8 ms·

The End Of Online Anonymity

30 points by twampss 18y ago

Anon84 18y ago
I wonder what makes them think that online anonymity still exists for 99% of users.
swombat 18y ago
I think there is another possible outcome than forcing everyone to "be on their best behaviour" all the time. Many things are today regarded as inappropriate that are really not that important. Who cares whether such and such intern (or even CEO) once dressed up as a woman at a party. Only bigotry keeps people turning up their nose at such trivial nonsense. As behaviour that was previously hidden and taboo becomes more and more visible, there are two possible outcomes: 1) (proposed by the article) the behaviour is eliminated because it cannot be tolerated. This would likely be the case for disastrous behaviours such as child abuse and conjugal violence, which, as they become more visible, are unlikely to be tolerated. 2) Social norms evolve and learn to tolerate that behaviour. I think it is not unthinkable that in the near future many behaviours which are today still looked down upon will be accepted as normal and irrelevant to most considerations. In the inevitable collision between outdated laws/social norms and the huge masses of people who do the forbidden anyway, history tells us that the huge masses of people win. (of course, do whatever you need to ensure you don't become roadkill on this march...)
- justindz 18y ago
  I tend to agree with you that we will become desensitized to less important behavior, overall, as people become more directly associated to their activities online. Most people who travel the world and eat "wacky" food become more accepting of experience they would previously regard as unusual. I see something similar happening. Of course, I'm speaking from the vantage point of someone who does silly stuff and has a fairly libertarian attitude. After the US elections, I was asking one of my gay friends what he thought about the defeat of Prop. 8 in California. I guess, not living in California, he could be more philosophical. He said that a lot of people who voted against it are going to feel awkward in 10 years when their kids are like "That was dumb. Who cares? What were you thinking?" I tend to agree that within free societies, as long as they remain free we'll move towards a point where repercussions only occur for online presentations of illegal activity, and then only if the illegal activity is also still taboo in the perpetrator's peer environment. One example might be illegal drug use, which could have serious, trivial or non-existent repercussions depending on where you work and who you run with. People will continue to only care about serious things, but the definition of "serious" will narrow on the old stuff and be newly set on brand new stuff (cloning ethics, or something).
- kaens 18y ago
  #2 is exactly what is happening, IMO. There has been a pretty huge influx of employers that just really don't care what their employees act like on their own time. Granted, a lot of this influx has been in the software development industry, but I really don't think that it's much of a leap to assume that it will also flow into other industries - especially considering that it is flowing through general acceptance by the average person in society. The optimistic part of me thinks that although it may have a bit of a rough transition, the next few generations after us will end up as being very open as far as accepting whatever behavior people indulge in with consenting parties.
  - eru 18y ago
    There was this paper about how competition eliminates the ability of employers to discriminate..
- fauigerzigerk 18y ago
  Yes the huge masses win. The mob will win because it will be the mob that decides what is actually 2) and what is 1). Minorities lose because their (our?) behaviour may be suspicious to the masses. The judge is replaced the mob. But that's not all. Since the mob doesn't have a clear picture of everyone's actions, someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers will no longer personally google for applicants. The whole thing will be outsourced and those affected will never know why they didn't get that job or that bride. Something suspicious, nobody will know what. The algorithms might use heuristics and random factors so nobody can ever find out why a particular decision was taken other than that the suspicion factor was too high.
  - swombat 18y ago
    That's the other side of the coin, for sure. And yet, I think worthwhile minorities (such as geniuses) will always find a way to bypass the majority rule to make their mark.
    - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
      And being a true genius I'm not worried at all ;-)
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - dejb 18y ago
    > someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers will no longer personally google for applicants. I think this is unlikely. If this 'simple number' was not an accurate measure of likely job performance then companies who relied on it would be at a huge disadvantage. Companies (and by extension their HR departments) who ignored it or incorporated their own information would tend to prevail.
    - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
debt 18y ago
Why don't we wait and see how people react to these new changes? Also, just as long as I can view all the data "they" have on me, then I'll be cool with it.
TrevorJ 18y ago
Are there any other articles that detail exactly how this ruling makes it 'illegal' to have fake identities online? I have my doubts and at the very least would like to read more.
- m0nty 18y ago
  And the other, related question: just how do "they" propose to stop us? Did I commit a criminal act when I signed up to HN using "m0nty" rather than my real name? Am I in fact trying to impersonate the other HN user "monty"? Does the fact that my real name is also shared by a moderately well-known UK politician mean I am, de facto, impersonating him? As your question implies, I think it's the bullying, not the anonymity, which was the issue in the court case.
  - TrevorJ 18y ago
    http://www.marketingvox.com/watershed-ruling-in-myspace-suicide-case-may-criminalize-fake-net-personas-042175/ http://www.marketingvox.com/watershed-ruling-in-myspace-suic... This link would seem to indicate that it was not, in fact the bullying but the false identity that they convicted the defendant of.
    - m0nty 18y ago
      I still think the bullying was the issue. There was much talk when the story came out that (in point of law) an actual offence might not have been committed. So I think this represents the court casting about for some reason to convict, on some grounds, owing to public clamour. But does this set a precedent which will lead to the death of online anonymity? Not in itself, and it will be interesting to see if any other cases follow on from this one.
  - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
    i like to hide behind my mysterious username as well.
  - dhimes 18y ago
    I'm calling the cops.... But on a serious note, it was suggested to us in MA that our kids deliberately have a fictitious online id, so that predators can't find them.
sh1mmer 18y ago
This article seems to draw some big conclusions from seemingly little research. If the author had used Yahoo's OpenId IDP they would know you can log in as "yahoo.com" and then choose a site specific anonymous OpenId. That and the charges in the court case being reffered to was just an upholding of the TOS. Hardly a landmark hearing.
TrevorJ 18y ago
Once again we see the misbehavior of the few encroaching on the freedoms of many. Of course none of us want to see bullying online, but to create a situation where breaking TOS agreements for web services can be used in court to CRIMINALIZE behavior is a ridiculous precident. Essentially what the court said was that because the defendant violated the terms of service, the was guilty of fraud. Can you imagine how hard it will be to find new users for a service when they must treat your TOS as a document that will open themselves up to criminal prosecution is breached?
fallentimes 18y ago
Long live 4chan. Anonymity and a lack of taxes & bureaucrats is what makes the internet wonderful...and sometimes awful.
- unalone 18y ago
  Yeah. I don't see 4chan and its ilk disappearing any time soon. You can't have wonderful things without awful things. Things that would make one hard make the other hard as well.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    I hope you're right. Agreed. And I think the wonderful in this case far outweighs the awful.
    - unalone 18y ago
      There was a comment from Reddit from a kid who grew up with 4chan. It fascinated me. And it showed me just how different my generation will be from any one before it. http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/7f8x3/hey_reddit_whats_the_creepiest_thing_youve_ever/c06imuu http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/7f8x3/hey_reddit_whats..., if you want to read.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Great link. I like the analogies he uses.
      - GHFigs 18y ago
        Saw it coming from a mile away, before it came near. Nobody can write that much about 4chan without doing it.
        unalone 18y ago
        Somehow, it came across as sentimental to me. This was somebody reminiscing about a place that he saw the decline of. Then, I find the oddest things sappy.
tdavis 18y ago
I have never felt a need to mask my identity while online, even when I was younger and stupider than I am now. Hell, up until this year I didn't even bother to censor anything I said online. Unfortunately, now that I have the reputation of a business to worry about I have to be far more careful, but it's still not that big of a deal. Life is about trade-offs. You trade some anonymity for some convenience or a useful service. Being anonymous on the Internet, in the sense of nobody knowing your true identity, hasn't really gotten any harder. Sign up for whatever you want, just don't use your real name. Pick some kind of innocuous handle and use it for all the inter-connected services you need and make sure those services don't also connect that ID with your "real" one.
gills 18y ago
Four very different thoughts here... 1.There is precedent for criminal convictions of pretexting as part of some larger criminal social engineering act. Personally, I think bullying is a stretch. It's a feature of the Internet, and if a person can't shrug off anonymous Internet bullying then that person has deeper psychological problems. 2.Should go back and re-examine (and possibly overturn) all criminal cases in which pretexting and/or false identities were used by the authorities? If there is precedent that this behavior is illegal, then we need to reinforce that law enforcement tactics are not above the law. 3.The shell of anonymity is only safe when it is perfect -- leaks create the opportunity for blackmail. In many situations it is more important that you are not in a position to be blackmailed, than to disclose any 'undesirable' behavior or association. 4.How could this case stand on appeal? Didn't the judge essentially interpret breach of contract into criminal law? MySpace obviously granted Ms. Drew's account -- her access to the system could not have been "unauthorized" as claimed in the wire fraud charge. Most contracts and TOS have pretty clear terms about what happens when one party breaches, so this should have been a simple case of "you broke the TOS, we closed your account, as stated in the TOS." In my opinion, the more serious crime here is that the judge decided he could usurp the legislature's power and turn random contract text into criminal law.

30 points by twampss 18y ago

I wonder what makes them think that online anonymity still exists for 99% of users.

I think there is another possible outcome than forcing everyone to "be on their best behaviour" all the time. Many things are today regarded as inappropriate that are really not that important. Who cares whether such and such intern (or even CEO) once dressed up as a woman at a party. Only bigotry keeps people turning up their nose at such trivial nonsense. As behaviour that was previously hidden and taboo becomes more and more visible, there are two possible outcomes: 1) (proposed by the article) the behaviour is eliminated because it cannot be tolerated. This would likely be the case for disastrous behaviours such as child abuse and conjugal violence, which, as they become more visible, are unlikely to be tolerated. 2) Social norms evolve and learn to tolerate that behaviour. I think it is not unthinkable that in the near future many behaviours which are today still looked down upon will be accepted as normal and irrelevant to most considerations. In the inevitable collision between outdated laws/social norms and the huge masses of people who do the forbidden anyway, history tells us that the huge masses of people win. (of course, do whatever you need to ensure you don't become roadkill on this march...)

justindz 18y ago
I tend to agree with you that we will become desensitized to less important behavior, overall, as people become more directly associated to their activities online. Most people who travel the world and eat "wacky" food become more accepting of experience they would previously regard as unusual. I see something similar happening. Of course, I'm speaking from the vantage point of someone who does silly stuff and has a fairly libertarian attitude. After the US elections, I was asking one of my gay friends what he thought about the defeat of Prop. 8 in California. I guess, not living in California, he could be more philosophical. He said that a lot of people who voted against it are going to feel awkward in 10 years when their kids are like "That was dumb. Who cares? What were you thinking?" I tend to agree that within free societies, as long as they remain free we'll move towards a point where repercussions only occur for online presentations of illegal activity, and then only if the illegal activity is also still taboo in the perpetrator's peer environment. One example might be illegal drug use, which could have serious, trivial or non-existent repercussions depending on where you work and who you run with. People will continue to only care about serious things, but the definition of "serious" will narrow on the old stuff and be newly set on brand new stuff (cloning ethics, or something).
kaens 18y ago
#2 is exactly what is happening, IMO. There has been a pretty huge influx of employers that just really don't care what their employees act like on their own time. Granted, a lot of this influx has been in the software development industry, but I really don't think that it's much of a leap to assume that it will also flow into other industries - especially considering that it is flowing through general acceptance by the average person in society. The optimistic part of me thinks that although it may have a bit of a rough transition, the next few generations after us will end up as being very open as far as accepting whatever behavior people indulge in with consenting parties.
- eru 18y ago
  There was this paper about how competition eliminates the ability of employers to discriminate..
fauigerzigerk 18y ago
Yes the huge masses win. The mob will win because it will be the mob that decides what is actually 2) and what is 1). Minorities lose because their (our?) behaviour may be suspicious to the masses. The judge is replaced the mob. But that's not all. Since the mob doesn't have a clear picture of everyone's actions, someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers will no longer personally google for applicants. The whole thing will be outsourced and those affected will never know why they didn't get that job or that bride. Something suspicious, nobody will know what. The algorithms might use heuristics and random factors so nobody can ever find out why a particular decision was taken other than that the suspicion factor was too high.
- swombat 18y ago
  That's the other side of the coin, for sure. And yet, I think worthwhile minorities (such as geniuses) will always find a way to bypass the majority rule to make their mark.
  - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
    And being a true genius I'm not worried at all ;-)
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- dejb 18y ago
  > someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers will no longer personally google for applicants. I think this is unlikely. If this 'simple number' was not an accurate measure of likely job performance then companies who relied on it would be at a huge disadvantage. Companies (and by extension their HR departments) who ignored it or incorporated their own information would tend to prevail.
  - fauigerzigerk 18y ago

debt 18y ago

Why don't we wait and see how people react to these new changes? Also, just as long as I can view all the data "they" have on me, then I'll be cool with it.

TrevorJ 18y ago

Are there any other articles that detail exactly how this ruling makes it 'illegal' to have fake identities online? I have my doubts and at the very least would like to read more.

m0nty 18y ago
And the other, related question: just how do "they" propose to stop us? Did I commit a criminal act when I signed up to HN using "m0nty" rather than my real name? Am I in fact trying to impersonate the other HN user "monty"? Does the fact that my real name is also shared by a moderately well-known UK politician mean I am, de facto, impersonating him? As your question implies, I think it's the bullying, not the anonymity, which was the issue in the court case.
- TrevorJ 18y ago
  http://www.marketingvox.com/watershed-ruling-in-myspace-suicide-case-may-criminalize-fake-net-personas-042175/ http://www.marketingvox.com/watershed-ruling-in-myspace-suic... This link would seem to indicate that it was not, in fact the bullying but the false identity that they convicted the defendant of.
  - m0nty 18y ago
    I still think the bullying was the issue. There was much talk when the story came out that (in point of law) an actual offence might not have been committed. So I think this represents the court casting about for some reason to convict, on some grounds, owing to public clamour. But does this set a precedent which will lead to the death of online anonymity? Not in itself, and it will be interesting to see if any other cases follow on from this one.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  i like to hide behind my mysterious username as well.
- dhimes 18y ago
  I'm calling the cops.... But on a serious note, it was suggested to us in MA that our kids deliberately have a fictitious online id, so that predators can't find them.

sh1mmer 18y ago

This article seems to draw some big conclusions from seemingly little research. If the author had used Yahoo's OpenId IDP they would know you can log in as "yahoo.com" and then choose a site specific anonymous OpenId. That and the charges in the court case being reffered to was just an upholding of the TOS. Hardly a landmark hearing.

TrevorJ 18y ago

Once again we see the misbehavior of the few encroaching on the freedoms of many. Of course none of us want to see bullying online, but to create a situation where breaking TOS agreements for web services can be used in court to CRIMINALIZE behavior is a ridiculous precident. Essentially what the court said was that because the defendant violated the terms of service, the was guilty of fraud. Can you imagine how hard it will be to find new users for a service when they must treat your TOS as a document that will open themselves up to criminal prosecution is breached?

fallentimes 18y ago

Long live 4chan. Anonymity and a lack of taxes & bureaucrats is what makes the internet wonderful...and sometimes awful.

unalone 18y ago
Yeah. I don't see 4chan and its ilk disappearing any time soon. You can't have wonderful things without awful things. Things that would make one hard make the other hard as well.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  I hope you're right. Agreed. And I think the wonderful in this case far outweighs the awful.
  - unalone 18y ago
    There was a comment from Reddit from a kid who grew up with 4chan. It fascinated me. And it showed me just how different my generation will be from any one before it. http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/7f8x3/hey_reddit_whats_the_creepiest_thing_youve_ever/c06imuu http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/7f8x3/hey_reddit_whats..., if you want to read.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Great link. I like the analogies he uses.
    - GHFigs 18y ago
      Saw it coming from a mile away, before it came near. Nobody can write that much about 4chan without doing it.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Somehow, it came across as sentimental to me. This was somebody reminiscing about a place that he saw the decline of. Then, I find the oddest things sappy.

tdavis 18y ago

I have never felt a need to mask my identity while online, even when I was younger and stupider than I am now. Hell, up until this year I didn't even bother to censor anything I said online. Unfortunately, now that I have the reputation of a business to worry about I have to be far more careful, but it's still not that big of a deal. Life is about trade-offs. You trade some anonymity for some convenience or a useful service. Being anonymous on the Internet, in the sense of nobody knowing your true identity, hasn't really gotten any harder. Sign up for whatever you want, just don't use your real name. Pick some kind of innocuous handle and use it for all the inter-connected services you need and make sure those services don't also connect that ID with your "real" one.

gills 18y ago

Four very different thoughts here... 1.There is precedent for criminal convictions of pretexting as part of some larger criminal social engineering act. Personally, I think bullying is a stretch. It's a feature of the Internet, and if a person can't shrug off anonymous Internet bullying then that person has deeper psychological problems. 2.Should go back and re-examine (and possibly overturn) all criminal cases in which pretexting and/or false identities were used by the authorities? If there is precedent that this behavior is illegal, then we need to reinforce that law enforcement tactics are not above the law. 3.The shell of anonymity is only safe when it is perfect -- leaks create the opportunity for blackmail. In many situations it is more important that you are not in a position to be blackmailed, than to disclose any 'undesirable' behavior or association. 4.How could this case stand on appeal? Didn't the judge essentially interpret breach of contract into criminal law? MySpace obviously granted Ms. Drew's account -- her access to the system could not have been "unauthorized" as claimed in the wire fraud charge. Most contracts and TOS have pretty clear terms about what happens when one party breaches, so this should have been a simple case of "you broke the TOS, we closed your account, as stated in the TOS." In my opinion, the more serious crime here is that the judge decided he could usurp the legislature's power and turn random contract text into criminal law.