Anonimity is already all but abolished in other media, why should it bother us if it doesn't exist on the 'Net? If you send a letter to a newspaper expressing your views on the legalization of marihuana, they will not publish it unless you sign your name on it. You may ask not to have your name published (that's called your "right to privacy"), but the newspaper editors will know who you are. You may choose to submit a fictitious name, but if they bother to verify your identity, and find it to be fake, your opinion will not be heard. If we cannot express our views using our own name, then we are _not_ free. If we admit that we _must_ remain anonymous to be safe from reprisals, then we are, effectively, _not_ free. This, BTW, is what I believe is really happening.
If I post this here under a pseudonym, I expect/. to respect my _privacy_ by not divulging my real name. But if legally requested, and with good enough justification, anyone would be able to find out who I am. If I post a message _anonymously_ threatening to kill someone, and that person turns up dead, then the police will not be able to identify me from my posting.
This discussion has a gazillion ramifications which I, not being a lawyer (thank God), cannot even fathom. I do believe there is reason to fear not being completely anonymous: corporations, governments, and, ultimately, people, cannot be trusted to respect others' privacy when it comes to defending their own selfish interests.
Um, I was under the impression that if a cardholder questions a charge, it is the credit card company, not the merchant, who has to eat the disputed amount. Credit card companies pay the merchant, and then they bill you for those charges. I could be wrong. The problem I see with the photograph method is that someone might have applied for, and obtained, a credit card using your personal data. Which means that the impostor *has* the illegit credit card in his posession, which has your name on it. Now that apparently it is extremely easy to get forged id's over the 'Net, this form of fraud might be more common than just getting someone's card number and using it. Crooks can now have a credit card with your name, *plus* a SSN card, and a drivers licence, with your name, but his/her picture on it. I think it's time we came up with a different method of paying for stuff over the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
If I post this here under a pseudonym, I expect /. to respect my _privacy_ by not divulging my real name. But if legally requested, and with good enough justification, anyone would be able to find out who I am. If I post a message _anonymously_ threatening to kill someone, and that person turns up dead, then the police will not be able to identify me from my posting.
This discussion has a gazillion ramifications which I, not being a lawyer (thank God), cannot even fathom. I do believe there is reason to fear not being completely anonymous: corporations, governments, and, ultimately, people, cannot be trusted to respect others' privacy when it comes to defending their own selfish interests.
Um, I was under the impression that if a cardholder questions a charge, it is the credit card company, not the merchant, who has to eat the disputed amount. Credit card companies pay the merchant, and then they bill you for those charges. I could be wrong. The problem I see with the photograph method is that someone might have applied for, and obtained, a credit card using your personal data. Which means that the impostor *has* the illegit credit card in his posession, which has your name on it. Now that apparently it is extremely easy to get forged id's over the 'Net, this form of fraud might be more common than just getting someone's card number and using it. Crooks can now have a credit card with your name, *plus* a SSN card, and a drivers licence, with your name, but his/her picture on it. I think it's time we came up with a different method of paying for stuff over the Internet.