Archive-name: net-anonymity/part4 Last-modified: 1994/5/9 Version: 1.0 ANONYMITY on the INTERNET ========================= Compiled by L. Detweiler . <6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM? <6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'? <6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable? <6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered? <6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM? <6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco? <6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered? <7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown? <7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown? <7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown? <7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown? _____ <6.1> What preceded the first deployment of R. Depew's ARMM? Richard E. Depew : > Julf's anonymous server seems to me to be contributing to the > erosion of civility and responsibility that have been the > hallmarks of the more traditional parts of USENET. More than > that, Julf has refused to even discuss a compromise to his > position that all hierarchies should be open, by default, to his > server. > > I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive > Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion > that the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that > don't want it is through moderation. It cancels articles posted > from anon.penet.fi. I've tested it on recycled postings with a > "local" distribution and it works nicely. I propose to arm > "ARMM" with an unrestricted distribution for the "sci" hierarchy > this weekend if Julf doesn't accept the proposed compromise or a > reasonable alternative by then. Francisco X DeJesus : > this ARMM script is another bad idea. If there is a way to simply > "ignore" control messages (cancels, at least) from the specific > site where this bass-ackwards non-service to the net is > originating from, please let me (and every other news admin who's > not an expert but wants to do something about this) know... Karl Krueger : > Fascinating idea, both in programming and in application of > ethical values. So this shellscript will, in essence, not only > affect your own users but also users netwide? And you make a > threat to Julf as well? This sounds a lot like terrorism: "I'm > going to blow up your citizens (read: users) if you do not agree > to my demands!" "Minimal Moderation" in the sense of ARMM is > like calling a missile "Peacekeeper". > > Censorship is not the way to go about things, neither is the > "ARMMing" of cybernetic missiles. It is a difficult problem, the > only solution to which is to rely on the precedent: freedom. Perry E. Metzger : > My site pays for news, and would prefer to get it uncensored by > Mr. Depew. We pay to get a full newsfeed for our money, not just > one with those messages Mr. Depew thinks are o.k. for us to read. Rick Harrison : > Anyone who would volunteer to render a "service" such as > cancelling other people's messages must be a control freak. Mike Schenk : > And for canceling all postings from the anon server. This is, in > my opinion a very severe case of censorship. While, I am aware > that the net is not a real democracy I've always thought that it > wasn't a police state either. Richard E. Depew > I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi, does > not soon block anonymous postings ... then I will activate an > "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script that will > cancel postings ... > > Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this. I have not > read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they > were out of line in any way ... David Sternlight : > I support the automatic cancelling of anonymous posts to those > newsgroups whose members vote in the majority so to do. Michael L. Kaufman : > Ah, but that is not what Mr. Depew was advocating. Mr Depew wants > to cancel all anonymous post to newsgroups that don't vote not to > cacel them. The difference is important. He has a view and he is > not saying, "if your group agrees with me, this is what I will > do." He is saying, "I am just going to assume that everyone > agrees with me unless I hear otherwise." Furthermore, he chose > not to wait and see how the various votes would go. Brad Templeton : > There are laws ... which prohibit users from deleting files on > computers when they do not have authorization to do this. > > It's ... clear that many site admins consider only the poster and > a few other people at most authorized to cancel a posting. > > So if you cancel like this, you may well ... be committing a > computer intrusion offence. Richard E. Depew : > There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be > anyhow. :-) David Clunie : > I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I > haven't experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might > have to. In fact I think I will probably just turn off response > to cancel messages totally if you go ahead with this scheme, and > I encourage other news administrators to do the same ... they > were a bad kludge in the first place and still are. It seems to > me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes > like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I > won't let anyone else read them). > > I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going > to happen to your institution's news and mail servers if you go > ahead with this plan. > > ... you are way out of line here Richard, regardless of how many > smileys you tack on the end of your message. Richard E. Depew : > That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate. They have > many legitimate uses. Cancelling inappropriate postings is one > of these legitimate uses. > > ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script, has > been activated ... _____ <6.2> Was R. Depew's first ARMM `automated censorship'? : > RICHARD DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net. > > For the past few weeks, there has been an on-going debate in > news.admin.policy concerning anonymous postings to newsgroups > which have not invited such postings. It is an understatement to > say there has been disagreement. > > This debate has recently resulted in the automated CENSORSHIP of > postings by one of the principles of the debate. This system of > automated CENSORSHIP, called ARMM, the "Automated Retroactive > Minimal Moderation" script, has been activated (Sat, 13 Mar 1993 > 14:28:00 GMT) by Richard E. Depew (red@redpoll.neoucom.edu). ARMM > automatically cancels or deletes postings which it "judges" to be > in-appropriate or un-acceptable. Catherine Anne Foulston : > It is NOT censorship, any more than a private individual sneaking > into the library and cutting objectionable (to him) articles out > of all the magazines is censorship. It's a form of vandalism, > perhaps sabotage, and it's obnoxious, but it is not censorship. > > Could whoever did that news-server-wide cancel script, that would > let me filter out these anon-cancels, please repost it? Certain > anonymous posters are obnoxious and annoying, but not as much so > as someone cancelling articles not their own for no other reason > than that the articles are anonymous. I'd like to filter out > those cancels from my site. David Condon : > The person who proposed forging cancels, and who actually did > forge a few, is a news admin of some sort. By virtue of having a > higher level of both access and expertise than the average user, > that makes his act more akin to a _librarian_ vandalising books > than Joe Random Patron doing so. Virtually all librarians would > consider such an act an egregious breach of professional ethics, > and most would not hesitate to call it "censorship," even if > purists assert that that term is only appropriate when carried > out by the state. Karl Krueger : > M. Richard Depew has, by his own admission, created a weapon > capable of eradicating all messages from a certain site. I use > the term "weapon" in the cybernetic sense - it "kills" > information, not people. > > M. Depew seems to believe this to be his responsibility, > somehow... his contribution to the safety and continued security > of the USENET, maybe? He proposes that he be allowed to keep and > bear (and fire) a weapon capable of rendering many people > "unpersons", in the sense that they are not free to post their > opinions. Richard E. Depew : > Roy, > > Please cancel your recent article entitled: Subject: Re: RICHARD > DEPEW imposes automated CENSORSHIP on the Net. > > That title is libelous. My "civil disobedience" had nothing to do > with censorship. You have simply fallen for the lie of an > anonymous slanderer. A public apology would be greatly > appreciated. John Stanley : > Your "civil disobedience" was conducted under the guise of > "moderator of the sci hierarchy" (an official position), and > caused the removal of material you considered objectionable. That > is, sir, a definition of censorship. > > It was automated, and it happened on "the Net". > > The ONLY remaining point in question is whether you really are > Richard Depew. If you admit to that, then the Subject: above is > true. Richard E. Depew : > Well, I see the articles are still there ... > > To prove that I *did* learn something from the brouhahah that > surrounded the introduction of ARMM, I am giving "a two week > notice" that if those articles are not canceled within the next > 24 hours, I am going to escalate. I'll take comments on my > proposed escalation and promise to reconsider if anyone can make > any *good* arguments against my plan. > > I hate to do this, because I understand that my name already is > "mudd" and any further disturbance is likely to lead to my total > discrediting. > > I've got this *great* new idea. I call it the UDP, for USENET > Depew Penalty. If these people don't cancel their articles soon, > I'll invoke the UDP: > > I'll ban them from my Christmas Card List! > I presume you are going to post to ALL sci groups telling them > that this "service" now exists and that their only way of > "declining" is to prove to YOU that they have had a vote whereby > the majority have said that they accept anonymous posting. > Cancelling posts of others seems to me to be a breach of > netiquette (especially if people in the groups concerned are not > informed of this cancelling). Jim Cowling : > Even if you disgree with the label "censor" or "censorship", you > must agree to this statement: > > Richard Depew's ARMM system prevents the UseNet community from > reading publicly-posted messages without their consultation. > > This alone is ethically and morally bankrupt, and illegal on so > many levels that I wouldn't be surpirsed if I could press felony > charges immediately, even as a foreginer. John Stanley : > Dick, when will you get the point? > > Nobody elected you moderator of any group, much less an entire > hierarchy. Stop pretending that it was OK for you to try to be > one. > > If you start your ARMM demon again, I am positive there will be > more than one person starting their own. You WILL NOT like who > they target. > > If you think the anonymous "problem" is bad, just wait until the > ARMM wars start. David Weingart > (Had I been on the Net when ARMM was active, I certainly would > have been less polite...how DARE anyone decide what I should and > should not read in an unmoderated group) > > No, I'm not an admin, just a net.head, and I consider the concept > of ARMM to be disgusting. Richard E. Depew > I owe an apology to "an4312": > > You, sir or madam, are the second civilian to be caught in the > cross-fire between Julf and myself. I tried to warn > non-combatants off the battle field, but failed in your case. > > I apologize. > > Do you require immediate medical attention? > > Let's assess the damage. One real posting to the "sci" hierarchy > was cancelled. I've apologized to the author. His priceless > prose has been delayed from public view for a few hours. Is this > *really* something that you want to get me fired for doing? _____ <6.3> Was anon8785's posting of Depew's address cowardly/justifiable? : > If you do not think Richard E. Depew's (red@uhura.neoucom.edu) > threat to censor the postings *you* may wish to read by beginning > a "canceling war," a good idea, please write directly to: > ... > Express your concern for this threatened instance of network > vandalism and damage to academic freedom throughout the world by > a reputed representative of his organization. Jay Maynard : > Dick Depew is accepting full responsibility for his actions. You > are not. He is the true man of courage here. You are the worst > sort of coward, starting a battle and hiding under a rock while > the bullets fly. Rob Sartin : > The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail > and phone calls. Richard E. Depew : > You (and most USENET readers) have seen the cowardly postings by > "an8785" calling on readers to contact the chairman of my > department and the director of computer services at my > institution by mail or phone to complain about me. Felix Gallo : > There's nothing 'cowardly' about it. The postings are simple > and factual. If you like, I'll claim I'm an8785, and take > full responsibility for all his or her actions. It wouldn't > bother me a bit. Steve Simmons : > Though I disagree with Depews actions, he stood up and took the > heat. an8785 engaged in an act of moral cowardice, and is now > hiding behind the shield of anonymity. Previously my opinion > was that the an8785 should simply be disabled. Given that an8785 > has actively urged people to take actions to harm Depew and > refused to adequately reverse those actions, I now think an8785 > should be unmasked. Should Depew come to actual harm, the > anonymous service might find itself in interesting waters. Karl Krueger : > I disagree. an8785 did what s/he felt was necessary, and voicing > one's opinions (even anonymously) is the better path than not > doing so. Perry E. Metzger : > In any case, I really can't see anything wrong with someone > posting the list of the board of trustees of your institution if > they like, anonymously or non-anonymously. If you feel what you > are doing is right, then you must be prepared to justify it to > people who can stop you. > > As for "blackmail", I'd say that ironically refering to your own > actions in the way described can hardly be construed as extortion > under any statute I am familiar with. Richard E. Depew : > In other words, anonymous servers with inadequate safegards > protect law-breakers from the consequences of their actions. > *That* is what I oppose. Lazlo Nibble : > I agree that servers that shield lawbreakers are a potential > problem. I *don't* agree with your implied assertion that Julf > has shielded anyone who's broken the law (an8785 included) nor do > I agree that the existance of that possible problem gives you the > right to take unilateral netwide action against all postings > issued through anonymous servers. _____ <6.4> How should the first Depew ARMM incident be remembered? Richard E. Depew : > The time has come to share a few of the insights I have gained > from this whole messy affair. > > In *this* note I want to offer an olive-branch to Julf. > > Someone else said I was on a "quixotic crusade". *That* struck a > responsive chord. I'll accept that characterization with pride: > call me an electronic Don Quixote trying to fight evil and rescue > the oppressed in a chivalrous but unrealistic way. :-) > > I'd like to call it the confrontation of "Don Quixote and the Guru > of anonymity". The "evil" that I was fighting was not the Guru, > but those few sociopaths who were abusing his service. While I > was tilting at windmills, the Guru was meditating on his mountain > top. > > Unfortunately, one of the windmills was an8785. The scene > metamorphosed into "Bambi meets Godzilla" -- **THUMP**. > > Someone called it the confrontation of the "net-cop" vs. the > "net-outlaw". I think that's a little harsh. :-) Mark Brader : > Well, "net-outlaw" is a little harsh on Julf. But "net-cop" is an > extreme euphemism. What Dick was playing was "net-vigilante > armed with assault weapons", and this sort of thing is simply out > of bounds. Richard E. Depew : > Out of bounds, sure, but undeniably within long established USENET > tradition. :-) Mark Brader > ... one reason I'm posting this is to make it clear that, if > "automated moderation" is to be implemented through cancel > messages, it is simply not acceptable. Indeed, I would consider > it ample cause for the removal of the cancelling site from > Usenet. > > The fact that Dick was willing to stand behinds his actions is > creditable, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the actions were > wrong for Usenet, *even if* the anonymous service was everything > that Dick thought it was. The cancels are just too damaging to > Usenet's distribution algorithm -- and I would like to see Dick > say he agrees with this paragraph. Richard E. Depew : > OK, I agree. > > I made several mistakes, and I have apologized for them. I have > "sentenced" myself to "community service" for a few weeks to try > to repair some of the harm I caused. > > I *would* appreciate a few apologies from the "lynch mob", > however. Few if any of the participants have yet to understand > that I was only trying to get Julf to talk about a possible > compromise. The mob overreacted very badly two weeks ago. I was > being rude and provocative, but what I got in return exceeded all > bounds of decency. John Stanley : > What you got in return for your self-appointed moderation of an > entire hierarchy was much less than the last auto-cancellor got, > and less than you deserve. Lazlo Nibble : > In my opinion, you gave up the right to expect decency when you > took advantage of the open nature of this electronic community > and attempted to unilaterally impose your views of what's right > and what's wrong upon it. Your actions deserved the reaction they > received, and you're not likely to get any apologies for that > reaction. Richard E. Depew : > How would you and Julf like to join me and a few other friends in > a T-shirt pyramid scheme: ARMMway distributors? You can have Oz. > :-) > > Our corporate mascot will be a turkey wearing one of these > T-shirts. Our ad will be a poster showing this turkey and our > corporate slogan: "How can you soar with eagles when you have to > work with turkeys?". I'd think every system administrator will > want one. Vincent Fox : > The whole thing I dislike about the Depew vs Anon thing is that > both sides were forcing it on me wholesale. If this anon-thing > had kept up being spread across all newsgroups, you can bet your > ass I would have put a filter on to drop all anon-postings on the > floor for *my* server. On the other hand I am apalled at Depew's > plan to forge cancels since he also is trying to force his ideas > on me. *I'll* make those decisions thank you both very much > gentlemen. Chuq Von Rospach : > I mean, what Depew is doing is obnoxious, but I can tell him so to > his face (and he can tell me to stuff it to my face, if he > wishs). On the othe side, though, we have a character > assasination attempt going by someone who has no name. That's > being an upright citizen? > > I think both sides are being real twitheads, and both side are > showing the worst aspects of USENET culture. May everyone's disks > crash, and may the replacements be misrouted to Angola. Richard E. Depew : > The clinical trial was successful, at least in temporarily > eradicating the pathogen from the patient's brain, but the > patient unexpectedly suffered a severe allergic reaction, so I > halted the test out of compassion. Lazlo Nibble : > Is this what you teach your students? That it's somehow "okay" > for them to spend a few weeks in the lab breeding up "harmless" > organisms and then releasing them into the general population? > Handing out free samples of a vaccine that kills the thing off > doesn't make it right to let it out of the lab in the first > place. Richard E. Depew : > Julf and I have been engaged in bilateral negotiations to forge a > "peace treaty" between us. > > USENET is a cooperative anarchy. If enough of you do your part, > we are confident that we can apply the important lessons we have > learned from recent events and set a better example for future > anonymous servers and automated moderation demons. > > I am a humble servant of the net. I have learned my lesson. > > Time to cobble up Edition 4 of ARMM in case any group ever votes > to use it. _____ <6.5> What preceded the second incarnation of R. Depew's ARMM? Richard E. Depew : > ARMM has evolved. Expect a post on the subject shortly. I am > trying to rustle up a volunteer to serve as the "target" of > another demonstration. I expect you will find the latest > incarnation of ARMM to be acceptable. Lazlo Nibble : > You just absolutely refuse to get the point, don't you Richard? > Unless you have an explicit consensus that ARMM is welcomed by > the people it is going to affect, you have absolutely no business > activating it on this network. Period. *You don't have any right > to make these decisions for the rest of us!* Richard E. Depew : > Spoken like a true fanatic, Lazlo. > > I should have expected that my attempt to calm things down would > frighten the extremists. John Stanley : > I haven't the slightest doubt that I will find the latest > incarnation of ARMM to be as totally repugnant as your first > attempt at self-appointed moderation. > > It seems that you have now proven that you still think that ARMM > is a good thing and are continuing to try to get it accepted. > > You just still don't get it, do you Dick. You didn't have, and > still don't, the right to decide to cancel postings that you > don't like. Lasse Hiller|e Petersen : > If I can have a wish, I'd wish you'd delete your ARMM and never > write one again, and certainly never activate one. It is not and > will never be the right way to deal with general anonymous > servers. Richard E. Depew : > I've decided to follow in the honorable tradition of the > pioneering microbiologists who tested their hypotheses, and their > possibly pathogenic isolates, and their experimental vaccines, on > themselves! (As you probably know, several of them died from > their own experiments.) > > I have just now armed ARMM5 to "minimally moderate" my own posts, > and nobody else's. This moderation will be restricted to the > single newsgroup, news.admin.policy. > > I don't, at the moment, see how anyone can object to *this* > demonstration, but I expect *someone* will find a way. :-) Juha Laiho : > What do you think about this approach? At least it looks ok to me, > if it's used properly. No more final cancellation of messages, > but some way to put a warning in the beginning of a message. Now > forget any possible personal hatred for the creator of that > software, and think about the idea. John Stanley : > Hmmm. It sounds like Mr. Depew is not only planning on cancelling > other people's articles, but taking the article and editing it > and then forging it back onto the net. > > This is supposed to be better? Ken Weaverling : > *Please*, I humbly request that you not activate this ARMM thing. > > I have not posted on this subject. I, like many other sys admins, > do not have a lot of time to twiddle with things. In fact, I > don't have ANY time. My users are always at my thoughts, I am > understaffed, and I can't keep up. > > Asking me to learn what ARMM is, how to alter my feed files to > accept, not accept, ignore, or whatever it does, is asking a > lot. A REAL LOT. > > I, as many other news admins, will not do anything. This means > that by default, your ARMM whatever it is will operate and do its > nasty deeds. I feel that the "cure" is far worse than the > disease. > > Somehow, in the grand scheme of things, this is wrong. G. Lee Owen : > Mr. Depew, I've just read your "evolution of ARMM" and I think I > have a fairly good grasp of what you are trying to say. It seems > to me that ARMM has evolved to the point of overkill. > > I think ARMM has evolved into a rube goldberg machine, an > overcomplicated solution, where all we need to do is sit down, > discuss what we all want anon sites to do, and formalize a > consensus. > > I admired the cooperation that julf@penet.fi and red@redpoll > reached a few days ago. Lets work further on that model, and > reach a constructive compromise. _____ <6.6> What was the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco? Richard E. Depew : > Friends (if I have any left at this point), > > > > You have undoubtedly noticed the flood of ARMM posts that I caused > last night. > > I made mistakes in both implementation and testing. That was truly > bone-headed implementation error! I seem to have a real talent > for spectacular screw-ups! > > I agree, though, that my fate is richly deserved. The net loony > bin seems to be the safest place for me right now. > > Thanks for your understanding. It was an honest mistake. Francisco X DeJesus : > The problem isn't you screwing up, it's you screwing EVERYONE ELSE > up. Joel Furr : > In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments > on the March 30 ARMM Massacre. Last _night_, on the other hand, > I had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a > low droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's > Monsters on the surrounding environs. Frankenstein's Monsters > here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about > stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same > word over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM. Duke Robillard : > So, do you suppose Dick has now sent out more bogus messages than > every bad anon post every made, combined? Richard E. Depew : > Nope. Nowhere close. However, I expect to make it into the "top > 25 posters by number of articles" list for the first time. There > is just no way I can compete in volume, however. Hmmmm... maybe > ARMM6 should carry a GIF file... Karl Krueger : > What is the reason for this nonsense? > > ... a destructive cyberspatial act on a massive scale has > occurred. > > I assume that it is not deliberate viciousness, because I believe > M. Depew to be well-intentioned, if a little misguided. It seems > to me to be a simple bug - ARMM is re-ARMMing its own output. : > Who the hell is responsible for this major-league mishap? > > Please, if I see the letters ARMM again I'm gonna kill someone. _____ <6.7> How should the Second Depew ARMM Fiasco be remembered? Joel Furr : > Alt.fan.dick-depew is hereby newgrouped. This group is intended > to serve as a forum for the MANY, MANY fans of Mr. Richard Depew > of Munroe Falls, Ohio, who has made himself famous for: > > * unilaterally asserting the authority to cancel ANY anonymous > posts made to groups he likes to read > * his God complex > * spamming news.admin.policy with a robot poster that attempted to > cancel its own articles but failed and instead generated > articles containing subject lines and headers dozens of screens > long. Ed Hall : > I'd like to comment, though, that even though Mr. Depew's blunder > might seem a bit comic on the morning after, I doubt many people > have forgotten the serious side: he was using the mechanisms of > the net as his own private toy. That, in my honest opinion, is a > distinctly anti-social act, even in a place known for its > anti-social acts--the Net. > > The whole episode is a bit like a burglar getting stuck in the > chimney; we might laugh, but we still want him treated as a > burglar. In Mr. Depew's case, I'd be happy if he just stopped > mucking with control messages, both now and forevermore. If he > doesn't--well, I'm sure there are others here who will figure out > something. Timothy C. May : > My God! You mean you were actually logged-in and reading > news.admin.policy as all this was happening? In real time? > > That's like happening to be outside and looking up as a giant > meteor goes overhead...others can *read* about it or see it > replayed on t.v., but you actually *experienced* it! You were > *there*. (Of course, watch for tens of thousands of false claims > as the years go by..."Yep, there I was, logged in, when all of a > sudden smoke started comin' out of my computer. Yes sirree, it > was a sight to behold.") > > To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a > "microMorris," but still an interesting one. George William Herbert : > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > | Official March 30th ARMM Massacre Scorecard | > | | > | Dear Mr. Depew: | > | | > | We have determined that you have earned the following score | > | in the Usenet Activities Contest: | > | | > | 6488 Supercedes @ 1 point each: 6488 pts. | > | 2 Clueless Newbies (1) @ 30 pts: 60 pts. | > | 28 Flaming Non-newbies (2) @ 25: 700 pts. | > | Recursive Runaway Award (3) : 500 pts. | > | Bonus: New World Record for Largest Cascade: 1000 pts. | > | Total: 8,748 pts. | > | | > | This has earned you the rank of: Aspiring Usenet Legend | > | | > | Thank you for your continuing to grace Usenet with your | > | presence. Your daemon's antics have made our day here. | > ------------------------------------------------------------------ _____ <7.1> What caused the Helsingius server shutdown? : > Being a former sysadmin of two years, I can understand the > bullshit the anon.penet.fi server was put through. The 'gawds > above' reacted more out of ego and fear of the FCC than out of > fairness. > > Your service has been appreciated. : > Excuse me, but I fail to see why the legal climate in the United > States justifies meddling with the administrative policy of a > site in Finland. Could someone explain? Derrick J. Brashear : > To all of you who had a hand in the demise of anon.penet.fi in any > way shape or form, allow me to congratulate you. You've succeeded > in screwing over 10000 legitimate users of the anon server > because: a) a few, and I mean a few, posted abusive or > inappropriate messages b) people didn't find anonymous messages > appropriate outside alt.* and a handful of other groups. > > Who loses? All the people who used anon.penet.fi for what it was > intended for. Yet those responsible will likely escape unscathed, > and as of 2 AM US Eastern Standard Time, no "notable usenet > personality" has stepped forward to take responsibility for the > shutdown of the server. > > Once again, thank you. Jay Maynard : > I am disappointed that the anon server was completely shut down in > the manner that actually occurred. While I think Julf's service > needed to be cut back, I would much rather that this have > happened of Julf's own free will, becuase he saw it as the Right > Thing, instead of being imposed from outside. Jon Noring : > And it seems to me that things were getting settled. Julf was > finally beginning to respond to several criticisms (some > justified) as to how he was conducting his service. Again, this > is a blow to Usenet since outside power was used to enforce a > certain Usenet structure, rather than letting the users of Usenet > decide what is best. This unfortunately sets a dangerous > precedent. It also takes more control of Usenet out of the hands > of the users and puts it in the hands of the control-phreaks. Dave Hayes : > This is truly the proof by example of the elitist nature of > USENET. It is also an example of "my way is the only way and the > right way"-itis. Most news administrators of this type exist as > such only to feed their egos, and not as they are in a position > of service. Lazlo Nibble : > I know everyone's calling for the head of the "personality" > involved, but I'd like to hear a little more about what *exactly* > is making it "politically impossible" for anon.penet.fi to > continue operation. The above paragraph paints things in tones a > little too scandalous to take seriously without more evidence -- > it strikes me as quite possible that a routine complaint > (*conincedentally* from Net Personality ) reached someone in a > position of power over penet who decided that the service was > causing too much controversy for the site. No conspiracies > there. : > I too would be very interested in knowing what really happened. I > don't care who the "extremely highly regarded net personality" > would be, but it would be nice to know what kind of "situation" > was "created". > > Just for the record: It was sad that the anon server went down in > flames, but it was not without reason. I think there is a case > for a pseudonym service on Usenet, but it will take some more > thinking and discussion to figure out how it should work. I think > we are a bit wiser after Julf's experiment and that we should use > the knowledge we gained in a positive way. Tom Bryce : > I don't believe it for a damn minute when people say abuse of the > anonymous posting service was what caused anon.penet.fi to be > shut down. > > It's just a lesson in power, the net administrators don't like > having certain things taken out of their control and power and > the user be damned, they're going to keep things in line. Tough > shit, I say. You don't have to know who I am, and if I'm abusing > the network anonymously, take the proof to the admin- instrator > of the anonymous service, and have them lock me out. > > Julf's posting was way too apologetic. You've nothing to apologize > for, I hope you or someone else gets another one going. Karl Kleinpaste : > Generally, these server deaths have been due to abuses by an > extremely small number of maladjusted individuals who have done > something sufficiently heinous to attract the attention of Those > Who Matter. TWM is a context-sensitive group, and has consisted > of, at various times and in relation to various anonymous > servers: the facilities management group of the site in question; > politically powerful individuals with influence regarding the > network connection of the server host; large numbers of irate > users inundating the server or its adminstrator in mail. : > I have SEEN Mr. Big's letter to Julf, and I have SEEN the articles > pulled out of talk.politics.mideast. If you read that group, you > know it's about 451 degrees in there. The articles consist > mostly of a nym fighting with some guy at a big University. ... > there was nothing you wouldn't expect to find there, and the fact > that one of the participants was a nym was totally irrelevant, > and certainly violated no laws, or even Usenet decorum, such as > it is, Mr. Big's self-important,, inflated opinion to the > contrary notwithstanding. > > Mr. Big's gripe has nothing to do with the content of the > articles, that's all bullshit, just a sham. The only thing he > cares about is that one of the flamers is a nym. I agree with > whoever called him a bigot and a hypocrite. _____ <7.2> What were sentiments on the Helsingius shutdown? Ze Julf : > The anonymous service at anon.penet.fi has been closed down. > Postings to netnews and mail to arbitrary addresses has been > blocked. To enable users who know each other only by their anon > ID's to arrange alternate communication paths, mail to anonymous > users will still be supported for two weeks. After this period > all database entries will be deleted. Solomon Yusim : > I think it is also outrageous and deeply embarrassing to the whole > net community as to the secretive, back-handed, and authocratic > measures of how this shutdown had happened. Leonard Norrgard : > This stinks. I'm sure something could've been worked out without > going to this extreme. I'm sorry to see it happen, and in this > way. Howard S Shubs : > I think that the loss of this anonymous server is a shame. David A. Clunie : > This is very sad. > > Having been the victim of a similar attack on my anonymous server > I sympathize. > > Even your most vocal detractors in this group would seem to regard > this as an unfortunate outcome. Hannu Sepp{nen : > Demanding him to reveal the net person(s) behing the shutting down > of anon.penet.fi is not the point; there are always people around > that use their power for forcing... I'm concerned about the fact > that such forcing can be done, anonymously... It can be done, > because that person has a clear target, Julf. If the idea of > anonymous servers is supposed to be kept alive, it requires > several sites running such, in different organizations, in > different countries... That would be the only way to avoid what > happened to Julf? Dr. Cat : > I do have to say I'm most sorry for a good friend of mine who had > a very pressing need to use an anon service in the near future, > for personal reasons I can't go into. If anyone knows of any > alternatative anon servers she could use instead, please email me > information on them. Julf's was the only one I knew about. Rob Knauerhase : > I'm constantly amazed at all the people who are outraged that the > anon server has gone down, but are unwilling to do anything about > it. For crying out loud, Karl Kleinpaste's sources are available > -- you don't even have to be sophisticated endough to write it or > even understand it -- get them and put one up yourself. If > you're not a sysadmin, then start campaigning the admins on your > machine. But _please_ stop whining that this one is gone. : > I, too, thank Julf, and am sorry to see the anon server go. There > are subjects of discussion for which anonymity is appropriate > (e.g. sexual abuse, suicide, etc.). Abuse of the service is > regretable, but i think an alternative way of handling that > beside shutting it down could have been found. Richard E. Depew : > It was never my aim to completely shut down anon.penet.fi. I was, > and remain, a proponent of compromise - of setting some > reasonable limits on the uses of anonymity. It was fanatics like > yourself who insisted on "all or nothing" that brought down > anon.penet.fi. Lazlo Nibble : > I do not insist, and never have insisted, on an "all or nothing" > approach to anonymous posting. My fanaticism is limited to the > idea that *you*, as an individual, have no business determining > what people at other sites can read unless the people in charge > of those sites expressly empower you to make that decision. Paul Hughes : > I wanted to register my formal complaint with anyone who felt it > was a valid, justified action in closing the anonymous server. I > object to the treatments Julf and the remaining non-abusive > members of the anonymous community have had to endure...ranging > from simple categorization to near slander. I also believe many > people are hurt by this recent event. All of the abuse and > recovery groups, alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards, and even the a.b.p.e > group (whose usage of the anon server was of questionable merit > anyway), I predict, will find at least temporary slow downs in > net.traffic due to people afraid to ask for help because of > private concerns that need only be their own. Educational, > healthy purposes for posting anonymously are now going to > frighten many back into a hiding period, wishing for a new server > to free them to speak with people who can identify with their > problems. Bert Medley : > In any case, if I were a person who did not believe in such a > service, I would have used a Kill file rather than shut the > service down. THERE ARE MANY VALID REASONS FOR SUCH A SERVER TO > EXIST. Dana Tyler : > To: Julf@penet.fi > > Sorry to hear what has happened to your server. I think the net > community as a whole will suffer from it's loss. Posting to > alt.personal groups as well as other risque groups such as > alt.sex.movies will slow to nothing. I think the people of the > world have a right to express thier opinions while revealing > their identity. It eliminates pressure from one's peers to > conform to norms of scociety. I'll really miss it. Richard M. Hartman : > This is too bad. I have been perhaps one of the most vocal > against your service, but I have ALWAYS maintained that it was > not anon postings per se that I was against, as the MANNER in > which the service had been started, and the lack of strong policy > statements. Richard E. Depew : > The Guru was leaving his mountain. > > I was shocked. I was disappointed. I was saddened. I was also > proud of Julf for the way he admitted errors and took > responsibility. He has nothing to be ashamed of. A few of his > users betrayed him. > > A hurried exchange of email showed that several of my allies felt > the same way -- that *this* wasn't what we had been arguing for > -- we didn't want a complete shut-down, what we wanted was to > make the anonymous service more accountable and thereby more > acceptable. Alexander Chislenko : > I could hardly overstate my respect to Julf's work. I expect that > any future textbook on the history of the Net will mention > anon@penet.fi and Julf personally. Ze Julf : > I'm probably not the only one who has been really surprised at the > very strong reaction in support of anonymous services that the > suspension of the anonymous posting service at anon.penet.fi > caused. This proof of support (evidenced, among other things, by > the fact that I have received more than 350 personal mail > messages since the announcement of the suspension of the service. > Of these, only 6 have been against resuming the service) have > vastly improved my chances of resuming full operation. I really > want to thank everybody who expressed their support for the > service, both on news and in e-mail. I don't have the words to > express how much I appreciate it! _____ <7.3> Was the `net personality' involved in the Helsingius shutdown? Ze Julf : > Due to the lawsuit-intensive climate in the US, many anonymous > services have been short-lived. By setting up anon.penet.fi in > Finland, I hoped to create a more stable service. Anon.penet.fi > managed to stay in operation for almost five months. The service > was protected from most of the usual problems that had forced > other services to shut down. But there are always going to be > ways to stop something as controversial as an anon service. In > this case, a very well-known and extremely highly regarded net > personality managed to contact exactly the right people to create > a situation where it is politically impossible for me to continue > running the service. Jay Maynard : > I call for the "net personality" responsible to come forward and > accept responsibility publicly for this action, and explain his > reasoning (which may well be valid, but we won't know until we > hear it). Dave Hayes > There is no such thing as a "highly regarded" reputation...anyone > who did this act is a net.asshole and deserves any condemnation > he or she gets. They obviously are not acting for the good of the > USENET community. David A. Clunie > Tell us who the bastard was this time ! He or she may have been a > "very well-known and extremely highly regarded net personality" > but they won't be for much longer. Leonard Norrgard : > *I* expect to see this person step forward and and admit it, if > they're that well-respected. Howard S Shubs : > Who and what happened? Why didn't you give this info in public? > Is the person who stopped you ashamed of his/her actions? : > I'll add some fuel to the flame war at this point. Julf is making > a very vague statement, aiming at a group of people. He does not > state what really happened, that would probably have been easy > without telling us the identity of this "extremely highly > regarded net personality". > > I don't know _why_ Julf doesn't reveal the identity of this > person, but the way he phrased his article it looks like he's > attacking some kind of backbone cabal or high profile person. On > the other hand, Julf may have had only good intentions by not > telling us the identity. However, that doesn't justify his > description of the prson as an "extremely highly regarded net > personality." H Keith Henson : > I wish to express my appreciation to Julf for running > anon.penet.fi. It is a shame that those opposed could not evolve > better ways to cope than just shuting him down. I also request > that the person(s?) who did so would step forward and engage in > discussion as to why they felt this to be necessary. Dr. Cat : > I'll add my voice to those who want to know who did this to Julf, > and why. Further, I would really like to know HOW it was done. > It sounds like there may have been some heavy-handed, > manipulative user of power involved. But certainly I'm willing > to hear the "well known net personality" give their side of the > story before passing judgement. Pat Myrto : > Other than some folks being irritated by some anon postings, what > was the problem? Surely not as irritating as some un-named > individual dictating that only activity that *HE* approves of may > occur on the net... > > Surely this person does not want to hide behind anonymity > _himself_, does he, seeing as he apparantly strongly opposes > others using it? Actions are a much stronger indicator of where > someone is at than statements, and it would be nice to know who > is, in effect, dictating overall net.policy, and who gave him > this authority... : > if the people responsible for shutting down the service decline to > indentify themselves, that would be an example of blatant > hypocrisy. : > I think that the highly regarded net personality should announce > his name here. Surely it would be hypocrisy of the highest order > for him to try to remain anonymous? Eddy Robinson : > I find it highly ironic that so many people were flamed for > advocating anonymity, whether they used it or not; and now Julf > is referring to a "net-personality" presumably in a diplomatic > attempt to preserve that person from a flamefest. If this centres > around a particular poster (as opposed to the 500th complainant > about anonymity or something), then I fail to see why they do not > "have the courage of their convictions" and stand up to take the > credit. Tom Gift : > Isn't it just a wee bit hypocritical that the alledged net > luminary who is quoted as saying there's no legitimate need for > anonymity is him(her)self not willing to publicly take > responsibility for his/her actions in this mess? Alexander Chislenko : > I find it very ironic that people who forced Julf to shut down the > anonymous service, choose to stay *anonymous* themselves. Looks > like they think that their reasons for using anonymity in this > case are more legitimate than any other reasons anybody else > might ever have. _____ <7.4> Was the `net personality' not responsible for the shutdown? Tarl Neustaedter : > A reality check; The "net personality" didn't shut Julf down. At > most, such a person could ask others (who do have power over > Julf) to review Julf's policies and make their own decisions. > From Julf's article, that appears to be what happened. Michael Friedman : > Will you conspiracy theorists please make some effort to get a > clue? Julf is almost certainly lying or, at the very least, > distorting the truth. > > In fact, Julf's new announcement that his service is resuming > clearly indicates that he made the decision to eliminate the > original service. > > In short, Julf, I think you lied. John Kennedy : > I happen to think it's amazingly funny. Here you have a whole lot > of people, fighting tooth and nail for a service and this > mysterious net entity manages to get it shut down. > > Suddenly, you have people you've never seen crawling out of the > woodwork crying foul, and demanding to know said net-person's > name. Some of these are almost certainly people who used the > anonymous service to protect their _own_ identity from just this > sort of abuse. _Regardless_ of how this person behaved, he > deserves his anonymous status, don't you think? Elioc S. Nevets : > He has the right to complain; he has the right to remain > anonymous. Maybe he didn't make himself known to the USENET > community at-large because he knew people like you wouldn't be > able to understand that all he did was complain, that he did not > shut down the anon.server, and that he has not authority to. > Just because he exercises his right to free speech, standing up > for what he believes in, and complains, doesn't mean he has to > submit himself to public debasement. : > This is getting so boring. > > Julf, with some admirable restraint, gives us the bare outline of > what happened to convince him that his anonymous server machine > should be shut down. > > Everyone *now* jumps in to say that the person who triggered this > action is a net.idiot (or other unkind epithets), some of them > being the same folks who were jumping on Julf's case for being > too liberal with the way he ran the machine. Michael Friedman : > I'm saying we can't trust him because he lies... > > Oh, and does anyone still believe his claim about some important > net-person getting his server shut down? If so, how do you > explain his sudden ability to restart it? Jon Noring : > to: "somebody" > > I am writing you to get your opinion and advice concerning > universal anonymous posting services such as anon.penet.fi which > was recently closed down. Of course, I am aware from several > net.people that you, for whatever reason, played a major role in > this particular closing... > > ... When I first heard of the closure, I was upset and fired off > a post, before getting the facts, saying not-so-nice things about > the so-and-so net.personality who was instrumental in the closing > of anon.penet.fi. But... > > ...you must have had a good reason for doing so that had to remain > unstated. Thus, I apologize for my statements, since I now > realize that there must be more to this closure than meets the > eye. Julf even alluded to that as well in his e-mail to me - but > he's been very tight-lipped about specific details... > > (p.s., I'm sure you know by now that there are a lot of angry > people out there in Usenetia who would hang you from the highest > tree if they knew you were the famous net.personality (as Julf > called you) - but of course they don't yet know the background > information.) "somebody": > Despite what you may have heard, I did not play a "major" role -- > I sent one mail message to Julf urging him to shut the service > down. I did what any other person with knowledge of the net > might do, too -- I cc'd the administrator of his service > provider. The shutdown occurred because of some interaction > between Julf and the admins -- probably aided by mail from other > objectors. I played no active role in the events. John Stanley : > I would hate to contradict a well-known net authority, but sending > mail is an active role. Ze Julf > A lot of people have also asked me to reveal the exact events and > names that caused the suspension of the service. I don't feel > that that would serve any useful purpose at this point, as things > have turned out pretty favourable and any public flame wars would > only mess things up again. I once again repeat that I'm convinced > the individuals involved acted out of their regard for the best > of the net, and didn't realize the special circumstances that > caused their actions to have such an impact. * * * This is Part 4 of the Anonymity FAQ, obtained via anonymous FTP to rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-anonymity/ or newsgroups alt.privacy, alt.answers, news.answers every 21 days. Written by L. Detweiler . All rights reserved.