On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Part Deux

I thought the last thread was a little short.....


Are you suggesting that there are ways to
identify someone who takes serious steps to
hide their identity?

If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.


How? When people hide behind anonymous
remailers, servers, public WIFI access nodes,
and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly
who they are?


Do some homework on the wealth of information out there,,,visit some of
the hacker sites and groups,,,how do you think the launchers of serious
virus' are tracked down?

The same way as many other criminals are caught. They brag to their
friends and get turned in. That still doesn't address the basic
technical issue of how people can anonymously post messages and e-mail
using "public" internet access or through clever technical means to
disguise their identity. A simple IP lookup is no guarantee that you
will find the actual user.


In the fist manner, I was under the impression
you were speaking of this group.

I'm talking about the internet in general.

Since it is now apparent you are
experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you
consult an attorney.

What would give you that idea? I'm talking purely hypothetically.


Or are you saying that we all should just have
to deal with abusive insulting and libelous
comments because they are not worth the
trouble to pursue seriously?

If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.


The same "turn it to the left" mentality that
abusive CBers use to force good people off of
the CB band?


The very idea that you feel "forced" by another has moved you to the
point of wanting to force others to conform to your beliefs,,,nice.

Not forced to conform to "my" beliefs. Only that they maintain a
certain level of accountability and by extension civility.


Decent people should be forced to yield to
malcontents, rather than fight back?

That is a personal decision and an apparent unresolved issue that
plagues you.

So you posit that decent people should be held hostage to the whims of
these malcontents, and those of us who feel otherwise have "issues"?


I believe in the example of not saying
something on a forum, that you wouldn't have
the cajones to say to someone's face.

Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.

Doug has personal issues of his own.


...and he fostered his personal issues on this group. Again, I ask of
you, how would you he be held accountable for such behavior that you
continue to rail against?

If you are asking how Doug should be held accountable, first I'd have
to ask; how do we know for sure that the person everyone thinks is
Doug, really is? Once we establish that it is him, then he should have
his access revoked for behaving in an inappropriate manner.


I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many
instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite
anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.


How does one "come forward" if we don't
know who you are or where you live?

"We" lends the notion you are aware of someone, other than you, who
shares your incredible identity obsessions and problem regarding
myself. Care to specify?

That is paranoia speaking. All that "We" refers to is anyone who
happens to be a member of this group who would like the opportunity to
"come forward". Nothing nefarious about it.


Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed
you didn't seek.

I don't need to know, but if you want me to "come forward" I do need
to know some details. I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is
where you really live)


Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X
recently found.

Does Dr. X know where you live? Does anyone? Somehow I doubt it. You
are a little too secretive about this. And you know all too well, that
once one person finds out, it'll only be a matter of time before the
information spreads around.


Of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing
against...not identifying themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it
does you. I have an open door policy and will meet anyone from this
group for coffee, fishing, or to continue our rec.radio.cb debates.


Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might
make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want

to meet?



My house. Are you driving? Bring a radio. I'll guide you right to my
front door from the interstate.

I'm flying, renting a car, no room to pack radios. Doing "Mickey
Mouse" for my kid.

_
So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.

Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love
the hobby (at least in the old days), and I
could tell you a few good stories. But in order
for you to talk authoritatively about hammie
radio, that would imply that you are a ham
yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it
one way or the other probably speaks more
about your fear of identification, considering
your admitted behavior on the freeband.


No doubt about it. Using the freeband always runs the risk of being
identified.
But you can rest easy realizing that I just may, perhaps, have the best
of both worlds and have for years.

I figured as much. Much like I have, even if you might not see it that
way from your perspective.

**Anonymity is the enabler for people to act
inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse
that privacy overrides acting in a civilized
manner is weak IMHO.



No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.


So then you assert that an American's right to
act like an anti-social idiot deserves more
consideration than other people's right to
expect civilized behavior in public places?


You said that. You're wandering. You are confusing consideration with
rights. There are very many things I can do well within my rights that
offend you, in fact, I have no problem offending you with my legal
rights merely because you disagree with them and my right to exercise
them.

It has everything to do with the core issue. You are attempting to
make value judgements regarding the relative priority of the rights
that people have. You have prioritized the right to privacy (and by
extension enabled the unaccountable actions of malcontents) over the
right of people to expect civilized behavior in public places.
When those rights clash, something has to give. You seem to have made
your choice, even though you keep dancing around it and not quite
ready to directly admit to it.

Ever hear the expression "The right to swing your fist ends just past
my nose"? That's how you have to look at your rights. If the right to
hide behind an anonymous cloak, adversely affects the sanctity of a
public forum, then the right of anonymity needs to be curtailed to a
degree than promotes a workable compromise.


_
Simply speaking one's opinion (however
insulting or rude) is still a 1st amendment
right, and ISP's are reluctant to go down that
road.

You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character
assassination.


Character assassination is either based on

truth, or opinion.


Wrong. Truth is not character assassination.

You might want to ask New Jersey Governor McGreevey about that.......


If the claims are true then they deserve to be
brought out. If they are simply opinions, then it
becomes a process to determine whether
there was any "real" damage done. Again this
becomes complicated if people "hide" well.

But easily enforceable via a court of law.

Not if you can't identify the perp.

Having your identity known, at least tempers
the temptation to act like a retard.


And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's
tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal,
but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard"
would most certainly be illegal.


Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is
also not illegal, but it's not something a
civilized person would do in a public forum.



Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public
forums are civilized.
Nevertheless, these traits you consider
uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately
the word is made up of good AND bad people.


So then what is your conclusion?


That you have problems following your own claims and posts and have damn
near destroyed the thread with your snips and edits.,

I'm sorry if trimming old posts bothers you. I'm not looking to get
into the Guiness Book of records for the longest thread. I'm
discussing points, and I'd like to keep it as brief as possible. Your
WebTV browser is not helping in that regard either.


Should good
people be turned away from public forums
(Both radio and internet) by the behavior of
the bad people?


Your words. In fact, you are the only one seeking to do away with what
you perceive as "bad" people,,,those that do not conform to your idea of
identifying themselves.

I am by far not the "only one". There are many people complaining
about the anonymous nature of the internet and the ability it gives to
people who cannot act any better than a gutter slug. These people have
requested changes. The industry has responded. New standards and
protocols are already in the works. Trust me, the days of the
untraceable anonymous troll is numbered.


Do good people not have some right to
protection from the worst of the bad people?
Isn't this in the best interest of society? Is the
right of privacy so important that you would
allow it to supersede keeping public places to
at least a minimum amount of decorum?




It's not in my hands or yours, no matter how bad you wish you had that
type control on usenet.

No, you are right about that. But when a significant majority of
people become fed up with things as they are, and request changes, you
can rest assured that things will happen. The court of law recently
acknowledged that internet "crime" is new ground, that hasn't been
properly codified, and that they are working on laws to address abuses
of the public by this venue.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj