**************************************************************************** >C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D< >D I G E S T< *** Volume 1, Issue #1.00 (March 28, 1990) ** **************************************************************************** MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer REPLY TO: TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. -------------------------------------------------------------------- =================================================== === Computer Underground Digest - File 3 of 5 === =================================================== There has been some debate about the use of "handles" (or "aliases") in the BBS world. A few commentators have questioned their appropriateness, and there seems to be a tendency for government law enforcement agents to interpret the use of handles as a sign of "conspiracy" or "hiding intents." The use of handles to disguise identity has a long and honorable tradition in the U.S. It was Publius, after all (the "handle" of those notorious subversives and 18th century deviants John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton) who wrote THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, the basis of our Constitution. In the BBS world, handles provide not only a sense of anonymity, but serve also as a symbolic identity. In a current research project, we find that for serious BBS hobbyists, handles encapsulate an ethos reflected by a fictional (usually science fiction) hero, a literary genre, music or media characters, or public figures. Handles connote particular cultural meanings, and these meanings can be "read off" as a short hand summary of the character, interests, or political ideology of the user. The anonymity provided by handles serves several purposes. First, it allows the user, for better or worse, a sense of freedom to express ideas that might otherwise subject him/her to ridicule. Second, analysis of BBS message logs suggests that women, especially, feel freer to participate in discussions without fear of gender games that might occur in face-to-face interaction. Third, concealing one's identity provides limited freedom from kooks, merchandise hucksters, and other snoopers. In a society in which making, maintaining, and disseminating lists is common place, protecting one's identity hardly seems unreasonable. There is a fourth reason why handles are increasingly necessary. As Gordon Meyer cogently suggested in his recent comment, prosecutors are not unwilling to confiscate e-mail, BBS message logs, or other "evidence" of identity. These, in turn, are easily used to obtain information on innocent parties. To those who have continually argued, or who actually believe, the federal agents "know what they're doing," or are are too "professional" to abuse their powers, I remind you of the witch hunts against "subversives" who opposed the Viet Nam war, the FBI's COINTEL-PRO, and other gross abuses of power in recent years. Attorney Gerry Spence is currently defending Friends of the Earth against a "set-up" by federal agents that, unfortunately for the agents, was captured on tape. It was, after all, the FBI who attempted to coerce Martin Luther King to commit suicide! There is voluminous literature, including the Church Committee's Report in the 1970s, and other research (including my own) that documents these abuses. In short, despite protections, our enforcement agents have a rather sorry record of following the law to enforce the law (see the corpus of Gary Marx's work for further documentation). Especially at a time when laws related to computer technology are vague, inconsistent, occasionally Draconian, and not yet tested in court, and when one's computer system can be confiscated on mere suspicion, and when a BBS can be threatened by the FBI or Secret Service (as the sysop of the world's largest BBS was) merely for posting LICIT hacker-type text files, a chilling affect occurs that stifles not only free speech, but free revelation of identity. I used my real name in corresponding with the PHRACK folk at the University of Missouri, and my name, documents, and other information--none illicit--is now in the hands of federal prosecutors. Call it paranoia, but from past experiences with federal agents, I have no confidence that they will abide by rules of honor in using this information. There are two ironies associated with the use of handles. First, those who use them are generally sufficiently open to either self-identity when sufficient trust has been built, or to provide enough identifying information that identities can be determined. Second, and more important, in a "free" society built around open and unconstrained information flow, forces operate to restrict openness. Therefore, to be open requires concealment. Rather than grip about the use of handles, doesn't it make more sense to examine the factors that impel their use? Jim Thomas Sociology/Criminal Justice Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL (60115) (815) 753-6438 =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=