FC: Replies to LA Times columnist wanting to limit anonymity online

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 21:43:50 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Replies to Dick Armey, speeding, and photo radar helping safety"

    Previous Politech message:
    
    "LA Times columnist wants it to 'be harder to be anonymous' online"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03477.html
    
    ---
    
    From: "Vincent Penquerc'h" <Vincent.Penquerchat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous" on
             line
    Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:43:35 +0100
    
     > So instead of worrying ourselves silly about ways to protect these few
     > who are afraid to stand up for their words and actions, we should be
    
    *sigh*
    It's so easy to stand up for your words and actions, when these
    are nothing that could annoy the government or other bodies of
    power. Thank you, John Balzar, for these rare insights into how
    political dissidents in many countries could use the internet.
    
    -- 
    Vincent Penquerc'h
    
    ----
    
    Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:10:27 -0400
    Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be
             anonymous"online
    From: Richard Forno <rfornoat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    
    Declan, this is ridiculous. This guy is either afraid of technology or
    doesn't know how things work in an information-based society.  A few
    responses are provided below -  I do hope these make it to your list.
    
    Article source:
    http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/3170530.htm
    
    He says:
    
     > Last I looked, some Internet service providers offered subscribers the 
    chance
     > at five different identities, perfect for all but the most advanced cases of
     > split personalities.
    
    Gee, AOL calls them 'child accounts' - sure, they could be used for
    anonymous purposes....many folks use one for 'spam purposes' when they
    register software. Just because the capability exists for someone to use
    something for malicious purposes doesn't mean they actually will.
    
    Besides, if such accounts were used for malicious purposes - stalking and
    such - nearly every ISPs, especially the mainline ones like AOL, can provide
    dial-in and customer information to law enforcement when subpoenaed. If
    anyone thinks they're anonymous going through such ISPs, they're sorely
    mistaken.
    
    Besides, a truly bad person would stand up his own email server to cause
    mischief, and bypass the AOLs of the world.
    
     > Your ability to sound your way across the Web anonymously means that you can
     > harass someone else and intrude on their time without being answerable. By
     > what sensible measure can this be defined by a word so noble as ``privacy''?
    
    This guy's a public figure. If he was victimized by such actions, it's no
    different than a Hollywood star being forced to deal with the paparazzi
    masses. He's just angry because his name got mixed into something
    embarassing....it happens to the best of us....he needs to get over it.
    
    If you don't want to risk it, don't stick your neck out.
    
     > The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that 
    anonymity is
     > one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy.
    
    His sarcasm aside, the folks that built the Web never envisioned it to be
    the mainstream environment that it is currently, or that it evolve into a
    corporate-controlled quagmire (eg, MS, WIPO, ICANN) that it is today. This
    guy needs to do some homework before making such broad jabs at visionaries
    like Lee, Cerf, Postel, and others, who indeed brought the world into a new
    age.
    
    I agree that the web's "foundation is wormy" - but not because of how it's
    designed or because of anonymous ways of using it, but because many of the
    systems providing content on the net are insecure - either through operator
    ignorance/oversight, or because such systems are running easily-exploited
    buggy operating systems. Addressing security concerns at this level will
    help prevent most of the concerns he's bringing up in this article.
    
     >Already, one of the first lessons taught in  middle-school computer labs 
    is to
     >regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder -- apt to bite you at
     >any moment. Is this the best we can expect  from the information revolution?
    
    How is that any different from when our parents told us not to talk to
    strangers when walking home from school??
    
    A few closing comments:
    
    Think about it. If someone writes for months and years for a reputable
    publication - like Balzar does - and then all of a sudden, a byline with his
    name appears on a kiddie-porn advocacy article on some website somewhere, it
    doesn't take a genius to think something fishy happened there. I don't think
    many folks would think he's a kiddie-porn guy even if the situation would
    break the mainstream news. A simple search of the web and his journalistic
    credentials would be proof enough that such an article wasn't written by
    him. Instead he blames anonymity in cyberspace. I know that if it was any
    journalist I know, I'd be questioning the authenticity of the document, and
    not rush off to judge them as evil or deviant.
    
    Eg, someone posts a fake press release on Yahoo Finance. Sounds fishy to
    some. Might the person think "hmm, this is peculiar and out of the norm for
    Company X or Person Y?" and  They try to confirm it with Marketwatch, CNBC,
    WSJ, and any number of other sites, who neither have it posted on their site
    nor even know about this release. Maybe you call the company itself for
    verification, that's what they have PR and investor relations offices for.
    Only the idiot would assume such an item to be valid, just like only an
    idiot would impusively act on news from a single, uncorroborated source -
    it's common sense always, and more so with the scandals on Wall Street
    coming to public scrutiny.
    
    The web's transparency means that if you've got a historical 'good name' out
    there, when there's something that sounds goofy associated with yours, it's
    relatively easy to correlate and disprove, if you have half a clue and a
    good head on your shoulders. Sure, there's a lot of extraneous white noise
    on the net, but it's generally easy to correlate and clarify things, too.
    
    There will always be bad people out there - who will always abuse the system
    and find ways around the established norms of behavior.
    
    This article has nothing to do with anonymity on the net - it's one guy's
    response to a situation that ruffled his feathers, in a new medium (the net)
    that he's probably uncomfortable operating in.
    
    Richard Forno
    www.infowarrior.org
    (c) 2002 by author. Permission granted to reproduce in full.
    
    
    ---
    
    From: guessat_private
    To: declanat_private, wkat_private
    Subject: Re: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous"  online
    
    This Story has been sent to you by : guessat_private
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Hi Declan,
    
    Ironically SiliconValley.com runs a very nice
    anonymous email system that I found from
    reading Mr. Balzar's article.  The "email this article" feature is a great 
    way to send email to anyone.  The sender has complete control of the
    return address, subject line, and message text.
    
    The best part is that the sender's IP address
    is not recorded in the email headers as far as
    I can tell.
    
    bye bye
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 09:40:29 -0500
    From: Chet Uber <eideticat_private>
    Reply-To: eideticat_private
    Organization: SecurityPosture
    
    Mr. Balzar:
    
    What middle schools teach this? Is it all, most, some, few, or just the
    imaginary one you created for your article? Please give States and
    districts to support this claim. Being directly involved in K-12 ethics
    and cyberspace curriculum development I would really like to know. This
    is a huge problem, as if the Web is truly as dangerous as the adder
    (responsible for thousands of IRL deaths a year) then no one should be
    allowed to use it. It is better to talk about the subtle dangers they
    might face, like stalking and scams -- in the real world context. Not
    some made up "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" bullshit
    scare story.
    
    I think the only reason that this person wants to get rid of anonymity
    is that they think this would help them qwell parody speech. Which
    further shows there complete lack of understanding of free speech and
    the Internet community.Why do people who really don't get it continue to 
    want to make therules.There is nothing wrong with anonymity in and of 
    itself. It is one of the
    cornerstones of privacy. Without it, you must rely on security to ensure
    privacy, and to date this has been as effective as -- well posting your
    private affairs on a bulletin board. When you use it to lie to commit a
    crime there is an issue, but IRL people use ski masks and stockings.
    Should we ban ski masks and stockings as well?
    
    
    eidetic
    
    -- 
    Chet Uber, eideticat_private, PGP
    B8DE8D3F
    Senior Advisor, SecurityPosture
    7660 Dodge Street, Suite D - Omaha, NE 68114
    vox +1 402.498.2673 fax +1 402.391.3906 cell +1 402.671.9720
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:50:11 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    From: Eric Tully <ericat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be
       anonymous"  online
    
    I wonder what he thinks about the anonymity of The Federalist Papers.
    
    - Eric
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:52:03 -0400
    From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVYat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be
             anonymous"online
    
    Is the LA Times going to stop relying on anonymous sources?  Or, are they 
    going to "out" anyone who tries to give them information and asks not to be 
    identified?
    
    Paul Alan Levy
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
    1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20009
    (202) 588-1000
    http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
    
    ---
    
    From: Cynthia Grossen <cgrossenat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous" on
             line
    Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:02:18 -0400
    
    Sorry Declan -- I'd rather email the author directly but his email address
    wasn't readily available from his article. Maybe he's protecting his
    ^privacy^.
    
    Basically my response is . . . so what. I want my anonymity.
    
      And I dispute the claim that anonymity is only used by people for
    illegitimate or illegal purposes. When I go to the library and browse
    through the stacks I can see all sorts of information that I wouldn't
    necessarily what other people to know that I'm looking up. Maybe I'm looking
    for information on a species of plant or an exotic animal. Maybe I'm
    researching an embarrassing medical condition. Maybe I'm a professional
    person who wants to look up the answer to a question that I should know the
    answer to already. (i.e. what if I'm a computer programmer and I have a
    basic question about computer programming?) My point is that by browsing the
    stacks I can find the information that I need/want without anyone knowing
    who I am and having no records kept of my visit or what I did while there.
    (as long as I don't check anything out.)
    
    It would be nice if the web worked this way too. Instead however we can not
    browse the web with out myriads of records being kept about when we logged
    in and where we logged in from and how long we were logged in and what
    topics we researched on google. And what pages we accessed as a result of
    that search and how long we accessed a particular page and where we went
    after reading a given page. In short everything that we did is known (or at
    least it could be known, so it is prudent to assume that it is known.) and
    records are kept. Of course I don't know who has the records and/or what
    they plan to do with them.
    
    (if we do something very bad then we will probably get caught and get into
    trouble. If we do annoying things and make pests of ourselves then it
    probably won't be worth the amount of effort required to track us down and
    'punish' us. This is analogous to the real-world, where more effort is
    expended to track down a rapist than a vandal. Even though both are wrong,
    one is much less likely to get caught--unfortunately it's probably the
    rapist.)
    
    I guess my vision of the ideal internet would be a library. Where you can
    come and go as you like and the only time they need to know who you are is
    when you wish to physically borrow one of their books (resources).
    Furthermore the library records are reasonably well-protected from spurious
    perusal.
    
    In the real world though, the internet is not anonymous and anyone who
    believes (and/or acts) like it is runs some very serious risks. Check the
    USENET archives for examples of people who believed they were having
    anonymous conversations.
    
    As a side note it sounds like the author has a problem with "anonymity" on
    the road too. Should we pass a law requiring everyone to put their name on
    their cars in 18 inch high lettering? Why is it that people recommend the
    stupidest things for the internet? We would never contemplate passing the
    kind of laws that get passed for the internet in other areas. (IMO)
    
    (just an interesting thing, notice that in both examples that the writer
    uses to illustrate anonymity. Anonymity doesn't actually exist--I think that
    is telling.)
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:14:22 -0700
    From: Brandon Long <blongat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous" 
    online
    
    On 05/02/02 Declan McCullagh uttered the following other thing:
     >
     > Legitimate announcements and news stories are hijacked from Web sites
     > and rewritten by anonymous mischief makers. Once in the vapors of the
     > Web, a stink arose when my byline was circulated over a fabricated
     > story about the president of the United States being a child molester.
    
    That sounds more like an authentication problem than a anonymity
    problem.  Its actually a lot harder to be truly anonymous on the web
    then most people think... a point which can bite them in the ass when
    they least expect it.
    
    As for authentication, there is a technological solution... the digital
    signature.  Obviously there are still some hurdles to over come in
    making them easier to use, easier to verify, and easier to maintain as
    information is based from medium to medium (how do you sign a web page,
    how is that signature maintained by people who then mail the web page to
    their friends?)
    
     > The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that
     > anonymity is one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy.
     > The longer that Web-heads insist on anonymity, the more the
     > credibility and usefulness of their creation will be undermined.
     > Already, one of the first lessons taught in middle-school computer
     > labs is to regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder --
     > apt to bite you at any moment. Is this the best we can expect from the
     > information revolution?
    
    Question your sources is always a good idea.  Very few places have a
    complete record of truthfulness and lack of bias.  This is as true
    online as elsewhere, the information available is only as trustworthy as
    the source... and trust is earned and lost.  Besides, there are almost
    as many sites available to debunk the myths as to exploit them.  Perhaps
    the current level of gullibility of those online is actually a
    pointer to a lack in their education and critical thinking... a lack
    which politicians and advertisers have been exploiting for decades.
    
    Brandon
    -- 
    program, n.:
       A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
       into error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging
       one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
                                              http://www.fiction.net/blong/
    
    ---
    
    From: drumzat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous"
    To: declanat_private
    Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:59:21 +0000 (GMT)
    
    Nasty non-anonymous attacks on idiots...just because I can!
    
     > Legitimate announcements and news stories are hijacked from Web sites
     > and rewritten by anonymous mischief makers. Once in the vapors of the
     > Web, a stink arose
    
    Yes, stinks tend to rise once in vapors.  Jeez, this guy can't even write.
    
     > when my byline was circulated over a fabricated
     > story about the president of the United States being a child molester.
    
    I simply can't imagine, based on this piece, why any evildoer would be
    tempted to put Mr. Balzar's name on such a fabrication.
    
     > The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that
     > anonymity is one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy.
     > The longer that Web-heads insist on anonymity, the more the
     > credibility and usefulness of their creation will be undermined.
     > Already, one of the first lessons taught in middle-school computer
     > labs is to regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder --
     > apt to bite you at any moment.
    
    Excellent!  Now if only we could get people to regard the mass media with
    similar skepticism, we'd *really* be getting somewhere.
    
     > Is this the best we can expect from the information revolution?
     > So instead of worrying ourselves silly about ways to protect these few
     > who are afraid to stand up for their words and actions, we should be
     > going in the other direction: making it harder to be anonymous,
     > marginalizing those who try.
    
    I rather suspect he means "incarcerating" and simply isn't honest enough
    to admit it.
    
     > We may never humanize the automobile,
    
    Thank heaven.  If there's one thing "Knight Rider" should have taught us,
    it's that talking cars are seriously annoying.
    
     > but we can the future -- by tearing down those barriers that shield us
     > from each other and tempt us to be our worst.
    
    Even as those same barriers help to shield political dissidents from
    retaliation by repressive regimes.  I challenge him to live in China for a
    few years and see how long he regards online anonymity as the enemy.
    
    If the name weren't already taken by an ingenious privacy tool, I'd be
    tempted to call Mr. Balzar "Triangle Boy" based on the dunce cap he wears
    so prominently.
    
    Ethan
    
    ---
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 22:47:38 PDT