4 ms·

The fact that every online interaction (almost unavoidably) gives valuable data to corporations is bad enough. I do not understand why you would want to compoun

The fact that every online interaction (almost unavoidably) gives valuable data to corporations is bad enough. I do not understand why you would want to compound the damage by pouring that information directly into the hands of the government.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I am for keeping personal information siloed and ideally offline as much as possible. I am not sure that it is good to make it impossible to trace where online information came from though.
- chii 6y ago
  if somebody "anonymously" taped banners and posters on the street espousing messages, would it make sense to have a camera record every public space and identify who placed those banners there?
  - silvester23 6y ago
    I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue but that analogy falls a little flat - the potential reach of a couple of posters on a couple of streets is much smaller than that of posts online.
    - chii 6y ago
      so you're saying that as long as you can limit the reach of a message, anonymity is fine? Where and who decides that line? I think society should either accept that if there should be anonymity, that there must also be free speech (which includes free speech you may not like). And the inverse is also true - that if there's no anonymity, then there can be no free speech (including free speech you _do_ like).
      - jamespo 6y ago
        This might shock you but the world is full of shades of grey
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I think in the physical space there's a lot of ways investigators can discover this information after the fact, whether it be interviewing witnesses, looking for forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA), etc. Things that, arguably, are not privacy violating, but can be acquired in investigating a specific problem. The difference in the digital space is that Twitter/Facebook/etc. have all that forensic data... and then just refuse to provide it.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I am for keeping personal information siloed and ideally offline as much as possible. I am not sure that it is good to make it impossible to trace where online information came from though.

chii 6y ago
if somebody "anonymously" taped banners and posters on the street espousing messages, would it make sense to have a camera record every public space and identify who placed those banners there?
- silvester23 6y ago
  I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue but that analogy falls a little flat - the potential reach of a couple of posters on a couple of streets is much smaller than that of posts online.
  - chii 6y ago
    so you're saying that as long as you can limit the reach of a message, anonymity is fine? Where and who decides that line? I think society should either accept that if there should be anonymity, that there must also be free speech (which includes free speech you may not like). And the inverse is also true - that if there's no anonymity, then there can be no free speech (including free speech you _do_ like).
    - jamespo 6y ago
      This might shock you but the world is full of shades of grey
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I think in the physical space there's a lot of ways investigators can discover this information after the fact, whether it be interviewing witnesses, looking for forensic evidence (fingerprints, DNA), etc. Things that, arguably, are not privacy violating, but can be acquired in investigating a specific problem. The difference in the digital space is that Twitter/Facebook/etc. have all that forensic data... and then just refuse to provide it.