, and classify servers as `type 1' or `type 2' and we can get a feel for how liberal or conservative the operator is. The operator would say which lists he subscribes to, and which lists your email address will go on if you abuse the site. Really extreme operators (like Mr. Kleinpaste) might actually be interested in `public' lists -- abusers get their email addresses, along with the offense, posted on the public list, i.e. `outed'. Now, I think a lot of this is pretty unpalatable, but we have things to gain by formalizing these mechanisms, and as long as the anonymous user is *warned* in the server intro-use message, and possibly even has ways of redress, and has choice of different servers, then the system could be fairly agreeable by most. Remember, no one is preventing operators from being conservative or liberal as they like, the only thing wanted is adherence to their stated policies. Look what we have to gain. Currently, there is a lot of censorship (attempts? conquests?) going on behind the scenes, as a recent episode here attests. No one really knows how effective in general it is currently to hunt down and bar `abusive' users (hence a lot of misinformation and paranoia about the effects of anonymous servers). If we could have some *statistics* that show x% of nonanonymous users get complaints and y% of anonymous ones do, this would be very useful for gauging the social impact of our technologies. (There could be some very surprising results---I get the impression that many very responsible people *prefer* anonymity, and conceivably the overall complaints on anonymity could even be *less*). 3) Possibility of net.trials Ok, so don't flame me too much on this one. But if `abusers' (this could be for anonymity on a local server, but eventually involve to other realms) were subject to a `trial by peers', imagine what this could do to enhance the legitimate reputation of networks. Suddenly, a judicial system. I certainly don't want to be known as an advocate of bringing in lawyers and bureaucrats. Actually, that's precisely why I'm proposing this, to prevent that scenario. Imagine that the net establishes these formal self-regulating mechanisms. People in the real-world law enforcement would be much less likely to become enraged by perceived abuses when they realize that there are intrinsic mechanisms for quelling the psychopaths (uhm, maybe, anyway). Also, if people weren't added to blacklists just by the caprice of one operator but after a perceived fair `trial', people at other sites would be much more willing to enforce the sentences of suspension, expulsion or whatever. An electronic trial by peers? (with voting at the end?) A very interesting idea. Each server may develop a kind of peer or family structure, keeping kin in line. Maybe everyone that replies to an anonymous message could vote in their header whether to get rid of the user, with the default `one vote of approval' (limit voting regularity). Approves add, complaints subtract. The user starts with some initial balance. If he gets down to zero, *poof*. Lots of `approval'? No problemo. Post something really outrageous? You might get enough zaps to lose it all. Imagine, this could improve the accountability of users in *general* (the mechanisms could be applied to new Usenet groups, for example, or if very trustworthy and fair even logins themselves). I've been a bit vague and ambiguous in some of these statements. This is because, as I hope has become clear, the kind of things that start out on anonymous servers could eventually have a much greater scope, so that it `behooves' us to develop effective and dynamic mechanisms for self-regulation. Keep in mind a lot of these things are happening already albeit in much less formal ways. For example, the convention is to send complaints to the system adminstrator at a site regarding their users, and they act as judge and jury (or use whatever other local procedures are in place). The user may or may not be able to justify their actions (redress). There is already a loose confederation of cooperation between administrators, esp. over extremely abusive posters. We already get somewhat public `trials' of extremists, where people put forward all the evidence on Usenet and argue both sides. `Enforcement' and `punishment' sometimes consists of revoking logins, feeds, or whatever. I think we ultimately stand to gain by `formalizing' a lot of the currently informal mechanisms in place. My feeling is that if we don't head off these issues at the pass, so to speak, Real World (tm) courts will start deciding them for us. Let's develop something we can be proud of and will be a model of excellence for the future, and not something frail and unstable. Perhaps our anonymous motto: ``I disagree with what you say but will defend to my death your right to say it.'' --Voltaire (written pseudonymously)
me:
[...] and we might help some people and advance the cause by codifying `legitimate use'.
Eric Hughes
The only perfectly unambiguous position is that every use is a legitimate use.
Once again I'm very seriously disturbed at the sentiments presented by some eminent members of this list. I believe in free speech perhaps as rabidly as the next guy, but many of the most rabid advocates recognize that there are limitations on `freedom'. Everyone, please take the following remarks impersonally but seriously. Let me be very clear about this: I'm highly committed to pseudonymity and anonymity as new, revolutionary social tools. However, completely unrestrained anonymity (which, by the way, is related to but not equivalent to freedom of speech) is unworkable and extremely dangerous to *everybody* (not just corrupt government officials or big businesses that were so ignorant they didn't hire you). Anybody here that thinks that an anonymous service can act something like a Unix pipe that just passes the raw stuff through forever unhindered and uninterrupted is seriously deluding himself. Whoever does is ultimately discrediting and detrimental to the cause itself. If you think the problem is exclusively because of self-appointed puritannical `censors' on the net (which, I admit, exist), you are *wrong*. It gives me great anguish, dread and fear to read of `limitation' of anonymity misguidedly satirized as nothing but brutish censorship. You can submit and agree to some minor and essential self-regulating mechanisms, such as barring illegal and unrepetant users, `convicted' email addresses circulated among anonymous server operators voluntarily, a complaint-and-response system, perhaps even automated, etc. Or you can call it all the most obnoxious and insidious stab at your true God-given freedoms ever to ooze out of the sewer. But one exemplary and commendable somebody who posts here and has committed superhuman energy and dedication and commitment to the ideal of anonymity for the Usenet masses, running a server TODAY, recognizes that certain basic limitations are unpalatable but NECESSARY and CRUCIAL. And if you don't sufficiently protect yourselves (and unrestrained anonymity transfers to operators the most supreme exposure and vulnerability) you will inevitably be rudely, shockingly surprised at your liability and loss. ``Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.'' Everybody here that thinks anarchy is kinda neato should reconsider. By one meaning of anarchy, at least, you cannot have even the most basic of conveniences you have taken for granted, e.g. longtime social contacts or clothes, food, privacy, or whatever (and you'll not easily convince me there are more appealing variations thereof). Enclosed, an essay by a friend of mine... WHY DIGITAL ANONYMITY SHOULD BE UNRESTRICTED by D. Lewdud I want net anonymity to be completely unrestrained, and anybody who thinks otherwise is an unAmerican communist censor sleazebag Puritan prude spy who should be ruthlessly exposed and stoned for the sheer criminality of their ideas. I happen to like it when the Usenet groups I'm reading have a lot of irrelevant junk, with the signal-to-noise ratio approaching absolute zero. Anonymity is great for vicious flame wars and haranging diatribes, but anonymously posted binary files in science groups are the best, especially if they are posted multiple times and take many megabytes. In fact, if they crash my newsserver, that's even better. It gives me an enviable vacation during which I can look forward to the next assault and relish the inspiring poetry of it all. But then the narrowminded ignoramuses talk about shutting down some system or excluding some users, depriving me of my sheer joy. All this idiotic drivel about pornography and copyright violations sanctioned by taxpayer money. OF COURSE! That's everyone's right, to exploit all that gushing money in our government--that's why it's there. Clearly our corrupted officials don't know what to do with it besides pocket it. Why, if some bloated bureacrat misses his snack of caviar to subsidize this lovely GIF specimen, this masterpiece of nudity spread before me lasciviously, posted by some exemplary anonymous user, that's one small favor for humanity and a giant drool for me. Wow, think of what we could achieve and accomplish if we completely dismantled the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and my local pig trough! (Ah, but not everybody objects to pornography, so maybe I'm preaching to the choir on that one.) I want to be able to get mailbombed with regularity, I like it when my system goes down and I am helpless and the cruel butt of other's jokes. Its fun! Esp. when I know where the mail is originating from, but the operator makes eloquent, impassioned, and irate speeches against stopping the flow based on Constitutional rights. I've started a collection of all the neat stuff I've received (millions of lines of exquisite profanity and threats), and to make room for it have gotten rid of all the other junk on my account like mail from my friends and family and my previously-favorite programs, which pale in comparison to records of the heights of eloquence of my tormentors. To think that others pay for this gives me great pangs of ecstasy. I paid good money for all my hardware, and my network connection is my pride and joy, and finaly I'm getting a return on my serious investment. Why, I'm so happy I'm going to buy another new computer to replace the last three that have crashed. Rather than put in the many hours required to repair them (which would definitely be gleeful), I've decided they'll go up on my mantle as monumental testaments to the grandeur of the great anonymous feats of humanity. I want to see illegal, sinister, and evil groups like the Mafia to flourish, using new technology like networks to perpetrate their patriotic services. The net is such a close-knit set of orderly people and upstanding citizens, I'm sure they'll love to join the party. I want them to be able to terrorize me without consequence. Anybody who objects clearly is wholly ignorant of the beautiful social implications wrought by this wonderful technological innovation, a blind mute living in a black and white closet and a zealot of thin line-drawing. Although I haven't personally yet had the great joy of this, I can't wait to receive an anonymous death threat or ransom notice via email, possibly even directed at a close relative or loved-one. In fact, I'm saving up as much digital money as possible right now for exactly this eventuality. Its my digital insurance fund. That this can all be completely untraceable with anonymity, well that's something as exhilarating as a quivering digital orgasm. Imagine the splendor of delivering an anonymous note to the mayor of New York and the world that in 15 minutes a large chunk under a large building, a symbol of international unity, will be conveniently rearranged, at only minor risk to nearby inhabitants! Wow, this could really advance the cause of establishing a vast electronic infrastructure for promoting all the splendid possibilities of digital anonymity. Considering what's happened to the country's `real' infrastructure, we need another! If the assurance of anonymity was absolute, it would really encourage everyone to find similarly noble uses of their own. Don't get me wrong. I'm totally free of bias for and prejudice against various uses of anonymity (anything less, of course, would be fascist totalitarianism). For example, I like individual terrorists just as much as the organized collections. They sound like they could be really completely uninhibited in their creative grasps of our true freedoms, and more numerous with their stellar utilizations. In fact, the potential for individual, unassociated citizens to thwart the abuses, and profoundly destabilize the foundations of frigid, faceless bureacracies like big telephone companies, and even the government, I find spine-tinglingly majestic---it even looks like this could soon happen. Imagine: nothing left but pure, omnipresent cyberspace!
I wrote:
The only perfectly unambiguous position is that every use is a legitimate use.
and then L.D. wrote:
Once again I'm very seriously disturbed at the sentiments presented by some eminent members of this list. I believe in free speech perhaps as rabidly as the next guy, but many of the most rabid advocates recognize that there are limitations on `freedom'.
Gotcha. I make no claim above as to the propriety of an unambiguous position, merely that there is one and only one completely clear position. (There is another, that no use is legitimate, and we here conveniently ignore that one :-) The consequences of unambiguity must affect our discussions of this matter. If we desire unambiguity, then there is no need to distinguish between uses. If, however, the unambiguous solution is not desirable, then there must be decisions made about propriety. As with every other question of power, the real question is "_Who_ decides propriety?" The questions "What are significant criteria?", "When is the decision made?", and others are all subordinate to the question "Who decides?" Roughly speaking, there are three situations regarding anonymous communication: the sender, the carrier, and the receiver. In each of these, we can examine what decisions they are _able_ to make. As sender, I can choose who I present myself as, whom I send to to, what carriers I want, and what I want to say. As carrier, I can choose whom to accept messages from, whom to send them to, what content I am willing to pass. As receiver, I can choose what carriers to receive messages from, and from whom to accept mail.
Anybody here that thinks that an anonymous service can act something like a Unix pipe that just passes the raw stuff through forever unhindered and uninterrupted is seriously deluding himself.
Well, an anonymous service _can_ do just that. Whether or not the rest of the world continues to communicate with them is a separate question, an important question in the short run to be sure. Acknowledgement that a procedure is an exigency does not make that procedure desirable of itself. All differential carriage based on content is censorship. I acknowledge the exigency of certain forms of censorship in currently deployed anonymous systems. Nonetheless, I will never desire censorship for its own sake and I will also fight to remove the conditions which make censorship exigent in the first place. The problem is, who decides what is exigent? We can either answer that question, or change the world so that we never need ask it. I decline to respond to the essay by Mr. D. Lewdud. Eric
I want to see illegal, sinister, and evil groups like the Mafia to flourish, using new technology like networks to perpetrate their patriotic services...
Although I haven't personally yet had the great joy of this, I can't wait to receive an anonymous death threat or ransom notice via email,
Imagine the splendor of delivering an anonymous note to the mayor of New York and the world that in 15 minutes a large chunk under a large building, a symbol of international unity, will be conveniently rearranged, at only minor risk to nearby inhabitants! Wow, this could
The person who wrote this stuff hasn't thought it through. Any of these things can and do happen right now over the telephone (anonymously) and through postal mail (anonymously). Somehow, society has not fallen into anarchy because anyone can drop a letter in a mailbox. Why not? (pause here and actually think about it...)
Wow, think of what we could achieve and accomplish if we completely dismantled the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and my local pig trough!
Now you are closer to reality. It appears that at least the DEA is getting *severe* funding cuts under President Inhalation. It's about time someone fired those thugs.
For example, I like individual terrorists just as much as the organized collections. They sound like they could be really completely uninhibited in their creative grasps of our true freedoms, and more numerous with their stellar utilizations.
There are two problems with terrorism. The first is that it is regularly practiced by governments -- against their own populations as well as against non-citizens -- so governments can't truly be too opposed to it. I'll give you the definition of terrorism from the CIA in 1980 (as reported by Admiral Stansfield Turner): Terrorism: The threat or use of violence for political purposes by individuals or groups ... when such actions are intended to shock, stun, or intimidate a target group wider than the immediate victims. ("Terrorism and Democracy", ISBN 0-395-43086-0, p. 181). If forcibly arresting someone and putting them in jail for selling drugs to a willing buyer doesn't fall squarely into this definition, I don't know what does. Every law that Congress passes "to send a message" falls into this definition -- it's to intimidate a group wider than the group who will be arrested and tried. The second problem is *not* that it's too hard to tap the phones of identified terrorists -- it's that you can't pick out the terrorists from the billions of other humans. Even police states have trouble with this, but they tend to provoke more people to become terrorists. Anonymity makes it possible (as in alt.whistleblowers) for people who know terrorists to safely expose them. Have you noticed that the way the Feds have attacked the Mob has been by convincing insiders to testify and giving them untraceable new identities (the "Witness Protection Program")? The beauty and the strength of an open society is that it brings all kinds of problems and conflicts out where everyone can see them and they can potentially be worked out -- BEFORE anyone sees a need to escalate to mass violence. In a rigidly structured society, by the time the government knows it needs to change, it has already been deposed.
In fact, the potential for individual, unassociated citizens to thwart the abuses, and profoundly destabilize the foundations of frigid, faceless bureacracies like big telephone companies, and even the government, I find spine-tinglingly majestic---it even looks like this could soon happen.
It has already happened. A small number of individuals have done this -- Freud, Marx, Moses, Jefferson, for example. Most profoundly destabilizing ideas are derived from the work of a single mind (nanotechnology for example). But most destabilization of bureacracies comes from ordinary change, not profound change, and the improved communication tools we're building will *help* individuals and bureacracies to deal with change. John Gilmore
participants (4)
-
Eric Hughes -
gnu -
L. Detweiler -
ld231782＠longs.lance.colostate.edu