Online Anonymity Must Be Stopped?
from the let's-try-this-again dept
If you thought by now the idea of online anonymity was settled, you'd be wrong. In an addition to a post on Copyfight, Donna Wentworth points to an article in the UK with someone from an IT security company claiming that "The ability to remain anonymous while surfing the web is dangerous." Of course, some might claim that the reverse is true as well. As with anything, there are tradeoffs, and freaking out about a system like Freenet (which is what the quote referred to) is completely missing the point. The worries are that such systems will be used by terrorists -- but then ignores the idea that in taking away anonymity it opens up the very real possibility that the lack of privacy will be abused, allowing the government to take away free speech from those they disagree with. Besides, as we were just pointing out, just because you're anonymous online doesn't mean you can't be caught. There are enough tools out there to make people anonymous online that if they want to do so, they can. Making one particular system out to be "dangerous" does nothing to stop that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bad Apples
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20050809-00000101-yom-soci
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
By the way, watching strangulation videos online doesn't require anonymity. Hell, he could have went to Blockbuster and rented horror movies.
"The sickos" is always the arguement against anonymity. The idea of anonymity is that your point of view is disagreed with, just like democracy minded individuals in China are put in prison... I suppose the Chinese call them sickos too.
BTW, I just posted anonymously (except to the site owner)! Better get the thought police after me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Gimme a break man. That's the weakest, most lame line ever, and people like you just keep on using it despite how stupid it makes you look.
You wanna protect the children? Get the chemical industry to stop polluting their bodies with toxic chemicals. You want to protect the children, dissolve the catholic church. You want to protect the children, go lobby for funding to public schools.
All this what-if bullshit is stupid when there are REAL problems that can be fixed right here, right now. But it's not about that, is it, dorpus? It's about negativity, and you wanting the entire world to be as dark, closed and authoritarian as your heart is.
Well guess what. The rest of us want a transparent society where we can share any and all information regardless of who we are and what we're saying, without having to worry about persecution from governments led by negative people like you.
And no weak arguments about protecting children is going to change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
That's right, dorkus: THE GUY killed the kids - the Internet did not kill the kids.
His usage of the internet did not kill the kids.
His "anonymity" (whatever the hell *that* means anymore) did not kill the kids.
You're akin to people who blame "guns" for homicides, conveniently forgetting it's a human being that pulls the trigger.
And historically speaking, humankind's worst atrocities have been committed without the use of the Internet.
Now kindly STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
=================
a) Man visits disgusting Websites
b) Man kills kids
Agreed, this does not show that "a" caused "b". Without more evidence, it's even possible that a smaller proportion of the people who visit these revolting Websites commit murder than those in the population of a whole, making them A Good Thing. We just don't know.
=================
I have a theory that dopeus is compiling a book of ludicrous trolling and the responses elicited. For similar humour, see Giblet's comments on Fafblog
=================
Finally, nobody who posts using a pseudonym is entitled to criticise Web anonymity with a straight face.
=================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Man USES INTERNET to meet suicidal teens.
Without the internet, how would he have met 3 suicidal teens in a row?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Once you strip away all the technology (cell phones, IM, chat, yada, yada) it all comes down to predatory behavior using basic human communication methods (written language).
Hell, what if he found an address and sent a letter? Grounds for abolishing the USPO no doubt.
Save the children-abolish anonymity. But isn't the CHILDS anonymity a GOOD thing?
I must agree with the above: STFU, seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Talking about all-or-nothing abolishment is immature. Responsible societies regulate their activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Every inch you give, a mile is taken. Do you really trust politicians and government employed legal entities to manage every aspect of your life? Fifty years ago, this would have sounded like alarmism or conspiracy theory. Have you read the Patriot Act? Are you familiar with seizure of property without due cause? Have we gone from the independent, rebellious genius of our founding fathers to the welcoming of Big Brother in the name of "safety"?
If so, we deserve what we will most surely get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Here's a few primers on the abuse of power that runs rampant in the name of our personal safety. How does this connect to the current discussion? Giving up your online anonymity is just one more step down the trail towards complete erosion of personal rights. Baby steps to hell.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20050808/1016206_F.shtml
http://www.aclu.org/freedomwire/fws_kate.h tm
http://www.aclu.org/freedomwire/fws_farrar.html
http://www.lp.org/article_171.shtml
http://strayligh t.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
IMHO more people have suffered horrible fates in the name of deific and governmental righteousness than have ever been abused by sick predators (by orders of magnitude). But as a whole, we never seem to doubt the good intentions of tyranny, i.e. history repeats itself.
Churchill said something like: If you are not a liberal at the age of 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 50 you have no brain.
Well, count me among the heartless, brainless Libertarians who appear to me to be the only group in favor of preserving our constitutional protections against excessive government intervention in our lives...among which, by derivation, might be the ability to express ideas and concepts in an open, anonymous public or private forum (exclamation point^3).
After 48 years of watching the steady erosion of personal liberties, and the spread of US government control that spills out over the borders and threatens to control the lion's share of the worlds people, heres where I stand: Rabidly anti-religious. Somewhat anarchist. Devoutly social-libertarian. Devoutly in favor of strict limitations on centralized power.
And isn't it great to be able to say all that without the Feds (or perhaps worse, religious zealots) being able to track me down easily and threaten my self, my family, and my property (which may or may not be my property anymore (Re: Kelo vs. New London)?
Hey, how about this: why don't you just keep a better farking eye on your kids activities, instead taking away my freedoms, a'holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
We could live in lawless societies like Somalia or Yemen, where the government has no power and every man carries a gun. Despite all the romanticism, the culture of our "founding fathers" was a Somalia-like place where gunmen ruled the streets, and you had better be on their good side. Most people elect not to live in societies like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
"Talking about all-or-nothing abolishment is immature" status, per your own previous comment.
Somewhere between complete lawlessness and total control is a place with personal freedoms and minimum government intrusion into our lives, particularly in areas that apply to expressions of ideology and reasonable expectations of individual privacy.
But maybe it will be best if we all end up in the Big Database, so if any of the sheep should wander to the dark side (i.e. oppose the status quo) then it will be much more expedient to apply the PROD.
But, maybe we owe it to ourselves to hand over the keys to the kingdom to government interests who, as everyone would agree, are here to guarantee our safety, and work only in our best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Oh, and yeah, there just might be predators. Don't tell me, you are one of those "better a few innocent people are imprisoned, than a criminal should walk free" types?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
Dorpus is in fine form today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Apples
You must not get on this site too often. Dorpus quite often posts weak, lame arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voip and other privacy concerns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voip and other privacy concerns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is my ip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity Online
[ link to this | view in chronology ]