|
| Carole Samgrass <carolusmagnus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:13 +0200, freedom wrote:
>
>you
>individual, in
>decide
>problem? What
>being
>
>Well, this is certainly a complex situation. As someone who uses
>remailers, I do see that they have a useful place in our wonderful
>internet, but as we all know, are also subject to abuse of the
>most awful kind!
But the same could be said of any medium. Someone could abuse from an AOL
address, or a Comcast address,etc. Or they could send a harassing letter
via the postal service or pick up a pay telephone and make a harassing
phone call.
>
>But to return to your example, what worries me just a little bit
>is when I think of the proportion of damage suffered by the poor
>"Mike Smith" whose name is being forged by the anonymous person
>using the remailer, and compare that with the damage suffered by
>another "Mike Smith" whose post is deleted because he shares the
>same name as the unfortunate "Mike Smith" whose name is being
>forged by the anonymous person.
In the instance I was talking about, nobody is being forged. I was
referring to the situation where a post is being sent by "Mike Smith" but
without a specific e-mail address. (Note that my nick is "AD" but I don't
include an e-mail address, rather the remailer assigns a default one.)
Now, the "poor" Mr. Smith to whom you refer is not being forged, unless
he's the only person in the world to have that name. First and foremost,
how can he prove that the actual poster's name isn't, also, Mike Smith?
Now, if the poor Mike Smith owns an account "mikesmith123@earthlink.net"
and someone other than him sends a post from that e-mail address, then yes
a forgery has occurred. To the best of my knowledge, our fine remops can
and will put a block on that. It's also possible for the "real" Mike Smith
to sign his posts with PGP, which can be used to verify that the messages
in question are, in fact, signed by "mikesmith123@earthlink.net".
>
>I am just an old person who knows just enough about remailers to
>get into trouble  but it does seem to me that the "Mike Smith"
>whose message, be it to or fro "Mike Smith", has disappeared into
>the 'bit bucket' of the remailer, it does seem to me that he is
>suffering much less by losing his message than the unfortunate
>"Mike Smith" is suffering who has his name forged by some
>anonymous person.
Interesting. What if someone bearing your name in your community were the
victim of postal mail fraud, and as a countermeasure, the post office began
setting aside any mail you sent out and discarding it? You probably would
look at this a different way.
>
>So, it seems to me, and I speak in all humility as someone who is
>far, far from an expert in these matters which are things I leave
>to you young people to understand, but it does seem to me, that
>there may be a question, a legitimate question, as to whether or
>not the "Mike Smith" whose name is being forged, deserves
>protection by the remailer operator even at the expense of the
>other "Mike Smith"'s messages being deleted.
Another point you should probably consider is that in the instant case,
"Mike Smith" is Kenny Pangborn. He's complained about forgeries for years.
Remailer operators have tried to help him by:
1. Advising him how to request his name be blocked.
2. Asked him to post examples of these forgeries, which nobody has ever
seen.
3. Tried to explain to him how remailers operate.
He's never been civil, nor provided any actual example which proves that he
was forged. What he has done is lie several times, first claiming to be a
member of EFF 10 years before it even existed, and just the other day
claiming that a Netherlands remailer operator addressed Congress in 1995.
Most likely this is all just Kenny's way of getting attention and finding
excuses to complain about the remailers.
>So I suppose what I am saying is that we cannot simply dismiss the
>idea of 'blocking' certain messages just because doing so will
>cause other messages which have to do with someone with the same
>name but different email address of the first person to be
>deleted.
>
>We must think about the relative damages done to each of them and
>then make a decision as to 'bit bucket' or not 'bit bucket'!
>
>Well, reading that, I see it is a bit cumbersome, but I hope I
>have made myself clear.
Yeah, but I would have to disagree. A nickname is just that, there is
nothing saying that it's the only person by that name. Therefore it's not
a forgery.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>it for
>
>I must say that this is an argument I have never found congenial
>and my dear husband, may he rest in peace, who taught me
>everything I know about our internet, he used to say that if you
>accept that 'slippery slope' argument then you can apply it to
>saying that if we deny youngsters of 18 the right to buy alcohol
>and make them wait until they are 21. then if we do that then we
>are on a slippery slope and who can tell! we may then decide that
>they cannot buy alcohol until they are 25 or 30 or 40!!
>
>So once again I think it must be a matter of the judgment
>exercised by each 'remop' as to the proportion of damage and how
>best he should act based on his judgment based on his
>understanding of that proportion.
>
>Oh, dear, I do run on, and ask your forgiveness for the garility
>of an old woman but I do so much appreciate the selfless devotion
>of our remailer operators and only hope they can exercise the
>proper consideration of each issue as it occurs.
>
>
>
>
>learn
>killfile.
>could
>help him.
>putting
>example of one
>URL to
>post
>exist.
>which
>the
>then
>independently
>NUKED.
>come from
>account was
>have my
>when he
>me NUKING
>about on the
>you
>was in
>terminated
>commented on
>numerous
>it from
>previous post
>1995.
>doesn't
>off just
>deny that
|
|