Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site normac.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!normac!scott
From: scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Objection to annonymous postings
Message-ID: <116@normac.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Nov-84 02:01:11 EST
Article-I.D.: normac.116
Posted: Sun Nov 25 02:01:11 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Nov-84 02:09:08 EST
References: <112@normac.UUCP> <1258@eosp1.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: scott@unix.UUCP (Scott Bryan)
Organization: Normac, Lafayette, Ca.
Lines: 54

mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:
>I agree with Tony Robison.
>
>There is a parallel discussion about this subject going on in fa.telecom
>right now, pretaining to anonymous postings to BBS's and the legal issues
>about who is or is not responsible for them.  While I don't think the
>issues are clear cut, there has been at least one instance where the
>police have seized a system because a credit card number was anonymously
>posted on that system.

By anonymous postings I meant that a PO BOX system should be used
that, if necessary for legal/ethical reasons, could reveal the true
identity of the individual, but that would otherwise protect/allow
more open discourse.  I believe you see the potential benefits.

>The erewhon case has shown that for those who know how the net works,
>it is indeed possible to post a forged message that can't be traced.
>We have no way to stop such postings.  However, if we encourage anonymous
>postings, we are potentially liable when someone advocates an illegal
>activity anonymously.

I am unsure what you mean.  Is is that the user cannot be identified or
is it the originating machine or some combination of both?  It seems to
me that at least the persistent abuser would be easy to narrow down.
Besides, the argument is irrelevant since I have seen noone advocate
a system that would conceal all identity and leave no way for reply.

>If you really want to post something anonymously (and I do believe there
>are newsgroups where this makes sense) you should go through a moderator
>who knows who you are.

OK.  I would like to post some things anonymously and am willing to
"register" with a local moderator.  Here's where we need the software
to assist the monitor in re-routing the return mail.  I want to be
able to get direct Mail replies.  I think it is unreasonable to expect
a moderator to do all of this.

>Up until now, people have used good sense and not posted things that are
>obviously illegal.  If we all continue this way, we won't have problems.
>However, it would be a mistake to set up software to encourage anonymous
>postings, since that would open the door for an arrest or lawsuit, and
>it would be the system administrators who would be in trouble if it happened.
>	Mark Horton

I would like you to reconsider your closing paragraph.
Anonymous postings is a mechanism designed to disassociate the authors
person for his/her ideas.  Nothing more.  You could still reply to
particular people via Email but you wouldn't know who they were.

If anything this idea is more legally sound than the current system because
it would establish an official mapping between network PO Boxes
and the real people they are connected to.

Scott Bryan