From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: The World
	<1993Jan11.014705.11465@netcom.com> <C0o5Dv.7B2@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:48:33 GMT


From: mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
>>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."
>
>This is so simple I'm not sure how to make it clearer.  I postulated 
>a BBS where *everyone* was pseudonymous by default.  If "mickey" 
>doesn't know who I am, how the hell did he find my address?  (OK, 
>before some of you ultra-hackers out there decide to show me, I know 
>there are ways, but the people who are capable of it are rare.)

You got it, I mean, who cares how he got it, that's not your problem
right now is it, you have to get your cat off the door, ugh, blech.
And it is a heckuva coincidence, isn't it?

>Furthermore, I never suggested that the system administrators 
>shouldn't know the users' real names.  In fact, I think most systems 
>probably should keep a list of the real names -- on a secure offline 
>system, available only in case of emergency or a legal warrant.  
>What they definitely should NOT do is to broadcast the information 
>to the whole @#$%&*! network as a matter of policy!

Well, Ok, that would fix it, I'll grant that.

>Now, if I decide on my own to use my real name on the nets, that's 
>my problem, nobody else's.  But if a system encourages or entices or 
>pressures people into that kind of exposure -- for example, by 
>inviting people to use the system, perhaps even advertising or 
>promoting it, and then imposing a real-name policy without insuring 
>that new users know all the ramifications -- then the system becomes 
>at least partially responsible for any unfortunate results.  That's 
>my whole thesis in a nutshell.

Yes, but it rests on the assumption you state above, that the
individual had much less choice than in fact s/he did. It's based on a
fallacy. You lose the "case" Prima Facie, you haven't established what
you claim your case rests on, so there's no need to examine the
conclusions.

>Celebrities and other media professionals give up a lot of privacy 
>in exchange for the rewards of their careers, but even they retain 
>the right to use stage names and to try to protect their real iden-
>tities, their homes and families, as best they can.  Amateur confer-
>ence participants should have at least as much right to do the same.  

Yes, they do, and they do. Celebrities give up the ability to do a lot
of things you and I wouldn't think twice about doing. They don't hold
a department store or restaurant responsible because they get mobbed
when they walk thru the door and are recognized. C'mon, this point is
irrelevant, celebrities can create no special rights or liabilities to
help them.  They might be able to curry favor, but what has that got
to do with anything?

>Al Pacino has a good line in his newest flick; something like, 
>"There are two kinds of people in this world, those who run and 
>hide, and those who stand up and face the music.  Hiding is better". 

You have every right to follow that personal philosophy, but why do
you expect the courts and the law to go to a heckuva lot of trouble,
and at someone else's expense, to uphold that view? Particularly in
all those cases where you can so easily take care of it yourself, even
if it is at some cost, certainly the mere cost is not a reason.

>Moreover, I think you are wrong if you think that we can keep the 
>channels for ANY info controlled in the absence of anonymity.

Even with anonymity...

>But there are rational ways to run a society with a substantial 
>amount of anonymity.  David Chaum's article in a recent Scientific 
>American (Aug 92?) on an anonymous transaction protocol, using 
>"smart cards" and public encryption and signature techniques, is a 
>good example.  Will society ever actually adopt such protections?  I 
>doubt it, but I'm not ready to entirely give up.

Yes, in some spheres I don't disagree. I am not even 100% sure I
disagree with you on the rest of this (I disagree with the civil
liability aspect, but that doesn't mean I am sure the sentiment is
completely wrong.)

>Once again, if we make it that easy for merchants to sidestep their 
>responsibilities, there is no sense trying at all.  If a liquor or 
>cigarette or adult book merchant wants to sell to minors, by your 
>logic he could just hire a blind clerk, or set up his business in 
>some way to easily sidestep the responsibility.

Well, it's not my logic, I believe it is how the laws etc currently
stand (my example was a minor mailing in a sub card for a magazine
s/he couldn't have if s/he walked into a retail store.) If I am wrong
I'd be glad to be corrected.

I suspect the area is grey and only practicality tends to protect the
mail-order type, this is not a perfect world, and chasing someone out
of state vs making a stink at your local PTA or church meeting are
far, far different kettles of fish. So the distant guy tends to get
away with it because, in effect, no one can pursue prosecuting him
except in the most outrageous cases (i.e. he's subject to the same
laws, but it is much harder to enforce.)

>If the legal re-
>sponsibilities of a merchant are worth creating in the first place, 
>it is certainly worth enforcing them better than this.

Hey, you know, wish in one hand, s**t in the other, see which fills
first...(I'm in a cynical mood I admit.)

-- 
        -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