From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: The World
	<BZS.93Jan8234039@world.std.com> <C0M7Fv.9sA@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:21:22 GMT


From: mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
>>And what about the potential harm to other users *from* an anonymous
>>user? Is that not a quandary? Does that not, by a similar stretch of
>>the imagination, seem to hold the BBS somehow liable to the harmed
>>party?
>
>Everyone always brings up this supposed risk of harm from anonymous 
>users.  I don't get it.  Imagine a BBS whereon everyone uses a 
>pseudonym; how can anyone harm anyone?

I don't understand, you are sure that harm can come from BBS users
when they know your name, but not when you don't know theirs? Huh?

Just turn your own example around which started this:

You get into a disagreement with mickey_mouse@bell. MM threatens to
nail your cat to your door. You don't give it any mind (but you save
the msg.) You get home that night and there's your cat nailed to the
door. So you call Bell and say "hey, who is this mickey_mouse guy I
want to report him/her/it to the police...etc". And they say "damned
if we know, he's one of those anonymous users you sued us over not
having last year so we changed our policy."

You don't find that analogous? I do.

At the very least hanging ones' real name out there might temper one a
bit, and I believe that's basically what, um, Bell's policies are
claimed to be motivated by.

(To The Net At Large: Let's not get into whether or not it's really
him who did this, that's a tangent, w/o his ID you can't even politely
ask him if he wants his nails back, anyhow, there's certainly enough
there that it would be worth looking into.)

>but real harm only becomes possible when real names 
>are used, right?

So we just give in and encourage a paranoid society where no one dare
let anyone know who s/he is?

>>Besides, the whole thing is more hypothetical than you might imagine.
>
>Not for me; my feelings about this are based largely on personal 
>experience.

I was referring to the concept of getting justice from the courts for
something like you described.

>You are quite right that this question can be construed to have 
>broad applications throughout our society.  In fact, I suspect a 
>right to anonymity online may be crucial to preserving the slightest 
>shred of privacy in our not-too-distant future.  See my article.

I'm not sure I buy your equation of anonymity with privacy. I don't
believe we can run a society where one's personal security hangs
entirely on their anonymity, and that's what you are really saying.
Oh, some things, surely I don't want people to know everything about
me, and I want to keep channels for that info controlled (e.g. the
whole flap about the videotapes that congressman rented.)

I think tho what you are actually talking about is FREE anonymity. Do
you agree that you can have all the anonymity you want *at a price*?

Perhaps anonymity as you describe is merely a commodity, and the only
real issue here is that you believe its cost is too high (yet you
certainly seem to recognize its value)?

>>For example, if a child gets a hold of a subscription card for a
>>sexually explicit magazine, fills it out (we don't have to assume a
>>small child, a 12 year old is sufficient) and even signs that s/he is
>>over 18 yrs of age and encloses the money properly would you expect
>>the magazine to be held liable?
>>
>>It's really quite similar in many ways (now watch, the answer will be
>>"yes"...)
>
>Yes (I couldn't resist :).  Well, actually I don't know, but isn't 
>it true in general that a merchant who sells sexually explicit 
>material, or any other prohibited material (such as cigarettes), to 
>a minor is liable, even if the minor misrepresents him/herself?

Yes, but that is exactly the distinction I was drawing, that's why I
used the example of sending in a subscription card to an explicit
magazine. I believe there is some distinction that in the case of a
retailer s/he can plainly see that the person is (or might be) a
minor, while in the case of certain types of mail-order one recognizes
that it's just not that easy. If anything I would tend to use that as
an argument to ease up on the retailer's responsibility, if the same
material can be had via mail by a minor with almost no chance of
prosecution then why pick on the retailer? Well, I guess because
retailers make it a tad too easy, comparatively.

So I think you just missed my point on that last example.

P.S. Point of Information - It is true that Compuserve is basically
anonymous, right?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk