Anonymity is also a horrible thing. It allows sexual deviants, perverts, pedophiles and stalkers to lurk in the dark recesses of the Internet.
Woah! There are two things profoundly wrong with that statement.
1) What's wrong with us sexual deviants and perverts "lurking" in the "dark recesses of the Internet"? Lurking isn't a crime. And if victimless sexual deviancy is a crime, that gets covered under "repressive regimes" which need to be "toppled", above.
2) Far more importantly, what's stalking doing on that list? Stalkers don't want to be anonymous; their primary motive is for the victim to know who they are! It is my impression that in a number of high-profile stalking/murder cases, there was no problem, after the fact, finding where stalkers had put up websites or hired detective agencies under their own names to hunt or threaten their victims. Sure, anonymity can make it easier for them, but it's a crime which intrinsically at odds with anonymity.
Glenn, do you realize you've quoted an anti-anonymity screed? It drapes itself in rhetoric of "fairness", but is filled with bullshit. It's got points in it that any lawyer knows are completely lopsided, but which clearly he presumes his audience doesn't recognize. "Promote unsafe and untested products" my ass; always remember censorship was first employed to keep birth control means and birth control information out of the hands of women! When the government outlaws a form of medicine or treatment, hell, yeah, anonymity will be used to get "unsafe and untested products" to those who want them.
Sheesh. The second half of the quote is riddled with things like that.
Allow me to summarize the entire issue of anonymity:
Anonymity allows impunity against the law. If you think that the law can never be wrong, then anonymity is a bad thing. If you think the law is often wrong, you think anonymity is a good thing. If you take a stance in the middle, you pro-rate your attitude about anonymity. Then it's all a cost-benefit analysis for society.
"Glenn, do you realize you've quoted an anti-anonymity screed? It drapes itself in rhetoric of "fairness", but is filled with bullshit."
The rest of the article talked about what recent court decisions meant for peer-to-peer file sharing networks and the RIAA, and I read it as a note of warning about what users had to worry about than what ought or ought not happen.
The section I quoted sounded reasonable but made me a little uncomfortable. I wanted to see how others reacted to it. So you've given me exactly what I wanted: what's wrong with that "tries to sound reasonable and balanced" other-side-of-the-anonymity-coin part. Thank you.
He did at least present the pro-anonymity side in "it would be un-American to say these examples don't matter" terms. Even though he blew it in the "try to be balanced" part, that counts for ... something.
"always remember censorship was first employed to keep birth control means and birth control information out of the hands of women!"
I need to be reminded of that every so often. (The history came back to me when I read that sentence, but I did need the reminder.)
Of course, the other problem with "we need to sacrifice anonymity for $foo" is that it only makes acheiving anonymity a pain in the ass for those who want it on the spur of the moment. Anybody determined to hide hir identity will find a weak link in the authentication chain and create the base of a false identity there. Pseudonymous is as good as anonymous for the situations in which the author says anonymity is a problem, as long as the pseudonym cannot be tracked back.
Anyhow, put me in the "the government, while not inherently evil, is frequently wrong" camp. As much as I want law enforcement agencies to be able to find and arrest actual criminals, I feel safer knowing that anonymity is possible. And as open and "out" as I am about various things, I feel better knowing that for other peope it does not currently need to be an all-or-nothing thing.
Of course, the other problem with "we need to sacrifice anonymity for $foo" is that it only makes acheiving anonymity a pain in the ass for those who want it on the spur of the moment.
Not entirely true. Our society could outlaw anonymity; it seems to be heading in that direction. It could make it considerably more than a pain in the ass to get it, spur of the moment... or at all.
That's one of the consequences of our modern, networked society. All that stands between us and a future where it's impossible to make a phone call without it being associated with a person's identity is for the companies that put up pay-phones to decide they're not making enough money. The net is essentially already like that; public, anonymous access points are few and far between.
(no subject)
Woah! There are two things profoundly wrong with that statement.
1) What's wrong with us sexual deviants and perverts "lurking" in the "dark recesses of the Internet"? Lurking isn't a crime. And if victimless sexual deviancy is a crime, that gets covered under "repressive regimes" which need to be "toppled", above.
2) Far more importantly, what's stalking doing on that list? Stalkers don't want to be anonymous; their primary motive is for the victim to know who they are! It is my impression that in a number of high-profile stalking/murder cases, there was no problem, after the fact, finding where stalkers had put up websites or hired detective agencies under their own names to hunt or threaten their victims. Sure, anonymity can make it easier for them, but it's a crime which intrinsically at odds with anonymity.
Glenn, do you realize you've quoted an anti-anonymity screed? It drapes itself in rhetoric of "fairness", but is filled with bullshit. It's got points in it that any lawyer knows are completely lopsided, but which clearly he presumes his audience doesn't recognize. "Promote unsafe and untested products" my ass; always remember censorship was first employed to keep birth control means and birth control information out of the hands of women! When the government outlaws a form of medicine or treatment, hell, yeah, anonymity will be used to get "unsafe and untested products" to those who want them.
Sheesh. The second half of the quote is riddled with things like that.
Allow me to summarize the entire issue of anonymity:
Anonymity allows impunity against the law. If you think that the law can never be wrong, then anonymity is a bad thing. If you think the law is often wrong, you think anonymity is a good thing. If you take a stance in the middle, you pro-rate your attitude about anonymity. Then it's all a cost-benefit analysis for society.
(no subject)
"Glenn, do you realize you've quoted an anti-anonymity screed? It drapes itself in rhetoric of "fairness", but is filled with bullshit."
The rest of the article talked about what recent court decisions meant for peer-to-peer file sharing networks and the RIAA, and I read it as a note of warning about what users had to worry about than what ought or ought not happen.
The section I quoted sounded reasonable but made me a little uncomfortable. I wanted to see how others reacted to it. So you've given me exactly what I wanted: what's wrong with that "tries to sound reasonable and balanced" other-side-of-the-anonymity-coin part. Thank you.
He did at least present the pro-anonymity side in "it would be un-American to say these examples don't matter" terms. Even though he blew it in the "try to be balanced" part, that counts for ... something.
"always remember censorship was first employed to keep birth control means and birth control information out of the hands of women!"
I need to be reminded of that every so often. (The history came back to me when I read that sentence, but I did need the reminder.)
Of course, the other problem with "we need to sacrifice anonymity for $foo" is that it only makes acheiving anonymity a pain in the ass for those who want it on the spur of the moment. Anybody determined to hide hir identity will find a weak link in the authentication chain and create the base of a false identity there. Pseudonymous is as good as anonymous for the situations in which the author says anonymity is a problem, as long as the pseudonym cannot be tracked back.
Anyhow, put me in the "the government, while not inherently evil, is frequently wrong" camp. As much as I want law enforcement agencies to be able to find and arrest actual criminals, I feel safer knowing that anonymity is possible. And as open and "out" as I am about various things, I feel better knowing that for other peope it does not currently need to be an all-or-nothing thing.
(no subject)
Not entirely true. Our society could outlaw anonymity; it seems to be heading in that direction. It could make it considerably more than a pain in the ass to get it, spur of the moment... or at all.
That's one of the consequences of our modern, networked society. All that stands between us and a future where it's impossible to make a phone call without it being associated with a person's identity is for the companies that put up pay-phones to decide they're not making enough money. The net is essentially already like that; public, anonymous access points are few and far between.