Anonymous Online Publication - Fad or Trend?

An anonymous reader asks: "Across the web, stories abound regarding censorship and persecution of those who publish content online that may be offensive or conflicting toward certain governments or ideals. It almost seems that you can't attach your name to anything without being heavily scrutinized for the opinions you express. Lately though, I've begun to see several communities that promote an atmosphere of anonymity to protect their users and facilitate open communication on tough subjects. PostSecret is one of the most popular of these sites, allowing a one-way publication medium for visitors to vent their frustrations, similar to Group Hug. However, both of these sites are one-way mediums, and do not provide for anonymous interaction of users. Is anonymous blogging and publication a brief fad, or a serious, growing trend?" "One rare example I've found that allows a truly open anonymous mode of communication (dissimilar to Slashdot's own automatic demotion of 'Anonymous Cowards'), is the Teen Angst Central, or Tangst. Operated by a group of high schoolers and hosted by Google's Blogger service, its editors publish posts made anonymously by visitors, with comments and discussion made to the site sprouting from a community bonded by anonymity. I think this concept can easily be applied to other aspects of online society, though I have yet to see many examples beyond the simple angst-driven outpouring of feelings."

Comments

Pseudonymous

[tverbeek]

Who needs anonymity? Pseudonymity ought to be enough for most people.

In the past I've been spanked over "controversial" things I've published online, so I use a pseudonym for that sort of thing.

Erm ok?

[OverlordQ]

And why do the vast majority of these use Blogger where the 'owners' of the 'site' have no real control over the actual anonymity of the submissions?

Yes you can submit it as 'anonymous' but oops, cant do anything about server logs.

Re:Erm ok?

[`Sean]

Yes you can submit it as 'anonymous' but oops, cant do anything about server logs.

Shhh...you're giving away all of Big Brother's best secrets!

anonymity

[pontifier]

If something is worth saying, it's worth putting your name on it.
Anyway, that's how I feel.
If you think you are right then say so. And if someone disagrees then you can find out why.

John Fenley

Re:anonymity

[vux984]

If something is worth saying, it's worth putting your name on it.

Even if it will cost you your job? your freedom? or your life?

Re:anonymity

[0x0000]

If it will cost me my job, freedom, or life, then I might not say it, or will choose carefully who I say it to.

So you don't have anything to say that could cost you your employment, freedom, or life ...

Seeing as how I don't work for someone else, and live in the U.S., chances are good I can say anything I like without losing any of those things.

... and/or if you do, you haven't actually tried saying such ...

If you get fired for something you say then let the courts deal with it.

Uh-huh. They sure will. Especially if the entity prosecuting or suing you has sufficient legal/political clout or just plain old cash. Of course, you should realize that it might be cheaper or more politically expedient for them to just kill you or imprison you - of course, by the above, you probably believe that sort of thing doesn't happen in the good ole U.S. of A, right? I suggest you test that theory at your first opportunity - that way you can claim credit for what you've said with greater credibility, eh?

I am a strong believer in Freedom of Speech. I am Free to say what I want, and am Free to put my name on it.

Okay, I will not only take your word for it, I will [continue to] defend your right to do just that, if that's your choice - just as I will continue to defend my own right to Speech - including my Right to use names other than the one on my Social Security card. IANAL, but it is my understanding that use of an "alias" is not [yet] illegal in most states in the US. I would like to think that you (having made the claim of being a supporter of the Right to Speech) for your own part you would defend the Rights of others to their own choice not to put their "real names" on things they have to say. Not all of us are particularly interested in laying claim to the information we propagate, or counting coup by saying "I told you so", y'know? If you think that makes what we say "not worth saying", I strongly encourage you to not listen...

I realize that you stopped short of saying that anonymous speech should be prohibitted under the Law, but you should realize that such is the underlying issue here. There have been, and no doubt will continue to be, efforts to make anonymous speech - particularly anonymous speech via the Internet - illegal in the US. I think that would be a shame, but there are many who do not agree.

Finally, I commend to you the Revolutionary War period writings published under the nom de plume "E Publius" - perhaps you could have convinced the newspapermen of that era that anonymity for the likes of Patrick Henry was un-necesary and in fact rendered the words "not worth saying", but for my part, I'm gratified to follow in the footsteps of such writers - some of whose names we still don't know - and have no particular problem accepting the ideas presented without tying them to some name registered in the county birth records of the era.

"You have the Right / to Free Speech / ... unless you are actually stupid enough to actually try it" —The Clash, Know Your Rights

Federalist Papers?

[headkase]

I wish a judge would rule that the "audits" Scientologists sell to their customers were "defective" products and allow people to talk about them among themselves. Right now you mention Xenu and Scientology's lawyers issue you a smackdown.
And loser pays for court costs (which is the way it is here in Canada) to level the playing field by reducing extortive suit filing.
There's lots of ways to go about finding subscribers to your views but I believe most of them aren't needed yet in the United States. Places like Saudi Arabia and Iran should be the backdrop to serious discussion of why anonymity matters.

Blogging Anonymously

[Rob Carr]

When I first started blogging, I didn't think about being anonymous. I felt, as others have stated, that what I had to say was important enough to me that I was willing to put my name to it.

Having blogged for several years, I've come to wish I'd started out and remained anonymous. While I might be willing to expose my own mistakes and foibles, the things I say can unintentionally hurt those I love. As someone who is active in my church, there are certain topics I dare not go near, and other topics I wonder if I'm just asking for trouble. The "Deb Series," while possibly some of my best writing, also caused problems.

I've watched bloggers get serious grief from families, co-workers and other communities they belong to because of what they write. The lessons are painful to watch.

In my own case, in the real world, I've trashed my career multiple times for things like accademic integrity and standing up for a co-worker who's being sexually harassed. I've lost friends for saying the truth, and God help me, it's made me a bit of a coward. I've been burned; I don't like it. I'm willing to be burned again, but it's going to have to be a serious fight. On some issues, I've backed down.

I hate that, but if I don't protect myself, I won't do anyone any good.

There's a book out right now, "Orbit by John J. Nance that speaks of a man alone on a doomed and communicationless 3 hour orbital tour. The man is free to write the truth because he believes he is going to die and the laptop will not be recovered for decades. He doesn't have to worry about what people will think. He also doesn't know there's a one-way connection to Earth, and billions of people are reading his every word.

I wish I could blog like that. I'm not sure why I haven't just scrapped my current blog and started anew, except that I doubt it would stay anonymous very long.

Anonymity provides a freedom that is both precious and necessary for freedom to flourish. Perhaps anonymity will be crushed beneath an over-reaching government. The loss may not be apparent initially, but in the long term, it will be devastating.

Freedom of speech often needs the freedom to be anonymous.

Dont' Get It

[NilObject]

I'm amazed at how my "generation" (currently in college) still doesn't "get it". They put their full names on their blogs and post the most insane crap. One of my friends, in particular, posts all about her chronic depression, experiments with drugs, and sex escapades. And that blog is the 4th result in Google for her name. The other three are clearly unrelated.

Why shame yourself in public? It's not like attaching your name to your insipid and boring personal "I had eggs for breakfast" blog is going to bring you fame and fortune. Go anonymous and have some fun. Stop doing everything to get attention.

Re:Dont' Get It

[LionKimbro]

Retrospective surveillance, and statistical identity matching based on text habits: NilObject, it's possible that we'll know who you are, with reasonably good confidence, based on what you've written here and elsewhere.

At which point I'll wonder: "Who was this person, who recommended that everybody hide their identity, in order to fool employers? Is this somebody that I really want to hire?"

A distinction needs to be made

[Tablizer]

There needs to be a distinction between publicly anonymous and being anonymous to law enforcement. In a democratic society that values free speech, we need the first. However, in case free speech is abused, we need the second, hopefully with a court warrant. ISP's should be required to keep records of who owns/rents a URL and if served a warrant be able to provide that info to officers. However, this gets fuzzy with discussion groups and blogs that may not track every visitor.

Re:Anonymous speech thriving

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

The local government in Indianapolis knew they could not arrest Kevin - after all, he did not commit any crime.

However, the agencies that supposedly protect children are largely unaccountable and get away with almost anything - and what better way to silence others who may be parents, than to take away a child? These agencies are not held as strictly to Constitutional tests.

If you think government agents in the U.S. would not stoop to this, you are truly naive.

Waco. Ruby Ridge. Wounded Knee. Internment Camps. Jim Crow. And the U.S. has violated virtually every treaty it made with Native Americans.

Do you really think people are so much more virtuous today?

Um, I don't know about you...

[rsilvergun]

but if I could go to jail for 14 years just calling George Bush a fsckin' asshat, I wouldn't be willing to settle for a pen name. I mean, how much effort does it take in that kind of gov't to track you down by ip?