From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:31:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
Message-ID: <199606252212.PAA17195@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:46 AM 6/25/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, WorldNet User wrote:
>
>> AT&T WorldNet service has banned the sending of anonymous email or
>> posting anonymously.
>> 
>> >From the "AT&T WorldNet Service Operating Policies":
>> 
>> 		(i) Members may not post or transmit any message
>> 		anonymously or under a false name. Members may
>> 		not permit any other person (other than an agent
>> 		acting on Member's behalf and subject to Member's
>> 		supervision) to access the Service Member's
>> 		account for any purpose.
>
>I don't have a problem with this, actually, and a brief visit to
>news.admin.net-abuse.misc would show why. AT&T is selling you access under a
>given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held
>accountable. 

Why should this be true?  I can still walk to a pay telephone, put in a 
quarter, dial a random number and talk to somebody anonymously.  The various 
Baby Bell companies aren't "held accountable" if it's an obscene phone call.

I think that any attempt to hold the Internet to standards higher than 
existing services is a mistake.

>I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make
>messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. 

Isn't the whole purpose of anonymity (remailers and such) in order to ensure 
that the messages AREN'T traceable?!?


>If AT&T bans or monitors access to anonymous remailers, then that's a
>different kettle of fish entirely, but they're not doing that. 

Yet.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com