Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse

Mon Feb 16 15:23:45 UTC 2004

On 2004-02-15T17:33-0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
) The unfortunate fact is lots of people like to operate open, anonymous
) services and then expect other people to clean up after them.
)
) Why don't IRC operators require authentication of their users?
) Why don't SMTP operators require authentication of their users?

Why don't HTTP operators require authentication of their users? If I'm
researching testicular cancer on the web, that may involve web sites, IRC
support channels, or mailing lists.

The *truly* unfortunate fact is lots of ISPs like to do things like throw up
firewall rules and then expect other people to clean up after the real
problems they are simply evading.

Consider this: A pathogen is developed that kills anyone with which it comes
in contact. People across the world are randomly exposed to the pathogen and
begin dying en masse.

Short-term public interest would seem to necessitate that hosting public
meetings should now be discouraged, if not outright banned. In some areas,
ordinances might be passed requiring that any human contact be made only if
both parties know each other, and can prove they have adequate air
filtration.

This isn't the plot to next summer's killer Sci-Fi horror movie; this is
what we are dealing with on the Internet today. In either case, the long-
term public interest would probably be served more by funding agencies to
track down and stop the spread of the pathogen.

-- 
Daniel Reed <n at ml.org>	http://naim-users.org/nmlorg/	http://naim.n.ml.org/