Slashdot Mirror
Esther Dyson Grudgingly Defends Internet Anonymity
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview, Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings, describes anonymity on the Internet as similar to abortion: a bad practice that people should still have rights to. Calling anonymity one of the greatest disappointments of the Internet's evolution, Dyson said: 'I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing. I think the same thing about anonymity: Everybody should have the right to it, but it's not something one wants to encourage.'"
Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing.
No, really? Is there anyone who is pro choice who doesn't feel the same way? I mean, I've never heard anyone who was honestly "pro-abortion," just "pro-having the option when life hits the fan."
So you're saying by posting anonymous cowardly then I'm advocating abortion?
I almost feel as sorry as when I heard that god kills kittens when I masturbate... those poor kitties.... millions of poor dead kitties... :(
This space is not for rent.
I don't allow ACs on my own blog. And perhaps that is part of the reason that the signal/noise ratio is much better than here. There are still "handles", and in the end the only thing I have to identify most subscribers is an email (which can itself be anonymous). But even that much reduction in anonymity seems to prompt people to behave better.
Bruce Perens.
Sure you can, jerk.
Microsoft rules.
Google and Apple suck.
I am a man who likes men.
George Bush was a great president.
His son was better.
Digg is the best place for all news.
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable. Even in a future where a fetus can be transplanted into another mother I suspect the "pro-choice" crowd will insist that the mother can still choose to abort it.
Likewise, with anonymity, I think it's one of the best parts about the internet. It's hardly unfortunate that it makes it difficult for governments to track down dissenters, etc. Sure, people use it for bad things as well, but that's true of ANY freedom. Might as well suggest that "free speech is unfortunate thing that people should still have the right to." People will 'abuse' free speech in other different ways but it's still inherently a good thing.
anonymous posting is NEEDED.
there are many who want to silence those that post opposing views.
until we 'fix' that (it will never happen) - the ability to post without tracable info directly to yourself is a MUST HAVE.
she's dead wrong. this is a fundamental RIGHT, or should be considered as such.
the argument about spam is different and you don't solve one by 'ruining freedom'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Broadband is not a technology issue, it's really a financial issue. How should it be funded? Should it be subsidized? I tend to think not. Broadband is a miraculous technology, and it ought to be able to pay its own way. We need competition; we also need attractive enough propositions [in which] companies will invest.
Broadband CAN pay for itself... and companies do spend money on infrastructure. The problem is that they won't put broadband everywhere. They only put it in places where they believe there will be a high rate of return on investment. "Cherry picking" leaving every place else without anything more than dialup which is barely acceptable for email. If the nation is to move forward and have broadband everywhere, companies will NEVER do it of their own volition. They have to be required to do so by government mandate. This is what utilities commissions are for. They just don't often include requirements for broadband... yet. And they should.
Every [employer] should have the right to [know what you did last weekend], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [government] should have the right to [know your personal beliefs on every issue you have ever cared to discus], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [corporation] should have the right to [research your life to be used for directed marketing], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [insurance company] should have the right to [your medical history], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
I don't think many people like the symptoms, but maybe we should stay focused on the actual problem.
I just don't understand what the problem with anonymous speech is. Or to put it another way, I don't understand what's so great about having a name and number attached to everything. Anonymous speech is NOT a necessary evil; it's nothing less than a fundamental prerequisite to freedom. Why? Because the only way to eliminate anonymous speech is through aggression. Coercion. Physical force.
Beyond that, anonymous speech is simply a concept which is neither inherently good or bad. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad -- just like every other thing in life we do (including trackable speech).
I personally think the world would be a better place if there were more anonymous speech, not less. The mindset that anonymous speech is automatically less valuable than trackable speech is very alarming.
In conclusion, the only rational way to judge a person's words is by their meaning. If there happens to be a name signed to those words, it does not increase the value of those words in any logical way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As long as there's retribution in the form of everything from lawsuits to unmask those who disagree with corporations to HR departments including an "Internet Search" as part of the hiring practice anonymity on the Internet is the only way we can enjoy freewheeling and honest discussions.
Yes there will be bad actors on both sides, but I'll pay that price as opposed to the alternative.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
We are entering an age where everything will be recorded for eternity. Every word you speak, every transaction, any time you are in public in view of a CCTV camera or any time a friend of yours captures your image on their cellphone. It's only a matter of time before lax security at the corporations and governments that store the security will be breached and their promises of privacy will be meaningless. Your secrets will be easily found by any Google search. I want to make my opinion known without retailiation.
As far as defamation goes, why does anyone believe an anonymous source? An anonymous source which cannot be verified. Who cares if an anonymous source writes that you have sex with puppies on the Internet. Journalists spend a great deal of time and effort to maintain their credibility. Do we give everyone on the Internet the same degree of respect?
Child pornography is a huge problem. A huge problem which will not be solved at all by taking away anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, two perverts can exchange their collections using portable storage devices which will never touch the Internet. Why take away my privacy to implement a measure when criminals can just bypass it.
As far as terrorism goes, let the terrorists believe that they are communicating without giving up their identities. I'm not under the delusion that if the NSA really wanted to find me, they couldn't. I believe most terrorists avoid the Internet for this exact reason. Stripping the average person of their privacy will not catch terrorists. If everyone has their privacy protected(including terrorists), the terrorists are more likely to have a false sense of security and use the Internet, allowing governement action (with a warrant) to uncover their schemes. Otherwise you need an informant or deep cover agent. Take your pick.
I don't believe that piracy is an issue. I think most hardcore pirates are incorrigible and will never buy legitimate media. The people on the fence tend to pirate a bit and buy what they want. Think of it as marketing. They like first episode and then buy the box set because it fits nicely on their shelf. People actually do spend money sometimes.
You can take away my privacy if you can come up with a good reason. As far as I can see it, there isn't a good reason.
OTOH, if birth control is widely available, pre natal care is available to all comers, and food, shelter, and education is given to all children, without question or exception, then one can imagine a world in which every child would be wanted. Likewise, if maximum information and open debate were seen as a asset, and everyone was encouraged to have their say, all everyone was honestly listened to, and no one would retaliate based on personal superstitions, then one could imagine a world in which everyone could be open and honest with their opinions.
In the real world, though, significant militant groups enjoy killing people who disagree with their superstitions. For example, groups have felt the right to kill people who believe differently from them, following a tradition that killed the man that believed that the heart pumped the blood. Clearly when the righteous feel the right to kill based on beliefs, anonymity is necessary.
But I will be a rebel and say that even in a perfect world where all superstition was gone, both anonymity and abortion would still have a place. No matter how careful and care full we are, there will still be that one case where a family might have to choose between the mother and unborn child.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
PJ has confessed she had to move six or seven times since starting to do Groklaw because she receives death threats she must take seriously. Anonymity is a defense against those jackasses that will bully you or worse in retaliation for spreading ideas they don't like and telling facts they don't want to be known. Insinuating that anonymity could be something dirty is nauseating. The right to anonymity is nothing less than a requirement to Freedom of Speech.
And yes the bullies and the issuers of threats are doing their misdeeds anonymously. It does not mean anonymity is wrong. Bullying and death threats are what is wrong.
Or to continue the analogy, kitchen knives are used to murder spouses. Should we consider kitchen knives bad?
People have thin skin, the desire for control, and the inability to look at context that's the problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Freedom is never the problem. It is the solution.
Oppression is the problem. When someone uses their free speech rights to trample the rights of others (i.e. libel, etc...), the problem is not that they have free speech. The problem is always a matter of the actual harm caused by said speech.
Likewise, when people use their anonymity on the internet to hide their crimes against others, the problem is not a matter of anonymity, but rather, the crime committed in the first place. The value of a society where speech is effectively anonymous far outweighs the loss caused by the occasional criminal who uses it to hide from law enforcement.
Before the internet, and even today, one can send hate mail through the postal service *anonymously*. We didn't shut down the Post Office when the Unabomber used it to send bombs to people, instead, the FBI went looking for the perpetrator.
I can't help but wonder if Ted Kazinksi (sp?) would have become an internet troll rather than the Unabomber, had he been born 20 years later.
From time to time, there are people who suggest that we could catch criminals if we eliminated anonymity. They are lying or just plain naive. The fact is, if you remove anonymity from one medium, criminals will use another. Think about that for a moment. Now, in the era of the internet troll, frustrated individuals take out their passions online, rather than sending bombs through the mail. Which would you rather have?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If this were a wiki post, I'd use the term "weasel words" to describe the analogy--The author is confusing several issues. Women's rights have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the issue of anonymity online.
The material issue here is whether the benefits to society in allowing anonymous posts outweigh the harm in doing so. And in the United States, we already have the answer -- we have a long history (albeit, recently screwed up!) of supporting free speech and expression as a general rule. And nowhere does it say that you must reveal your identity to protest -- for example KKK protests. In fact, anonymity is an indespensible tool in a society where it is a moral offense to be different from your neighbors. In every case I've seen where a person clamoured for a secret identity to be revealed one of the following has been true:
1. Money or economic interest; ie, quash a leaked trade secret, protect a brand name, or a copyright.
2. Personal attack; ie, Myspace, Facebook, "cyberbullying"; Where someone didn't like being told they were a douche, etc.
3. Batman
4. Political dissent
5. Unpopular viewpoint (NAMBLA, for example)
6. Illegal; ie, terrorism, white collar crime, etc.
In my opinion, #4's benefits outweigh the risks and harm caused by all others, and also applies to all others. Things are made illegal (such as file sharing) that are not necessarily in the public interest all the time. Money or economic interests -- money doesn't vanish because someone made a comment, it just goes somewhere else. They're reciprocally free to post their opinions. Personal attacks are a fact of life... Deal with it people. Same with unpopular viewpoints -- they're an anecdote to mass hysteria and mob thinking.
Anonymity is a necessary first step in political protest, because protest is never necessary when the majority approves... Remove anonymity and what you've got left are circumstances ripe for tyranny either by the few or the many, but tyranny all the same.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Yes, Esther, both anonymity and abortion are unfortunate things.
In a perfect world where people never made mistakes in judgement, where contraception never failed, where women were never raped, where sudden medical complications didn't arise out of nowhere, where events beyond your control never turned your life upside-down without warning, we'd never had a need for abortion.
And in a perfect world where people with power never abused that power to take revenge against those who made their misdeeds public, where bullies and petty tyrants never attempted to "punish" those who didn't bow to them, where fraudsters never attempted to masquerade as others, where criminals never attempted to use information for illicit gain, and where small-minded people never made life miserable for those who weren't exactly like them, we'd never have a need for anonymity either.
Pity this isn't a perfect world we live in.
In other words, the presence of a trackable name or number cannot possibly influence whether the logic is correct or incorrect.
Logic is logic. It is exactly as valid when anonymous or not. But, most discussions involve matters of fact, as well as logic. And, unless you feel everyone should know everything, I'm going to have to take the writer's word for, at least, some point of fact. So, I have to come up with some way to rate the writer's credibility. And standing behind something and putting your name to it, improves your credibility in my eyes.
You know, over the years slashdot has become more and more hostile to anonymous speech, and after 11 years here, I'm just about ready to hang it up. If you all really don't want us -- even when we have logical and useful points to add to the discussion -- then I just give up.
No, no, no. There's no reason not to have anonymous posts on /.. I could set my preferences to mod them to oblivion if I wanted. All I'm saying is that an anonymous poster has to do better than an "onymous" one to get the same amount of respect.
I'm not bashing anonymous speech at all. I think it plays a valuable role in all sorts of situations: corporate and governmental whistle-blowing, or for controversial stands on issues. But, if something is posted anonymously, I tend to examine their facts more closely.
As a bonus, on the internet the signal-to-noise ratio for anonymous speech is significantly worse then for attributed speech. Filtering out the anonymous is a quick and easy way to improve content.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H.L. Mencken
Without privacy you have no actual freedom.
Without anonymity you have no actual freedom of expression.
Without freedom individual life is pretty meaningless, and choices are arbitrary.
If we had a way to create a one login to a single individual, stuff like making a new style of government could take place. Instead of a congress to represent everyone, everyone who cared could vote on every bill up. You could even have people be jurors in every case out there. The old time where everyone could not be in the same place has passed, we are living in a new time where everyone can gather in the same place. Now I'm not saying this is a superior style of government and trials, I'm just saying it is possible.
God spoke to me.