AT&T bans anonymous messages

AT&T WorldNet service has banned the sending of anonymous email or
posting anonymously.

>From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies":

		(i) Members may not post or transmit any message
		anonymously or under a false name. Members may
		not permit any other person (other than an agent
		acting on Member's behalf and subject to Member's
		supervision) to access the Service Member's
		account for any purpose.

The no anon rule even beat the no indecency rule, which is second:

		(ii) Members may not post or transmit any message
                which is libelous, defamatory or which discloses
                private or personal matters concerning any person.
                Members may not post or transmit any message,
                data, image or program which is indecent, obscene
                or pornographic. 

http://www.worldnet.att.net/care/terms/#oppol

WorldNet User <anonymous-user@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies":
>		(i) Members may not post or transmit any message
>		anonymously or under a false name. Members may
>		not permit any other person (other than an agent
>		acting on Member's behalf and subject to Member's
>		supervision) to access the Service Member's
>		account for any purpose.

(I can't get through to http://www.worldnet.att.net this morning.  Makes
me appreciate that dial tone I get every day.)

Is the WorldNet service an Internet access account, providing dial-in
SLIP or PPP access?  Or does it also provide user accounts like shell
accounts or like AOL?

The wording of this restriction is a bit ambiguous.  Technically if I
choose to resend someone else's mail I am not transmitting it anonymously
or under a false name, especially if I make clear what I have done.
He is anonymous, not I.

Rather, if I want to post a message anonymously I must access an
anonymous remailer to do so; if I want to post under a false name I must
hack my message headers or connect to someone else's news or mail server
and supply false data.

Doing the latter is something of a violation of the Internet rules, such
as they are, so I could see forbidding it, but forbidding use of an
anonymous remailer on someone else's system seems unreasonable.  AT&T
should not try to control what Internet services I access.

If I run an anonymous remailer on my home PC, connecting to WorldNet to
download the mail, decrypt it, scramble it, and re-send it under my name
but with a disclaimer attached telling what I have done, I have not
posted or transmitted anything anonymously or under a false name.  The
source of the material I choose to transmit, as long as it is legal, is
not something under AT&T's control.

Hal

Hal wrote:
| WorldNet User <anonymous-user@worldnet.att.net> writes:
| >>From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies":

| (I can't get through to http://www.worldnet.att.net this morning.  Makes
| me appreciate that dial tone I get every day.)

Try http://www.att.com/worldnet/

| Is the WorldNet service an Internet access account, providing dial-in
| SLIP or PPP access?  Or does it also provide user accounts like shell
| accounts or like AOL?

	The AT&T service I'm familiar with (some contract work on the
back end) is what they call 'Internet Dial Tone,' which is to say, a
IP connection and nothing else.  Its a way to reach your home system,
or, if you can find a freindly DNS server, surf the web.  They talk
about adding other things later.

	The phrase Internet Dial tone appears on the att.com page.
How they intend to authenticate hundreds of thousands of dialup users
to prevent anonymity is beyond me.

	(Hals points on the ambiguity of the language are well taken.)

Adam



-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, WorldNet User wrote:

> AT&T WorldNet service has banned the sending of anonymous email or
> posting anonymously.
> 
> >From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies":
> 
> 		(i) Members may not post or transmit any message
> 		anonymously or under a false name. Members may
> 		not permit any other person (other than an agent
> 		acting on Member's behalf and subject to Member's
> 		supervision) to access the Service Member's
> 		account for any purpose.

I don't have a problem with this, actually, and a brief visit to
news.admin.net-abuse.misc would show why. AT&T is selling you access under a
given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held
accountable. I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make
messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. 

If AT&T bans or monitors access to anonymous remailers, then that's a
different kettle of fish entirely, but they're not doing that. The policy
above allows you to send a message to an anonymous remailer under your own
name.

> The no anon rule even beat the no indecency rule, which is second:

I disagree. The below is outrageous.

> 		(ii) Members may not post or transmit any message
>                 which is libelous, defamatory or which discloses
>                 private or personal matters concerning any person.
>                 Members may not post or transmit any message,
>                 data, image or program which is indecent, obscene
>                 or pornographic. 
> 
> http://www.worldnet.att.net/care/terms/#oppol

"Discloses private or personal matters concerning any person"? I guess any
discussion of political figures is out.

-rich
 http://www.c2.org/~rich/

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held
> accountable. I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make
> messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. 

Under the common carrier law, i do not think that would apply

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Intense wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
> 
> > given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held
> > accountable. I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make
> > messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. 
> 
> Under the common carrier law, i do not think that would apply

This is true, but I wrote "accountable" rather than "liable" on purpose. 
Sites known as spam havens are regularly mailbombed, killfiled, aliased out,
and so on. With the possble exception of mailbombing, all of these means of
holding ISPs accountable for their users' abuse of network are completely
legal and require no legal action on the part of the responding site.

I see no excuse for the craven "indecency" and "personal information" bits
of the AUP, but my reading of the "anonymity" bits is simply that if you
configure Netscape "wrong" and send a spam or a harassing note, you'll get
kicked off. You can still use encryption, and you can still send messages to
anonymous remailers.

Actually, you'd be a fool to rely on AT&T for your privacy services, since
they can determine your identity based on Message-ID. Even Sameer will track
you down and kick you off if you spam from c2. The difference is that Sameer
encourages you to use his services responsibly in ways that ensure that even
he doesn't know who you are. 

Of course AT&T's language SUCKS. I'd like to see an explicit recognition of
the right to anonymity, when done PROPERLY, i.e., with anonymous remailers
or more freedom-loving ISPs intended for that purpose. An opportunity?
Probably not, but it's something for stockholders to consider. 

Skim news.admin.net-abuse.misc for messages from the respected spam-stompers
who are extremely sensitive to free speech issues -- Tim Skirvin, Seth
Breidbart, Chris Lewis, Russ Allbery, JEM. 

-rich