[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ANON: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery



Here is a snippet of conversation you might find interesting....

	Julf

Subject: passing through encryption
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 5:27:23 EDT
>From: "T. William Wells" <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

I just posted the following article. You may wish to consider the
subject and post your own conclusions. If you post to asar, please
set followups to asard so that the discussion doesn't bother the
other folks on asar.

Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
>From: [email protected]
Subject: encryption through twwells.com
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 09:12:12 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (T. William Wells)
Followup-To: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.d
Organization: None, Mt. Laurel, NJ

I know this will make some people unhappy but I will not allow the
passing of encrypted data through the twwells anonymous server.
Responsible running of an APS requires the ability to audit what
passes through and encryption defeats that.

Some time in the future, I may consider how one may use
encryption with my server; such a system will retain the
possibility of decryption at the server.

Followups have been directed to asar.d.

 --------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: passing through encryption
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 5 Aug 93 5:27:23 EDT
To: "T. William Wells" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 93 11:49:21 +0300
>From: Johan Helsingius <[email protected]>

> I just posted the following article. You may wish to consider the
> subject and post your own conclusions. If you post to asar, please
> set followups to asard so that the discussion doesn't bother the
> other folks on asar.
> 
> Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: encryption through twwells.com
> Organization: None, Mt. Laurel, NJ
> 
> I know this will make some people unhappy but I will not allow the
> passing of encrypted data through the twwells anonymous server.
> Responsible running of an APS requires the ability to audit what
> passes through and encryption defeats that.

I have to say I disagree strongly with your position. Responsible
running of an anonymous service requires that the administrator *DOES*
*NOT* audit what passes through.

I feel that any anonymous service operator has no business looking at
the contents of other people's messages, and any attempt at doing so is
a gross violation of the trust of his/her users.

Your statement seems to indicate that you find it morally acceptable to
monitor the messages your users send using your server. How would you
feel if US Mail would get into the habit of peeking at the letters you
send "to ensure responsible running of the US Mail System"?

Please respond by e-mail, as I don't read a.s.a.r.

	Julf ([email protected])

 --------------------------------------------------

To: Johan Helsingius <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 16:27:08 EDT
>From: "T. William Wells" <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email protected]>; from "Johan Helsingius" at Aug 9, 93 11:49 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Johan Helsingius writes:
: I have to say I disagree strongly with your position. Responsible
: running of an anonymous service requires that the administrator *DOES*
: *NOT* audit what passes through.

I replied publicly (to reassure the people on asar); here's the
substance of my reply:

	I want to address a possible misconception here. I do not
	read what goes through the server on any regular basis. I
	do so only when and to the extent my responsibilities to
	the service and its users require it.

	I believe that I, being the main server for and being a
	member of the asar community, have an obligation to try to
	prevent the use of the server as an aid in perping.

	It is my opinion that the simple fact that I *can* read
	whatever goes through the service, even if I never do, is
	the strongest defense we have against someone using the
	cloak of anonymity to further their perping.

	One thing I want to avoid here is a discussion of whether
	these views of mine are correct or not. The first is a
	moral judgement and so is completely outside the bounds of
	discussion in this forum. The second is a subjective
	judgement and is based on my observation that abuse
	thrives on secrecy; it, too, isn't likely up for
	discussion since I doubt anyone can offer more than
	opinion.

:                                                         How would you
: feel if US Mail would get into the habit of peeking at the letters you
: send "to ensure responsible running of the US Mail System"?

Well, analogies are always slippery, but let me change the analogy
a little to illustrate. Let's speak of UPS (or whatever your
parcel post is called). How would if feel if UPS would open my
parcels? That depends. If they did it for gratuitous reasons, I'd
pick another postal service. If, on the other hand, I was worried
about terrorists posting bombs, I would thank them.

ASAR is a different place than most on the net and there are a lot
of people worried about bombs in their parcels. As far as I'm
concerned, it's a matter of choice. Some people will worry and so
be thankful that I have the policies I do; others will be upset
and use the other services.

 --------------------------------------------------

To: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.d
Subject: "T. William Wells": Re: passing through encryption 
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 20:37:30 +0300
>From: Johan Helsingius <[email protected]>


"T. William Wells" <[email protected]> writes:

> Johan Helsingius writes:
> : I have to say I disagree strongly with your position. Responsible
> : running of an anonymous service requires that the administrator *DOES*
> : *NOT* audit what passes through.
> 
> I replied publicly (to reassure the people on asar); here's the
> substance of my reply:
> 
> 	I want to address a possible misconception here. I do not
> 	read what goes through the server on any regular basis. I
> 	do so only when and to the extent my responsibilities to
> 	the service and its users require it.

And you decide when that is, right?

> 	I believe that I, being the main server for and being a
> 	member of the asar community, have an obligation to try to
> 	prevent the use of the server as an aid in perping.

And *you*, in your infinite wisdom, will know what is perping and what
is not? And who to watch and who not to?

> 	One thing I want to avoid here is a discussion of whether
> 	these views of mine are correct or not. The first is a
> 	moral judgement and so is completely outside the bounds of
> 	discussion in this forum.

Why? Why should such a discussion be avoided at all costs?
Why is moral judgement outside the bounds of discussion?

>       The second is a subjective
> 	judgement and is based on my observation that abuse
> 	thrives on secrecy; it, too, isn't likely up for
> 	discussion since I doubt anyone can offer more than
> 	opinion.

I would not use the word "secrecy". I would use the word "privacy". That's
why users use your service! But you are saying they *don't* have a right
to privacy!


> :                                                         How would you
> : feel if US Mail would get into the habit of peeking at the letters you
> : send "to ensure responsible running of the US Mail System"?
> 
> Well, analogies are always slippery, but let me change the analogy
> a little to illustrate. Let's speak of UPS (or whatever your
> parcel post is called). How would if feel if UPS would open my
> parcels? That depends. If they did it for gratuitous reasons, I'd
> pick another postal service. If, on the other hand, I was worried
> about terrorists posting bombs, I would thank them.

If I'm worried about bombs, I might ask UPS or somebody else to check my
parcels. But I don't want them to rummage through all my parcels on the
pretense of looking for bombs, especially without asking me first.

> ASAR is a different place than most on the net and there are a lot
> of people worried about bombs in their parcels. As far as I'm
> concerned, it's a matter of choice. Some people will worry and so
> be thankful that I have the policies I do; others will be upset
> and use the other services.

True. Some people might actually want you to pre-check their messages.
Others might want to use other servers.

Fair enough, as long as you *tell* your users that's what happening!

	Julf ([email protected])