1993-03-02 - Re: Piercing anonymitiy and censorship

Header Data

From: Theodore Ts’o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>
To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Message Hash: f3e3bdc38284348cc5e55d997db8e6b83e11b15cf0eea174f014426a7f8f6db6
Message ID: <9303022139.AA02344@SOS>
Reply To: <9303021915.AA10138@maggie.shearson.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-02 21:41:18 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:41:18 PST

Raw message

From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:41:18 PST
To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Subject: Re: Piercing anonymitiy and censorship
In-Reply-To: <9303021915.AA10138@maggie.shearson.com>
Message-ID: <9303022139.AA02344@SOS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

   Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 14:15:15 EST
   From: pmetzger@shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)

   Of course there are ways -- and they need not be so drastic. You could,
   for instance, simply prevent non-subscribers from posting to your list,
   and use public key to verify identities. This would allow you to swiftly
   stop abuse. I've already noted this twice. You've claimed this is impractical,
   but the tools to do this, AND WITHOUT PATENT PROBLEMS, already exist and
   would be cheap to implement.

If they are so cheap to implement them, could someone please implement
them FOR THE USENET GROUPS?  (Where you don't have a concept of
subscribers or non-subscribers?)

I here lots of *talk* of how easy it is to do this, or how easy it is to
do that.  If it's so easy, why doesn't someone prove it to the rest of
us by actually doing it.   I hate to bring the Real World down upon you
guys, but talk is cheap; code sometimes isn't.

							- Ted