[Imc-communication] Re: IMC-communication Digest, Vol 20, Issue 16

Sat Dec 25 17:23:47 PST 2004

While I understand the point of autonomy, and I must stress pete, perth is
*NOT* blocking the application, it really must be stressed that by
insisting on verified email adresses, in no way can the site be considered
anonymous.

Now this may not be a bad thing completely, as it would certainly stop
alot of the trolling and the like, but it will definately have the effect
of precluding underground reporting.

IMC-Normal would most certainly need to alert posters there details are
not safe. Even 'anonymous' email accts are not anonymous. hotmail and the
like are logged as hell. And even more trustworthy services like riseup
are anonymous until the day the cops 'do an ahisma' and grab the server.

If however Normal is upfront about the fact it does not accept anonymous
reporting (Keep in mind, even the major news media accepts limited
anonymous reporting in certain circumstances.) then there is no harm. As
long as reporters understand not to speak about illegal activities and
civil disobedience in a way that could implicate they participated, then
there isnt a problem.

But it begs the question; "Is it an indymedia"? Such measures essentially
would disallow direct actionists from participating :(

> >I think this is the sort of thing that should be up to
> >individual IMC's.  The email requirment does not
> >violate anonymity because emails are available to all
> >regardless of whether an individual provides ID or
> >not.  It seems to be more of an ability to communicate
> >with the author that is at issue, and that isn't such
> >a bad idea.
> >
> >In addition, Indymedia is very clearly a decentralized
> >operation, and since this requirement does not make
> >anyone reveal their identity unless they choose to, it
> >does not violate any of the points of unity and
> >therefore it isn't any business of this small number
> >of indymedia people whether they do it or not.
> >
> >An argument like this threatens the autonomy of
> >individual collectives and the glue that holds
> >together the entire IMC network.  We should be
> >welcoming in groups not creating new nebulous barriers
> >to their entrance.  In the recent past I have heard of
> >a few other collectives who have become very
> >frustrated with this process for similar reasons.
> >This needs to stop.  It is hindering our growth and
> >our unity.
> >
> >-Pete Stidman
> >--- Jay <idiot at jaysand.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Shayne,
> > >
> > > At 12/24/2004, Shayne O'Neill wrote:
> > >
> > > >Can the official aproval be put temporarily on hold
> > > till other collectives
> > > >decide if they are happy with the email policy (I
> > > doubt it) and/or
> > > >imc normal fixes the problem? I'm sure its just a
> > > motion they can pass by
> > > >circulation.
> > >
> > > Yes, we're holding off on network-wide approval of
> > > IMC-Normal until we work
> > > through this point, or until we decide to accept
> > > them into the network with
> > > the understanding that they'll modify their policy
> > > according to the
> > > eventual results of our discussion.  Either way,
> > > let's direct all
> > > discussion on this to
> > > "imc-communication at indymedia.org."
> > >
> > > Jay
> > >
> > >
> > > >--
> > > >"Well, I think if you say you're going to do
> > > something and don't do
> > > >it, that's trustworthiness."
> > > >-- George Bush on CNN online chat, Aug.30, 2000
> > > >RIAA Copyright notice trap:
> > > http://guild.murdoch.edu.au/~shayne/
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Jay wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm going to suggest this conversation continue
> > > to happen on the
> > > > > imc-communication list, since it's currently a
> > > discussion happening between
> > > > > individuals throughout the network, rather than
> > > collectives making
> > > > > statements as a whole.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMC-Normal's official decision deadline on
> > > imc-process has passed but we're
> > > > > obviously still discussing their responses to
> > > the membership criteria.  So,
> > > > > the final decision about them will stay on hold
> > > as we work out the details.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jay
> > > > >
> > > > > At 12/24/2004, clara wrote:
> > > > > >hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >imc normal wants to require valid email
> > > adresses for postings, even if
> > > > > >they aknowledge that that might discourage
> > > people from posting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >besides the fact that the demand for a valid
> > > email adress is in
> > > > > >contradiction with the understanding that
> > > indymedia protects the anonymity
> > > > > >of the posters, asking for a valid email adress
> > > does not help against
> > > > > >trolls spamming the news wire. Valid hotmail
> > > adresses are easy enough
> > > > to get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And for "automatic" spam attacks: one-time
> > > passwords (like they are
> > > > > >available in Mir) and other anti-abuse measures
> > > like automatic filters for
> > > > > >certain keywords work well when needed
> > > > > >
> > > > > >However, I find it worringly to see that those
> > > of us and of the users who
> > > > > >are not willing to give email adresses when
> > > posting on an Indymedia site
> > > > > >seems to be brushed aside as not relevant
> > > anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >love and solidarity
> > > > > >clara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>2) Open publishing on their site requires
> > > e-mail verification.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Q: To publish on the Normal Open Publishing
> > > newswire you need a valid
> > > > > >>>e-mail address (though it may be anonymous).
> > > Does this go against open
> > > > > >>>publishing?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>A: Normal put in this policy to discourage
> > > spam to their newswire and to
> > > > > >>>allow their open publishing wire to be
> > > readable.  I don't know if
> > > > any other
> > > > > >>>IMCs use e-mail verification.  This policy
> > > may discourage some
> > > > people from
> > > > > >>>posting but the question of whether or not it
> > > violates open
> > > > publishing is
> > > > > >>>not clear, especially if it helps keep an
> > > open newswire free of
> > > > spam.  As
> > > > > >>>Normal is working in the spirit of open
> > > publishing I think this policy
> > > > > >>>should not get in the way of their joining
> > > the network, but it may be an
> > > > > >>>interesting policy to discuss throughout the
> > > network to see what people
> > > > > >>>think.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> > > New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
> >http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> >New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> >http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:26:24 +1100
> From: GarconDuMonde <gdm at fifthhorseman.net>
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Imc-communication] NORMAL,	IL  (questions and
> 	answer summary)]
> To: Jay <idiot at jaysand.com>
> Cc: imc-communication at indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <41CCA5A0.8020500 at fifthhorseman.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> hi all,
>
> i think this is a really interesting debate, and one that is important to have across/within the
> network. however, for this exact reason, it is also not the best time to have it right now: many
> people are away from computers and i think it is important to involve as many people as possible.
>
> hence, i personally feel that the normal, il, decision-making should be put off until at least a
> week after the new years, although discussion can (and should!) definitely continue.
>
> if people wish to get group ideas on this, too, rather than individuals, it may even require a bit
> longer....
>
> love and solidarity,
>
> 	--gdm
> |> > >Can the official aproval be put temporarily on hold
> |> > till other collectives
> |> > >decide if they are happy with the email policy (I
> |> > doubt it) and/or
> |> > >imc normal fixes the problem? I'm sure its just a
> |> > motion they can pass by
> |> > >circulation.
>
> |> and various people have written *lots*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
>
>
> End of IMC-communication Digest, Vol 20, Issue 16
> *************************************************
> ------------ Output from gpg ------------
> gpg: Signature made Sat Dec 25 07:26:20 2004 WST using DSA key ID E3FAA20F
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
>