Re: Anonymous Remailers
--- begin forwarded text Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 23:14:19 -0800 From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> Subject: Re: Anonymous Remailers To: "ListMom-Talk Discussion List" <ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Reply-To: "ListMom-Talk Discussion List" <ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net> Sender: "ListMom-Talk Discussion List" <ListMom-Talk@SkyList.Net> X-URL: <http://www.SkyList.Net/ListMom-Talk.Home> At 8:10 PM -0800 1/4/98, Eric Mings wrote:
I noticed on Apple's info about acceptable behavior on their lists, that they ban postings which originate from anonymous remailers (of which they include juno). I was wondering what experience people have had regarding abusive posts from such systems, and how one easily identifies them if you choose to ban postings originating from such systems. Thanks.
That's me. I decided to stop accepting posts from anonymous remailers way back, when anon.penet.fi was still alive. Some of that is philosophy, some of that was problems. As far as problems, it's the normal stuff -- personal attacks, mailbombing through anonymous remailers, copyright/slander/libel issues, all the normal fun and games. Since you can't track users back, you have real problems policing them. And since anonymous remailers tend to allow multiple (heading towards infinite) remailing addresses, the practical issue of how to lock out an abusive user becomes severe. That's why Juno is bounced -- you can create accounts and then use them instantly, with no policing and no tracking. I had a problem a while back with an idiot who did, abusively. After about four rounds of trying to get him to go away, I did it the hard way, with a virtual neutron bomb. Juno's no help. In THAT case, I got email from them six weeks later apologizing for being so delayed in responding to my requests for help. they didn't offer to help, they just apologized for not telling me they wouldn't for so long. And that's been typical of my dealing with them. They don't police. They don't care. Their systems are set up so that basically, they *can't* police things. So I just don't even get into it. Since I can't police their users, I police their site. Effectively, they are an anonymous remailer. God knows enough folks use them as one. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome <http://www.solutions.apple.com/ListAdmin/> Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) <http://www.plaidworks.com/> (<http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/> +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Robert Hettinga wrote:
I noticed on Apple's info about acceptable behavior on their lists, that
I decided to stop accepting posts from anonymous remailers way back, when anon.penet.fi was still alive. Some of that is philosophy, some of that was problems.
As far as problems, it's the normal stuff -- personal attacks, mailbombing through anonymous remailers, copyright/slander/libel issues, all the normal fun and games. Since you can't track users back, you have real problems policing them. And since anonymous remailers tend to allow multiple (heading towards infinite) remailing addresses, the practical issue of how to lock out an abusive user becomes severe.
Mailbombing could be a criminal offence. But libel is a civil and not a criminaloffence. Under The Communications Decency Act S.230(a) no service provider is liable for content authored by others. Even if someone use a remailer to slander and libel further action requires private civil action. There is absolute no reason for being concerned about defamation from the operator point of view. The Fourth Circuit Court upheld the service provider impunity defence in a recent case brought against American Online Inc. (Zeran v. American Online Inc.). However,if a moderator vulunterable approves a libelous message the case could be different. BTW, am I correct that criminal libel in no longer considered constitutional?
On 8 Jan 98, Anonymous was found to have commented thusly:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Robert Hettinga wrote:
I noticed on Apple's info about acceptable behavior on their lists, that
I decided to stop accepting posts from anonymous remailers way back, when anon.penet.fi was still alive. Some of that is philosophy, some of that was problems.
As far as problems, it's the normal stuff -- personal attacks, mailbombing through anonymous remailers, copyright/slander/libel issues, all the normal fun and games. Since you can't track users back, you have real problems policing them. And since anonymous remailers tend to allow multiple (heading towards infinite) remailing addresses, the practical issue of how to lock out an abusive user becomes severe. Mailbombing could be a criminal offence. But libel is a civil and not a criminaloffence. Under The Communications Decency Act S.230(a) no service provider is liable for content authored by others. Even if someone use a remailer to slander and libel further action requires private civil action. There is absolute no reason for being concerned about defamation from the operator point of view. The Fourth Circuit Court upheld the service provider impunity defence in a recent case brought against American Online Inc. (Zeran v. American Online Inc.). However,if a moderator vulunterable approves a libelous message the case could be different. BTW, am I correct that criminal libel in no longer considered constitutional?
Depends on whose constitution you are reading. In the country where I reside, the politicians use libel laws to avoid accountability to the voting public and to get at journalists with both civil and, I am pretty sure, criminal penalties. Journalism is a job with rather unusual occupational hazards in this particular country, in fact, with the largest number of murders of journalists taking place here, often by the police or some 'civil authority', who are rather brazen about it and characterize any journalist not in the pocket as a sympathizer of a cause for which the public is willing to do a lynching. (The military, which operates its own 'state security' court system here, just throws them in the lockup until they find a way to escape.) Sam Donaldson would have been history long ago here. Mitch Halloran Research (Bio)chemist Duzen Laboratories Group Ankara TURKEY mitch@duzen.com.tr other job title: Sequoia's (dob 12-20-95) daddy
participants (3)
-
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Robert Hettinga -
S. M. Halloran