 sj |
||
|
||
Posting anonymously
|
|
|
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: 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: 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" 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Minnie Mouse Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM ...and this relates to folk music because...? |
|
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,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: 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 - 02:23 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: 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 - 02:31 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: 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,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 - 02:45 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: 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 - 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: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:19 PM help, the paranoids are after me!
|
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Manitas Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:27 PM Ahh! End of term. |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:28 PM Good Grief... |
|
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: 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: GUEST,artbrooks@work Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:01 PM Wonders can be done these days with psychotropic medication..... |
|
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: 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: Lox Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:09 AM All You are very persistent, and I admire that a great deal. Whatsmore, in your last couple of posts, you have shown to my satisfaction how the thread title and the wider subject matter that you have been discussing are related. I'm impressed. I'm still not satisfied though. 1, Do you really think that the mudcat will be the new McCarthy's first port of call? (I would concur that in a country with GWB as its president, this is not entirely improbable) 2, when you post, can't you be traced via your ICQ number. Does it therefore matter whether you use your real name, a nickname, or no name. 3, If you log on via a cyber cafe or public library computer, couldn't you use a special mudcat nickname without fear of being traced. 4, If you can be traced by ICQ number, and "they" decide they really want to find you, they will look for you at whatever public terminal you used last. 5, if you nevr use the same terminal twice, you can continue to use your special mudcat nickname. 6, isn't this all a bit over the top? especially considering the type of information that the mudcat holds on me (favourite colour, hobbies etc) |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Lox Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:23 AM All The point of all this is that you can maintain your anonimity AND have a nickname. You have accepted this and called yourself "All" I now know who I'm talking to, even though I don't know your real name, where you are from, what you look like, or who you work for. It was clearly not necessary for you to log on as nothing more than GUEST, just as it is not necessary for anyone else to do likewise. If you had contained your urge to muddy the waters by mixing the wider issue of internet security with the local mudcat issue of GUESTS who flame, you would probably have found that this forum would have shown a great deal more interest in you and your knowledge. Do you get my drift? lox |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Jon Freeman Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:23 AM All, I acknowleged most of what you said about displaying names in my previous post. I also recognised that a web site owner may be forced to divulge private information for legal reasons. One area I seem to disagree with you on is the availiblity of information given in the membership. To complicate matters, I am in the UK and not even well up on our own laws but if Mudcat was over here, I would think that this information would be considered private information and that Mudcat would have a legal duty under the Protection Of Data act to ensure its security. I think it would need some legal action (although for all I know, there may aleady be clauses covering access for police and suspected ciminal activity) for any 3rd party to obtain it. I would assume a similar situation exists in the US. Perhaps someone familiar with US law can clarify. Jon
|
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: GUEST,Fed up Date: 12 Jul 01 - 08:16 AM Lox, I came into this thread because I had followed the debate in teh CM/DB thread. I mentioned previously that I felt there was a *potential* for that type of posting circumstance to end up in court as libel and defamation. It is similar to the circumstances of teh Yahoo/The1Quiz case, in that it was a CEO who claimed a poster had libeled him in a newsgroup related to his business. Theoretically, an argument could be made by CM/DB that because these charges against were being done in folk forums, his reputation was damaged and his business suffered. People were suggesting CM be boycotted, there seems to be a possibility that at least some of the charges being levelled against him contain could be considered spurious, hearsay, whatever. And also, I should mention, that defending against such charges0 might easily be done by parties posting about CM/DB. The point is, we don't control who decides to take up a lawsuit against us. Once one is filed, one must defend against it. In today's litigous world (and I trust that isn't much different in the UK than the US), I believe it is a real risk. Others mileage may vary. I'm not saying this could, should, would happen. I'm saying there is always a possibility of such occurring. And that anonymous posting does protect against it to a certain extent, as the prosecuting parties have a burden to prove they need the identity of the poster revealed, which will slow many down. As to Jon and others in UK--I recognize the laws are different there, and I'm not at all familiar enough with laws there. Regarding the laws here, I'm referring to criminal law, the most likely use of the law against political dissidents. Government long arms (in the past in the US such as HUAC) don't have to comply with "regular" statutes either, as they (government bodies) appoint themselves special powers of prosecution--ie the Watergate, etc era of special prosecutors, who essentially replace the HUAC committees. A lot of people here also seem to share a lot of personal information about personal problems. That too is an area ripe with problems. Again--connecting physical and mental health issues is one way people's reputations are often routinely destroyed on the basis of undermining public perceptions. People can say "it can't happen here" of course, if that is what they want to believe. I just don't think they have the right to force their beliefs on others, and make them comply. As I said, if anonymous posting is allowed here, the right to do it without harrassment (which, in my mind, definitely includes the right to decline giving personal information to the forum just because people want to know it to converse with you) needs to be safeguarded. All |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Lox Date: 12 Jul 01 - 08:55 AM Where is the CM/DB thread? What is it called? I would like to read it. All, Cheers for making us aware of the risks involved in posting potentially libellous remarks, or putting potentially life ruining information about ourselves on the net. When I see such information posted by a guest, I will understand why they have kept their identity to themselves. In the meantime, I will continue to wonder why those without this justification, will refuse to offer a means by which others can address them in what is (on this forum) an almost entirely social context. I cite your use of the pseudonym "all" as an example of how it is not necessary to be completely unidentifiable when you have nothing "risky" to say. In fact, I am interested to know how you imagine this discussion would have developed without your use of "all". I don't see any more "mileage" in this discussion. Bye lox |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jul 01 - 12:11 PM Just to wrap things up: ALLFedup, I finally see what you mean and it's proper for me to publicly agree with you. The right to anonymity is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution. You can easily verify the early mindset on the issue by finding a copy of the Declaration of Independence- not a soul signed it. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: mousethief Date: 12 Jul 01 - 12:51 PM If "they" are out to get me, they'll get me, whether I post anonymously on Mudcat or otherwise. But why would they be? Are you an escaped convict, AllFedUp? Are you advocating the violent overthrow of the government? Your technical reasoning is impeccable but your paranoia seems harder to defend. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 12 Jul 01 - 11:45 PM Guest-You do seem rather paranoid, I feel if "they" are out to get you, they will find you anyway.The people that run Mudcat have my full name and address, I have no problem with this at all.Do you hear voices in your head? (just a thought!) John Evans |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: GUEST,Denise;^) Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:12 AM Cantcha just see it now-- There I sit, in the courtroom, being grilled by an attorney: "Did you, or did you not, ask the Mudcatters for the lyrics to "The Dixie-Bee Line" during the week of July 8, 2001?" Jeepers, how would I reply? I mean, the fate of nations would rest on my answer... |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:16 AM "That depends on your defintion of 'lyrics', sir!" A |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:19 AM LOL ! BG :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Jon Freeman Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:26 AM Problem is, could something like the Harry Fox Agency (hisssssssss, boooooooo) see me answering a post with copyrighted lyrics and decide to use me as an example... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Jon Freeman Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:37 AM I should add, it is quite possible to beleive something is trad when it is copyrighted, some people copyright arangements of trad songs, etc. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: Margo Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:16 AM My husband is a systems and network administrator. He HAD to install "spy" software. His boss doesn't want it, my husband doesn't want it either; he thinks it is just another thing to keep him from his real work. The problem is that the employees weren't acting like responsible adults, and brought it upon themselves. One gal came to her supervisor complaining that a certain someone was going to porn sites. He was asked to stop, and said he would. He didn't. Another guy was fired for running a porn site from one of the servers on the job!! No, I think it is ok for employers to keep an eye out. Margo |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: katlaughing Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:54 AM "What is folk music?" "I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me!" |
|
Subject: RE: Posting anonymously From: GUEST,Fed up Date: 13 Jul 01 - 08:27 AM As I said, for those who aren't really interested in this issue, it begs the question: why join this thread just to post taunts and insults to me? There will always be those who prefer fiddling the night away while Rome burns. I agree with some previous poster--this thread has clearly run it's course. Many more flames and trolls being posted that serious conversation. Not interested in engaging with member trolls and flamers. All |
| Share Thread: |