With respect to recent discussion about anonymous posts/mail, and the wishes of some to avoid passing anonymous traffic .. I guess I've really got to wonder just how difficult people think it is to get onto the net, anyway. I've got my net access becuase I pay UUNET roughly $50/month for it - and I get my own domain name, with as many hosts (and as many users on those hosts) as I care to set up. I set up 'fake' accounts on a regular basis - not becuase I'm trying to trick anyone, per se, but becuase it's the easiest way I know of to tweak the flow & storage of mail on disparate subjects & topics. I can post a message and say "Please E-mail to me, and I'll summarize with a post", and do so easily - I just set up a special account that I'd like replies to go to, and then I post from that account. (Usually, just to be polite, I'll use the same 'real name', but multiple account names - 'gb@goldenbear.com' vs 'greg@goldenbear.com' vs 'gbroiles@goldenbear.com', and so forth.) Then, a few days/weeks later, it's no big deal to concatenate the replies in those different mailboxes into different summary messages for posting. This seems like the sort of thing everyone ought to be able to do - such that you could request (or command) that replies to a message be directed into a particular E-mail folder owned by your account. What all of this brings home to me is how easily I could just create an entirely fictitious 'person', and use it for posting & mailing - it'd be totally anonymous, provide me with easy way to receive replies & carry on conversations .. *and* nobody would even know they were talking to a real person via a fake name. I don't do this because it seems impolite to converse with people under false pretenses; if I wanted or needed to post/mail anonymously, I'd probably use a redirector (if I could find one) because it seems more polite to be clear about my desire for discretion & privacy. Apparently, however, some of the powers that be would rather see folks like me using fake but real-sounding names when we want privacy, instead of being clear about what's going on. I think that's a shame, because it seems like lying. The Internet has already had to deal with the fact that it's not possible to trust a user simply because they're root on their local machine - it may well be that 'root' (as in my case) is just some guy with a '386 who likes to play on the net. There is, I think, still some expectation that user names are what they appear - if you see a post from "cjones@leviathan.com (Chris Jones)" there's some expectation that there really is a human being out there named "Chris Jones", who's probably got a job and a desk and a boss, or at least some form of accountability. It's this slippery notion of 'accountability' that is perhaps at the root of this 'anonymity' problem - the idea that there's gonna be some hell to pay if somebody writes to 'postmaster@leviathan.com', and complains about Chris Jones. The fact is, you can mail to 'postmaster@goldenbear.com' and whine all you like, it's just another alias for the same damn person (me). I think there are going to be more & more people like me in the future - I *am* my boss, the postmaster, and the sysadmin - and if people don't like what I do or say on the net, that's just too damn bad. This illusion of accountability and control can't last much longer .. can it? As I see it, these "net gods" who don't like anonymity have two choices - anonymity they can detect, or anonymity they can't. I'd much prefer to be polite and straightforward about things, and post clearly marked anonymous posts/mail when that's what I want to do - but if that traffic is going to be suppressed, I'll resort to more clandestine anonymous transmissions. The days when it was possible to make any assumptions at all about human to "real name" to net address correspondences and mappings have passed, if they ever existed at all. I think about my E-mail address(es) as ways to direct the flow of mail such that it's convenient for me; I know other people do this too. My E-mail address isn't a license plate, it's a file folder. -- Mail to pgpserv@goldenbear.com, subject="Greg Broiles" for PGP public key. Greg Broiles greg@goldenbear.com Golden Bear Consulting +1 503 465 0325 Box 12005 Eugene OR 97440 BBS: +1 503 687 7764
From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 01:14:00 PST I've got my net access becuase I pay UUNET roughly $50/month for it - and I get my own domain name, with as many hosts (and as many users on those hosts) as I care to set up...... It's this slippery notion of 'accountability' that is perhaps at the root of this 'anonymity' problem - the idea that there's gonna be some hell to pay if somebody writes to 'postmaster@leviathan.com', and complains about Chris Jones. The fact is, you can mail to 'postmaster@goldenbear.com' and whine all you like, it's just another alias for the same damn person (me). I think there are going to be more & more people like me in the future - I *am* my boss, the postmaster, and the sysadmin - and if people don't like what I do or say on the net, that's just too damn bad. Well, there is still *some* accountability --- if you do something really wretched, and someone complains to UUNET, won't UUNET at least tell that person who is paying for that link, and if you do something really egregious, and UUNET gets enough complaints, will UUNET shut you down? I suspect that it would take something really serious to cause UUNET to shut you down --- for example, if you started sending child porn, which might enable the Feds to seize *UUNET*'s computers --- but there is still some limited amount of accountability, and potential retribution if you do something which enough people considers is wrong. If we lived in a world where it was easy to filter out anonymous {mail, news}, and the anonymous poster had to *pay* for each octet of {mail, news} that he/she posted, then I suspect that a lot of objections to Anonymous mail and news would die down. Many people have said this repeatedly, and I agree with them. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world now, and pretending that we are in such a world (by answering people's complaints with promises of vaporware) is just going to make enemies. But by working towards such a world, so that people can get all of the benefits of anonymity without forcing *other* people to pay the costs of anonymity --- that is certainly something which should be applauded. - Ted
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>
From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 01:14:00 PST
I've got my net access becuase I pay UUNET roughly $50/month for it - and I get my own domain name, with as many hosts (and as many users on those hosts) as I care to set up...... [...] and if people don't like what I do or say on the net, that's just too damn bad.
Well, there is still *some* accountability --- if you do something really wretched, and someone complains to UUNET, won't UUNET at least tell that person who is paying for that link, and if you do something really egregious, and UUNET gets enough complaints, will UUNET shut you down?
I believe that UUNET has applied for and received common carrier status, in which case they are not responsible for thier traffic and cannot make any judgement calls regarding the traffic coming from a particular site. It is kind of like the phone company; they may not approve of the 976-BABE numbers, but as long as those operations do not break the law there is nothing the phone company can do about them no matter how many complaints they may receive. jim
From: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 11:54:39 -0600 (CST) I believe that UUNET has applied for and received common carrier status, in which case they are not responsible for thier traffic and cannot make any judgement calls regarding the traffic coming from a particular site. It is kind of like the phone company; they may not approve of the 976-BABE numbers, but as long as those operations do not break the law there is nothing the phone company can do about them no matter how many complaints they may receive. I'd love to hear more about this --- my understanding was that "common carrier" status only had a specific meaning for telephone companies, and also meant as a side effect that they had to regulated by the FCC. I was not aware that "common carrier" status had any meaning in the computer networking arena, since no regulatory agency would have the right to receive applications and grant common carrier status, unless a law were specifically passed by Congress or perhaps some action resulting from a Federal court decision. Or is it that UUNET merely considers themselves a "common carrier" but that this has yet to be tested in court? Would Mike Goodwin be willing to comment on this? It would certainly have a lot of implications towards providing free speech on computer nets, and I'd love to have a real lawyer's perspective on this --- as opposed to the perspective of millions of people who merely play one on USENET. :-) - Ted
I believe that UUNET has applied for and received common carrier status [...]
I'd love to hear more about this --- my understanding was that "common carrier" status only had a specific meaning for telephone companies, and also meant as a side effect that they had to regulated by the FCC. I was not aware that "common carrier" status had any meaning in the computer networking arena, since no regulatory agency would have the right to receive applications and grant common carrier status, unless a law were specifically passed by Congress or perhaps some action resulting from a Federal court decision.
I am fairly certain that the people doing Skynet (Usenet news over satelite) are common carriers (or at least that is what Len Rose told me, I could be wrong...) For an example that predates computer communication by some time but might be a worthwhile example anyway, take a look at Western Union's telegraph business. What is/was thier status regarding the messages they sent? jim
I spoke with Mike O'Dell about this; he says uunet is an enhanced service provider. It is not a common carrier. (Let's not discuss this in cypherpunks anyway -- I just wanted to set the record straight.) John
participants (4)
-
gnu
-
greg@ideath.goldenbear.com
-
mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-
Theodore Ts'o