Privacy Gone Amok, Or so some say Options

I think the best example of how real names solving nothing is Wikipedia. Is has the real name knowlege of Slimvirgin, JzG, Durova, DShankbone (I could go on....) made them any less abusive? NO.

Do all persons using aliases abuse people? NO.

Where it is annoying is that the victim's name is known, and the attackers is hidden. But if you knew it, then what? Because we all have sued the abusive people on Wikipedia, right? (NO).

So what then?

The idea of real names solving anything is a myth.

Well as I consider your view DL, there is another point to it that I wonder if you considered.

Requiring real names would potentially turn off people who are hyper-sensitive to that info being leaked. Given how hard SV tries to stuff the genie back in the bottle regarding her real life ID, I wonder if she would have even registered for Wikipedia if she was required to give her real name upfront.

Then again, given internet's fascination with anonymity (sorry Jonny), requiring real identification at the beginning of Wikipedia probably would have killed the project at the root.


EDIT:

Another thing that just hit me, I'd wonder if it would have any sort of effects like Facebook/Myspace et al, now that companies and other organizations do background checks with people's real names on the internet.

This post has been edited by CrazyGameOfPoker: Thu 14th August 2008, 6:48pm

Hell, the fourth amendment is all about it.

Anonymity is the basis of society. I have the right to talk to my neighbors and the rest without people knowing about it. Its the basic right to privacy, and the government requires proof before they can violate that right.

Ottava, this comes up about every six months. You may want to brush up on your legal scholarship. Here are two relevant posts. To quote myself shamelessly, here's what one of them says:

I will re-iterate this: the Supreme Court found in Talley v. California (1960), Golden v. Zwickler (1969), McIntire v. Ohio (1995) and several others that localities could not enact laws requiring (e.g.) leafleteers to identify themselves. However this involves "prior-restraint" laws and (mostly) associated fines. Nothing prevents someone -- anyone -- from figuring out who posted something anonymously, in real life or on the internet. The police routinely track down callers to "anonymous" tip lines when it serves their purposes, and comb through many innocent people's ISP records in pursuit of criminalty (real or imagined). Think about ISP logs, phone logs, security cameras, DNA, browser cookies, and a million other little things that get left behind.

So don't think you have a right to anonymity. It's much like your right to a "pursuit of happiness" -- you have a right to pursue anonymity in your speech, but you will succeed only if you are more clever than your pursuers or if your speech doesn't incite anyone to try to figure out who you are. You have a right to pursue happiness, not a right to catch it.

Well as I consider your view DL, there is another point to it that I wonder if you considered.

Requiring real names would potentially turn off people who are hyper-sensitive to that info being leaked. Given how hard SV tries to stuff the genie back in the bottle regarding her real life ID, I wonder if she would have even registered for Wikipedia if she was required to give her real name upfront.

Then again, given internet's fascination with anonymity (sorry Jonny), requiring real identification at the beginning of Wikipedia probably would have killed the project at the root.


EDIT:

Another thing that just hit me, I'd wonder if it would have any sort of effects like Facebook/Myspace et al, now that companies and other organizations do background checks with people's real names on the internet.

Put another way. On editing Wikipedia, you have entered the public domain voluntarily and are essentially availing yourself of the privilege to publish your work, albeit in a collaboration. If your anonymity is more important than your urge to speak on a public platform, then there is a simple answer - don't take to the platform.

To repeat ad nauseam, Wikipediots demand the right to speak publicly about other people, or influence other people, usually under the guise of some "facts" being out there, and do not see that other people might rightly take the view that if someone is going to tell the world about them, or is attempting to tell them The Way Things Are, then they would like to know who these people are.

There is no human right to be heard on the Internet, and even less a right to be able to do that anonymously, whatever your purposes. You may chose to attempt anonymity but it is as much of "what the Internet is about" for people to hack at your anonymity and expose it. There is nothing inherent in the process of developing an encyclopedia which demands secrecy, indeed most reliable publications (especially those favoured by Wikipedia itself) depend on the credentials of the named people and organisations that create them.

And yes, it is arguably hypocritical of me to do the same here, but I edited Wikipedia under my own name and only chose anonymity here in response to the poisonous outpourings of the BADSITEs crowd (would you want the David Shankbone treatment?). Everywhere else on the Internet I have used my own name.

Well as I consider your view DL, there is another point to it that I wonder if you considered.

Requiring real names would potentially turn off people who are hyper-sensitive to that info being leaked. Given how hard SV tries to stuff the genie back in the bottle regarding her real life ID, I wonder if she would have even registered for Wikipedia if she was required to give her real name upfront.

Then again, given internet's fascination with anonymity (sorry Jonny), requiring real identification at the beginning of Wikipedia probably would have killed the project at the root.

Do you reveal your name to everyone you meet on the street?

Do you provide your ID when you go into stores?

What about those under 18 which child protection laws prohibit from having their personal information revealed?

It seems that your "solution" does not match reality and would only cause greater problems.

[quote name='gomi' date='Thu 14th August 2008, 7:28pm' post='121634']


So don't think you have a right to anonymity. It's much like your right to a "pursuit of happiness" -- you have a right to pursue anonymity in your speech, but you will succeed only if you are more clever than your pursuers or if your speech doesn't incite anyone to try to figure out who you are. You have a right to pursue happiness, not a right to catch it.[/quote]
[/quote]

You forgot to include privacy laws that prohibit people from identifying those under the age of 18 and privacy laws that prohibit companies that you are doing business with to produce your personal information.

Put another way. On editing Wikipedia, you have entered the public domain voluntarily and are essentially availing yourself of the privilege to publish your work, albeit in a collaboration. If your anonymity is more important than your urge to speak on a public platform, then there is a simple answer - don't take to the platform.

To put it another way, whenever you leave your property, you entered into the public voluntarily and are essentially availing yourself of any privacy. Always carry your ID. Make sure to have a birth certificate, social security card, and have your DNA and Finger prints on record.

Why? Because you have no privacy.

Oh wait, thats NOT how reality is. Thats only how reality in a fascist state is.

What really set me off on this thread, and on Ottava, is the bald-faced assertion that "society is based on anonymity". This thesis is so ludicrous that I find it hard to believe that someone who has studied human interaction at even the most rudimentary of levels would assert it honestly.

Society is about interrelationships between people. With complete anonymity, those relationships have no persistence, and there can be no society. This is so blindingly obvious that when I read Ottava's declaration, I assumed Ottava was trolling. Perhaps I merely misunderstood what he mean by "anonymity is the foundation of society". Perhaps what he really means is "I prefer to exercise tight control over my interactions with others so that I can contain the reputation effects of such interactions". Given his penchance for saying profoundly stupid things like "anonymity is the foundation of society", I can see why he might prefers that.

Not really. I understand that people do stupid things and get in fights at games (I do follow the news). They are in the minority though, exaggerated due to the sensationalistic media.

The same goes with protests. Some might be angry, but most protests don't go that way. Larger protests (and the more newsworthy ones) will have a greater chance for a flashpoint...but that's following the laws of probability. l I will say that I have in fact heard worse invective from some protests...but that's because I'm counting the Westboro Baptist Church.

However, from my experience, unless I get a game with users that I know, there is at least one fuckwit in a game.

I take your claims of sensationalistic media and return it to say that your claims are equally as rare or moot.

And yes, I hear people cuss all the time at sports events. However, I don't know many people that kill each other or attempt to through the internet. That tends to be face to face.

What really set me off on this thread, and on Ottava, is the bald-faced assertion that "society is based on anonymity". This thesis is so ludicrous that I find it hard to believe that someone who has studied human interaction at even the most rudimentary of levels would assert it honestly.

Society is about interrelationships between people. With complete anonymity, those relationships have no persistence, and there can be no society. This is so blindingly obvious that when I read Ottava's declaration, I assumed Ottava was trolling. Perhaps I merely misunderstood what he mean by "anonymity is the foundation of society". Perhaps what he really means is "I prefer to exercise tight control over my interactions with others so that I can contain the reputation effects of such interactions". Given his penchance for saying profoundly stupid things like "anonymity is the foundation of society", I can see why he might prefers that.

Okay Kelly, prove who you are.

I need DNA, Finger prints, and a birth certificate. You claim to reveal yourself. Now you have to prove it. Otherwise, you could be lying about who you really are.

You can start by putting up a social security number, but we all know those can be faked, so you'll have to do a lot more.

Do you reveal your name to everyone you meet on the street?

Do you provide your ID when you go into stores?

What about those under 18 which child protection laws prohibit from having their personal information revealed?

It seems that your "solution" does not match reality and would only cause greater problems.

1. Not really. Then again, I tend to drive everywhere.
2. If store policy requires it. I don't have any qualms providing identification if I pay by credit or check.
3. Laws vary from region to region, you know. As far as I know in the US the age was 13, not 18. I'm also not a real supporter of children editing wikipedia. I mean, most adults don't even know how to apply BLP properly, let alone children.

4. Then again, I'm also supposed to show my real name on a court docket in case I would be ever charged with libel or slander. Even if it was Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon.

Here's the thing. It's not really my solution, just some musings on the subject. There's two schools of thought, and I'm in between. I recognize the benefits of real names (tying it to a real identity tends to limit outrageous behavior), but I also recognize that it won't be a magic bullet (some people will still keep at that behavior regardless.)

I'm not quite sure if there is a real solution, which is why I was asking DL his thoughts on those implications of a real name policy.

Perhaps I merely misunderstood what he mean by "anonymity is the foundation of society". Perhaps what he really means is "I prefer to exercise tight control over my interactions with others so that I can contain the reputation effects of such interactions". Given his penchance for saying profoundly stupid things like "anonymity is the foundation of society", I can see why he might prefers that.

I can understand that reaction, as I don't think anonymity is the foundation for human interaction. . It is sort-of the foundation for net-presence, or at least it rests as an option to be discarded or not.

But again, I totally agree with: "I prefer to exercise tight control over my interactions with others so that I can contain the reputation effects of such interactions". Which in this day and age of surveillance and the judgementality and interventionism of the persons doing that work - is pretty much impossible. But still.

Ottava: Here is another post you might want to look at. Pay special attention to the link to the McIntyre opinion. That whole thread isn't bad. We have tried to give anon authorship some serious thought here. It is not all one thing or another. There is an important distinction for instance between anon dissent and the anon exercise of authority. The former is noble the later is abusive and cowardly. WP admins exercise authority over editorial matters on WP.

An off-the-wall statement like "anonymity is the basis of all civilization" doesn't advance the discussion much, except for providing an opportunity to review and restate more meaningful contributions to the discussion. That is at best a mixed blessing if not an outright burden.

The problem is that with AGF, any discussion of biased editing has to be accompanied with evidence of motive. Without that, COI wouldn't be a problem at all

Do you reveal your name to everyone you meet on the street?

Do you provide your ID when you go into stores?

What about those under 18 which child protection laws prohibit from having their personal information revealed?

It seems that your "solution" does not match reality and would only cause greater problems.

1. Not really. Then again, I tend to drive everywhere.
2. If store policy requires it. I don't have any qualms providing identification if I pay by credit or check.
3. Laws vary from region to region, you know. As far as I know in the US the age was 13, not 18. I'm also not a real supporter of children editing wikipedia. I mean, most adults don't even know how to apply BLP properly, let alone children.

4. Then again, I'm also supposed to show my real name on a court docket in case I would be ever charged with libel or slander. Even if it was Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon.

Here's the thing. It's not really my solution, just some musings on the subject. There's two schools of thought, and I'm in between. I recognize the benefits of real names (tying it to a real identity tends to limit outrageous behavior), but I also recognize that it won't be a magic bullet (some people will still keep at that behavior regardless.)

I'm not quite sure if there is a real solution, which is why I was asking DL his thoughts on those implications of a real name policy.

Easily addressed - checks and credit cards are having you claim that you are an individual to address a cash system. This is a protective measure against fraud.

And court cases? Thats a legal matter. Far different than putting together an encyclopedia.

An off-the-wall statement like "anonymity is the basis of all civilization" doesn't advance the discussion much, except for providing an opportunity to review and restate more meaningful contributions to the discussion. That is at best a mixed blessing if not an outright burden.

Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.

This is basic sociology.

Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.

This is basic sociology.

More like basic strawmanning. You have constructed a false dichotomy.

Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.

This is basic sociology.

Such things are commonplace knowledge, if you've studied soc - but not if you have not.

So you guys are arguing from each a different religious perspective, essentially.

More like basic strawmanning. You have constructed a false dichotomy.

Strawmanning? I think he has a point, but it stops when he begins to equate societal foundations with particular rights and privileges. Because those are an invention and an ideal, and they were (and apparently remain) iconoclastic, not an automaticity.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 14th August 2008, 8:30pm

Its not off the wall. Once you start demanding everyone knows who everyone is, and demanding that they are always identified, you have entered into a police state, which nullifies any ability for social independence or for there to be a society at all.

This is basic sociology.

More like basic strawmanning. You have constructed a false dichotomy.

Straw man? No. I put up the original statement, you attacked it. If it was a straw man, then you would have had no ability to attack it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You were wrong, and you can continue to dig, or you can just shut up. I doubt you would ever choose the third option which is to admit that you were wrong, so I don't bother suggesting it.

Oh no.

Strawmanning? I think he has a point, but it stops when he begins to equate societal foundations with particular rights and privileges. Because those are an invention and an ideal, and they were (and apparently remain) iconoclastic, not an automaticity.

Well, all social theory is invention and idea, is it not?

But yeah, if I had to provide all of my personal information to post here, I would not. Thus, the conversation would be stifled.

Furthermore, social customs in most cultures have giving a name a voluntary act that is based on respect. Many times, you are not given the "familiar" name and are restricted to it based on propriety. An introduction is also voluntary as a sign of willing to respect and familiarize yourself with another, and not because anyone has the right to know who everyone else is.

Well, all social theory is invention and idea, is it not?

Not really. But I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'm not going to expound.
Other than to say everything can be taken as a theory, and disbelieved. Remember on Friends when Phoebe said that gravity was a force pushing upwards and she got Ross to agree? Kind of like that.

Furthermore, social customs in most cultures have giving a name a voluntary act that is based on respect. Many times, you are not given the "familiar" name and are restricted to it based on propriety. An introduction is also voluntary as a sign of willing to respect and familiarize yourself with another, and not because anyone has the right to know who everyone else is.

This is going on a tangent I don't want to ride, but to visit another country you need a passport, and even to stay in a hotel you need this, so you've a priori identified yourself to start with. Modalities for chatting with strangers are another issue.

Easily addressed - checks and credit cards are having you claim that you are an individual to address a cash system. This is a protective measure against fraud.

And court cases? Thats a legal matter. Far different than putting together an encyclopedia.

1. You asked if I showed ID. You never made that specification.
2. One would think, except...Seigenthaler. Somedays, I wonder what the outcome would be if he sued. It's good to see that Wikipedia attempted to prevent a future occurrence...but they came too close that one time. Traditional encyclopedias have a much stricter control over what goes in, Wikipedia's more lax. Wikipedia can change mistakes so it isn't permanent, but a print encyclopedia can't until the next edition. It's not a bad model...until no one actually reverts the mistakes, and even worse when they are left there for months. Tying a real name into an account means that if someone actually had inserted libel into a piece, that the defamed would be able to properly pursue a lawsuit.

This post has been edited by CrazyGameOfPoker: Thu 14th August 2008, 9:06pm

Well, all social theory is invention and idea, is it not?

Not really. But I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'm not going to expound.
Other than to say everything can be taken as a theory, and disbelieved. Remember on Friends when Phoebe said that gravity was a force pushing upwards and she got Ross to agree? Kind of like that.

Furthermore, social customs in most cultures have giving a name a voluntary act that is based on respect. Many times, you are not given the "familiar" name and are restricted to it based on propriety. An introduction is also voluntary as a sign of willing to respect and familiarize yourself with another, and not because anyone has the right to know who everyone else is.

This is going on a tangent I don't want to ride, but to visit another country you need a passport, and even to stay in a hotel you need this, so you've a priori identified yourself to start with. Modalities for chatting with strangers are another issue.

But see, thats the thing. You identified yourself once. However, you didn't have to wear your name like a tag. You weren't known by it by everyone around you. That wasn't your "identity". Your "identity" is "foreigner" or "stranger" or "person I hide my children from because Im xenophobic".

-I- don't have a problem with registering my name to have access to a place. However, I do have a problem with people knowing it and then using it to search through my personal histories and get into places of my life that I don't feel comfortable with them there.