3 ms·

I'll repost something I commented a few months ago about the comparison of anonymous and real-name or 'transparent' systems: Ultimately the question is one of

I'll repost something I commented a few months ago about the comparison of anonymous and real-name or 'transparent' systems: Ultimately the question is one of freedom vs enforced rules. If you have a system of anonymity or pseudonymity, it's always possible to identify yourself by a real identity if you want to. Whether this takes the form of 4chan's "photo with a shoe on your head" or Reddit's "Post about this to your twitter account", reliably associating a pseudonym to a meatspace person is easy. So you can get the advantages of the 'transparent' system in a pseudonymous system if you want them, but you're never forced to. The only way to properly run a transparent system is to force everyone to identify themselves. Then you can't get any of the benefits of anonymity. The only people pushing for 'transparent systems' are people who have some material gain from them - advertisers, information miners, law enforcement etc. I think they have enough power as it is. So I'm in favour of anonymity by default, keeping the choice to be transparent in the hands of the individual.

wnight 15y ago
Not the only ones. I have no power to leverage or gain via a transparent society and yet I advocate it. Or, at least, no personal gain that everyone else would not also share. To me it merely seems inevitable and if we acknowledge that we can make sure it's actually a transparent society, instead of just a glass-walled prison.
- robertskmiles 15y ago
  > we can make sure it's actually a transparent society, instead of just a glass-walled prison. I'm not being flippant, but what do you see as the difference?
  - wnight 15y ago
    Transparency up versus down. London now has only the wrong sort, for instance. They can watch you on almost any street but if you tried to record a police officer they'd arrest or add you to a watch list or something. Whereas if encryption and hidden cameras go far enough we'll be able to spy on the authorities as well as them spying on us, thus keeping things in check. These guys call call it sousveillance http://wearcam.org/sousveillance.htm http://wearcam.org/sousveillance.htm but I think they overthink the idea a little. Simply put, who watches the watchers? Unless it's me at some level I'm not funding/legitimizing the system.

wnight 15y ago

Not the only ones. I have no power to leverage or gain via a transparent society and yet I advocate it. Or, at least, no personal gain that everyone else would not also share. To me it merely seems inevitable and if we acknowledge that we can make sure it's actually a transparent society, instead of just a glass-walled prison.

robertskmiles 15y ago
> we can make sure it's actually a transparent society, instead of just a glass-walled prison. I'm not being flippant, but what do you see as the difference?
- wnight 15y ago
  Transparency up versus down. London now has only the wrong sort, for instance. They can watch you on almost any street but if you tried to record a police officer they'd arrest or add you to a watch list or something. Whereas if encryption and hidden cameras go far enough we'll be able to spy on the authorities as well as them spying on us, thus keeping things in check. These guys call call it sousveillance http://wearcam.org/sousveillance.htm http://wearcam.org/sousveillance.htm but I think they overthink the idea a little. Simply put, who watches the watchers? Unless it's me at some level I'm not funding/legitimizing the system.