Slashdot Mirror
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.
Maybe they forgot that the Internet has no borders?
All Brits officially change there name to anonymous coward. Problem solved.
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
I'm not saying the argument for Freedom of Expression is irrelevant, but the other perspective has legitimate concerns as well.
Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills but we've seen a substantial rise of bullying, hate speech and terrorism-advocacy in the past decade. Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working. Great in theory but doesn't work in practice.
We need to find a middle ground that will help curtain online abuse with minimal impact on Freedom of Speech, but the statue quo is not sustainable.
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.
If you read the proposal by the House of Lords, it's completely infeasible. What they want is for websites to have verified identity information on hand, but then allow people to post anonymously or using a pseudonym. This is infeasible for several reasons, mostly that to truly verify someone's identity, you need a government-issued ID number. I'm not British, but in the US, that would be the Social Security Number. Now, let me tell you what happens when a government forces SSN identification for things that should not need an SSN.
Some time ago, there was an insanely popular MMORPG in South Korea known as Lineage 2. The administrators behind Lineage 2 (I believe the game was owned by Microsoft but I can't say for sure) required that anyone registering a Lineage 2 account (which required a monthly fee) give them their Korean Social Security Number (KSSN) which works exactly like the US SSN does. I don't recall whether this was because the Korean government was scared of anonymity and demanded it, or because the game's owners wanted it for verification and were not required to get KSSNs by the government, but in any case, a KSSN was required to play the game.
A few years later, Lineage 2 got hacked. The database of KSSNs they had was leaked, meaning that the identities of thousands of people were freely available on the internet. After the Korean government learned of the Lineage 2 hack, they actually tightened their restrictions - all MMORPGs operating in Korea were now required to ask for a KSSN upon account registration, even for F2P games.
The result is that any time an MMORPG gets hacked in Korea, KSSNs get dumped. It also led to things like mass identity theft - players from outside Korea who wanted to play the Korean version of various MMOs (the ones based in Korea are usually regularly updated in Korean but not in the International versions) would have to find a leaked KSSN and use it.
Requiring an identity verification for anything but the most major financial transactions (insurance, banks, employment) should never happen. A credit card verification is different - you can verify a credit or debit card without needing an SSN - and should be enough for pretty much everywhere.
It greases up communication. If I had to attach my name permanently to this comment, at best I would have to spend 15 minutes fully thinking out every implication of it, at worst I would likely not make it at all.
However using either AC or a pseudonym I can post my initial thoughts and let someone else support/refute some of the points using their own personal experience and knowledge.
One arrives to the truth much faster by collaborative debate than by solitary thinking or not posting at all.
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.
At a local pizza shop. I placed my order
and paid cash. She asked:
Q: May I have your name sir?
A: Yes
After a while I hear on the speaker.
"Yes, your pizza is ready".
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
They don't seem to understand just how shortsighted such an idea is.
It's not short sighted AT ALL. It may not be conducive to your view of how things and/or the internet should work but it isn't a short sighted suggestion in any way, shape, or form. It works, 100%, towards their true goals and aspirations - to hold people accountable for what they say, to better track who is saying what, and to shut people up. They may attempt to sell it as beneficial for something else to make it more favourable to the public, but that's their goal and it's a long term goal which ending anonymity would accomplish in both the short term and long term.
Nothing short sighted about it at all.
Dennis: Listen, strangely dressed men sitting in old buildings distributing titles is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical fourteenth-century ceremony. If I went around saying I was Emperor, just because some old guy threw a piece of paper with a title at me, they'd put me away.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
cant support those pesky freedoms now can we?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
After many clicks, I came finally to the real report and the section on Anonymity.
http://www.publications.parlia...
and the bold part is here,
From our perspective in the United Kingdom, if the behaviour which is currently criminal is to remain criminal and also capable of prosecution, we consider that it would be proportionate to require the operators of websites first to establish the identity of people opening accounts but that it is also proportionate to allow people thereafter to use websites using pseudonyms or anonymously. There is little point in criminalising certain behaviour and at the same time legitimately making that same behaviour impossible to detect. We recognise that this is a difficult question, especially as it relates to jurisdiction and enforcement.
So it seems they are not complete idiots, just trying to make things easier for investigative purposes. How they want people to identify themselves, well, that's another story.
Your truly,
A.C.
CAPTCHA: thanks
The UK Government recommends scrapping anonymous users.
As an anonymous user I recommend scrapping the UK Government.
Hi, I'd like to create an account. Oh, you need my "real" name and address? Sure:
George W Bush
Walker's Point
Kennebunkport, ME 04046
Oh yes, please do sign me up for advertisements from your partners! And I love newsletters and can't get enough insurance offers.
There has never been true anonymity on the internet. Anonymity is an illusion. There have always been ways to identify people over the internet.
If you're going to write about people not understanding things, then confusing the conclusion of a House of Lords report with the position of the UK government does not help.
David Anderson
The House of Lords is a vestige political body with only powers to delay legislation, but because it is unelected (as of yet), it actually serves a very useful function in British politics.
Montesquieu, whose political theories heavily influenced America's founding fathers (especially regarding the balances of powers in government, which he greatly admired in the British government at the time), also supported hereditary aristocracy. In any case, most of the House of Lords are not longer hereditary peers, as life peers are now the norm.
The reason an aristocracy is *sometimes* desirable in government is that they do not have to answer to the whims of the masses as they are not elected. 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. The idea is that you with an aristocracy, the actors can take a long term view and can judge and react independent of popular sentiment.
The British parliamentary system actually contains elements of three different types of government - Monarchy (constitutional, providing the head of state which is apolitical), aristocracy (the House of Lords comprises of hereditary peers and also life peers appointed for certain accomplishments), and democracy (the House of Commons). The House of Commons, as the constitution currently stands, holds all of the cards, but the House of Lords (and to a lesser extent, the Crown) also serves to temper the populist nature of the politics in the House of Commons.
As the government is formed by the biggest party in the Commons, the executive is formed by the biggest party in the legislature, it is no surprise that the British system is more productive politically - it rarely ends in gridlock like the US government. If it does (the government losing confidence of the Parliament), then new elections are called to end the gridlock. Arguably, if America adopted this system, it would be a huge step forward. This also points to a major advantage of a system with a unwritten constitution - the political system can gradually evolve, whereas in countries with written constitutions (such as the US), it is much more difficult for better or for worse.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
The sad thing is that in recent years the Lords have been the main supporters of privacy and human rights in the UK government and are in fact more progressive and against government overreach than the House of Commons -partially because they are more non-partisan and not beholden to party or private interests for their positions (apart from being born or made a lord of course)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/09/house-of-lords-commons-democracy
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/08/28/the-contemporary-house-of-lords/
-I'm just sayin'
Since at least The Federalist Papers. I'm glad they didn't succeed then, and I hope they don't succeed now.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I am in sympathy, but overuse of the class warfare meme-du-jure "privilege" makes me wanna pee on a puppy.
Anonymity of speech is a core aspect of freedom of speech, and is needed to prevent retribution against speakers.
Believe it or not, this includes retribution by cliques of folks who speak "check your privilege" every other paragraph. They want to expose, say, petition signers to get things on a ballot for the expressed (literally) purpose of harassing them, which the Supreme Court found "troubling", even as it approved the FOI request.
Anonymity protects everyone from all would-be centers of power.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
The Lords can't actually do anything themselves these days. The only power they have is to block the commons, something they rarely do. Some consider them a useful safeguard against popular fads - as they don't have to worry about reelection they can take a longer-term view, and not get caught up in the public's demand for hasty ill-considered action on a particular issue.
Meeting held under this rule do not allow the the disclosure of who said what. The "what" can be reported, but no-one is permitted to say who said it. That permits people to express views, or ask "what if" questions (and get considered, informed answers) without having to always play to the (media) audience and make guarded, ambiguous and watered-down statements.
Since the government recognises the value of these sorts of meetings (as well as the established protocol of "off the record" briefings, which cannot be quoted) it's ludicrous that they would think that removing anonymity would be a good idea. This can only be one of those "silly season" media reports, usually made up by journalists who are bored as politicians are away during the summer months.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I know the spying, healthcare cost hike-causing, horrible foreign policy bullshit is dead and buried in 2 years when Obama goes out of office. I mean seriously, the presidential candidates have 2 options. Be against the ACA or lose. So when does that happen in England? When do those camera-placing, filter-enabling, anti-privacy morons get booted out of office? Please tell me it's not a lifetime term.
How the heck did this turn into a discussion of "privilege"? Yeash. Everything is not about "privilege" and the good guys vs the bad guys isn't defined by who has more "privilege". The idea of ending anonymity online is important for everyone, not just the "less privileged". In most cases, when a website has a comments section which is based on Facebook usernames, I just don't comment at all. I really don't need anyone mining my comments 5 or 10 years from now, so I just flat-out refuse to participate on those discussions, for fear that my comments will be taken out of context or misunderstood and then used against me. That creates a chilling effect for free speech *for everyone*.
But as far as the internet is concerned, I have ten names and none of them are my real one.
I didn't realize we still have online anonymity, especially after all the hardware hacks and backdoors and stuff from the Snowden leaks
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.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
There are a number of people who will harass you for your viewpoints, and merely banning the behavior will not stop them. For instance, try speaking out against the "for the children" crowd and disagreeing with them about child porn, and you're going to be targeted and called a pedophile. Imagine if they had your real name, and then you might find yourself surrounded by an angry mob - literally. Unpopular viewpoints like that need to be anonymous.
Also, it is a violation of free speech. What happens if you communicate in such a way that you don't reveal your real identity? The government will presumably punish you. Therefore, they're punishing you for the way you communicate, which is definitely a free speech violation.
Everyone seems to forget that we had freedom of speech before the internet
And you could be anonymous even then. Furthermore, voting in many countries is anonymous, and for good reason.
You need to be able to stop people being hateful, terrorising or bullying each other.
We place all sorts of limitation on our governments that make their jobs harder. For instance, governments usually can't just bust into your house for no reason and search everything. Yet, if we allowed that, they might catch more criminals.
Could it be that freedom is more important than safety, and we should not allow the government to ban something merely because it could be abused...?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No. Because that suggests we are in part for it and only negotiating conditions.
You know they would be against this, and we are not in a position to negotiate. So stop the bluster until you have something to contribute.
The techdirt article quotes this delicious excerpt:
I can't even say I really disagree with that reasoning. Can't you see how there are two completely different ways to reach a conclusion from that paragraph?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You mean a parliamentary system like 99% of the rest of the world? Nope, this is America. we'll stick with our self serving and corrupt dual headed hydra.
Also -- the Metric system? You've got to be kidding me.
that they are doing it because every single one of them is a spy for a child molestation criminal conspiracy ring. I have it on good authority that each and every single member of the house of commons is on the ring's pay. And they are trying to prevent the anonymous exposures such as this one.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Thanks for the comment, and it is revealing you and I got modded down. What I wanted to say in an ironic way is UK is getting worse than some "fanatic" states abroad.
... is saying mean things about them.
We've seen a good deal of this in the US with establishment politicians... no names mentioned because their allies will reflexively defend them. They get criticized and the politicians have no one they can strike back at... which for much of the establishment is their default response to attack. They either ignore it or undermine/put pressure upon the people that did it.
The recent abuses of federal bureaucracy to attack political rivals should highlight the danger of giving politicians this sort of access. They could for example trigger punitive tax audits or start burdening political enemies with hostile regulations.
This is not new. Politicians have done this sort of thing for at least a hundred years in the US alone.
The anonymity takes away their ability to hurt the people criticizing them which increases the likelihood that they'll be forced to simply respond to the criticism directly.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Right, the parliamentary system, where the far-right and far-left parties form a single government that really makes no logical sense except as a political counter to the centrist government that is the most popular and by most senses of logic should win. Or the recent spate of far-right xenophobic parties that still manage to get the #3 position and end up with governing responsibilities.
Europe (for instance) has both a long and modern history of committing genocide and falling into fascism after a marginal political party slowly comes into power. It should encourage a political system that brings politics towards a more centrist position, rather than a political system that rewards appealing to the extremes and driving people in the center to these extremes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
It gets expensive. You have to find an ip thats not yours every time. Late night you slip up just once and the resulting filtering, sorting will find you.
Add in the use of encryption or other acts will make the gov track all strange packets they find. The more they have to look, the more time and cash will flow until the reason why a person wanted anonymity or used encryption is uncovered.
A person would have to change all their computer hardware, software, never visit the same sites as their legal account, never use the same methods, slang, names, country - perfectly, every time they wanted anonymity. After a few years that gets to be a skill. The gov contractors and mercenaries have years to wait for that one slip up.
Also the people around you might have been turned many years ago when they slipped up one night.
It also depends on the other ip you use. If the account just looks at golf and work, to see the same 'persons' ip suddenly use encryption could be easily noted.
Lists go both ways, the normal to find stand out events and the users of encryption.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's not the British. It's the dolts most Britons have elected (not me). Let's pray UKIP can win next time. Blighty needs some house cleaning to be certain.
Not that I think that's an excuse to remove anonymity entirely... only that I'm saying I can see the merit behind the reasoning. If somebody comes up with a system that ensures that people can be fairly held legally responsible for everything that they do online, while still being anonymous, I'm sure if they can box that formula, they'd make billions.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Parliamentary system" mainly refers to the House of Commons, whose members are elected and who elect the Prime Minister. The House of Lords is the other lot, sort of like a hereditary Senate, that *used* to be the important part of Parliament up until maybe the early 1800s, which lets the aristocracy still have some say in government as long as they don't actually interfere with the Commons too much.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think it's unfair to characterise UKIP as racist. Racism is an opinion, and opinions lead to policies. As such, it has no place in the UKIP agenda.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Who whips up that fervor, the war on drugs wasn't started as a grass roots campaign, for sure, it came from the top
Most often, it's the people who either need A Cause to get elected, or want to use a particular mob cry to funnel money to businesses in their constituency and get kickbacks (sorry, campaign contributions). The old hereditary House of Lords (before they abolished most of them and stuffed the house with Labour cronies followed by Tory cronies) had the advantage that, aside from a few issues like inheritance tax and fox hunting, the members didn't really have much of a vested interest in anything. If you watched the debates, the contrast between the two houses was astonishing. The Commons was full of people trying to score points against the other party, the Lords was almost empty, but those there were having an intelligent debate on the issues in the legislation.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Please fuck off, people like you would have been whining about all those darkies 50 years ago, now you hide behind the last vestiges of "acceptable" racism by disguising it as anti-terrorist sentiment.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
No, when the constitution was drawn up, it did not foresee that Congress will vote to refuse to fund government (via refusing to issuing bonds) on things that Congress itself already approved to fund in the budget. This political point scoring shut down the federal government at the detriment of everybody.
In fact, the founding fathers of the US already tried a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. 8 years after full ratification of the Articles, it was replaced with the U.S. constitution that swung the balance of power to a federal government. This was because there was too much inter-state conflict and states refusing to honour their obligations under the articles.
This will never happen in a parliamentary system as 1. the legislature form the government, and 2. money bills failing to pass will automatically trigger new elections.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Hum.. that was a bit confusing.. maybe to rephrase -
No, when the constitution was drawn up, it was not foreseen that Congress will vote to refuse to fund government (via refusing to issuing bonds) on things that Congress itself already approved to fund in the budget. This political point scoring shut down the federal government at the detriment to everybody.
This will never happen in a parliamentary system as 1. the legislature form the government, and 2. money bills failing to pass will automatically trigger new elections.
In fact, the founding fathers of the US already tried a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. 8 years after full ratification of the Articles, it was replaced with the U.S. constitution that swung the balance of power to a federal government. This was because there was too much inter-state conflict and states refusing to honour their obligations under the articles.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Thank you for that post. Despite you not understanding the basic usage of an apostrophe, you've managed to both inform and instruct future generations of people who will be able to marvel at your insight and wit. You've truly managed to convince me that your line of reasoning is both righteous and inevitable.
I bow to your superior political views and your revolutionary way of dealing with the complex issues involved.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
A simple solution will be for everbody in the UK to change their name by deed poll to Luther Blisset. Then whenever you sign up for something just pick any old address. We're all Luther Blisset !
The political class in the UIK really are a bunch of evil, selfish, greedy bastards.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Once more I am astonished at the sheer depth of insight that your post expounds. If only you were available for consultation on all aspects of the human condition then surely there would be no-one who could state that their lot was unhappy.
In some ways you remind me of my younger self and I wish that we go some place where we can each be alone.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Xenophobes have the right to speak too, as long as they do it by the rules.
If you deny the rights of a sizable part of the population to express themselves just because the majority disagrees with *some* of their ideas, it's not democracy.
Here is an simplified example of the problem :
- 30% of the population are represented by a "far-right xenophobic party", will always vote against laws favoring immigrants
- 60% are represented by a centrist party that have more nuanced ideas
- 10% are represented by a far-left party that always favor immigrants
In all cases, unreasonable demands made by the far-right and far-left party will never pass. Whether or not you give full power to the centrist party, the extremists will never get the required majority.
Now imagine a controversial proposition favoring immigrants (maybe some kind of reverse discrimination). Let's say that 55% of the general population is against it and only 45% wants it. Normally, it should be rejected. However, if you give full power to the centrist party, it will be adopted. It is because the repartition will be as follows :
- 30% are against in and are far-right
- 25% are against it and are centrist
- 35 % are for it and are centrist
- 10 % are for it and are far-left
Giving governing responsibilities to small parties may even protect against extremes in some cases. Consider the following : same situation as before, except that the far-right party, though some clever political moves, manages to grab 25% of the centrist party, reaching 55% and winning the elections. The ideas of the people are the same, it's just that the far-right party is a bit less extreme than before. In a proportional system the remaining 45% are enough to keep it in check. Without it, the 30% original extremists would win as they are more numerous than the 25% centrists turned right-wing.
I dont need to hide about anything, and I am not british. And it was not me that invented sharia law or honor killings, last time I looked... fuck off you too mate. Is it a new greeting on the other side of the channel now? I am not that modern ;)
You know, I wish that, both in the UK and in my own country (the US, quelle surprise), that there was a nationally required, five year course beginning in 8th grade (or UK equivalent) each year consisting of watching, in oder, the 5 series of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister", followed by intensive discussion of the issues, asides, ramifications, etc. Requiring a student to go up against Sir Humphrey Appleby would be singularly formative to critical thinking.....
Anonymity enables people to voice their opinion without being subjected to some sort of legal censorship for it. Very true and useful. However, if you believe that, just because the message was anonymous, a government who is against it won't bother to go after it, you are sorely mistaken.
Anonymity also allows people to harass each other online, to abuse polls, to troll people and to commit various crimes on the net like phishing and DDOS attacks, all without any form of consequence, which is completely unacceptable. What's even worse is that if one such criminal is to be caught, the amount of resources required to do so is very expensive.
So, instead of planning very expensive ways of eliminating anonymity, how about we just stop valuing the words of people who write anonymous trollposts?
This all just comes down to people being offended way too quickly and demanding some sort of compensation because their feelings got hurt.