UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

An anonymous reader writes with a bit of pith from TechDirt: Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online." They don't seem to understand just how shortsighted such an idea is. It's one that stems from the privilege of being in power. And who knows that particular privilege better than members of the House of Lords in the UK — a group that is more or less defined by excess privilege? The Communications Committee of the House of Lords has now issued a report concerning "social media and criminal offenses" in which they basically recommend scrapping anonymity online.

Comments

Online in England, maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they forgot that the Internet has no borders?

Re:Online in England, maybe

[infolation]

There is a third possibility, taking into account the normal modus operandi of security-related law-creation in the UK

1. lawmakers propose outrageous idea that no sane person could possibly agree to
2. after outrage, lawmakers say they will redraft the law in consultation with the public
3. lawmakers proudly present a 'watered down' version that any reasonable person would still say was kafta-esque, were it not for the previous suggestions of step 1
4. the laws they wanted all along make it onto the statute book

This simple process was used time and again by former home secretary David Blunkett, and the Conservative party have learned his methods well.

Re: Online in England, maybe

[O('_')O_Bush]

You forgot the part, when regarding stripping rights, of a full on assault by the media and propaganda campaign to fuel a moral panic to push otherwise outrageous demands into law.

That followed by many years of conditioning into modes of thinking that make those laws seem sane.

Classic U.K. strategy.

Re:Online in England, maybe

[davester666]

"Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online.""

Oh, they completely understand the importance of anonymity and how it enables dissent. And that is exactly why they come up with "just end real anonymity" [no need to make it specifically mention online].

Have government go first.

[hsthompson69]

If government wants to have peeps into our private lives, I say they should offer themselves up first. Have every government employee's financial records, emails, purchases, and other records completely public. Install GPS trackers on them so we can all track their movement. Put cameras in their homes, cars, and offices so that we can watch them 24/7.

If they want the panopticon, let them go first.

Re:Legitimate concerns

[jbburks]

Hate speech is just that. Speech. It should never be prohibited.

Universities and others that make hate speech a crime are violating the principle of free speech.

They Understand Just Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online."

I disagree. These people understand perfectly well the importance of anonymity. Which is precisely why they want it banned.

Re:House of Lords?

[Austerity Empowers]

The political fervour that is whipped up in the populace, from security theatre / war on terror, the war on drugs, etc, takes a life of its own in a pure democracy.

Who whips up that fervor, the war on drugs wasn't started as a grass roots campaign, for sure, it came from the top. It's the same in the US and UK, I think, certainly with the same dark motivations and same ill-gotten power. Anonymity is a friend to the masses and an enemy to power. Whistle-blowers, leakers and disharmonious speech are threats to the status quo, the same one that provides the wealth they wield to have this alleged long-term view.

I don't disagree with the concept of having a ruling body that is not beholden to the mob, I just haven't seen any mechanism by which that body can be kept honest and magnanimous. That is the same spirit which brought down monarchies to begin with.

I'm certainly too ignorant to decide in what ways the UK system or the US system are better or worse, but in this particular example I do not see any significant difference.

Re:House of Lords?

[iserlohn]

So who is whipping up the fevour? More likely than not it is people with money and connections.

Democracy allows government to be directed by the mob. Who controls the mob controls the government. That's the whole problem with campaign finance and lobbying in the US. In such a system, the politicians in government are only puppets servings moneyed interests. These are the people funneling money into lobbying and the political machine (e.g. Koch brothers) or controls the press (think Murdoch and Fox news).

It is blindingly obvious that it is not the people in government that calls the shots, it's the people that have the money to get the people in government.

Re:Legitimate concerns

[lgw]

For speech to result in physical attacks - a strong causal connection - that's no longer hate speech, that's "incitement to riot". We've had no problem keeping "hate speech" legal but "incitement to riot" illegal in America for centuries now.

Speech should always be protected as speech. But telling your bodyguard to shoot someone is not illegal because of the words you use, but instead because of the immediate desired outcome of that speech. Running on a platform of killing all the Jews is political speech, and should be protected (and for goodness sake, please oh please let the candidate actually say that sort of thing on camera, not keep it as a secret agenda, so that democracy can happen properly there). Saying "hey, lets go attack that guy right there, right now!" has never been protected speech.

"On a computer" changes nothing.