ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) (08/17/85)
Although anonymous posting is generally frowned upon (and is practically impossible anyway), there are occasions when it is appropriate. For instance: personal information that would contribute to discussions but could prove detrimental to the author if his/her identity is revealed. E.g., admissions of minority sexual preferences and behavior, admissions of health conditions that could jeopardize future employment opportunities, admissions of drug use (especially illegal drugs), admissions of political stances that may offend current or future employers, etc. One idea would be to provide a moderator that is SWORN TO SECRECY who would accept personal mail from posters, strip the message of any information that could identify the author, and forward the message to the appropriate news group. Obviously, many details will need to be worked out, so I would be interested in how the net participants feel about this idea. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- Ned Robie
bdw@drutx.UUCP (WelkerB) (08/19/85)
*****<----------------- line eater bait --------------------->******* re: anonymous postings and trusted moderators How could the integrity of the moderator be guaranteed ? anonymous postings would be far better than trusting sensitive information to "virtual friends". Bruce Welker @ The Denver Works: AT&T-ISL ihnp4!drutx!bdw
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (08/20/85)
In article <331@SCIRTP.UUCP> ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: >Although anonymous posting is generally frowned upon (and is practically >impossible anyway), there are occasions when it is appropriate. >For instance: personal information that would contribute to discussions >but could prove detrimental to the author if his/her identity is revealed. This was one of the functions served by the late, unlamented mod.singles. Moderated groups are a great place for something like this, because the moderator is a public and known place and hopefully trusted enough by the readership not to misuse the trusts needed to ask someone else to post something for them. I think it worked pretty well as far as it went -- I'm sorry mod.singles didn't catch on. Two things to keep in mind: anyone who posts something anonymously takes on the liability of that posting, so they should use caution about what they are getting themselves into. Since there is no way to follow back to the real source, the poster would be the one most likely to get stuck with the flames (and possible lawsuits). Also, the person wishing something posted anonymously has to trust the poster that they won't do something really assinine like pass the mail on un-anonymously, hand copies to friends, or generally snicker behind their hand... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui Son, you're mixing ponderables again
rlk@chinet.UUCP (Richard L. Klappal) (08/21/85)
Simple! If what you want to say is illegal, immoral, or fattening, don't say it. rlk
eric@grkermi.UUCP (Eric N. Starkman) (08/22/85)
In article <331@SCIRTP.UUCP> ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: >but could prove detrimental to the author if his/her identity is revealed. >E.g., admissions of minority sexual preferences and behavior, >admissions of health conditions that could jeopardize future employment >opportunities, admissions of drug use (especially illegal drugs), admissions >of political stances that may offend current or future employers, etc. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..., company confidential information by disgruntled employees, ...
ned@scirtp.UUCP (Ned Robie) (08/27/85)
> In article <331@SCIRTP.UUCP> ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: > >but could prove detrimental to the author if his/her identity is revealed. > >E.g., admissions of minority sexual preferences and behavior, > >admissions of health conditions that could jeopardize future employment > >opportunities, admissions of drug use (especially illegal drugs), admissions > >of political stances that may offend current or future employers, etc. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ..., company confidential information by disgruntled employees, ... The author would still be liable, which is the whole point behind providing a moderator. The posting is anonymous to everyone except the moderator. -- Ned Robie
afs@bunkerb.UUCP (Andrew Seirup) (08/28/85)
> re: anonymous postings and trusted moderators > > ... trusting sensitive information to "virtual friends". Why not use real friends and the preface "posting this for a friend who wishes to remain anonymous."? That's a lot "cheaper" than using a moderator. Also, replies (supportive or flames) would be reliably forwarded to the originator, and posting responsibilty is still closely linked to the author (assuming a close enough friendship to share delicate information). Andrew Seirup - Bunker Ramo, Trumbull CT - (203)386-2086 uucp address: {decvax|ittatc}!bunker!afs (not my real name)
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (08/29/85)
> > re: anonymous postings and trusted moderators > > > > ... trusting sensitive information to "virtual friends". > > Why not use real friends and the preface "posting this for a friend who > wishes to remain anonymous."? That's a lot "cheaper" than using a moderator. > Also, replies (supportive or flames) would be reliably forwarded to the > originator, and posting responsibilty is still closely linked to the author > (assuming a close enough friendship to share delicate information). Better still, post the message YOURSELF, using the preface "posting this for a friend who wishes to remain anonymous." Especially apt if you're your own best friend. -- UUCP: ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.ARPA DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks