Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Helena Kobrin <hkk@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Nyx user anon2c9e
To: Andrew Burt <aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Cc: bstocker@du.edu, jtuccy@du.edu, lavita@cs.du.edu, anon2c9e@nyx.cs.du.edu


Dear Prof. Burt,

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Andrew Burt wrote:

> 
> Just to clear the confusion, the user, anon2c9e, is a real user on the
> host nyx.cs.du.edu; mnemosyne.cs.du.edu is only a netnews posting host.
> Thus, there is no "anonymous remailer" involved, only a username that is
> not indicative of the user's actual name.  I.e., anon2c9e is a genuine
> account, has shell access, etc.  Thus is just as real as an account
> as xy231@prodigy.com or PickYourOwn@netcom.com.


Thanks for your quick response to my message and for clearing up the type 
of accounts which are on your system.


> 
> Anyway, as to your request to provide information on the identity of that
> user, Nyx's policy regarding providing details of *any* account (whether a
> a named account like 'jsmith' or semi-anonymous like anon0000) is to
> provide any publicly supplied data to anyone who asks, but only to supply
> confidentially supplied data to proper law enforcement personnel.
> 

> 
> Therefore I would be able to supply the confidential information you requested
> to a police detective, district attorney, etc. but not directly to you.
> 

> 
> If you would like to have me provide the data to police, etc., they can
> contact me at 303-871-3308.

We are reporting this to the appropriate authorities and will request 
that they get in touch with you.

> 
> I will also submit this case through Nyx's problem resolution procedure,
> from which you'll get a form letter explaining our various policies.  This
> procedures requires the user to either defend or apologize for his
> actions, or lose the account.


Thank you for this data.  I have read your other message
regarding your policies and practices and the sample letter you
send to users when complaints are received.  I agree that this
procedure is fine for certain situations.  

I believe that the posting of which I complained has to be
treated as a very serious matter.  It is not like someone
expressing an opinion that they don't like something, or saying
someone is fat or ugly or incompetent, or spamming, etc.  The
horrifying event of this week in Oklahoma City highlights just
how serious a situation a bomb threat or urging people to bomb
buildings can be.  I cannot conceive that there could be any
justification for such a posting, and would suggest that your
usual user warning message may not take a strong enough message
for an incitement to violence.  

There are mroe than 2,000 Churches of Scientology and affiliated
organizations around the world.  And Usenet postings are
available to people accessing the Internet around the world. 
Therefore, this is an incitement to blow up thousands of
buildings all around the world.  While I have not researched all
the laws it could violate, laws making such a threat criminal
from a variety of standpoints, including hate crimes, surely
exist in a variety of jurisdictions.

I look forward to hearing back from you on this.

Sincerely,
Helena Kobrin