5 ms·

This position is a slippery slope to a world where true anonymity is made illegal. Your confusion is more subtle and arguably more dangerous: that anonymity can

by cnity 3y ago

This position is a slippery slope to a world where true anonymity is made illegal. Your confusion is more subtle and arguably more dangerous: that anonymity can make certain illegal actions easier does not mean that anonymity should not exist.

subroutine 3y ago
What is "true anonymity"? The law is fairly clear that you cannot engage in illegal activity whether acting anonymously or otherwise.
- cnity 3y ago
  The inability to monitor all illegal activity is a trade-off we accept as a society to maintain the right to anonymity. You'd rather we sign that right away for some supposed guarantee of safety? A guarantee made by the synthesis of your government and your corporations?
  - subroutine 3y ago
    Nothing of the sort. I think anonymity is a privilege that is granted and can be enjoyed while engaging with society or online however anon chooses, up to the point where anon's actions breaks the law. edit: In the case described here I am especially unsympathetic for anon as they chose to defame someone's real life identity. In this incident there was no proactive monitoring by gov/law/inc. as you so fear. Instead the wronged had to hire private council and prove the defemation in court a priori. Even after proving the impact to their character the judge's ruling is only tentative, giving anon an opportunity to present facts supporting their claims (and if you read the judge's statement closely, had anon presented evidence, there would have been no basis for the defamation suit and no need for unmasking). And even if there is no facts and anon legit defamed the person, anon may still evade justice given the paltry noncompliance fine Meta would have to pay. So let me ask you, would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence?
    - cnity 3y ago
      It's a classic fear vs freedom dichotomy. We are both being a little intellectually dishonest, and should perhaps frame the question a little differently. To answer your question: > would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence Yes, if the alternative is that I can be held criminally liable for hosting a web forum that doesn't require some form of government enforced ID system. How could it be any other way (genuine question)?
      - subroutine 3y ago
        > How could it be any other way (genuine question)? The alternative is how things currently work. Meta is not being held criminally liable here, and people are allowed to use the platform anonymously so long as they do not engage in criminal behavior.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        > It's a classic fear vs freedom dichotomy Thats a false dichotomy. Many kinds of freedom actually result in less freedom. A society where you are free to sell youself into slavery is less free. A society where 10 year olds are free to work in the coal mines is less free. A society where you are free to ignore legitinate court orders is less free because people will turn to vigilante justice instead.
        jiveturkey 3y ago
        all you say is true but that isn’t a false dichotomy defense. it’s “just” a refutation of his position. to contest a false dichotomy you need to explain that there is a third choice. i find the fear vs freedom dichotomy to be a legitimate set of choices. you didn’t argue against fear, you argued against individual freedom vs societal freedom. which is not what the gp was going on about.
        subroutine 3y ago
        IMO the tradeoff is freedoms vs. protections. People can agree to exchange certain freedoms for protections, and codify this exchange into law. For example many countries have mandated seatbelt laws. In this case the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is exchanged for health and safety. Someone could claim this is done out of fear, and that's not completely untrue. And as you allude, fear can be totally rational and backed by data, thus fear vs. freedom is not an unreasonable exchange.
detourdog 3y ago
True anonymity is not illegal. To be anonymous don’t reveal your identity to anyone on line. If you do that you are not sharing your identity with anyone to get a subpoena. Apple is trying to keep your identity secret on your device so that they cant verify anyone only devices.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > True anonymity is not illegal. I'll use the exact same kind of argument to make the opposite point: Facebook answering a legal subpoena isn't illegal. > To be anonymous don’t reveal your identity to anyone on line. They are not anonymous from Facebook perspective. There is no "right to anonymity" on Facebook, no more than there is a "right to free speech", the user accepted all the TOS when they signed up. Even the GDPR doesn't grant any right to "anonymity", however the platform cannot use identifiable data however they like, but you bet legal data subpoenas are not covered by the GDPR.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    I agree Facebook answering any subpoena is legal for Facebook. Facebook doesn't get to argue the validity of the subpoena. That is the job of the defendant. Exactly I'm not sure of your point. If an organization gets a subpoena they turn over what they know. If they don't know they can't hand it over. I don't think you are making the opposite point but I will try to be open minded. From my perspective we agree.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    They could/would be anonymous if they hide their identity from facebook as well. Are we punishing those who wish to remain anonymous but do not have the technical ability to do so. Is there a right to anonymous in the EU?
- qingcharles 3y ago
  No-one is saying that anonymity itself is illegal, just that if you commit a crime expect "them" to try to unmask your anonymity using legal process.
phkahler 3y ago
Not sure, but you might be confusing anonymity with privacy. I'm all in favor of privacy, but keeping your identity secret while doing stuff in public (or on some internet forum) is not really a matter of privacy. There may be a few cases where anonymity is warranted, but often it just enables bad behavior.
- cnity 3y ago
  It's the realities of enforcement that concern me. If you say (as it appears you are implying though I may be wrong!) "we don't really need anonymity online, so we should enforce verifiable identity in all online and public interactions" then you open the door to (potentially tyrannical) government involvement of all internet services. For example, the government now dictates how you handle authentication. You can no longer use a simple email + password usage of a public service.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  You can't have both. If anonymity isn't allowed why can't advertisers track you in the EU without your consent. What privacy are you in favor of? Identities should be private when in public? Until someone requests it and then it goes into the public record?
mcpackieh 3y ago
Who the hell ever pitched Facebook as "truly anonymous" in the first place? And how is it news that Facebook responds to legal subpoenas? This story is 'dog bites man', why does it even exist?

by cnity 3y ago

subroutine 3y ago

What is "true anonymity"? The law is fairly clear that you cannot engage in illegal activity whether acting anonymously or otherwise.

cnity 3y ago
The inability to monitor all illegal activity is a trade-off we accept as a society to maintain the right to anonymity. You'd rather we sign that right away for some supposed guarantee of safety? A guarantee made by the synthesis of your government and your corporations?
- subroutine 3y ago
  Nothing of the sort. I think anonymity is a privilege that is granted and can be enjoyed while engaging with society or online however anon chooses, up to the point where anon's actions breaks the law. edit: In the case described here I am especially unsympathetic for anon as they chose to defame someone's real life identity. In this incident there was no proactive monitoring by gov/law/inc. as you so fear. Instead the wronged had to hire private council and prove the defemation in court a priori. Even after proving the impact to their character the judge's ruling is only tentative, giving anon an opportunity to present facts supporting their claims (and if you read the judge's statement closely, had anon presented evidence, there would have been no basis for the defamation suit and no need for unmasking). And even if there is no facts and anon legit defamed the person, anon may still evade justice given the paltry noncompliance fine Meta would have to pay. So let me ask you, would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence?
  - cnity 3y ago
    It's a classic fear vs freedom dichotomy. We are both being a little intellectually dishonest, and should perhaps frame the question a little differently. To answer your question: > would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence Yes, if the alternative is that I can be held criminally liable for hosting a web forum that doesn't require some form of government enforced ID system. How could it be any other way (genuine question)?
    - subroutine 3y ago
      > How could it be any other way (genuine question)? The alternative is how things currently work. Meta is not being held criminally liable here, and people are allowed to use the platform anonymously so long as they do not engage in criminal behavior.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > It's a classic fear vs freedom dichotomy Thats a false dichotomy. Many kinds of freedom actually result in less freedom. A society where you are free to sell youself into slavery is less free. A society where 10 year olds are free to work in the coal mines is less free. A society where you are free to ignore legitinate court orders is less free because people will turn to vigilante justice instead.
      - jiveturkey 3y ago
        all you say is true but that isn’t a false dichotomy defense. it’s “just” a refutation of his position. to contest a false dichotomy you need to explain that there is a third choice. i find the fear vs freedom dichotomy to be a legitimate set of choices. you didn’t argue against fear, you argued against individual freedom vs societal freedom. which is not what the gp was going on about.
        subroutine 3y ago
        IMO the tradeoff is freedoms vs. protections. People can agree to exchange certain freedoms for protections, and codify this exchange into law. For example many countries have mandated seatbelt laws. In this case the freedom to not wear a seatbelt is exchanged for health and safety. Someone could claim this is done out of fear, and that's not completely untrue. And as you allude, fear can be totally rational and backed by data, thus fear vs. freedom is not an unreasonable exchange.

detourdog 3y ago

True anonymity is not illegal. To be anonymous don’t reveal your identity to anyone on line. If you do that you are not sharing your identity with anyone to get a subpoena. Apple is trying to keep your identity secret on your device so that they cant verify anyone only devices.

throw_m239339 3y ago
> True anonymity is not illegal. I'll use the exact same kind of argument to make the opposite point: Facebook answering a legal subpoena isn't illegal. > To be anonymous don’t reveal your identity to anyone on line. They are not anonymous from Facebook perspective. There is no "right to anonymity" on Facebook, no more than there is a "right to free speech", the user accepted all the TOS when they signed up. Even the GDPR doesn't grant any right to "anonymity", however the platform cannot use identifiable data however they like, but you bet legal data subpoenas are not covered by the GDPR.
- detourdog 3y ago
  I agree Facebook answering any subpoena is legal for Facebook. Facebook doesn't get to argue the validity of the subpoena. That is the job of the defendant. Exactly I'm not sure of your point. If an organization gets a subpoena they turn over what they know. If they don't know they can't hand it over. I don't think you are making the opposite point but I will try to be open minded. From my perspective we agree.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  They could/would be anonymous if they hide their identity from facebook as well. Are we punishing those who wish to remain anonymous but do not have the technical ability to do so. Is there a right to anonymous in the EU?
qingcharles 3y ago
No-one is saying that anonymity itself is illegal, just that if you commit a crime expect "them" to try to unmask your anonymity using legal process.

phkahler 3y ago

Not sure, but you might be confusing anonymity with privacy. I'm all in favor of privacy, but keeping your identity secret while doing stuff in public (or on some internet forum) is not really a matter of privacy. There may be a few cases where anonymity is warranted, but often it just enables bad behavior.

cnity 3y ago
It's the realities of enforcement that concern me. If you say (as it appears you are implying though I may be wrong!) "we don't really need anonymity online, so we should enforce verifiable identity in all online and public interactions" then you open the door to (potentially tyrannical) government involvement of all internet services. For example, the government now dictates how you handle authentication. You can no longer use a simple email + password usage of a public service.
ipaddr 3y ago
You can't have both. If anonymity isn't allowed why can't advertisers track you in the EU without your consent. What privacy are you in favor of? Identities should be private when in public? Until someone requests it and then it goes into the public record?

mcpackieh 3y ago

Who the hell ever pitched Facebook as "truly anonymous" in the first place? And how is it news that Facebook responds to legal subpoenas? This story is 'dog bites man', why does it even exist?