4 ms·

> "anonymous" means "without a name", which is never the case for Internet usage There are plenty of online communities (like chans) that are anonymous. I unde

> "anonymous" means "without a name", which is never the case for Internet usage There are plenty of online communities (like chans) that are anonymous. I understand your point, which is that the admins have access to your IP address even if you don't have a profile, but that's only one meaning of the word "anonymous", and it's a bit rude to correct someone based on another meaning of the word.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
That's not what I meant. Although it is true that admins will always have access to identifying information, and this article indicates that the level of that info will increase, surprising no-one. The question becomes "anonymous/pseudonymous to whom?" Who is able to identify us and on what level? This is all a matter of degrees. So if the admins to 4chan know who visited the board and who posted an image, they can identify users to the extent that geolocation and browser fingerprinting allow. Law enforcement could pressure 4chan into revealing this stuff and then proceed to the user's ISP which would reveal the rest. I recall the early 90s as the Internet transitioned to the NSFnet and thence to Sprint's, with all the commercialization and privatization that ensued. There was a space in time where all a guy needed was a modem and a computer and a cooperative modem bank on the other side, such as a BBS. It was sort of like using an open proxy. You didn't need no account, didn't need no identifiers, didn't need no login or password unless you stole them. Then the backbone decreed that everyone who used the Internet had better be associated with a legitimate account. That was a very early regulation, and every development since then has been a decrease in privacy/pseudonymousness. Then again, gains in privacy are made. Some old sites still identify users by IP address, such as Wikipedia. They're working to eliminate this as a pseudonymous identifier, and replace it with something perhaps even more stable, but that can't be geolocated or otherwise identified as belonging to the person behind the edits. And that's in compliance with EU/US regulations on privacy. Not even regular admins on Wikipedia can see browser fingerprints; CheckUser status and tool usage is closely controlled.
EGreg 4y ago
If you replace it with the word pseudonymous, my point still stands. I meant anonymity in the colloquial sense, but in a technical sense, your correction is apt.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago

That's not what I meant. Although it is true that admins will always have access to identifying information, and this article indicates that the level of that info will increase, surprising no-one. The question becomes "anonymous/pseudonymous to whom?" Who is able to identify us and on what level? This is all a matter of degrees. So if the admins to 4chan know who visited the board and who posted an image, they can identify users to the extent that geolocation and browser fingerprinting allow. Law enforcement could pressure 4chan into revealing this stuff and then proceed to the user's ISP which would reveal the rest. I recall the early 90s as the Internet transitioned to the NSFnet and thence to Sprint's, with all the commercialization and privatization that ensued. There was a space in time where all a guy needed was a modem and a computer and a cooperative modem bank on the other side, such as a BBS. It was sort of like using an open proxy. You didn't need no account, didn't need no identifiers, didn't need no login or password unless you stole them. Then the backbone decreed that everyone who used the Internet had better be associated with a legitimate account. That was a very early regulation, and every development since then has been a decrease in privacy/pseudonymousness. Then again, gains in privacy are made. Some old sites still identify users by IP address, such as Wikipedia. They're working to eliminate this as a pseudonymous identifier, and replace it with something perhaps even more stable, but that can't be geolocated or otherwise identified as belonging to the person behind the edits. And that's in compliance with EU/US regulations on privacy. Not even regular admins on Wikipedia can see browser fingerprints; CheckUser status and tool usage is closely controlled.

EGreg 4y ago

If you replace it with the word pseudonymous, my point still stands. I meant anonymity in the colloquial sense, but in a technical sense, your correction is apt.