From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:26:41 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <BZS.93Jan10152122@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>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."

Now wait a second.

TRUE anonymous user IDs are going to be damn difficult if BELL is taking
money for this service.

PSEUDONYMS, commonly known in the publishing trade as "pen names" are a
different matter entirely.  I have allowed these on my system (MCSNet) at
times if I feel there is a good reason for it.  That "good reason" does not
include the fact that someone feels like picking electronic fights.

However, I know who those people are.  If you show up at my door with a
court order which demands the release of that information you'll get a 
copy of the subscriber's signup form.

Therefore, there isn't a TRUE anonymous user capability.  I suspect that
anyone who takes money from a person for a service is going to have a
difficult time having actual anonymous access going on; they have to know
who you are to bill you!

>>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.

Which is certainly available if you have a "pen name", OR if you have a real
name.  The point is that the "pen name" is in and of itself a bitch to
administer, AND it destroys accountability for those who don't have a court
case to press. 

Therefore, my exceptions are few and far between.  Same with most other
systems.

>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.

You cannot possibly have an anonymous account unless you're walking into
someone's offices and paying cash for it.  Preferrably in unsequenced small
pieces of paper with President's faces on them.

MOST providers will not provide that service at ANY price.  The reason
should be obvious; if you do something that causes my machine to get 
seized, I'm damn well going to know how to find you and put you thorough 
the meat grinder in the legal system.

>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?

No.  If you present them with a court order, you can get the name <> user ID
correspondance.   They do allow you to have a "Pen Name".

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.crypt,alt.security,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.ripem,comp.security.misc