Posting anonymously

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 06:23 AM

Jon,

To get back to Paragraph #1, the point I felt needed to be made in this thread (and the reason why I used the example of employer spying), was that people shouldn't be lulled into a sense of false security because they believed the technology would protect them.

Also, it seemed to me there was a general malaise over the issue, because of a belief in Max's benevolence. Max and Mudcat aren't the people who would be guilty--people tracking Mudcat posters would be. Defending against it isn't cheap or easy.

As to the legal side of the issue (or I should say, one aspect of it): what people can do *legally* with information about you they have collected with the technology is still being worked out in the courts, legislatures, national and international bodies concerned with technology and civil and human rights.

Your belief that posting private information about yourself here (ie your email, and other private information you wish to give to people) doesn't constitute publication of it, wouldn't likely hold up in a search and seizure legal context. If you willing give out the information for the Mudcat directory, then you likely would not be able to successfully claim a right to privacy, and information gathered about you on-line could be used against you in a legal case. This would also include any personal/private information you choose to reveal about yourself in your postings. All that information, here and in any other forum where you post, could all be considered public information, and could be used in a court case to prove "whatever" without the burden of proof falling on whomever was bringing a case against you.

However, if you have posted anonymously only, and someone suspects it is you, to bring a case against you, they would have to identify you. Because of the first amendment right to free anonymous speech, that can't be done without the courts intervening, issuing a subpoena to websites in question, etc etc etc. In order to determine your identity, they have to have access to all the posters' IPs, to determine which posts were yours, so the entire forum's list of posters, anonymous and public, would likely be included, as members can use false identities just as easily as anonymous guests can.

So, my point is, even though everyone who posts in newsgroups, chat rooms, and discussion forums is at risk. But those who use their real identities are, in fact, at higher risk because they willing have revealed their identity and whatever other private information they choose to reveal. A court order or subpoena isn't required to use information in the public domain, and so far, the courts have decided that the Internet chat forums, in fact, are a public domain.

So, anonymous posting gives people *legal* protections that posting with a real identity does not provide. Regarding free speech and right to privacy issues, the legal side is much more important than the technical side.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:20 PM

Don-I am sure you are right, this Guest is not a folk music fan, it is just a fool who is trying to make trouble, so I will not read this thread anymore, it is pointless and a waste of time.john

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From:
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:01 PM

Wonders can be done these days with psychotropic medication.....

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM

John, I don't think you would ever see this person at a session or festival. I don't believe GUEST,(whatever) has any interest in folk music at all. I think it's someone who found an easy forum to screw around in an yank people's chains. The unfortunate part is that we allow our chains to be yanked. I'm gonna try to do better from here on, and just not respond. Let them flail around all by themselves and, deprived of attention, they'll soon just go away and pester some other web site.

Don (heavy sigh) Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 05:18 PM

Guest All/See Below/Fed up or whatever you call yourself today-I think Joe was right about you, you are insane and in need of help.I can't help wondering, if I saw you at a session or festival and said "Hello I am John, who are you? " what your reply would be! Although after seeing your posts hear I think I would keep right away from you.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:28 PM

Good Grief...

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Manitas
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:27 PM

Ahh! End of term.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:19 PM

help, the paranoids are after me!

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:14 PM

Jon,

OK--this is my last post--fingers flyin' I REALLY gotta get off line here!

Paragraph #1: I don't have time to clarify right now, I'd need more time to think it through, will give it a shot later if no one else answers--where are you No Name, No City? My point: some of our employers are already monitoring us here in Mudcat, whether people choose to believe it or not.

Your Par #2: Straying from original message--yeah, we are, but I thought/hoped some of these other relevant issues whould pop up in the conversation to get discussed too. Thanks to AMos for posting that decision.

The Yahoo case referred to in Amos' post is the one I mentioned yesterday I think as "The1Quiz" case in Florida. Or was that someone else who mentioned it? Duh!

Anyway, the point is, a lot of individuals, companies, government agengies are trying to get this information about Internet users through the courts A LOT! Right now!

Also, just because *you* believe that putting your name and email (and other information if you choose) here at the website, both at log in and in the posts, doesn't mean someone can't get a subpoena to get that information from Max and use it against you in a court of law.

They will have a bit more difficult time getting a judge to agree to granting a subpoena in light of the above case (thank goodness!), but that case may be appealed, or another circuit could rule on different point of law--we ain't any safer legally than we are technologically right now if we freely divulge that sort of information in newsgroups, chat rooms, and discussion forums.

Good talkin' to ya--byyyyeeeee!

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:00 PM

All, you have lost me on your first paragraph - Perhaps I'm missreading you. If I'm interpreting it correcty, I can't see how software at Mudcat would protect someone from their company's monitoring software but I've been wrong on what can and can't be done before - maybe you can elaborate.

As for the rest of your post, we do seem to be straying from your original concern but I do see your point particulary regarding those of us who use real names on open display here(I don't believe registering for Mudcat constitutes making personal information public).

Also, I must admit I'd failed to see legal implications such as an owner of a list being required to hand over information in certain circumstances when making a post in the "GUEST" thread earlier today.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:45 PM

Oh and lox--it is quite rude to keep asking for personal information about someone who has already told you they don't wish to share that PRIVATE AND PERSIONAL information with you.

That's the point I'm making here, remember?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Gustaf
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:41 PM

You can't "log off" unless you've "logged in," which you can only do as a member. Hitting the little "X" in the top right corner of the window is not "logging off," but merely "closing". As in "put a lid on it".

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:40 PM

Lox,

Hey! Government spys have been after some of the most distinguished folkies in Mudcat for decades!

While I say that merrily Lox, it is also true. You apparently didn't live through the ages of the McCarthy and COINTELPRO

What I said earlier about the connections of many British and American folk musicians with movements for progressive left social change is a good example of why the membership list should be private, which it is.

Because people who care are fighting hard (and a good fight it is too, IMO) to keep it that way.

One thing you learn about legal and political battles though--the good guys lose with alarming frequency.

If you aren't worried about your privacy, thats fine. As I said, people's mileage may vary.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:31 PM

Jon Freeman,

Yes, you are right about the software. Also, the spy/tracking software is much cheaper than the technology to defend against it. Max apparently is running the operation on a shoestring, and likely doesn't have the ability to upgrade, just as most small sites don't.

There is some protection from the law, however, as the case quoted by Amos shows.

I believe that is the concern of most anonymous posters. Whether or not their anonymity will be violated. The laws regarding the handing over of a website user/member list is, to me every bit as chilling as the attempts to force handovers of membership lists to the communist party.

So, I hope I've answered your question at least in part. It isn't just about the technology. Its also about the laws governing the technology. Those of us posting anonymously, and apparently (though that isn't clear to me in above ruling, and could, down the road, end up being made a loophole by people who want the lists) with pseudoynms, are better protected legally than are those of you who choose to sign your name and give your email address here, because you've already disclosed that information publicly.

Hope I've made that somewhat understandable. It is very complex. Am not an expert. Just knowlegeable enough to be dangerous in Mudcat! ;)

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:24 PM

Hey, "all",

You better watch out, I heard that the CIA are after a guest called "all".

OH MY GOD! You should never have given your pseudonym out to us on the mudcat.

Thanks for saving our lives by pointing out how we have laid ourselves bare to all those predators who will be following us dilligently around cyberspace. I will buy myself a virtual mac and trilby and skulk around in virtual alleyways from now on.

If only I had known that in putting "Lox" at the top of my mudcat posts I was going to be harrassed by government agents, gangsters, and virtual psychopaths.

Then again, maybe you're the stalker, then again, maybe I am. Ooooohhhhh...........

You aren't going to get into trouble for spouting off here, unless you are stupid and do some blatant corporate spouting. The worst you will get off us is an alternative opinion, or, when we think you are really talking shit, a ton of abuse.

Be realistic. This is a folk forum. The vibe here is based on that of a pub with music and conversation - on whatever topic you want. It is social. That is why there is no need for anonimity.

Are you suggesting that you are some kind of spy for whom things are different?

Well if that's true, you need to stop calling yourself "all" before you're rumbled.

lox

PS Don Firth was curious (as we all are) to find out more about you. He was not rude to you as you have just been to him. You didn't answer his question (you know, the one about music).

I would like to quote someone who (though I have spoken to him less than I have spoken to you) has spoken my mind quite clearly on this issue.

"FOAD"

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:23 PM

Whoa! Before I log off here, I wanted to be sure to say thank you Amos, for your contribution. I know you had your doubts about me initially, and it is really just delightful to see how open minded you have been.

You have certainly been through the fog, and found your way to clarity, and done it very honorably too! Your contributions here shows real honesty and integrity.

You are quite the prince.

Also didn't want to log off without begging forgiveness of GaryT, Sharon A, and IanC for my waffling a bit under pressure. To say I was feeling a bit overly sensitive at that point would be an understatement. You were wholly gracious to me--thanks very much to you as well.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:18 PM

Knowing I risk the wrath of site admin. and others for lengthy quoting, but clearly, people need to pause and consider other issues beside their own comfort levels. People get fired, families lose providers, etc etc

Please, just rethink your positions on anonymous posting/posters.

I have paused and thought and scanned this thread. I notice GeorgeH picked up on a point that I haven't seen answered:

Surely for any monitoring software to be effective, the admin needs to know who has used a given computer at any time. Assuming the admin has a system that meets this most basic requirement, posting anonymously will not prevent a user from getting caught.

Any user that thinks that they are cheating their system by posting anonymously to a site like Mudcat is likely to find themselves in for a very nasty shock.

Jon

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:03 PM

Minnie Mouse,

Good damn question!

Why don't you ask the same of the originator of the GUESTS thread!

Or the Another Sectarian Killing Thread!

Or any number of other non-folk music related discussions, many of which are quite controversial, and currently going on here in Mudcat!

Now, how about I ask you this question--if you wish to discuss and read about folk music, what are you doing in this thread?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM

Damned if I didn't leave off my From line again.

I hate that feature! ;)

Don Firth, our posts crossed, but my message is the same. I didn't start posting to discuss myself. I'd rather stick to the topic of discussion.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Minnie Mouse
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM

...and this relates to folk music because...?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:54 PM

Don Firth,

Well, in light of my post responding to MMario, and your Question #1:

Why are you here?

Is it because enjoy harrassing people you disagree with?

It seems this forum allows for some discussion of relevant non-music topics.

It seems discussions about changing the user features of the website discussion forum are probably also on-topic here.

Annoying you may find me, but I'm not a troll, and I'm following the official and unofficial rules of engagement. I'm behaving politely. Not flaming individuals, even though I do reply to a number of you.

I'm doing my part, so as far as I'm concerned, the better question is, why do some of you still feel the need to continue harrassing me?

Not interested in a repeat performance of yesterday, thank you very much. Yet here we go again, with some people trying to divert this thread to discuss me, rather than the topic.

Happy to discuss the issues surrounding anonymous posting by GUESTS in music related threads (I hope people would define the CM/DB thread as being about music anyway--I certainly saw it that way!). But this is the last post I'll respond to that's about me.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:43 PM

Lest I be misunderstood or misinterpreted, my above post is not a flame. I am genuinely curious, and I feel the questions are fair.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:40 PM

I have three questions:

1) Why am I sitting here reading this when I could be doing something more productive, staring out the window and picking my nose?

2) GUEST,Fed up/All/etc./etc., Are you at all interested in folk music?

3) If not, why are you here?

Just curious. . . .

Don Firth (who identifies himself with his real name and who also signs his handiwork. If I say something stupid, I'm willing to take the blame, if I say something brilliant, I want full credit for it)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:31 PM

MMario,

My logged off Mudcat yesterday after my 8:18 p.m. post. No Name, No City posted after that.

I logged into the site this morning and responded to the only post that was discussing the subject I was interested in discussing.

Still trying to do just that.

My posting today wasn't done to stir things up, although I do understand there are a number of people annoyed with me.

They do, however, have a choice as to whether to read or respond to me, or even, to participate in teh thread. They always have. I haven't been intentionally antagonizing anyone in this thread, or any others, IMO. I've tried to walk a very straight line in this regard, though the harrassment yesterday was clearly getting to me too.

If your head hurts because of me and what I say, maybe its time for you to stop reading my posts. Headache gone! :)

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM

Spaw

Right to free anonymous! speech is guaranteed in teh Constitution's First Amendment.

Right to privacy has been determined by the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, and is often rooted in both the First and Fourth Amendments. Though not exclusively.

Doesn't matter. Some federal and state laws give citizens more rights, some less. They are both universally recognized rights at the federal level in the US.

It would be very helpful if we all recognized that these issues are important to some, even if they aren't to all. If the issue doesn't concern you at all, why start a flame war over it?

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:13 PM

all - no - you don't get the point. no one is forced to use a psuedonym. however - for more then casual interaction it is polite that one is used. and yes, eventually constant rudeness will sooner or later be ansewered with rudeness.

and the site owner/administrator has not gotton involved. it is the other posters on the forum - and yes, basically we have said play the way we want or we won't play with you. You of course don't have to play the way we want - but if you choose not to conform to the norms then you can't expect others to conform to YOUR norms.

MANY, MANY people have come here as guests, been welcomed and stick around - some as guests, some join. and *gosh* they all have names attached.

and while free speech is a right (in the US - and many of this forum do not live in the US - remember that) in the US the right to know and face your accurser also stands. So since the "Guests" we have the gbiggest problem with are the argumentative, attacking ones, yes, it is nice to have names to put to them.

As far as addressign you rather then the issue, you still continue to completely avoid discussing why the thread title and the first post address totally different issues - neither of which you have actually addressed except in passing.

In addition - every time it appears that this thread is about to "simmer down" - you come back and post another little "dig". but we are suppossed to believe that you are not trolling? Luckily for you - i'm tired, I'm brain burnt and I don't have the self control to resist answering you. it worked. Happy?

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:04 PM

The meds are obviously short term effect only...........

Tell Max dumbass, and if he thinks it needed, he'll change it. Giving a name isn't an issue of rights or freedoms, it's a simple courtesy that has worked well and makes it easy to address the person as in "Guest All".......The whole membership thing and your aversion to it suggests you are a paranoid of monstrous proportion.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM

MMario,

You seem to have missed the point again. The issue to many posters wishing to be completely anonymous, is they want the right to post *without* a pseudonym.

Because posting only as GUEST enrages a certain percentage of the users here doesn't mean they have the *right* morally, or from what I can ascertain from the faq, to intimidate and harrass people for doing it. No one should be forced to use a pseudonym to log-on and participate, IMO.

My opinion is different from some, as is clear from this thread and the GUESTS thread.

I suggested a short addition to the faq could clarify this issue for all. I still believe it would be in the best long term intersts of the forum itself, to clarify this for both guests and members, both of whom are engaging in ridiculous flaming of anonymous posters for no legitimate reason.

And I say legitimate because, as long as anonymous posting *is* allowed, then I think the site owners and administrators have a duty and responsiblity to their users, to see that anonymous posters who contribute are treated as fairly as those who use an identity, whether that identity be their real name, or a pseudonym.

I started to use the From line to defuse the argument of the people who were focusing on me, instead of the points I was trying to make.

I did that because, while the right of posting with complete anonymity was not one I chose to exercise in this instance, I wanted to defend my and your and everyone else's right to do it. Here in Mudcat, and in every other forum on the Internet where people choose to express points of view anonymously.

If I don't stand up for that right for others when they need it, it won't be there when I need it.

This is about more than just Mudcat to me. I accept it might not be to others. We should be able to respectfully agree to disagree without mocking, insulting, intimidating, harrassing, name-calling, flaming, etc.

It has been my personal experience here in Mudcat--which has only been limited to following these threads since last week, that there is more of a problem with Mudcat members trolling and flaming, than there are guest users. That is my perspective as a newcomer--an outsider.

Others mileage may vary.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Les from Hull
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM

Don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree
Stay outa my orchard, leave my peaches be.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:42 PM

Alligator
Allegro
Allure
Alley
Allegory
Alleluia
Allergy

Which is it short for? I'd bet on the last one.

Goodbye. You are the Weakest Link.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: MMario
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:29 PM

This site doesn't require that you connect your psuedonym to an e-mail login - however, if you choose not to do so, then you are labled as a Guest,psudeonym. That is fine by us.

But we do like to have a name we can "hook" our conversation to; and yes, we get aggravated if someone uses the fact that the forum doesn't require this to specifically to rile people up.

BTW - THANK you for comprimising on the use of a consistant psuedonym. As Dave the Gnome pointed out - doesn't mean someone malicious couldn't come along and do the same - but *I* for one refuse to be that paranoid.

NOTE:just about everyone on this forum has disagreed with just about everyone else at some point or another. (And probably will again if they stick around) And most of us have managed just fine doing it under the exact same posting name we do everything else on the forum under.

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:26 PM

Following news is forwarded from Declan Mcullagh's "politech" e-newsletter. A.
=============================================================

Politech archive on anonymity:

http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=anonymity

********

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:26:56 -0400 From: "Paul Levy" To: Subject: Protection of Anonymous Internet Speakers

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has just handed down a terrific opinion protecting the right of internet speakers to post their criticisms anonymously. As the first appellate court in the country to address this issue, it is to be hoped that this opinion will have broad influence, and that businesses that think they can easily unmask their critics by simply filing a lawsuit and expecting the names to fall into their laps will be discouraged from suing unless they have good reason to think that they can succeed on the merits.

In Dendrite International v. Doe, a three judge panel, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Robert Fall, upheld the decision of Superior Court Judge Kenneth MacKenzie to deny Dendrite the opportunity to identify an anonymous critic who challenged the company for changing its revenue recognition policies to show immediate benefits for the bottom line, and who sneered at the CEO for unsuccessfully trying to sell the company. Judge MacKenzie found that, even if all the other elements of a defamation case were met by the plaintiff's evidence, there was no hard evidence that the company had been harmed by these posts.

In affirming, the appellate court enunciated firm guidelines for trial courts to follow when confronted by a subpoena at the outset of a case seeking to identify anonymous internet posters so that the lawsuit can proceed against them. The court should first require the plaintiff to attempt to notify the anonymous posters that their identities are being sought and give the defendants an opportunity to oppose the request. The plaintiff must identify the exact statements alleged to be unlawful. The court must then decide both whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief and whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to support its claim. Finally, if these first three criteria are met, the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the case and the necessity for identifying the poster.

The court found that this test was needed to "strike a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation [against] actionable conduct of anonymous, fictionally named defendants." Applying the test, the court agreed with Judge MacKenzie that there was insufficient evidence of harm, and did not find it necessary to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to meet the actual malice or other elements of a defamation claim.

In a recent court appearance, Yahoo! told a California superior court judge that it receives "thousands" of such subpoenas; and AOL recently told a Pennsylvania court that in the year 2000 alone, it received 475 civil subpoenas, "the vast majority of them" seeking to identify its subscribers. Thus, the development of standards for adjudicating these subpoenas is a critical task for the courts, and the first appellate opinion could go a long way to assuring internet correspondents that their identities can remain confidential so long as they do not violate the rights of the persons whom they criticize.

The opinion will be posted on our web site later today at http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/dendriteappeal.pdf

Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:17 PM

Guest All........Be sure in your reading of the ACLU issue involvement that you do not confuse privacy with anonymity as they are not the same.

In any case, let's just move on from this particular idiocy and Guest All, at least try to continue using the same handle because your meds may have kicked in and you are almost making a modicum of sense.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:11 PM

First, apologies for failing to put "Fed up" in the From line in my 11:48 response to Spaw.

Lox,

No Name, No City explained perfectly well, from a technical standpoint, the reasons why an anonymous posting and a posting using a pseudonym are different. Pseudonyms attached to email log-ins can be captured, and used to follow a poster. One reason why I began this thread was to draw attention to how readily available and inexpensive that technology has become. I used the example of employers monitoring employees only to illustrate how pervasive the use of the technology has become just in that one sector alone.

People here do seem to have their heads in the sand about the capabilities of the technology, and about how pervasive its use is by many people, from employers, to government spy agencies, to criminals interested in exploiting your identity or gain access to your financial assets, to crazy stalking stuff.

Some people who post anonymously will avail themselves of the best technology they can buy to counter the tracking technology. Some won't. But some of us know that logging in to websites with emails just makes it easier for those trying to do the tracking. It is just another "easy" link in the trail.

And as I said, if so many people here feel so strongly about anonymous posting, the appropriate thing to do is to try and get it changed, not harrass the people who choose to use the option to express an unpopular opinion.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:07 PM

All that said, I submit that what brings out the nasties in these parts is not anonymity. It is the refusal to communicate or the actual effort to undo those who wish to. The forms of this impulse include complaint without suggestions for improvement, a refusal to acknowledge others, carping criticism, and the kind of hateful littering of others' communication we occasionally see from the very young in brain. These are communication destructors, and they bring people to arms because the only treasure of the Mudcat is its communication, and its historical data.

I notice "All" is communicating here, not just sniping, or bleating piteously, or making generalized negative statements without specifics. I think this is great,

My perception is that we have no drum to beat here for knowing who anyone is or is not in the "real" world, but we do have a drum to beat for people standing up as genuine communicators, not snipers or vicitims.

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:49 AM

ARSE.

I thought it meant that this would all be over. I wish you hadn't done it.

Never mind.

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:48 AM

Spaw,

As a card carrying member of the ACLU, its seems a bit odd that you would hold the views you do regarding anonymous Internet posting, considering the position of that organization on an issue you obviously feel so strongly about, although I can appreciate one need not agree with all official positions taken by the organization of which one is a member. However, the ACLU's position on anonymous posting on the Internet is very clear, your membership notwithstanding.

To suggest that forum moderation is censorship is specious. Any forum can, and often is, censored by those who control access. Which was, in fact, the issue I was responding to initially in the GUEST thread: limiting access to GUEST users as a means of silencing views which are not in agreement with the Mudcat mainstream.

I have no desire to take up anything with Max. My initial contribution to the GUESTS thread was in response to the suggestion--made by others, not myself--that Mudcat should change the GUEST log-in policy. The justification given for those changes mentioned two threads: the CM/DB saga thread, and the (name deleted) thread. The original post to the GUESTS thread suggested that the forum was being abused by GUESTS in the CM/DB thread in the same way the forum was being abused by GUESTS in (name deleted) thread.

I suggest they were used by the GUESTs in each instance quite differently. In teh CM/DB thread:

1. Guests in the CM/DB thread were choosing to post anonymously to express a dissenting, controversial point of view which was at odds with the views held by a majority of people participating in that thread.

2. Guests in the (name deleted) thread were clearly abusing the GUEST log-in feature to engage in troll activities.

IMO, teh two are not equivalent.

The former is about free speech in this particular forum, and the rights of anyone, member or guest, to voice unpopular opinions anonymously in this forum.

The latter is about Internet abuse by trolls.

I disagreed with original poster's assertion that GUESTs in teh CM/DB thread with "abusing" the forum by choosing to post anonymously. As long as the site owner chooses to allow anonymous posting, I believe all users, whether members or guests, should respect the site owner's decision to allow anonymous posting, even if they disagree with it.

For those who feel so strongly about anonymous posting that they are willing to start flame wars over it in this forum, I would respectfully suggest that the burden for getting it changed lies with you, and not those who support the Mudcat status quo.

Anonymous posting is currently allowed here. It is my opinion the membership should stop harrassing and flaming those who choose to avail of that option to contribute to Mudcat.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Noreen
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:47 AM

MUDCAT HEALTH WARNING:
Trying to reason with this guest may seriously damage your equanimity!

I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that so many good, reasonable people have spent a great deal of time, energy and logic, attempting to reason with this unreasonable "GUEST". The effort spent is admirable, and it says a lot about the wonderful people who come here (guests and members alike) that they keep trying to be reasonable when the goalposts are constantly being moved- not just in this thread.

Enuff is enuff, friends. Time to get back to the real Mudcat!

Love,

♥ Noreen

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:44 AM

Sorry Max, Joe, everyone else. It was me above without my cookie. I would not normally do such things but it does serve to point out the major advantage of being joining. No-one can send messages as you.

I guess our anonymous guest(s) may now send messages using 'Guest: Dave the Gnome' but I think I have made the point.

Cheers

The one and only original Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,No name and not much else
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:37 AM

Sorry

Me again

I am a nutcase

Please Ignore all my previous postings

All

Or someone else

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:20 AM

This thread is entitled "Posting anonymously". Not "employment security & civil rights on the internet"

I never argued that you were a coward "all", I pointed out that your concerns regarding employment security were irrelevant to the question of whether or not you had a nickname by which people could recognize you on THIS forum.

You never once responded to my point because I'm right and you know I'm right.

Equally, your concerns about civil liberties have little to do with the mudcat cafe. If you don't want to give your real name, you don't have to (check back you will find I have been consistent). You are free to discuss anything you want here, under any pseudonym you choose.

You have been spending a lot of time here lately. Do you have any desire to know with whom you are discussing individual points? I do.

There is a genuine feeling amongst many of the regulars here that they know each other. Why? Because they have been coming here for a long time.

I don't know what most of the people here look like, and I don't know many of their real names, but I am able to recognise who is posting by their nickname. I know some people to be funny, some to be learned and some wise.

I also know some who I think talk a lot of unconnected shit. I think you are one of them.

When you demonstrate, clearly, how being recognizable on the mudcat forum has anything to do with job security or civil rights, I may begin to reconsider.

I am less reminded of the monty python argument sketch here, than I am of the abuse sketch.

Do you have a masochistic streak? If not, why must you set yourself up to be abused. And why would you come back?

lox

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM

If free speech were an issue at Mudcat, then you would see a lot of deleted postings and a moderated forum. The fact that your posts and mine are not deleted and that you and I are still free to post should say something. As a card carrying ACLU member, I can also state that rights and freedoms all have certain responsibilities attached to them and abdicating the responsibility eliminates your right.

Again, take your complaints to Max. Let him read them and your postings here and see how he feels. He has tried very hard to provide a place of truly open communication. Or, you can continue to harp on your worn out diatribe here and please have some cheese with your whine.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Kjell
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:07 AM

I have been reading threads here for about a month before I joined. I never once posted as Guest, not because I thought I would have bad treatment, more to find out about the place and get a feel for it. I think I did the right thing. The argument for privacy etc. does not work, you can call yourself "paperclip" if you want - no person will know who you are. I think you have dug a bit of a hole for yourself "Guest" Unless this was the intention - just to stir up the forum. I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I use my own name as I feel quite safe here
Kjell

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:36 AM

No Name, No City,

Thanks for mentioning the very points I was trying to make when I initiated this thread.

The point of this thread, for those who were wondering, was to offer, from a GUEST user's perspective, some legitmate reasons why people have concerns about using email accounts as website log-ins. My apologies for not being more articulate.

There is a strong, mainstream point of view that anonymous Internet posting should be banned. I pointed to two cases, both involving government actions, where the intent was for governments to ban anonymous posting: one in France, one in the US.

I realize that many Mudcatters are opposed to anonymous posting in all circumstances, or extremely limited circumstances (which they have failed to spell out, I might add). Therefore, I would presume this is the position being most stridently and vocally defended here.

I just wanted to point out, in the contributions I was trying to make here, that banning anonymous posting in newsgroups, discussion forums, and chat rooms is being opposed internationally in courts, in government legislatures, and in the court of public opinion by free speech advocates.

I support the positions of free speech advocates. I believe that the "personal accountability" issue is a smokescreen, which, if legislation is enacted, will result in widespread violations of right to privacy laws outside of the Internet, and to widespread abuse by governments with strong interests in carrying on with secret campaigns against citizens expressing dissenting points of view.

We've seen the violations of rights to privacy and free speech in the US in the very recent past: anti-dissident campaigns against communist, labor, civil rights, gay rights, environmental, human rights, and other left leaning movements by the FBI and CIA. Anyone who believes this *is* somehow a thing of the past, and something the US government no longer in engaged is, I think, sadly mistaken.

Especially because of the historic relationship between the US and British folk revival movements with many of the movements targeted for goverment surveillance of their members I mentioned above, I believe anonymity is extremely important for anyone who wishes to express views freely in any folk music Internet forum.

Others may disagree. I note that the membership of this forum appears to be pretty conservative poltically, despite rhetoric of progressive attitudes being regularly expressed by many members.

But they shouldn't be defacto silencing the debate by burying it under a bunch of meaningless diatribes over "cowardice" among guests and "hurt feelings" of the Mudcat "clique". That ends up demeaning the importance of the issue of anonymity, rights to privacy, and free speech.

Again, thanks to those posters who did comment on the issues raised intitially in this thread, and attempts to keep it focused on the topic, rather than on individuals posting about it.

All

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Lox
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:32 AM

Ralphie,

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. You didn't make up the word "obfuscating". You will find it in any decent dictionary.

The oxford concise dictionary (tenth edition), defines obfuscate as follows:

It is a verb, and its meanings are 1, to make unclear or unintelligible, and 2, to bewilder.

To make matters worse, it seems that your usage and spelling were both perfect in every possible way.

Either you are a subconscious academic, or you were born with an intuitive vocabulary, but I'm afraid you didn't invent that word. (unless you are very very old ....... how old are you?)

lox (nyuk nyuk)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ralphie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:09 PM

Mr Spaw....Yes, I'll do what you suggest, but, I Really(!) enjoyed that bit of spleen venting......In the past month or so, I've discovered a lot of info from the good people here that may have taken me months to find elsewhere.
. But the odd Prune has got in the way, sadly. So, I might just hang around for a bit longer, if that's alright with the "Mafia" (lol) that runs the place> Hope you're feeling well...Best wishes from the "Auld Country....Ralphie x

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:44 PM

Fine Ralphie....Now move on and back to all the good things you came here for and are now enjoying. We're glad to have you and if I was gone and didn't get the chance before.......Welcome to the 'Cat!

Amos my friend, I appreciate your concern and I'll try to do better!!! At least I maintained an even strain and didn't say that Guest All could suck the valves out of a Chevy small block did I? Or that they'd suck a root as long as a rake handle....Didn't say that now did I? I'm trying to get in touch with the kinder, gentler, Spaw........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Ralphie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:23 PM

Just to cut through the crap........Guest-All/Fed up, has to be the same person who made a complete mockery of the Dave Bulmer/Celtic Music thread.......Having just read through this pile of poo....(for that is what it is)....Who was the first person to mention Dave Bulmer???.....Guest-All.........Who was the first person to mention Peter Bellamy's widow...........Guest-All.....
Need I go on?? As someone who has been intimately involved with all that has happened to various people in the UK for at least 25 years.May I beseech you........Whoever Guest (make up your own name here) is.......This person should be avoided....Not for the continued ridiculous anonymity...and just for the record......my name is Ralph Jordan.....there....that didn't hurt....I felt no pain.!
but, for confusing, obfuscating (I made up this word!!), and generally bewildering a bunch of people whom I consider to be pretty decent...Enough Enough...Guest All, or whoever......As we say in these parts....PUT UP, OR SHUT UP.....Cheers Ralphie......(Oooooh, I did enjoy that!!)

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:22 PM

Spaw:

Jeez, man, get it off yer chest!! You don't have to hold back with us!!

A

Subject: RE: Posting anonymously
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:20 PM

Geeziz Guest All..........You don't know crap about who's who here and yet seem to have all the answers. If you'll just go back to my previous post, the site owner/admin is Max and I suggest you call him directly, toll free and list all of your grievances and super suggeestions. Or you can write him a letter or e-mail him...anything you like and tell him how mistreated you have been. Tell him about all of these nasty-ass folks and how we should change things around and all. Tell him that Spaw called you a miserable little pissant and bestowed the Order of the Golden Shower upon you. Have at it and be sure you are comprehensive in your suggestions, complaints. and other such crappola.

Just click on the jumping catfish at the top of the page and scroll down for the phone and e-mail info. Until you do that, let me pass on my favorite suggestion for miserable pissants........"Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."

To the rest of you piddling around with this simple ass.......Let's all go back and do what we do best.....Answer requests, have some fun, research some songs, tell a few lies.....all the usual Mudcat good stuff. This doof has no interest in understanding as you all know so why bother, let him/her/it take it up with Max.

Guest All.......Have at it and have yourself a truly good time and a mediocre day!

Spaw