From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 1992 22:55:25 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) continues our conversation:

>>> I disagree with characterizations of the WELL here *not* because I
>>> have personal relations with anyone, but because I use the WELL, 
>>> and what Steve is saying doesn't seem to be connected in any 
>>> way with the system I know.
>>
>>Humm.  Characterizing my posts as "not connected in any way" 
>>with the WELL is false on the surface ....
>
>So is your statement of what I said. Specifically, I said that,
>based on my experience of the WELL, your statements "[don't] seem
>to be connected in any way with the system I know."

Mike, I was only taking your words at face value --
When you said "the system I know" I assumed by this you meant
"the WELL".  Therefore I thought you were saying that
the substance of my posts was not connected to the
WELL, which I felt compelled to point out is false.

>>... the starting point of
>>this discussion was the WELL's pseudonymity policy as stated to new
>>users ....
>
>Which doesn't seem particularly limiting.

You're skating on thin ice here.  All the evidence points to it being 
fairly restrictive, including what I've been able to
learn from WELL admins thus far.  And I don't think
any contributors to this thread have denied that
pseudonymity is discouraged at the WELL.

I won't pretend to speak for the admins, they
can post additionally on their policy here if they wish.

>> ... and the fact that some
>>WELL users and potential WELL users have expressed the view
>>that the unavailability of pseudonymity is a disadvantage of
>>the WELL.
>
>Could we have a number of the *actual* WELL users who are complaining
>about this? 

An aside, perceiving something as a disadvantage is not the same
as "complaining".  

As for your question, how many users do *not* see it as a 
disadvantage??  Could we have a number for them?

Why do you believe the users I've talked to are not representative?

>"Potential" WELL users would do well to experience the system
>a bit before speculating about its disadvantages.

Mike, here you are being ludicrous.  If someone does not wish
to use the system other than anonymously, they're not in
much of a position to "experience the system a bit" before
forming an opinion, are they?

And you keep using the word "speculating" inappropriately.
An informed consumer thinking of signing up for WELL would:
(a) look to see what well tells new users when you telnet them;
(b) ask current WELL users for opinions; (c) pose questions
on a semi-public forum such as usenet;  (d) Ask the WELL
admins to explain things further where they seem vague.

All of which I have done.  How else is somebody supposed to learn 
more about what they're buying into?  Sombody tries to 
gather information on the WELL and you for no further reason
label them as "speculating".  Sheesh.

>>If this seems not to be "connected" to the system you use
>>every day, I can only assume that this is because you
>>are SO familiarized with the way the WELL works now
>>that you don't want to even THINK about whether there's
>>any alternative ways of doing things.

>As the user of countless online forums, I think I'm fairly familiar with
>the range of ways in which systems can be run. 

This alleged familiarity is certainly not showing through in
your posts here.  Hence my comment above.

>Perhaps you should try "assuming"
>that the WELL may not be laboring under any particular disadvantage.

So far as I can tell the WELL is doing fine.  That doesn't
mean their policies on privacy matters are perfect however.
As I said before I consider their policies acceptable.

>>The *perceived* suggestion that pseudonymous services should be 
>>reserved for a privileged class of users (e.g. celebrities)
>>initially struck me as wrongheaded, in the same sense that I would
>>consider it wrongheaded to suggest that encryption services 
>>be limited to only military users.
>
>I think you are basing this criticism on a misreading of what was
>said in explanation of the policy. 

This is why I said "perceived" in my sentence above, to
allow for the possibility that given the lack of complete
information, I might be misreading what the policy is.

>>I will acknowledge though, after reading what Cliff and a
>>few others have written, that in practice the WELL has managed to
>>administer this restrictive-seeming policy in a pretty
>>much reasonable fashion.
>
>This seems to suggest that your characterization of my blindness
>as to the WELL's flaws may itself be mistaken.

I did NOT say the WELL had "flaws".  Don't put words in my mouth.
Mike, you have repeatedly misstated what I've posted here to make my
concerns sems more extreme than I've actually expressed, so that you
can then attack me for things I've never said.  You are using
a "strawman" approach to the debate, in other words.  Don't you think 
the readers of comp.org.eff.talk are a little too savvy to be 
impressed by this tactic?

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk