Privacy Gone Amok, Or so some say Options

[Ottava]

Recently, an AN/I post threw out "privacy-gone-amuck enforcement" and criticized those who wanted to make sure personal names were not posted on Wikipedia. I do not know about everyone else, but I feel that it is rude and really not good for you to mention anyone's real name. Its okay if you mention your own, but I think that people need to respect each other and address each other by user names or alterations thereof.

Why? Its just simple respect. If I wanted my real name to be how I am addressed, I would have used it instead of an alias. The basic idea of "civil" is to treat people in respect. There would be no real reason to "out" anyone.

And yes, I use a legitimate email account, and sign my emails with my real name. But thats -my- choice to do it at -that- moment. I would be upset if people shared that information with those I didn't choose to, or identified me as anything but my user name on the encyclopedia.

Is this really so totalitarian?

[dogbiscuit]

Recently, an AN/I post threw out "privacy-gone-amuck enforcement" and criticized those who wanted to make sure personal names were not posted on Wikipedia. I do not know about everyone else, but I feel that it is rude and really not good for you to mention anyone's real name. Its okay if you mention your own, but I think that people need to respect each other and address each other by user names or alterations thereof.

Why? Its just simple respect. If I wanted my real name to be how I am addressed, I would have used it instead of an alias. The basic idea of "civil" is to treat people in respect. There would be no real reason to "out" anyone.

And yes, I use a legitimate email account, and sign my emails with my real name. But thats -my- choice to do it at -that- moment. I would be upset if people shared that information with those I didn't choose to, or identified me as anything but my user name on the encyclopedia.

Is this really so totalitarian?

A link would be nice, just for context.

It depends what people are doing with their privacy. You will not get much sympathy here for anonymous people running amok abusing others, while expecting to be treated according to what their supposed real life credentials (or egos) deserve. With Wikipedia, we can see privacy being used as a weapon of attack, where you defend your own, but find excuses to accidentally reveal other people's identities (which is allowed if you can play your "troll" card).

[Ottava]

A link would be nice, just for context.

It depends what people are doing with their privacy. You will not get much sympathy here for anonymous people running amok abusing others, while expecting to be treated according to what their supposed real life credentials (or egos) deserve. With Wikipedia, we can see privacy being used as a weapon of attack, where you defend your own, but find excuses to accidentally reveal other people's identities (which is allowed if you can play your "troll" card).

I don't want spill over from the thread, but: Link

And I don't believe anyone should reveal real names in discussions on Wikipedia. If only for the sake of continuity, i.e. not everyone knows the identity and cannot keep up.

[Kelly Martin]

I think it's the height of hubris for people who are writing articles about other, real, live people (who have not consented to such) to argue that their own identities are sacredly private. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that really should make your head explode if you say it more than three times in a week.

[Ottava]

I think it's the height of hubris for people who are writing articles about other, real, live people (who have not consented to such) to argue that their own identities are sacredly private. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that really should make your head explode if you say it more than three times in a week.

Kelly, that is absolutely absurd.

Seriously.

Not only does that lack sense or reason, your claims of hubris show a lack of respect to humans. Not only did you stereotype all editors as some kind of person who seeks to disrespect, you also ignore what the whole point of the internet is about.

I wouldn't be surprised if you support the whole camera spying in the UK right now. Who needs privacy! You have nothing to fear! You brought it on yourself!

You disgust me.


I wanted to add - as I discussed with others:

When you "out" a member, normally you do it to claim they have a Conflict of Interest. This gives you an excuse to ignore reliable sources and win "arguments". All that should matter is that the information is reliable and that its given the proper weight. Instead, personal information is abused to ignore these.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 14th August 2008, 4:25pm

[Jon Awbrey]

When you "out" a member …

Insert your own joke here (thass wot she said!)

Jon

[dogbiscuit]

you also ignore what the whole point of the internet is about.

and what would that be aside from a means for computers to communicate with each other?

[Ottava]

you also ignore what the whole point of the internet is about.

and what would that be aside from a means for computers to communicate with each other?

A means to communicate with each other without having to worry about being spied on all the time.

Tennessee or Kentucky (I don't remember which) tried making it illegal to post anonymously.

Once you start revealing identities, there is no more protection. As I pointed out above, identities are used now to claim a CoI in order to ignore reliable sources and weight issues. It can only get worse from there.

[dogbiscuit]

you also ignore what the whole point of the internet is about.

and what would that be aside from a means for computers to communicate with each other?

A means to communicate with each other without having to worry about being spied on all the time.

Tennessee or Kentucky (I don't remember which) tried making it illegal to post anonymously.

Once you start revealing identities, there is no more protection. As I pointed out above, identities are used now to claim a CoI in order to ignore reliable sources and weight issues. It can only get worse from there.

No, don't remember that being in the spec for the Internet.

==Edit==
Enough of the facetiousness. The point is that the Internet was not particularly designed with a philosophical purpose in mind other than the robust sharing of information between computers, yet there are people who claim it is a world of political and legal asylum where, rather like Wikipedia think, people are immune from the morals and laws that govern societies. Similarly USENETs attitude of "for fuck's sake, anything goes" is not any grand thinking philosophy, it is simply what people felt they could get away with, and for some reason there are people foolish enough to think that USENET was a Good Thing.

I detest retrofitting some libertarian philosophy onto a technical solution to a technical problem. The trouble is that people start believing this sort of crap and get rather confused when trying to build further arguments for the right way to use the Internet on top of it. GIGO.

[Ottava]

No, don't remember that being in the spec for the Internet.

So, when you got internet connection, you gave your name, address, and social security number? Finger prints? DNA?

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly that there is internet privacy, just as there is normal privacy. The fact that people get so upset when the government gets phone call records shows that the masses believe in this. Hell, the fourth amendment is all about it.

But heres the rub - I doubt you really care.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

I remember giving my name, address, and credit card when I called my ISP...

[Kelly Martin]

A means to communicate with each other without having to worry about being spied on all the time.

The Internet has never been about that. You need to stop listening to the raving lunatics who inhabit the Internet.

The Internet was created to allow researchers to more easily share information with one another, in the pursuit of science and technological advancement. Such interactions were generally conducted using real names, since the National Science Foundation typically requires real credentials before giving you grant money and/or access to the Internet (which they controlled in the early days).

The Internet as a haven for those who think they have some right to anonymously run about and muck with other people's lives is a johnny-come-lately idea, and was certainly never envisioned as a purpose for the Internet when it was constructed, nor is it widely accepted as a proper purpose for the Internet today.

[dogbiscuit]

Hell, the fourth amendment is all about it.

But heres the rub - I doubt you really care.

Not don't care, don't have a clue what you are on about.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Though on the more serious note.

The internet was originally intended to share information quickly and efficiently. (Between researchers and academia mostly)

The culture of anonymity grew slowly as the commercialization and the dilution of the internet began. It really hit a watershed moment with Eternal September, which is about to hit it's 15th anniversary. It was not the point of what the internet was about, merely a side-effect of expansion.

[Ottava]

Hell, the fourth amendment is all about it.

But heres the rub - I doubt you really care.

Not don't care, don't have a clue what you are on about.

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

Can we please, please, please set-up a Ding-Dong Skool or Romper Room Subforum so these Wiki-Pupæ can chirp-chirp-chirp their never-ending ever-the-same Wiki-Prattle to their own bluddy choir until they grow up!?

Please, I can't stand it any more …

The fact that Wikipedia Kiddie Kabal Kultur has washed their brains in moving e-lectron phantasies about journalism, research, and scholarship that only a babbling infant could believe should not be allowed to interfere with the serious work of this Review.

They are Killing Us with their Kiddie-Mess!

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 14th August 2008, 5:09pm

[Kelly Martin]

Anonymity is the basis of society.

Ok, you can stop trolling now.

[JoseClutch]

Kelly Martin has discovered the true purpose of the internet.

The only prize available is this ninja:

But there is not much else to say.

[dogbiscuit]

Anonymity is the basis of society.

Any more like that?

[Ottava]

A means to communicate with each other without having to worry about being spied on all the time.

The Internet has never been about that. You need to stop listening to the raving lunatics who inhabit the Internet.

The Internet was created to allow researchers to more easily share information with one another, in the pursuit of science and technological advancement. Such interactions were generally conducted using real names, since the National Science Foundation typically requires real credentials before giving you grant money and/or access to the Internet (which they controlled in the early days).

The Internet as a haven for those who think they have some right to anonymously run about and muck with other people's lives is a johnny-come-lately idea, and was certainly never envisioned as a purpose for the Internet when it was constructed, nor is it widely accepted as a proper purpose for the Internet today.

Actually, the law restricts internet service providers, i.e. the true internet, the item that allows people across the world to access information, from providing personal identity.

So you are quite wrong, and willfully abuse origins in order to confound such a different thing than the system we are using now.

Anonymity is the basis of society.

Ok, you can stop trolling now.

Thats funny, because your wanting to out others seems like the basis of whinny trolling because those individuals happened to get rid of you.

Wow, sell your soul for petty revenge.