From: ""L. Detweiler"" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 00:21:59 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Kleinpaste's Charcoal anonymous server
Message-ID: <9306300721.AA27192@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


One person asked about the Charcoal remailer.  I try to stay on top of
this area of anonymity servers and have corresponded with the owner
Karl Kleinpaste extensively in the past.  First, I would like to
encourage *everyone* who wants to create and run an anonymous server,
which is time-consuming, thankless, and even painful at times, and
don't want any of my comments to be construed otherwise.

I think something disparaging could probably be said about any remailer
operator. However, I also think that remailer policies vary and that we
should keep track of the practices and reputed integrity of operators
as much as possible. Under that vein I'll just make a few *candid*
comments to cypherpunks on Mr. Kleinpaste. Please *do not* forward
these notes anywhere.

Kleinpaste started his server early this year mostly in response to
alt.personals, with the death of another server, I believe.  In a
*very* scorching-hot incident, an estranged boyfriend posted nude
pictures of his old girlfriend to alt.binaries.pictures or some other
newsgroup. It is not clear to me that he used an anonymous server to do
so--I believe he did not based on some testimony of others. Anyway,
this caused a huge eruption as these things inevitably do, and legal
action was in motion against the person in his hometown.

The guy apparently *later* used Kleinpaste's anonymous server to send
mail to another anonymous person who he thought worked with the
girlfriend's mother.  I guess there was some extortion or `threats' in
the letters.  Anyway, Kleinpaste gave all the persons mail to the
`authorities' (despite marginal relevance to the original
picture-posting) and got very emotional and wrapped up in the whole
case. In fact, he acted, in my view, very paternalistic in the way a
father would protect his daughter. (At one point he made the comment
that the young girl had moved to a new town and `was making new
friends' -- something that sounds like something one's parent's would
say, eh?) BTW--the estranged boyfriend was never prosecuted apparently
due to gray legal areas and prosecution cost.

Kleinpaste also revealed how a person was suicidal and was posting
through his server. It's not clear to me what he did but I think he
said he tried to contact the person's home institution.  Here is where
the ethical quandaries of anonymous servers are rather intense! What
should an operator do if a person, who is using the system in *trust*
of their anonymity, is suicidal? Is about to commit a crime? Involved
in a conspiracy? Well, I'm not advocating anything, but the stance of
`unhindered carrier' is certainly the least problematic from the
operator point of view.

Anyway, through all this it seemed to be clear to me that Kleinpaste
may be regularly reading some of the mail that is going through his
server, and in any case probably keeping fairly thorough logs.  Look at
his policies!  Essentially they are: if you don't post anything
offensive, I'm behind you. If you do, I will restrict your access
temporarily, permantently, or even expose you.

Kleinpaste soured very seriously on the whole idea of the anonymous
server and killed it. Then in the big flame wars J. Palmer started up
his server and Kleinpaste appeared to want some attention that Julf &
others were getting.  I found it highly incongruous in the least and
hypocritical at worst given some of his statements on `bastards who
abuse the service' that he restarted his own -- he's one of the most
strong-mouthed people on that subject.

Anyway, charcoal.com seems to have been humming along for a few months
now and Kleinpaste does not appear to be ready to shut it down anytime
soon. It posts to a limited number of groups. He tells me that he has
refused requests to `out' a particular individual in alt.personals by
another prominent individual.

So, I'd say that if you have his endorsement for your use of anonymity,
it's a safe server. But if you're on morally gray areas in your use, by
*his* definitions, then Caveat Emptor.

p.s. one reference on all this is
rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-anonymity.  I would document
further these really volatile incidents (esp. the `nude picture
posting') but don't have enough eye-witness accounts to do so (in
particular, not my own).