Anonymous Servers - some problems...

Author

some problems...

Mr.Gron

2006-03-19, 11:46 am

Hi,
Do I want to know, if anonymous posting on binary groups is
correct and legal;

and then, can I set nickname on anonymous posting?

Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Anonymous

2006-03-21, 2:54 am

On 19 Mar 2006, Mr.Gron <gron@gron.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>Do I want to know, if anonymous posting on binary groups is
>correct and legal;

DO NOT SEND BINARIES THROUGH THE REMAILERS.

DO. NOT. DO. IT.

Persona

2006-03-21, 2:54 am

Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in
news:XH6WB5ZB38795.5765740741@anonymous.poster:

> On 19 Mar 2006, Mr.Gron <gron@gron.com> wrote:
>
>
> DO NOT SEND BINARIES THROUGH THE REMAILERS.
>
> DO. NOT. DO. IT.
>
>
>

I don't think he was suggesting that. Let's assume he
wants to post replies, comments, etc.

[Posting binaries is discouraged, impractical, and futile.
If he doesn't know that now, and attempts to post binaries,
he'll soon find out.]

I'm not even sure what "correct and legal" mean in this
context. I suppose if he's talking about binaries,
then it isn't correct. If the binaries are legal,
then it would be legal to post them however.

Persona

George Orwell

2006-03-21, 2:54 am

Mr.Gron wrote:

> Hi,
> Do I want to know, if anonymous posting on binary groups is correct and
> legal;

Of course it is, unless you live in some place where there's a law against
it. I'm not sure even places like China specifically outlaw anonymous
Usenet posting.

>
> and then, can I set nickname on anonymous posting?

Absolutely not.

If you use a nickname your post is no longer anonymous, it's pseudonymous.
Anonymous means you're unidentifiable in any way. A recognizable name even
if it's a fake is contrary to that definition.

George Orwell

2006-03-21, 2:54 am

"Persona" <anon@comments.header <mailto:anon@comments.header>>
wrote in <news:3G40CUBL38795.8597916667@twistycreek.com>
>
> I don't think he was suggesting that. Let's assume he
> wants to post replies, comments, etc.
>
> [Posting binaries is discouraged, impractical, and futile.
> If he doesn't know that now, and attempts to post binaries,
> he'll soon find out.]
>
> I'm not even sure what "correct and legal" mean in this
> context. I suppose if he's talking about binaries,
> then it isn't correct. If the binaries are legal,
> then it would be legal to post them however.
>
> Persona
>
I refers to the fact that usenet news server are to pay;
instead with mail2news@... I don't pay nothing.
Anonymity is secondary.
Thank you.

Thrasher Remailer

2006-03-21, 2:54 am

"George Orwell" wrote:
><s>

Ok. Say some guy called “matthew,” who was formerly a tax collector by trade, writes a book, and that his book gets published posthumously.

Say matt’s book is later published along with a bunch of other books, and that big fat book gets called the bible. It’s a pretty popular book, and a lot of folks have heard of “matthew.”

Ok. Does that mean that the guy called “matthew,” even though he’s dead, that the guy is no longer anonymous? If not, can you tell us who matt’s father was, like “matthew ben jacob?”

I know the internet is a far more rapid and advanced form of publishing, and information exchange. But the basic point about using a pseudonym, or one’s first name, has some historical precedent.

I think of the “for every new radar gun there is a new radar detector” analogy. Has the internet reached the point where no new “radar detector” can stop anyone from being “radar detected?”

Ck

George Orwell

2006-03-21, 2:54 am

Thrasher Remailer wrote:

> Ok. Say some guy called “matthew,” who was formerly a tax collector
> by trade, writes a book, and that his book gets published posthumously.
>
>
> Say matt’s book is later published along with a bunch of other books,
> and that big fat book gets called the bible. It’s a pretty popular
> book, and a lot of folks have heard of “matthew.”
>
>
> Ok. Does that mean that the guy called “matthew,” even though he’s
> dead, that the guy is no longer anonymous?

Matthew was never anonymous in the first place. Sorry, it doesn't work
that way. Someone knew Matthew, even if Matthew wasn't his real or entire
name. At some point he handed his manuscripts to the "publisher" who
eventually went public with them.

> If not, can you tell us who
> matt’s father was, like “matthew ben jacob?”

Irrelevant. It's entirely possible to know someone's true identity without
knowing anything else about them.

> I know the internet is a far more rapid and advanced form of publishing,
> and information exchange. But the basic point about using a pseudonym,
> or one’s first name, has some historical precedent.

Yes. And the precedent clearly shows that anonymous and pseudonymous are
two different concepts. The classic pennet.fi vs Cult of Scientology
dispute is a relevant example. Had a user NOT engaged in the practice of
partitioning his publications by pseudonym, he would have blended in with
other users and not been so easily discovered.

> I think of the “for every new radar gun there is a new radar detector”
> analogy. Has the internet reached the point where no new “radar
> detector” can stop anyone from being “radar detected?”

Of course not. But what you fail to see in your analogy is the fact that
even though the tools to detect and remain undetected might change and
evolve, just like tools for anonymity and outing anonymous publishers, the
concept of "speeding" remains constant. You either maintain a velocity
that's equal to or less than some arbitrarily set limit, or you do not.
Likewise, while software and methods of maintaining your anonymity might
change, the fact that if you can be singled out you're not anonymous does
not.