7 ms·

Question for you all: Why is the ability to post something in complete anonymity onto the internet a worthwhile goal?

ProblemFactory 13y ago
Anonymity is very helpful to whistleblowers in various fields of life - and the importance of whistleblowers has even been recognised by laws protecting them. It's important to note that anonymous posting does not mean that the content is illegal, only that the publisher wishes to remain unknown. I'm sure SDF takes down any copyright infringement or other illegal content promptly.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Anonymity is not a concept to whistleblower protection; in fact, the opposite - whistleblower protection is a protection of your non-anonymous actions.
  - CoryG89 13y ago
    This is an interesting concept. I would have first logically arrived at the conclusion that whistleblower protection would exist for anonymous releases of sensitive information. Makes sense though that these are put in place to protect people who come forward with information publicly.
wfn 13y ago
Say you live in Syria and one of these days wake up to find the other side of the street where you live completely smashed down by shelling. Oh, there's been a civil war going on (or so the media calls it; "public uprising" maybe?) for some time now alright, but you could be dead tomorrow, you need to understand.. what is truly happening? what's the prognosis? Better ask everyone around. Oh, it's the government, targeting rebels. Ok. Well, what's next? While at it: what's the rebellion up to now? Nobody among your acquaintances wants to talk about it, or knows anything certain. The official news is a joke and is of no help in any case. You've heard there are facebook groups for that, and you have internet.. better log on and post a message. Whoops, apparently somebody did not like your 'too neutral => pro-rebellion' point of view, and now various body parts of yours are being sent out to your relatives, as a message, or just because. There's been actual demand for anonymous message boards for folks in Syria / friends/relatives of those living there to discuss matters, to understand what the hell is going on. I can't quote sources, though. And there've been incidents of 'facebook message -> whoops, body cut to parts', discussed in some CCC talks, though I haven't tried to follow up and find anything more conclusive. (could dig up the CCC video in question maybe.) In any case, a mere illustration. Tor usage spikes up during Iran elections (next one's in June). Folks in cartel-controlled places, or places where public uprising is happening, wanting to understand what is truly happening, or to organise something, etc. are afraid to post to FB etc., and sometimes they are very right to be afraid. TL;DR This is for real. [/drama mode]
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  None of what you say answers the question posed. Your concerns seems to be with the right of free speech, which is valid, but has nothing to do with being anonymous.
  - wfn 13y ago
    > Your concerns seems to be with the right of free speech, which is valid, but has nothing to do with being anonymous. Oh but it does! See, if I were to reside in Syria and to simply post antigovernmental sentiments online, I very well might end up dead. I would not end up dead (not necessarily) were I to succeed in posting anonymously (let's simply say, 'under a pseudo + (somehow) hidden IP address'). 'Anonymous' here for me simply means 'my online identity [which can post things, read things, whatever] is not connected to my real identity', where 'real' can usually be simply be evaluated to 'my real name' and/or 'my physical location'. I would be too afraid to (merely) invent fake pseudonyms on FB - what if Syrian gov't were to succeed and subpoena FB (who knows) and acquire my IP address? Anonymity would matter very much to me! However, at the same time I see what you mean. In this case, anonymity is a free speech obstruction circumvention tool, in a (limited) sense. Perhaps I'm a pessimist who does not really believe in free speech really being possible. (The regimes are simply extreme cases/illustrations of this.) :)
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      The value of anonymous free speech in the situation you describe (eg, Syria) should never be taken at anywhere close to face value. It's nothing more than rumour and stories - precisely because it is anonymous! There is no way to verify it is anything: A true account, a biased account, a popular opinion or the ravings of a lunatic. In areas where free speech does not exist, anonymous free speech adds nothing at all. It's basically the propaganda the reader wishes to hear. You may as well toe the government line. Free speech only exists with attribution. Fiction and stories without. While I appreciate the struggles of those in the situation you describe, you advance nothing in an environment of anonymity.
sneak 13y ago
Because if we don't have the right to incredibly unpopular, witchhunt-inducing speech, then we don't have free speech at all. Many things that need to be said for a society to remain free are things that many people really don't want to hear. Inducing mass cognitive dissonance can be physically dangerous.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  I'm not arguing against free speech, nor is free speech in any way related to non-attributed speech.
  - sneak 13y ago
    The US Supreme Court, in 1995: Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
javert 13y ago
Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. That's because it's not legitimate for the government to use non consensual physical force against us. Unless we've given up my right to not consent by using or threatening to use non consensual physical force against someone else. As a sidenote, the point where you have to use violence to advocate for political goals instead of persuasion is when free speech is disallowed.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential, and therefore the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount. We place a tremendous value on reputation and authenticity. I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. As an aside, we already do this with our legal systems (assuming western ideals). Everyone has the right to face their accuser in a public court. (I appreciate that right has been degraded in certain cases over the last 20 years or so.)
  - javert 13y ago
    > One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential Only in some cases, so that's not a very good argument. > the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount It is paramount in, say, the case of a crime. It is not paramount when it's outside the scope of crime or threat of a crime (i.e., outside the scope of initiated violence). > I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. That's true. If I want to send a large sum of money to someone, I know who they are. That's not something I need the government to adjudicate. (I do think the government should prosecute fraud as an initiation of force, though.)
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      >Only in some cases, I'd argue in every case where you aren't completely gullible to everything you read or hear. Anonymous speech is nothing more than rumour. It has little to no positive value. If you require the identity of a person you would give money to, why then to you not require the same standards of the person who's thought you would entertain?
clebio 13y ago
Because while freedom of speech is (in some places?) considered an inalienable right, speaking on the internet (writing/publishing) is nearly impossible to do anonymously. I guess one could argue that speaking in person in any context is impossible to do anonymously, but it's still an interesting technical challenge to figure out whether we even can publish anonymously. It's interesting because on the one hand, it's easy to get wrong, and because on the other hand, perhaps it's provably possible, in a manner such as this.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Freedom of anonymous speech is not a right in any jurisdiction or country that I'm aware of. For very good reason, I might add. In fact, most anonymous speech can safely be discounted as nonsense.
  - otann 13y ago
    It may not be a right, but it can help protect that freedom of speech and I think that is a pretty worthwhile goal. Also, I agree most anonymous writings don't amount to much of anything, but it doesn't mean they don't have their uses.
  - schoen 13y ago
    The United States protects the freedom of anonymous speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Com... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_of_Stratton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_...
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      Keep reading, it's a little more complex then simply suggesting anonymity is guaranteed: "A defendant in a defamation lawsuit attempted to use this case as a precedent that "sources have the right of anonymous speech under the First Amendment", but in 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the argument, distinguishing that case from McIntyre." Your second link doesn't really pertain to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, it's an interesting concept that I'm not sure I particularly agree with.
unimpressive 13y ago
In theory, the rule of law will protect your right to say what needs to be said. In practice, you may have things to say that could be damaging to your career, or that may anger powerful interests, or even your government. That doesn't mean these things aren't worth saying. So anonymity allows you to say them without being prosecuted. (Unless of course you're making a distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity. Pseudonymity is a special case of anonymity, and requires anonymity as a base condition.)

Anonymity is very helpful to whistleblowers in various fields of life - and the importance of whistleblowers has even been recognised by laws protecting them. It's important to note that anonymous posting does not mean that the content is illegal, only that the publisher wishes to remain unknown. I'm sure SDF takes down any copyright infringement or other illegal content promptly.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Anonymity is not a concept to whistleblower protection; in fact, the opposite - whistleblower protection is a protection of your non-anonymous actions.
- CoryG89 13y ago
  This is an interesting concept. I would have first logically arrived at the conclusion that whistleblower protection would exist for anonymous releases of sensitive information. Makes sense though that these are put in place to protect people who come forward with information publicly.

wfn 13y ago

Say you live in Syria and one of these days wake up to find the other side of the street where you live completely smashed down by shelling. Oh, there's been a civil war going on (or so the media calls it; "public uprising" maybe?) for some time now alright, but you could be dead tomorrow, you need to understand.. what is truly happening? what's the prognosis? Better ask everyone around. Oh, it's the government, targeting rebels. Ok. Well, what's next? While at it: what's the rebellion up to now? Nobody among your acquaintances wants to talk about it, or knows anything certain. The official news is a joke and is of no help in any case. You've heard there are facebook groups for that, and you have internet.. better log on and post a message. Whoops, apparently somebody did not like your 'too neutral => pro-rebellion' point of view, and now various body parts of yours are being sent out to your relatives, as a message, or just because. There's been actual demand for anonymous message boards for folks in Syria / friends/relatives of those living there to discuss matters, to understand what the hell is going on. I can't quote sources, though. And there've been incidents of 'facebook message -> whoops, body cut to parts', discussed in some CCC talks, though I haven't tried to follow up and find anything more conclusive. (could dig up the CCC video in question maybe.) In any case, a mere illustration. Tor usage spikes up during Iran elections (next one's in June). Folks in cartel-controlled places, or places where public uprising is happening, wanting to understand what is truly happening, or to organise something, etc. are afraid to post to FB etc., and sometimes they are very right to be afraid. TL;DR This is for real. [/drama mode]

run4yourlives 13y ago
None of what you say answers the question posed. Your concerns seems to be with the right of free speech, which is valid, but has nothing to do with being anonymous.
- wfn 13y ago
  > Your concerns seems to be with the right of free speech, which is valid, but has nothing to do with being anonymous. Oh but it does! See, if I were to reside in Syria and to simply post antigovernmental sentiments online, I very well might end up dead. I would not end up dead (not necessarily) were I to succeed in posting anonymously (let's simply say, 'under a pseudo + (somehow) hidden IP address'). 'Anonymous' here for me simply means 'my online identity [which can post things, read things, whatever] is not connected to my real identity', where 'real' can usually be simply be evaluated to 'my real name' and/or 'my physical location'. I would be too afraid to (merely) invent fake pseudonyms on FB - what if Syrian gov't were to succeed and subpoena FB (who knows) and acquire my IP address? Anonymity would matter very much to me! However, at the same time I see what you mean. In this case, anonymity is a free speech obstruction circumvention tool, in a (limited) sense. Perhaps I'm a pessimist who does not really believe in free speech really being possible. (The regimes are simply extreme cases/illustrations of this.) :)
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    The value of anonymous free speech in the situation you describe (eg, Syria) should never be taken at anywhere close to face value. It's nothing more than rumour and stories - precisely because it is anonymous! There is no way to verify it is anything: A true account, a biased account, a popular opinion or the ravings of a lunatic. In areas where free speech does not exist, anonymous free speech adds nothing at all. It's basically the propaganda the reader wishes to hear. You may as well toe the government line. Free speech only exists with attribution. Fiction and stories without. While I appreciate the struggles of those in the situation you describe, you advance nothing in an environment of anonymity.

sneak 13y ago

Because if we don't have the right to incredibly unpopular, witchhunt-inducing speech, then we don't have free speech at all. Many things that need to be said for a society to remain free are things that many people really don't want to hear. Inducing mass cognitive dissonance can be physically dangerous.

run4yourlives 13y ago
I'm not arguing against free speech, nor is free speech in any way related to non-attributed speech.
- sneak 13y ago
  The US Supreme Court, in 1995: Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

javert 13y ago

Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. That's because it's not legitimate for the government to use non consensual physical force against us. Unless we've given up my right to not consent by using or threatening to use non consensual physical force against someone else. As a sidenote, the point where you have to use violence to advocate for political goals instead of persuasion is when free speech is disallowed.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Because it would be _not_ legitimate for the government to _stop_ us from doing so. One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential, and therefore the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount. We place a tremendous value on reputation and authenticity. I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. As an aside, we already do this with our legal systems (assuming western ideals). Everyone has the right to face their accuser in a public court. (I appreciate that right has been degraded in certain cases over the last 20 years or so.)
- javert 13y ago
  > One could argue that the ability of anyone to know what and with whom they are dealing with in everyday life is essential Only in some cases, so that's not a very good argument. > the role of the government to attribute an action to a source is paramount It is paramount in, say, the case of a crime. It is not paramount when it's outside the scope of crime or threat of a crime (i.e., outside the scope of initiated violence). > I highly doubt you would send an anonymous source a large sum of money, for example. That's true. If I want to send a large sum of money to someone, I know who they are. That's not something I need the government to adjudicate. (I do think the government should prosecute fraud as an initiation of force, though.)
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    >Only in some cases, I'd argue in every case where you aren't completely gullible to everything you read or hear. Anonymous speech is nothing more than rumour. It has little to no positive value. If you require the identity of a person you would give money to, why then to you not require the same standards of the person who's thought you would entertain?

clebio 13y ago

Because while freedom of speech is (in some places?) considered an inalienable right, speaking on the internet (writing/publishing) is nearly impossible to do anonymously. I guess one could argue that speaking in person in any context is impossible to do anonymously, but it's still an interesting technical challenge to figure out whether we even can publish anonymously. It's interesting because on the one hand, it's easy to get wrong, and because on the other hand, perhaps it's provably possible, in a manner such as this.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Freedom of anonymous speech is not a right in any jurisdiction or country that I'm aware of. For very good reason, I might add. In fact, most anonymous speech can safely be discounted as nonsense.
- otann 13y ago
  It may not be a right, but it can help protect that freedom of speech and I think that is a pretty worthwhile goal. Also, I agree most anonymous writings don't amount to much of anything, but it doesn't mean they don't have their uses.
- schoen 13y ago
  The United States protects the freedom of anonymous speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Com... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_of_Stratton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_...
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    Keep reading, it's a little more complex then simply suggesting anonymity is guaranteed: "A defendant in a defamation lawsuit attempted to use this case as a precedent that "sources have the right of anonymous speech under the First Amendment", but in 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the argument, distinguishing that case from McIntyre." Your second link doesn't really pertain to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, it's an interesting concept that I'm not sure I particularly agree with.

unimpressive 13y ago

In theory, the rule of law will protect your right to say what needs to be said. In practice, you may have things to say that could be damaging to your career, or that may anger powerful interests, or even your government. That doesn't mean these things aren't worth saying. So anonymity allows you to say them without being prosecuted. (Unless of course you're making a distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity. Pseudonymity is a special case of anonymity, and requires anonymity as a base condition.)