From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:32:33 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>But: it turns out the WELL management makes exceptions
>to this policy.  Who are these exceptions?  Primarily
>celebrities.  The management there likes the idea
>of certain well-known individuals posting anonymously,
>and so is willing to make exceptions for these
>people.

>Now, it's possible I don't have the entire story straight,
>but if the above is true it strikes me as somewhat
>bogus.  I mean, it would appear that not all users are
>provided with the same level of service, based on... what?
>Somebody's arbitrary decision.  Is it reasonable for
>a professional access service to do this?  I have some
>doubts.

>I'll qualify this whole post by saying the above is the
>situation as I understand it, I could be wrong about 
>some of this.  But I'd like to hear what you-all think
>about this sort of policy.

Steve, I was director of the WELL for six years and am now director of 
EFF's Cambridge office.  Although the WELL may change its policy at any
time, I can describe how things were until I left in July.

First of all, yes, we did ask that people use their real names online for 
several reasons and you seem to accept that practice in your posting.  Since
the WELL makes it clear that users are responsible for what they post
on the WELL, we thought it important that they be identifiable.  Also,
by having a real name associated with every account, there is less tendency
for users to be abusive of other users.  It just works that way.

And, yes, we made exceptions in the past for selected cases.  In some
cases, where "famous people" got accounts on the WELL, we did cooperate
in protecting them from being hit on by the rest of the users.  There
were probably 6-8 cases of this while I was in charge.  Since the WELL's
password file is open for inspection by all, and since management knew
the true identities of these users, it seemed like a reasonable request.
Had those users caused any problems with the rest of the population, we
would have promptly deactivated their accounts and probably revealed their
true identities.

For us, the "policy" was operational.  Our main concerns were to know who
was responsible for all postings (for the WELL's protection) and to prevent
libel and harrassment of our users (for the users' protection).  Since 
there were so few requests for anonymity (probably 10-15 serious requests
out of over 20,000 registrations), we took them on a case-by-case basis.

The WELL has never been much into rules.  We tried to stay open to 
experiment, given the relative newness of the medium as a social 
tool.


                <<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                    fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation         (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                 (617)864-0866 (fax)




-- 
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  (617)864-0866 (fax)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,isu.cc.general,isu.talk.usenet-policy