3 ms·
Privacy would be fine, as long as the identity is traceable by admins and authorities. We’ve experimented with true anonymity and it’s garbage for humanity, so
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Privacy would be fine, as long as the identity is traceable by admins and authorities. We’ve experimented with true anonymity and it’s garbage for humanity, so now we need to come up with a better way to protect people from being identified except to admins and law enforcement, and pass laws to protect our right to keep our real life identity from being divulged maliciously.
- lambic 5y agoWhat if the admins and law enforcement are working for an authoritarian regime?
- floatingatoll 5y agoAuthoritarian countries that actively seek to identify and prosecute their citizens for thoughtcrimes have simply compelled citizens to install tracking apps and/or use government-monitored data centers and/or SSL proxies that de-anonymize them, largely removing their ability to make use of whatever online anonymity remains, if they’re even allowed to access our Internet at all. Their access to anonymity from authorities online is therefore neutralized, as countries such as Russia and China and North Korea are all demonstrating today. Meanwhile, lots of people (especially women and minorities) in non-authoritarian countries on the Internet are being threatened, harmed, or killed (for example, by SWATting) by anonymous people in the Internet. What arguments exist that support non-accountable anonymity online in today’s world, now that we’ve seen the outcomes of endorsing those argument three decades ago and the resulting harm to societies?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- floatingatoll 5y agoI disagree. The vast majority of SWATting has not been considered worth prosecuting, much less targeted hate speech directed at women. We are nowhere near the absolute minimum that societies enforce in-person.
- lambic 5y agoDid you really just use the argument that authoritarian regimes already de-anonymize so why can't we?
- munk-a 5y agoIf you are concerned that authoritarian regimes would de-anonymize us and the responder thinks that all authoritarian regimes have already effectively de-anonymized us then... what is there to fear? You could attack their statement that is has already happened or you misstated your concern - possibly by including some entities in the list of authoritarian regimes that the responder doesn't consider to be authoritarian.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- floatingatoll 5y agoNo. I’m arguing that it makes no difference whether the admins and law enforcement are working for an authoritarian regime; either way, the regime will just as readily be able to identify its citizens, voiding the theoretical protection that Internet anonymity supposedly offers their citizens. So, then: Setting aside the theoretical value of “protecting citizens of authoritarian regimes”, what other reasons underpin the continuing support for prioritizing anonymity over the accountability of legally-protected privacy of identity, as I propose upthread?
- lambic 5y agohttps://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/01/05/using-real-names-online-leads-to-discrimination-and-harrassment/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/01/05/using-real-names...
- floatingatoll 5y agoUnder no circumstances do I support publishing real names for users in association with their online activity. I grudgingly concede that some will wish to do so voluntarily, but it should never be compulsory, nor should it be permissible to indicate whether or not any user’s name is the same as their legal name. As long as people can be rapidly and efficiently held accountable if they abuse others, it doesn’t matter to me in the slightest what they want to openly call themselves on any given Internet site, and I want constraints in place to ensure that “publish your legal name” is an impermissible form of direct, indirect, and/or peer pressure.