gf@dasys1.UUCP (G Fitch) (02/11/88)
There has been a lot of traffic about pseudonymous postings
lately. I'd like to point out that they serve a real function.
Before these postings, certain persons who took offense at various
things they read here had threatened personal action against the
authors, such as lawsuits, job discrimination, and so on. There
were also ad-hominem attacks along the lines of "the author
obviously has Problems and needs Immediate Professional Help,
prefereably in a locked room." Now, however, the pseudonymous
postings prove that authorship can be forged, and no offendee
can be sure his/her reprisals will fall upon the right head.
The only thing available to chew on is the offending article
itself.
--
G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\
The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) (02/13/88)
"G Fitch" (allegedly) "gf@dasys1.UUCP of The Big Electric Cat" wrote: > There has been a lot of traffic about pseudonymous postings > lately. I'd like to point out that they serve a real function. > ...[they] prove that authorship can be forged, and no offendee > can be sure his/her reprisals will fall upon the right head. > The only thing available to chew on is the offending article itself. Which makes the net look like a global graffiti board instead of a responsible medium of communication. The net's immunity to laws intended to protect people and their careers and lives from defamation and libel doesn't make it a freer, more objective forum. Words CAN do damage, and freeing their authors from answerability is no solution. I can hide my name, but you can't hide yours, if I use it for you, protected under my cloak of pseudonymy. But, unfortunately, I am told that this is not a problem that net administrators could fix even if they wanted to: The "authentication problem" is theoretically unsolved in network theory. Too bad. It's another factor slowing the progress of electronic networks toward realizing their enormous potential in advancing scholarly communication and the evolution of ideas. "Stevan Harnad" (allegedly) -- Stevan Harnad harnad@mind.princeton.edu (609)-921-7771
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (02/13/88)
In article <1803@mind.UUCP>, harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > ... > Which makes the net look like a global graffiti board instead of a > responsible medium of communication. The net's immunity to laws intended > to protect people and their careers and lives from defamation and libel > doesn't make it a freer, more objective forum. Words CAN do damage, and It most certainly makes if freer. As to objectivity, probably it does, but it depends on your interpretation of objectivity. > cloak of pseudonymy. But, unfortunately, I am told that this is not a > problem that net administrators could fix even if they wanted to: Most certainly wrong. It is not difficult to fix. Just no one thinks the fix is worth the price (an entirely separate matter). > ... Too bad. It's another factor slowing the progress of > electronic networks toward realizing their enormous potential in > advancing scholarly communication and the evolution of ideas. Actually not. What is slowing the use of the networks are people's wish to maintain certain types of informational properties, including everything from program sources to technical reports to news paper databases to dictionaries. In some of the news groups, you find people who are much more interested in seeing that information gets distributed than in maintaining control over the information and getting credit for it and lots of interesting information flows. Now electronic networks don't fit in well with copyrighted journal publications, but that is becoming less and less significant to scholarly communication (and certainly to the evolution of ideas) as hardcopy journals are becoming less and less useful. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
wb8foz@netsys.UUCP (David Lesher) (02/14/88)
I think the solution to the various attacks/forgories/etc is simple. Have netnews strip off all names and addresses. Thus nobody could attack another by name, nor would anyone have any reason to defend a position with reverse flamage. -- 'Now we see the violence inherent in the system' decuac!netsys!wb8foz
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (02/15/88)
In article <1803@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >[...] But, unfortunately, I am told that this is not a >problem that net administrators could fix even if they wanted to: >The "authentication problem" is theoretically unsolved in network >theory. Actually, it isn't either unsolved or unsolvable. Its just recalcitrant. Like writing a B-secure Unix, it's almost more work than its worth. --dave -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
tale@pawl5.pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/15/88)
In article <4763@netsys.UUCP> wb8foz@netsys.UUCP (David Lesher) writes: >I think the solution to the various attacks/forgories/etc is >simple. >Have netnews strip off all names and addresses. Thus nobody >could attack another by name, nor would anyone have any reason >to defend a position with reverse flamage. Blech. So now nobody has to stand up for anything they say, or those people who elect to attach their names to things now get even more heavily/visciously flamed by people who have an even greater anonymous profile. And didn't you realize that it puts a TREMENDOUS cramp in e-mailing? The e-mail generated by people reponding to USENET postings is FAR greater than the number of postings themselves. I hope you weren't serious about that idea. It's hard to take it that way. *!* "Those who find they have nothing to go out of their way for soon find they have nothing at all." -- Tale Laslingis, during the Fourth History. EMAIL: tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts.rpi.edu@rpitsgw, tale@pawl.rpi.edu THE HORN: (518)276-7214, (201)383-9414 during academic recess. DISCLAIMER: Who needs disclaimers when it's USENET policy?
mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (02/17/88)
In article <1803@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > "G Fitch" (allegedly) "gf@dasys1.UUCP of The Big Electric Cat" wrote: > > There has been a lot of traffic about pseudonymous postings > > lately. I'd like to point out that they serve a real function. > > ...[they] prove that authorship can be forged, and no offendee > > can be sure his/her reprisals will fall upon the right head. > > The only thing available to chew on is the offending article itself. > > Which makes the net look like a global graffiti board instead of a > responsible medium of communication. The net's immunity to laws intended > to protect people and their careers and lives from defamation and libel > doesn't make it a freer, more objective forum. Words CAN do damage, and > freeing their authors from answerability is no solution. > [...] > The "authentication problem" is theoretically unsolved in network > theory. Too bad. It's another factor slowing the progress of > electronic networks toward realizing their enormous potential in > advancing scholarly communication and the evolution of ideas. I remember going through this whole thing with Mr. Harnad during the "rathmann@berkeley" business a while back. The problem is that the vast majority of Usenet people are not particularly interested in using Usenet to "advance scholarly communication", but Mr. Harnad seems to want to impose his own standards on everyone. The net much more resembles a global grafitti board than anything else, and I have not heard any reasons why this is so bad. I certainly see nothing wrong with anonymous or pseudonymous articles; the real problem with these is that it would be more difficult to reply to the author by private mail, though this is probably not an insurmountable problem. If Mr. Harnad wants to set up a moderated newsgroup or a mailing list in which he requires authentication of messages (by mail exchanged with the authro, or telephoned verification, or whatever) he is certainly free to propose doing so. I don't think that this level of paranoia is appropriate or useful for Usenet as a whole, and I don't think that more than a small minority of the net's participants and site administrators think so either. Michael C. Berch News/mail site admin mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb