From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: anonymous harassment (was: I'll tell you why there aren't any wome...)
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:27:42 GMT
 <JBW.92Aug11212557@bigbird.bu.edu>
 <1992Aug12.134712.2964@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
 <JBW.92Aug12102544@bigbird.bu.edu> <92225.171156RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department
In-reply-to: RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 12 Aug 92 21:11:56 GMT

First, I agree with almost everything that Bob Grumbine wrote in the
message to which I am replying.  I am merely pointing out the minor
disagreements here.

In article <92225.171156RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu> RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

   In article <JBW.92Aug12102544@bigbird.bu.edu>, jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) says:

   >Even if a harasser makes threats, they can be ignored.  Unless someone
   >breaks into the office at Shecora Associates and gets the address list
   >from Darryl's computer, there is no danger.  Even if this happened, I'm
   >sure Darryl would post a warning to the net that it had happened.

   >Seriously, what are people worried about?  I wouldn't be afraid of a
   >person who doesn't know who I am or where I live and who didn't have any
   >way to find out.

     The question is not whether _you_ would be afraid of harassment by
   such a person.  The question is whether _some_ people are.

For me the question is whether such fear is *justified*, not whether some
people have it.

     In the situation here, even though there is no readily obvious
   means of carrying out the threat, the threat is there.  And
   someone sufficiently far from social norms to be sending the
   mail, is quite possibly (enough to make concerns realistic)
   also capable of investing the time and energy into finding
   addresses.

A weirdo can do all of that anyway, *without sending e-mail*.  Whether a
weirdo sends anonymous e-mail to the poster of an anonymous ad is separate
from whether the weirdo tries to track the poster down.

     You mention that, if the address file were broken in to, you're
   sure the administrator would notify everyone.  Not a help.
   Many userid's lead to real addresses and phone numbers, which
   can not be readily changed.

What I was pointing out is that before this point, fear is unjustified.

   Actually, from your note, you seem to feel that it is impossible
   to harass someone through e-mail since the reader can always
   trash the mail.

My point was not about regular e-mail but rather about *anonymous* e-mail.
When the sender of the e-mail has no way of knowing who the recipient is
or where they live, I don't see why it should be considered harassment.
For me harassment requires the potential for coercion.  However, in an
anonymous situation there is not even the potential for coercion.

(I say the *potential* for coercion because harassers often deliberately
try to hide any coercion involved.  If a harasser is in the same room then
there is always such a potential, i.e. the harasser could hit the
harassee.)

Anyway, tell me what you think.

-- 
Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.personals.ads