1993-08-19 - Re: T. Wells & Anonymity

Header Data

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: Ray <rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Message Hash: ecb144523f619e2dedaa36b76bf04060a8bffabfc937ef56be5f620f99b3a7e2
Message ID: <9308191324.aa09804@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9308190906.AA08244@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-08-19 11:16:19 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 04:16:19 PDT

Raw message

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 04:16:19 PDT
To: Ray <rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T. Wells & Anonymity
In-Reply-To: <9308190906.AA08244@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <9308191324.aa09804@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>   On the other hand, I feel Mr. Detweiler has gone a little overboard
> in his attack in what seems to be an attempt to protect the masses from
> their own stupidity. The simple facts of the matter are, any time you use an
> anonymous remailer without encryption you run the risk of having your email 
> intercepted. One thing people need to learn is that the world is a risky place
> and any action you take can have negative consequences. I certainly
> wouldn't send threats to president@whitehouse.gov expecting Hal's
> or Julf's remailers to protect me.

Yes. But in this case we are talking about somebody who definitely feels it is
OK to check in on other people's messages - but he only admited to it after a
very lengthy debate on a.s.a.r, that he did his best to shut down - without
replying to accusations of him eavesdropping.

>   If you are concerned about protecting the masses, write up your own
> "Remailer Safety FAQ" detailing the benefits and dangers.

I still feel a remailer operator should make his policies known up front.
Just like Karl Kleinpaste's "if you do something I consider abuse, I will
expose you" policy.