From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
      
   > D  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Computer Nerd Kev  wrote:   
   >>>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:   
   >>>>>> I think D is more concerned about anonymity than other considerations,   
   >>>>>> then about 'eavesdropping'.  I'm sure he'll tell us RSN.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is the correct interpretation. I our times of polarization and   
   >>>>> net-hating, having a modicum of anonymity and privacy is very nice.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's not about Usenet being unencrypted then. Your identity is   
   >>>> equally compromised whether you post here via NNTP or NNTPS. But   
   >>>> you might still not be individually identifiable if you take other   
   >>>> measures to protect it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Anonymity on Usenet is facilitated (in today's world) by the fact that   
   >>> most every poster is using a "commercial" service [1] that does not   
   >>> enforce strict naming requirements on the From: line contents.  By   
   >>> having the freedom to post as "From: D " in the   
   >>> From: line, D has more anonymity than they would have had back in the   
   >>> mid 90's when their Usenet access would likely have been via $job or   
   >>> college, and both $job and college would most likely have enforced use   
   >>> of a "real name and real email address" in the From: line.   
   >>   
   >> That's a very good point and a very interesting historical   
   >> perspective.  Thank you very much for sharing.   
   >   
   > It was very much reality.  Mid 90's, most internet users only had   
   > access via either their employer or their college, as the very idea of   
   > an ISP and/or "dialup internet" had not yet hit the general population   
   > mindset.   
   >   
   > And 'internet' access in those days was, more often than not, via a   
   > shared shell account Unix workstation to which one would connect (via   
   > one or more of VT100 style serial terminal or dialup modem to a Unix   
   > terminal server).  One had one's choice of what software to run on   
   > one's shell account (tin, rn, slrn, etc.) but the Usenet server to   
   > which these all communicated on that Unix workstation/server was   
   > controlled by the workstation sysadmin, and in almost all cases, it   
   > enforced that your 'From:' line name in your Usenet posts was your   
   > real, actual, identification on that server.   
   >   
   > Which also meant if you posted something that someone took great   
   > offense to, from your @mit.edu account, that the "offended" would   
   > contact the mit.edu sysadmins, and the "offending" user would be "taken   
   > behind the woodshed" as it may be.   
   >   
   > Granted, "offended" individuals still can contact whatever usenet host   
   > someone uses to access usenet and bitch up a storm (the necessary   
   > headers are in every article).  But that same host, being in the   
   > 'business' of usenet access, is much less likely to care about "From:   
   > Q@nowhere"'s offensive post than the @mit.edu folks would have been   
   > back in the day.   
   >   
   > And, of course, joe random stalker has a much harder time tracking down   
   > "Q@nowhere"'s real life identity and location than he does in tracking   
   > down the same for john.smith.iii@mit.edu.   
      
   Makes a lot of sense. I also think that a lot of (well some) amateur   
   usenet providers have a strong sense of freedom of speech, so it would   
   take a lot for them to even bother.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)