Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"

[Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> :That's the whole point of using remailers -- so that some country that wants
> :to be tyrranical can't hunt down someone in another country that does something
> :it considers "politically incorrect".  If something annoys you, then stop
> :reading it.  Killfile the author.  Killfile all remailers if you like.  Don't
> :use dynamite (pun intended) to exterminate cockroaches.
>  
> So what do you do in those instances where you're slandered continously in
> USENet by someone posting anonymously.  In the non-cyber world, the speaker
> would be held responsible. Who's held responsible when it's commited in
> USENet?

I'm assuming that you really meant to refer to libel (written) rather than
slander (verbal).  I suspect that there is very little that can be done, and
that holds true for non-anonymous posts as well.  Just looking at some of the
massive cross-posts with subject lines that say "So-and-so is a pedophile"
(some of them with Netcom addresses who seem to be able to hang onto their
accounts despite making such accusations), I'd say that usenet is a different 
ballgame from the print media where for-profit publishers have deeper pockets.
  
The problem with tort laws is that to successfully sue for libel you have to 
prove damages as well as prove that what was said was false.  Thus, you'd have 
to prove to a jury that someone made a defamatory statement about you that was 
false, that people believed it, and that your reputation has suffered 
measurably as a result.  Identifying the person who posted the message is only 
a small part of the problem.

Moreover, if the plaintiff has attained the status of a "public figure", he
has to prove additionally that the defendant KNOWINGLY and MAILICIOUSLY 
published FALSE information.  Thus, if you said that Clinton sexually harassed 
Paula Jones, it's unlikely that the President could sue you and win.  He'd have
to prove that you knew the accusation was false and made it anyway with
malicious intent.

The problem with libel via usenet is that in order to win you'd have to
prove that you had an impeccable reputation until someone defamed you with
a usenet post, people believed the post, and now your name is mud because of
it.  An anonymous post would be even more problematic, since you'd have to
persuade a jury that people who'd previously believed you to be a fine
upstanding netizen were convinced otherwise by a nameless accuser.  Usually
the people who will believe dirt about someone are those who already suspect
he's a no-good-so-and-so, so it'd be hard to make a legal case for his 
reputation being diminished.

> :Are you offering to donate the disk space?  If you can convince Hotmail and
> :other providers to do what you're suggesting, and provided they properly
> :inform all new and existing users of this new policy far enough in advance
> :to make other plans if they so desire, I would not object.
>  
> Hotmail DOES know who signs up and uses their mail service (at least the
> connection information such as IP and provider.

That's probably reason enough for someone who truly needs anonymity to avoid
such a service.  The problem is that once it's known that the identifying
information exists somewhere, the keeper of that information becomes a
target for coercion, bribery, hacking, burglary, etc.
 
> :And if the remailer stored no information to tempt litigious individuals,
> :firms, and governments, then that problem would be solved altogether.
>  It's the same principle that stores
> :use when they leave their cash registers EMPTY and UNLOCKED at night.  A thief
> :will often cause more damage to the cash register breaking into it than the
> :amount of the money that it contains.  What you're suggesting is that the
> :person's privacy be violated BEFORE any law is broken, just in case he MIGHT
> :break a law later.
>  
> There's still no way to do something even if the law has already been broken.

If someone has already been convicted of an offense that involved the
internet, it might be possible to suggest that one condition of any probation
or parole be to avoid using the internet, similar to what happens when one is
convicted of drunk driving.  Many jurisdictions allow victim input into the
sentencing/parole process.

(I'm not advocating this, merely pointing out that it's possible.)
 
> :It's your choice.  Go visit the list of remailers currently in operation and
> :count how many there are.  If it's too much trouble for you to send a single
> :block request, CCed to a dozen or so addresses, then you probably don't have
> :a strong enough case to go to court, obtain a warrant or subpoena, either.  
> :By the time you go through that process, you'll have invested far more time
> :and effort than sending an e-mail or two to prevent the problem.
>  
> He's saying someone's harassing him. (Sounds like in USENet and Email)
> Blocking your address only helps the email part. Not USENet.

No, actually he was saying that he wasn't worrying about someone doing it TO
HIM, but he was worrying (vicariously) about other potential victims.  Yes,
usenet is a different story and by its very nature it can never be totally
offense-free.  The best remedy there is to use a killfile, or even avoid some
NGs altogether, especially unmoderated ones, where one is likely to be offended
by what he reads.

The problem is that devising workable solutions to problems that don't yet
exist is much more difficult that resolving problems that do already exist.
And that's doubly true if the person refuses to implement the preventive
measures already suggested.  It's sort of like saying, "Why should I be careful
with that hot coffee?  I'll just wait until it spills and injures me, then
I can sue someone!"
 
> :If it's not serious enough for you to request that your e-mail address
> :be blocked, then why should the authorities think it's serious enough to
> :devote the resources to hunt down your harasser?
>  
> Blocking all remailers means you get _NO_ anonymous posts. Pretty serious when
> you've only a problem with one abuser, no?

It wasn't intended as universal advice.  But since his premise was that 
'Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"', it seemed a
wise precaution FOR HIM to take if he wanted to prevent any of those 
"criminals" from bothering him.
 
> :If the only purpose of anonymous e-mail is to break the law, then why
> :WOULDN'T you want to block it?  Do you have some reason you'd want to hear
> :from people you consider lawbreakers?
> 
> I still think he's mistaken by thinking that all who post anonymously are
> lawbreakers. 

I do too.  But his premise was used to support his suggested remedy.  If an 
anonymous user is NOT presumed to be a criminal, then you can't justify 
treating him like one.
 
> It's like anything else in life, a few assholes ruining things
> for everyone. 

So true ... of remailers, of Netcom and AOL accounts, usenet, and the 
internet in general.  But they'll only ruin it if you let them.  Trolls and 
flaming predate the internet itself and go back to Fidonet and BBSes in 
general.  (I wouldn't doubt that people were lamenting the misuse of free
speech back in ancient Greece.)

It's sort of like cable TV.  There's enough bandwidth (excluding outright
spammers for the moment) that you can choose the "channels" with what you
perceive to have a sufficient signal to noise ratio, and avoid the rest.
Everyone has his own threshold.  That's why many NGs come in both
moderated and unmoderated flavors.

> :> If someone really wants to send me email, there
> :> is no way I can prevent it short of not allowing any untrusted
> :> accounts to email me.  And that's reducing my lifestyle.  It's giving 
> :> in.
> :
> :That's your choice.  The solution exists if you choose to use it.
>  
> It's a lousy solution that only cures part of the problem.

In an imperfect world, you often have to settle for the best you can get, being
careful that you don't enact a cure that's worse than the disease.
 
> :> Only within a single country.  With an international network like this
> :> one, it is ridiculously easy to get around the laws of any one
> :> country.  Getting around the laws of EVERY country on the net is a lot
> :> harder, and should rightly be so.  
> :
> :So if somebody in Argentina decides to harrass someone in England, how would
> :what you're proposing solve that problem?
>  
> If they weren't posting anonymously, there'd be things that could be done.
> But if they're posting anonymously, how wouyld you know they were in
> Argentina?

You wouldn't.  But if you'd jumped through all the hoops to hunt down the
anonymous annoyance and the trail led to Argentina, then the spirit of
non-cooperation between the Brits and the Argentines might well mean that
the trail ends right there.  Or take it a step further.  Suppose the Argentine
remailer cooperated, and told the authorities that the message in question
was chained through a remailer in Germany.  And so on...

Politas' solution is conditioned on an ideal world where everyone cooperated
with everyone else.  What he cited as the protection an anonymous poster
would have against an oppresive regime is also why his scheme would not work.
Very little in the way of abuse goes on on the Internet that would be
universally recognized as criminal by EVERY country.  Not all countries
deem copyright violations, posting kiddie porn, libel, blasphemy, sedition,
posting birth control information, or even bomb-making recipes as actionable
offenses worthy of governmental intervention to identify and prosecute the
culprit.

Take "libel", for example.  Let's suppose a law were enacted today to make
defaming the President of the United States a criminal offense.  How much
success do you think you'd have in forcing a remailer in Libya or Iraq to
aid in hunting down such an offender?
 
- ---
Finger <comsec@nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNJ1P1wbp0h8ZvosNAQFaRAf+NfkhWJpic1Ha6d7V5qmf5OmJ3GFTcTdw
FFfaC+fIG2SD2I/lJ7Oe1zDengWLFCdr+N25TT5H0zUhjm22NUDc9A1JVH0J4Xes
haSNeA8XhON2f2SF9XS8EQebfXyIAj0m7c8f2HeecRVZC+MBCR1uXqotL5l8J4bA
1WXG/GCIId9JLMC0oi5W26XHwefu1UP3uYd13Z1AFOVfi7lTFh15YOOTfwlRjgl2
Aion64yujcjq6z7voNuidaz3HQVQmgwmeZKGeYJ935HzpA0XTYu/xr9L5p+gbmE3
S33fzHwgljymm6joJzUK8x/u3rrChp5a6O7qL07U5ZmgotQv7I0YDw==
=tkvg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----