Anybody else see eye-to-eye with Connie Chung tonight?

They had a segment on a "digital stalker" on Prodigy. Basically,
a guy who kept getting anonymous Prodigy accounts with fake
credit cards and then used the accounts to harass people almost
like Detweiler.  The reporter's attitude was disturbing however.
His attitude almost seemed to be that Prodigy should read each and
every private message to protect users from harassment. The whole
segment is a foreshadow of how society will react when anonymous
remailing becomes widespread.

  One more thing. The narrator seemed to imply that what we know
as "flaming" should be controlled. For instance, the phrase
"check your thorazine dosage" could be viewed as digital harrasment.
It's a brave new world out there. Coming to your local cyberspace
soon.

-ray

In the message <9405060231.AA19359@sugar-bombs.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
 <rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>[About segment on "digital stalker" on Prodigy and narrator's bias
>towards 'something should be done'.  In particular, 'flaming' should
>not be tolereated.]

	I saw it and the reporter's bias as well.  What I found most
interesting was the interview(s) with the Prodigy representative who made
the analogies with regular physical mail and how we don't expect the Post
Office to screen all of our incoming mail.  The reporter blew right past
this argument and seemd to imply that if it was technically possible for the
Post Office to screen your mail that it should.  Quite disturbing...

				Bill Bogstad
				bogstad@cs.jhu.edu