Re: CyberAngels

[tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)]

On Feb 12, 1996 23:23:59, 'ethridge@Onramp.NET (Allen B. Ethridge)' wrote: 
 
 
> 
>The Guardian Angels have decided to enter cyberspace and make it safe for 
>us all.  They have a FAQ on the web - http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/

>.  How is this relevant to cypherpunks?  From their FAQ: 
> 
> 
>"9) What kinds of changes would the Guardian Angels / CyberAngels like to
see? 
> 
>a) We would like to see an improvement in User identification. User ID is 
>impossible to verify or trace back. The very anonymity of Users is itself 
>causing an increase in rudeness, sexual abuse, flaming, and crimes like 
>pedophile activity. We the Net Users must take responsibility for the 
>problem ourselves. One of our demands is for more accountable User IDs on 
>the Net. When people are anonymous they are also free to be criminals. In
a 
>riot you see rioters wearing masks to disguise their true identity. The 
>same thing is happening online. We would like to see User ID much more 
>thoroughly checked by Internet Service Providers." 
> 
 
See: 
 
_Computer underground Digest_, "CyberAngels in Cyberspace," #8.04, 01/13/96

          (my original piece on the CyberAngels) 
_Computer underground Digest_, "CYBERANGELS," #8.06, 01/21/96 
          (the CyberAnels official response) 
_Computer underground Digest_.  [ENTIRE ISSUE]. #8.13, 02/06/96 
          (the readership responds) 
 
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest 
 
Also, I have been corresponding with folks at _Wired_ who are picking up
the story, for their March issue I believe. 
 
On Feb 13, 1996 00:46:05, 'joseph@genome.wi.mit.edu (Joseph
Sokol-Margolis)' wrote: 
 
>not sure if this is the right place. 
>I agree with allen, about the issues of 'nym. But looking at other aspects

>of these cyberangels I'm unsure how to feel. On one hand they seem
resonable, 
>protecting only the children. ... 
 
The CyberAngels want to do *far* more than "protect only children." 
 
--tallpaul