More ideas on anonymity

Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM> writes...
>I think the bottom line is that it will be difficult to provide
>anonymous/pseudonymous postings in a way which won't elicit the kinds of
>strong objections Johan has been facing.  His controls are OK for now,
>but in the long run I think they won't work.

This may be an example of an intractable problem. A case where
legitimate interests are mutually exclusive at least in practice of not
in theory.

If Johan has restricted output due to pressure from those communities,
then he has already been forced to hobble his service's most significant
*potential* benefit to the community. If a serious whistlblower were to
come along with some serious evidence and credibility, it is likely that
he/she would want to post his/her evidence in one or more of the groups
Johan has locked out! I mean no aspersion on Johan here, he is laboring
under pressure I'm sure, and he is a pioneer in all of this, and we are
sharing his experience. I don't mean to take political sides either,
both sides of the debate have legitimate arguments. In the one other
post I made on this topic before, I received but one reply remarking
that I "was preaching to the choir".

On the one hand, we have the principle of free speech and the right to
privacy and even anonymity if we so choose it. Taken in an unrestricted
way, this principle is rather radical (politically). True there are
areas of our social and political lives where a right to privacy and
anonymity are both desirable and generally accepted/practiced (these
vary of course in different parts of the world). But there are other
equally common areas in which they are not.

The strongest pressure against anonymity on the Usenet comes from
quarters where a strong positive pressure exists, on *principle* for
posters to "declare themselves", to "stand behind their words". In a
realm where egalitarianism, semi-anarchy, and bad signal/noise ratio
already make for a questionable mix or product value, "naming yourself"
is a significant benchmark. Even in these groups, most participants
would recognize the need for access to anonymity when it was really
"justified", but such cases are believed to be fairly few and far
between. as gg pointed out:

>The point is that this is a broadcast medium, though without the
>limitations of conventional broadcast.

The mutually exclusive nature of these principles emerges in practice
from what a former boss of mine called the human "ornery" factor. In
this case that some number of individuals will exercise their "right to
anonymity" not because they have to, but just because it's there.
Believe me I sympathize with this view. It keeps authorities and
would-be authorities on notice that there are those who will test the
limits of their rights and signal the rest of us if they are eroding. I
also accept Hal's argument that we are protecting ourselves from
possible future abuses of central authority. But I also sympathize with
the sentiments of the other side, that most of the time it is desirable
to put your name where your mouth/keyboard is. A consensual solution to
this problem depends on a common political viewpoint, something that is
certainly not in the cards for contemporary net participants. Of course
a solution may one day be "imposed", but that will not likely be to
anyone's liking. The likely direction of such an imposition is signaled
by what Dave Clunie experienced at PAX and what Johan is now
experiencing as well.

matthew rapaport     Philosopher/Programmer At Large      KD6KVH
           mjr@netcom.com     70371.255@compuserve.com

> This may be an example of an intractable problem. A case where
> legitimate interests are mutually exclusive at least in practice of not
> in theory.

True. Sigh.

> If Johan has restricted output due to pressure from those communities,
> then he has already been forced to hobble his service's most significant
> *potential* benefit to the community.

Just want to clarify this... I did block access to groups outside alt.*
and soc.* for a week while the worst storm was raging, especially as
Karl Kleinpaste was threatening to kill the server by flooding. I did
re-establish the service as soon as there had been enough opposition to
Karl's suggestion.

At this point, only two groups are blocked, rec.nude and soc.singles,
both as a result of a formal poll on the group in question.

> If a serious whistlblower were to
> come along with some serious evidence and credibility, it is likely that
> he/she would want to post his/her evidence in one or more of the groups
> Johan has locked out!

I suppose this is why we are creating alt.whistleblowers. Other people
could forward those messages to any potentially blocked groups.

> I mean no aspersion on Johan here, he is laboring
> under pressure I'm sure, and he is a pioneer in all of this, and we are
> sharing his experience. I don't mean to take political sides either,
> both sides of the debate have legitimate arguments. In the one other
> post I made on this topic before, I received but one reply remarking
> that I "was preaching to the choir".

Well, I freely admit this is a learning experience for me. And I have
also started to realize that at some point I'm going to have to shut
donwn anon.penet.fi and set up Mark II, based on all the experience we
all have gained in this process. And I really do appreciate all the
enormously valuable experience and input this group has given me in this
matter!

> The mutually exclusive nature of these principles emerges in practice
> from what a former boss of mine called the human "ornery" factor. In
> this case that some number of individuals will exercise their "right to
> anonymity" not because they have to, but just because it's there.

Yes, I think I have seen enough good (bad) examples of this in action by
now, but I am afraid I'm going to see a lot more...

> Believe me I sympathize with this view. It keeps authorities and
> would-be authorities on notice that there are those who will test the
> limits of their rights and signal the rest of us if they are eroding. I
> also accept Hal's argument that we are protecting ourselves from
> possible future abuses of central authority. But I also sympathize with
> the sentiments of the other side, that most of the time it is desirable
> to put your name where your mouth/keyboard is. A consensual solution to
> this problem depends on a common political viewpoint, something that is
> certainly not in the cards for contemporary net participants.

Right. So for now we will just have to do a tightrope act... Anyone know
where I can get a pair of glittering thights?

	Julf