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.'"

Is she related to...

Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)

Re:Is she related to...

Yes, Freeman Dyson is her father. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson [wikipedia.org]

Re:Is she related to...

Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)

No. If you FTFA, you will note that she is actually the offspring of a woman and a demonic Dyson vacuum cleaner.

Is there anyone who doesn't?

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."

Re:Is there anyone who doesn't?

My GF has had an abortion. No big deal. Her words.

Wha.....

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... :(

Re:Wha.....

If that's what you think about when you masturbate, you have issues~

I agree

I don't allow ACs on my own blog [technocrat.net]. 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.

Re:I agree

Well, if we're going to talk about rights, I think we need to go farther than anonymity. How about the right to free speech? This is so abridged that regular people feel the need to speak anonymously, lest they be fired from their work, denied a new job, sued, etc. So, it seems to me that anonymity is a symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental right that is being violated.

Bruce

Anonymity?

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.

I'm quite the opposite...

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.

Re:I'm quite the opposite...

Wanna stop abortions of convenience? Give the father a right of writ of abortion. Give him the same ability under the law and that shit will stop tomorrow. "You're honor, I can understand my ex-girlfriend wanting to have my baby and I wish her well but I'm not at a point in my life where kids are plausible. I wish to invoke my right to abort my rights and responsibilities to this child. You know, the same option she not only has under abortion law but also adoption."

until human beings can be trusted not to reprise

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'.

I kind of makes sense

Much of this depends on the initial premise. For example, if women are expendable child bearers, then abortions are never necessary. If a women is raped, or if she is going to die, then that is not a big deal. Likewise, if all information must be controlled, then anonymity of any kind is bad, as it allows dissemination of information without the ability to retaliate.

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 [armyofgod.com] who believe differently from them, following a tradition that killed the man that believed that the heart pumped the blood [faqs.org]. 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.

This is about Freedom of Speech

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?

Never apologize for freedoms...

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?

Re:Why Not?

Here's a test for you:

On Slashdot Post:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"

At any tech user group meeting stand up and say:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"

And then come back and say that "anonymity doesn't affect anyone"

-Rick

Re:Why Not?

IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software.

There. Anonymity doesn't affect anyone.

Re:Why Not?

Okay, I just tried this, and DAMN I see the light now. I now fully appreciate anonymity and its ability to keep my person and my clothes free from frothing spittle, multiple-chin sweat, and greasy cheetos stains.

Though standing a little closer to the door would have had largely the same effect as anonymity. They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.

Re:Why Not?

So may people incorrectly think that the powerful deserve to be defended from the powerless, completely losing sight of the fact that it is unnecessary since the powerless are incapable of attacking the powerful. These well meaning people are merely reinforcing the inequity. With anonymity the person in your example at least has the option of making their comment. Without anonymity the powerless person loses the power to make the comment, even it it is true, because it they do they will have to defend themselves against the powerful.

Hint: The vast majority of attacks on anonymity that you hear come from powerful people. This is because the powerless generally do not have a voice. Powerful people have a vested interest in maintaining their power.

The problem is not anonymity. The problem is that people need to learn to think critically and evaluate everything that is said to them. That way they can spot BS, whether it comes from an anonymous source or not.

Re:Why Not?

Why not encourage anonymity?

Because it also encourages the lack of accountability that goes along with it.

Or, put more crudely. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Why Not?

It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again. Without anonymity we wouldn't have vitriolic bloggers; we wouldn't have this fantastic forum of discourse where we can speak our minds and not worry about being smacked with a lawsuit (well, not including the video professor). It's like the original Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)- no matter how crazy your ideas you can always find someone with whom to discuss them, and it made Greece better for it.

And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite. Plastering your name over everything you do, waving your tiny banner as hard as you can trying to get people's attention and adoration.. it's pretty pathetic. Just toss in your little contribution and disappear into the crowd with the rest of us.

Re:Why Not?

Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?

Anonymity is important because it gives people the power to say un-popular things that need to be said without getting mob-lynched for it.

However, people abuse anonymity too. People act *much* differently when being anonymous, and it's usually not for the better.

Re:Why Not?

But the same could be said of abortion.

No, the nonliving mass of cells in the woman's uterus doesn't count.

I think the problem some people have with abortion is that it IS a living mass of cells

I think what you meant to say is the non-self aware mass of cells in the woman's uterus does not count.

Re:Anonymity Overrated

Sure you can, jerk.