Ann Bartow says weird things on the internet. Shannon uses copy paste.

Hi, it’s me. Ann Bartow. I’m not going to sue anybody.
I’m not going to out anybody. I want Zuzu to come back to
Feministe. I never intended to threaten Zuzu (or anyone else) with the prospect of my outing her, and I wasn’t trying to silence her. I’m sorry anything I said or did contributed to her thinking otherwise.

Here’s what happened: Yes, I happen to know who zuzu
is. No, I didn’t use any special databases or inside knowledge to
find out. No, I’m not going to tell you how I know, because that
would be tantamount to outing her, and I’m not going to do that. I did want to convey to her the fact that her anonymity wasn’t as
secure as she thought it was, because I believe that people who
legitimately want anonymity shouldn’t be outed. (I’ve made it clear that I think the discussion would benefit from people choosing not to be anonymous or pseudonymous, but that’s another story.)

I know that a lot of you have concluded that by conveying this to her via Jill last July that I must have been making some sort of hidden threat, and I gather that Zuzu concluded that, but I wasn’t. I’m sorry she thought so.

I was pretty upset when zuzu indicated on Feministe that
I was somehow using secret knowledge to ferret out her identity and terrorize her with the threat of revealing it. That was the opposite of anything I had intended or wanted, and I did think it was defamatory, and I figured that Zuzu was saying it as some sort of attack on me. It’s become clear to me since then that no, she was just freaked out, and I can understand that.

So anyway, I’m not a litigious person, and I’m not going to start now suing people now. I do think that discussion works better when people use real names, but I’m not going to out anybody. That’s not me. I’ve never intended to make Zuzu or anyone else feel that they were in danger of that from me. I’m sorry that an email to Jill from me last July, without my realizing it, caused her to think she was. (I do think that a lot of the rest of you folks jumped to some pretty nasty conclusions about me without any evidence to back them up). And Goddess knows I didn’t intend to cause Zuzu to take a break from blogging. There was no reaction after I sent the e-mail to Jill back on July 5th. I guess it has been bothering her for a while.

So nobody in this community has anything to fear from me — we’re on the same side, even when we disagree — and I hope Zuzu comes back soon.

A second weird post:

FWIW, if it helps, Jill has my permission to publish my e-mails to her here as long as she does so in full text and publishes her replies in full text as well, with the exception of anything she thinks would compromise Zuzu’s identity, which she is free to redact.

The e-mail of July 5th, 2006 did not reveal Zuzu’s identity in anyway. It just warned against divulging personal information if you want to remain anonymous. I hope Jill will post it.

This is a good lesson for everybody. No one is anonymous on the Internet, as any good lawyer with expertise in the area, or any good computer technologist, could explain. This was not my idea, as I did not design the Internet. It’s just the way things are. Do some research, you need to know this stuff. Even if you think I’m a creep, you can’t possibly think I’m the only one. I warn people about the lack of anonymity because I think it’s the right thing to do. Now you’ve been warned too. Please don’t kill the messenger.

Another weird one:

The reason I send the e-mail on July 5th was that Zuzu had just posted about how much she valued her pseudonymity. I actually figured out her likely identity many months before. (She says this is her, I didn’t know, I didn’t make any effort to confirm). Here is a paragraph from the July 5th e-mail to Jill:

Assuming Zuzu has been truthful in the personal information she has disclosed at Femniste, I figured out her *probable* (I have not confirmed it definitively, and will not make any effort to do so) identity in literally two minutes. Given her recent posts, e.g. this:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/07/02/horrifying/
it seemed like a heads’ up about her own vulnerability might be in order. If I could ascertain her identity so readily, so could any number of other people, and if it was me, I would want to know this.

Here is another paragraph from the same e-mail, in which I put Jill on the spot, probably unfairly, but I really was trying to do the right thing:

However, it seems at least equally plausible that Zuzu is simply ignorant about the ways in which she has compromised her own pseudonymity. If this is the case, someone needs to clue her in, and I guess via this e-mail, I am nominating you. Sorry for the intrusion, but you know her, and are far better situated than I am to assess what, if anything, should be communicated to Zuzu about this, and how it would should be approached, if at all.

I AM obssessed with online anonymity and psuedonymity as a scholar. I study it and I write about it. I’m sure most people reading know the story of “Dooce.” What happened to her can happen to any anonymous blogger. You can reduce risks but you can’t eliminate them.

If later today I noted that an anonymous blogger had done something at her blog that pointed towards her real space identity, I’d still be inclined to notify her about this privately.

I have a completely different set of issues about people who do dishonest things from behind pseudonyms. I never thought that of Zuzu. A couple of days ago I said in the comments thread at another blog, Stone Court, that I think anonymity undermines civility (in different words and at greater length). Again, that had nothing to do with Zuzu.

More weird stuff:

And an aside to PInko Punko: You, on your own volition, e-mailed me using your real name and a signature that indicated where you work. I didn’t ask you to do that. I wished you hadn’t done that then, and I even more wish you hadn’t done that NOW, because if someone does out you, I can’t avoid being a suspect.

You wrote terible things about me, and you contrived a google bomb to make it eaiser for people who googled my name to find those things, knowing that you had disclosed your identity to me. Is it “concern trolling” to point out that this is a very bad idea?

You knew I wouldn’t “out” you and I thought Zuzu did too. I hope she does now.

*shannon keeps copy pasting*

You may be right about that Lis. But please let me be clear that I do not have “great power.” Word Press blogware makes it so that a blogger can not avoid seeing the ISP addresses of commenters. Sometimes these ISP addresses disclose a lot of information. I’ve made it a habit to e-mail commenters about this, to make sure they are aware of it. Mean commenters see this as a threat, nice commenters see it as a favor. I see it as educating people about the way the Internet works.

Here is a true story with two details changed (the sport and the name of the dog): A blogger who wanted to remain anonymous disclosed that he had been on the Olymic Curling Team. Weeks went by, then he disclosed that he had a dog named Rex. I forgot the name of the blog, but I remembered about the curling team, and about Rex. So I googled “curling” and “Rex” and not only did I find the blog but I also learned the blogger’s real space identity because someone else had written about a curling team member with a dog named Rex, and there was even a news story that made the connection. I gave the blogger a head’s up, and he deleted the stuff about his dog. So he’s safer, but he’s not safe. Two random personal details put together identified the guy. That’s very hard to predict and impossible to control for. I certainly wasn’t looking for his name when I did the search, just his blog.

Almost all lawyers have access to Lexis and Westlaw. So do journalists and other professionals, and members of the public if they either subscribe, or go to a library. Lexis has all kinds of personal information related features, but I do not have access to the specialized data bases because my subscription is an “educational” one. I couldn’t even tell you what they are. Even ordinary Lexis allows a lot of data collection. I have never used Lexis to research a blogger, never. Other people may, and I have to guess that they do.

“Google” is available to everyone, and it is a powerful tool. If this is being a concern troll, so be it, but everyone who blogs or comments on blogs ought to learn about online anonymity issues.

*shannon coughs*

I never asked for Zuzu’s home address, I specifically asked Jill if there was a “mail drop” where I could send Zuzu a letter.

I wanted to use a “mail drop” address to preserve Zuzu’s privacy. I certainly didn’t want to mail her anything at work. I hope Jill will confirm this, I can document that this is what I asked for. I wanted a third party to explain to Zuzu some things that would have meant more coming from someone other than me. This person suggested a letter rather than e-mail, because e-mail is not at all confidential. I thought by asking for a “mail drop” address it would be clear that I was NOT trying to serve a subpeona, which is done in person.

Ann talks to mass grave viewer ginmar:

Ginmar, you are a very gutsy blogger and commenter. You have strong opinions and are not afraid to be controversial. Folks like you make a good case for the power and importance of anonymity. But you must already know that people who feel angry at you may try to uncover your identity as a way to have power over you. That is a risk of anonymity.

If I noticed something at your blog, like an accidental link, or the name of a jpeg file that shows if a picture doesn’t load, that pointed to a real space identity, would you want me to e-mail you so that you could delete it? Or just ignore it?