Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Privacy vs. Anonymity 276

Posted by CmdrTaco from the ya-know-my-name dept.
Snibor Eoj writes "There's an article at CNet about the desire of some to reduce or eliminate anonymity on the Internet. There is a fine line, so it seems, between respecting privacy, and providing anonymity behind which crimes may be committed without fear of reprisal. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Privacy vs. Anonymity More

Privacy vs. Anonymity

Comments Filter:

  • Transparency (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Either everybody has the ability to be anonymous or nobody does. The current (and forseeable) situation is that corporations and governments are almost completely opaque to investigation, yet individuals are completely transparent. Until we can know the same level of detail and information about corporations and governments (i.e. until they can be held to the same level of accountability as individuals) we must protect anonymity and privacy

  • Why stop at the Internet? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Gasoline is a highly flammable and even explosive substance. It was the main method of destruction during the 1992 LA riots. Why should people be allowed to pay cash for gasoline and obtain this dangerous substance with many illegal uses anonymously? Why shouldn't we require individual accountability? After all, the damage in actual property destruction and lives caused by mis-sue of gasoline is FAR worse than anything done on the Internet. The same holds true for many ubiquitous objects with both mandane and destructive uses. Many items purchased at a hardware store can be used to make lethal bombs. Shouldn't we prevent people from buying plumbing accessories anonymously? Common substances obtained at any drugstore or even some nursery plants are lethally toxic, and in some cases have been used to commit murder (e.g., ricin from castor beans). Etc. etc. I am more afraid of having my every action tracked by Big Brother than I am of the ocasional Anonymous Coward on the Internet.

  • MODERATE THIS POST WAY DOWN (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is a fake cmdrtaco post, can't you obviouslly see that?

  • From The Associate (key is on the server) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I agree that speech without any kind of authentication is really close to value free. But since we have public key encryption and digital signature algorithms, it's possible to speak like this. I'm an anonymous coward right now, but if I say that I'm The Associate, you can check the signature on this document to verify that.

    Now, of course, slashdot isn't configured to support this kind of thing and will probably mangle the formatting, making signature checking impossible, but you get the general idea, right?

    I'm in favour of free speech, and of authenticated anonymity policed by a community. I.e. if somebody is doing something which is not acceptable by a community (say, plutonium smuggling or child porn) it should be possible for a community to revoke their anonymity, but only by community sanction and NOT by legal recourse.

    The internet is not american, nor is it french or english. It is global, and should not be subject to petty national laws and interests.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOTZ5qUUZIQkcrrljEQKjSACfd3U4dBCEMhm6tVJf0P CXJXh3W/sAn282 sAi7UZPQwUKHwXO8PJHXkj5d =oe6i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  • Slashdot is now a commercial entity, and has much more capital to work with


    Slashdot is the sum of its users. If it alienates those users, it will cease to be a commercial entity.

  • More Damage Done (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well I want every weapon I can get against the database people. Read this article [cnn.com] for the latest: It is now legal for your bank and credit card co. to exchange your personal information with your insurance company.

    Oh happy day.

  • Already done. Are you sure you really are CmdrTaco? He woulda known that. Replicant!

    Muhahahahahahaha.
    --

  • How do you get that "arms" refers to "guns", whether they are the unreliable muzzle-loading flintlocks of the era, or an M-16? "Arms" means weapons. That can encompass everything from Chuck Norris' fist, to disintegrator zap guns, to, really, nuclear weapons. Obviously, we have to draw a line somewhere. The government can't regulate a well-trained Karate expert's fist. Nor can we leave unregulated, the ownership of weapons of mass-destruction, even if it does violate the letter of the 2nd amendment. The point is, this battle is already lost, because if you draw that line somewhere, then the government will have what freedom fighters, rebels if you will, do not, and therefore, armed resistance to the US government will ultimately fail.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
  • um. 2500 nuclear warheads is disarmed?

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
  • Lebannon and Chechnya (although Lebannon was more of a prolonged annoyance than a successful campaign to overthrow perceived tyrrany)

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

  • From The Associate (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Furthermore, there is no reason that an entire culture could not spring up around the provision and protection ofanonymous, authenticated access to internet-like resources.

    Face it, boys and girls. The day that it became possible to make billions of dollars on the internet was the day it stopped being free.

    While it was an unimportant university backwater, nobody cared. Systems like DNS were under no commercial pressure, so worked for everyone.

    But now that big money and big business have arrived, forget it. All free resources are being hooverdup and turned into cash (domain name hogs being the prime example). And because free speech has commercial implications (i.e. criticism of products, copyright issues etc) it is under attack too.

    Nobody givesa shit about anonymous access to the internet. What people give a shit about itunconditional access to one's rights rather thanthe conditional access wecurrently have.

    Code Is Law [code-is-law.org] makes an excellent case for the suggestion that the "legal system" of the internet was written by the hackers that first createdit. Now that "legal system"is being over-ridden and overwritten bythe legal systems of the corrupt and corporate-run states of theso-called "realworld".

    Take responsibility and fight back! We've had a good run in the ten-or-so years of freedom that the newnesso f the internet has given us. But now that the old powers have discovered this terra incognita, we will have to fight to defend it asthe settlers of every new frontier have had to fight to defendthemselves against the old empires which have come to take away that which they have found, and their self-determination with it.

    The Associate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOTZ/OkUZIQkcrrljEQI/8QCg+P6FmiuRI1ehff9wax Et2goyBtQAnjUu PKeTE9VQMyvg0JrgOqSDl3XR =seoW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  • That was the comment of the person who provided the story, not Slashdot. I didn't see the Slashdot folks provide any commentary whatsoever. So, where did you get this "sounds like a conservative thinktank" view?


    ...phil
  • You either know something nobody else does (unlikely), or you don't know what you are talking about (more likely). How do you propose someone could (realistically) break Freenet's anonymity?

    --

  • This is one thing that pisses me off to no end. The public funding of sports stadiums.

    Boy, I wish *I* could start a business where the government pays lavishly for the place where I do it. That's right. A stadium is to a sports team, what a store is to a grocer. Why doesn't the government pay for office buildings? Grocery stores?

    Meanwhile, sporting events have turned out to be an obscenely profitable business. Witness what some of the players rake in, to say nothing of the promoters and advertisers. And what if you have no personal interest in sports?

    I can understand something like public health care, even if I'm never sick, I gladly pay, because I'd hate to see everyone else get sick and die with no health insurance, I rely on those people. But how is society harmed if there's no public funding of sports? Sports would not go away. And even if it did, good riddance.

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
  • I'm glad you are happy with taxes. I do not have health problems or pay for health care even though I have damn good insurance from my employment. I don't get sick, but part of my paycheck pays for those who lead unhealthy lifestyles. It would be even worse if taxpayer money paid for health care as I just could not quit if it got real bad.
  • The US government got along great for a very long time supported almost entirely on import duties. During the Civil War, IIRC there was an income tax, but it was eliminated b/c it was only needed during the war.

    Besides - everything is taxed nowadays. Gas is nearly at $2/gal although if you cut out the taxes it would be closer to half of that. It wouldn't be so bad if the taxes were clearly going to fund road repair/construction, but typically money ends up in general funds. This is begging for trouble.

    The government rarely, if ever shows itself to be responsible with money, and since it can tax the people, it doesn't have to be. Determining accountability for misappropriated taxes is almost impossible as well, since it gets obfuscated by the government. (probably deliberately)

    Here's a fun example:
    Here in sunny Seattle, we had a not-yet-paid-off domed stadium called the Kingdome. The baseball team and football team shared it, which was fine since their seasons don't overlap. Eventually both got it in their heads to build new stadia and tear down the Kingdome. Rather than pay for the rest of the Kingdome themselves and pay for their new stadia (which would be the best way to do it) they got the local government to foot the bill. Which means taxes.

    The new baseball field was put to a vote and rejected by voters twice. But the local government ignored that and we paid for it anyway. Now they're working on the new football stadium. While Paul Allen, the other big MS billionaire is helping to pay for that one, I don't think that it's wise policy to rely on charity from convenient ultra-rich people.

    So the problem Americans tend to have with paying taxes isn't taxes per se. The large majority of us realize that somewhere along the line taxes on something will have to be paid.

    We all like roads, but taxes on roads should be related to usage. Lots of waste disposal is private anyway - mine is, and I pay for it myself. And no one thinks public education is working right; it needs to be fixed, the question presently is how.

    The problem is that tax money frequently gets spent on useless 'pork barrel' projects. Taxes are set, raised and allocated to things against the stated wishes of the voters. Taxes are frequently unrelated to the benefit from the tax, which opens the door to all kinds of problems like those above.

    So if a government can tax and spend the taxes, it needs to be VERY restrained about what it does. For no small number of years now, our government has not shown itself to be responsible.

    That's why.
  • Isn't the weak link in Gnutella, Freenet and the like the fact that most average people [...] access the Internet through AOL?

    ... through AOL's Mozilla, which is bound to get freenet URL support built in?
  • Attempts to mandate traceback will simply fail over time as the various distributed-anonymity projects (Freenet etc) pass version 1.0.

    What will have to grow up in the place of guaranteed identity, is the recognition that trust is proportional to identity. ACs must stand on the merits of their data, people hiding behind provable pseudonyms can build a trustworthy reputation, but likely never enough to get credit from a bank, and so on.

    People will have to develop thick skins - against anonymous insults and libel, against politics, porn, hate speech, etc, whatever their pet info peeve is. If you don't like it, don't look it up, and if no-one looks for it, it'll drop off the bottom of Freenet.

    As to the people who fear free speech will destroy their religion, politics, or agenda: good riddance. Cope or cry.
  • For the most part, I agree with restricting anonymity online. There are some situations (for example AC's on Slashdot) that warrant anonymity to protect the identity of the user (this is even questionable in my mind however), but Napster is definately not one of them. Anonymity is a shield for cowards to commit acts that they don't have to be accountable for--that's fundamentaly screwed up. If you can't be held accountable for your actions, you shouldn't be doing what you're doing. In RL you are almost never anonymous in what you do, and you shouldn't be able to run around on the internet like a cloaked bandit.
  • Suppose everybody at birth were required by law to have a small transmitter embedded in their body which would be used to ensure they could be positively identified at all times. Suppose further that it were made illegal to appear in public without such a transmitter, functioning properly. This would actually be quite easy to do and to enforce. Sickening thought, isn't it?

    Now why is appearing on the internet any different at all from walking on the street? In fact, a person walking on the street is capable of causing much more real, physical harm than a disembodied presence on the net.

    If there is any legitimate need at all to deprive people of their right to anonymity on the net it should be controlled rigorously so that it cannot be abused. In other words, it should require the same process that is used to deprive people of their right to walk freely on the street: plublic declaration of martial law, or a state of emergency.

    Let's repeat this to ourselves over and over again: Surfing the internet is the same as walking on the street.
    --
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • People mention law enforcement, as though it was some kind of Holy Grail. Sorry, but if law enforcement officers are so incompetent that they have to rely on the villains handing them the evidence, they've no business enforcing anything. Take a child abuser - the typical sort of target the Law Enforcement agencies are claiming to want to catch. If a person is capable of abusing a child, both they and the child will stand out a mile. It is impossible for abusers to act like other people.

    (This is NOT the same as the "profiling" gumph that Pinkerton threw out. It is possible to be different and yet have a strong empathy for other people. It is NOT possible for an abuser, thief, axe-wielding maniac, etc, to have that same empathy. If they had, they couldn't do what they do.)

    While I agree with many of your previous points I have to take exception to this. Many very disturbed people can appear reasonable and normal to others, rapists and child molesters don't have signs on their back that say "I'm a craaazzy kook, arrest me!". These people dont't "stand out a mile", and that's the problem. I don't see any way to wholesale detect disturbed criminals without institutional, lifelong, government psych profiling which is obviously about the worst possible solution (WRT privacy, and potential for abuse). In any case how would you be able to determine the difference between a criminal and someone who is just different? It seems to me that the only acceptable way to deal with crime is after the fact, don't try to prevent crime, just worry about catching the criminals after the fact and making sure that they will be removed from civilized society until they can learn to play by civilized rules. To do otherwise is to have "Thoughtcrime", where you can be penilized for thinking deviant thoughts instead of the acid test of actually having to act on those criminal impulses.

  • Any centralized law enforcement organization has the possibility of being corrupted.

    And any centralized psych training agency has the possibility of corrupting the masses with propaganda, not to mention the probability of abuse. Maybe this is not how you meant to sound but this is like the Stasi, with everybody informing on everybody else, or the WAVE that Pinkerton is trying to get accepted.

  • It does seem like a good system but I would just make sure that there are solid legal protections for basic rights. Otherwise all you get is mob-rule where the masses trample over the little guy.

    As annother counterpoint, what about criminals who travel? Unless criminal records are replicated centrally a person could just move and take advantage of the next town. My dad (who is a cop) always complains about personal license plates for this reason, many cops get killed because they cannot quickly ID a plate and don't know that they might be dealing with an escaped convict, drug smuggler, etc.

    Hmmm. . .I just had a thought, how would something like Freenet or Gnutella work for distributing criminal records in a decentralized manner? Maybe with PKI to authenticate that the records come from a genuine source? Hmmmm.

  • There are only two kinds of goods that can be bought, be it over the Internet or otherwise: material and immaterial goods.
    Governments can get as tight a control over material goods as they want: they can intercept the supply lines at any point: the producer, the trader, etc etc.
    It is trickier when we're dealing with information-type goods, which can range from the Reuters newsfeed to Mpeg-1-Layer-3 (MP3, for short) music. Here it _is_ difficult to tax on the goods, but indicators of the exchanged volume can be used, and exploited to tax the actual transfers: bandwidth usage, for instance. It's enough to spoof at the carrier level et voila`. Good privacy _and_ taxation.
    Want another approach? Think of your income.
    total yearly earnings = savings + accountable expenses + everything else
    just tax that 'everything else', and you are effectively taxing internet sales. A nightmare when it comes to accounting, but governments are not usually known for being subtle when extor- ahem - collecting money from their citizens.
    The problem with the grand-design you envision is that if there is only one weak link in the whole production chain for a good - someone that is easier to check on - then the whole chain becomes (mostly) accountable. In a lot of fields this is not going to happen (that is not to say that it won't happen at all, just not everywhere).
  • I think that the real issue here is not about anonymity in online forums and such, but more about people worried about being stalked and that sort of thing. This is an infrastructure concern. The thing about the net is that when you send a piece of information, it gets coppied so many times along the way, just so it can get there all is one piece. Don't get me wrong, this is a Good Thing (TM), but there just might be a better way. I think that most of the privacy/anonymity stuff would go away if data integrity on the net increased substantailly.

    I mean, how worried would you really be if any and all information you sent on the next were completely unbreakable (i.e. one-time pad encryption or something)? I dont think that the anonymity is about ideas, the only reason for someone to want anonymity in a system where they have nothing to fear is criminal activity. If you didn't have to worry about identity theft issues, you wouldn't need to be anonymous unless you were doing something illegal.

    Now, ACs don't flame me, i realize that in a forum like this anonymity is good because sometimes something might need to be said that would piss off a bunch of people, and you dont want to invite retaliation upon yourself.

    In fact, anonymity is a must for public discussions, if you want to talk about people wanting to change things, they enarly always do it anonymously, mainly for the reason that they don't want to get fsckin killed! Think about the american revolution. Most of the literature that turned public opinion was written by Jefferson and others, but under the pen name of Publius. Without these "Publius Papers" the american revolution would not have found the popular support that it did, and that it needed.

    Anonymity is necessary in a repressive system, unfortuanately, repressive systems dont tend to allow it, so i guess it's necessary in all systems.

    I suppose that the bottom line here is that anonyminity is needed, illegal activity is going to happen, and we just have to take the bad with the good.

    or something like that.

  • It's about individual rights, not gun rights, etc. Gun control is just one of these rights trying to be stripped or made extremely difficult to excersise. Extremism is rampant, and it would seem to me that the extremists are the ones pushing to eliminate individual rights from either the right or left.

    As per gun control, etc. I am going to argue infinately that an armed society is a polite one. When people feel as though they are not protected by the police, friends, family, or while walking home in the evening etc. they feel violated. Why do people feel violated when they are left completely defenseless you ask? -- I would charge you to ask yourself that question again.

    If the government has no right to have armed forces then why do we? If you are so blind as to the reason that guns are an absolute necessity then I will point you in the direction of Australia, or perhaps England, or any number of countries that have outlawed guns -- guess who has the guns now? Not private citizens, but criminals. The Militia doesn't have to for forces OUTSIDE the country, they are DEFINATELY ment for forces WITHIN also, and there is no amount of money we can pay a police force to be on the job as instantly as a .45.

  • Slashdot'll be forced to take away your anonymity and bar anonymous cowards. :)

    (haven't read the article, can't get to CNET for some reason..)
  • Without anonymity, there can be no privacy on the Internet.

    Well, technically speaking that's not true. Just encrypt everything and you have quite good privacy, but not necessarily anonymity. Yes, you are still vulnerable to traffic analysis, but this is a huge step up from the current situation.

    [excuse]It's not that I don't value anonymity. It's just that this particular argument fails.[/excuse]

    Pretty much anyone can be tracked down, despite the "anonymous" quality of the Internet as it exists today. If I happen to view a website that the government doesn't like, they can trace my IP, check with my ISP, and get a lock on me pretty quickly.

    It depends. Generally, if you don't cover your tracks, tracing you is very, very easy. But if you do cover your tracks and have a clue, then finding you is hard. Exhibit A: The Freedom software (www.freedom.net). Exhibit B: DDOS attacks.


    Kaa
  • See my post (#61) as just a small example of an abuse that I, at least, feel should be criminal.
    A snipped of #61:
    I have been harrassed for 8+ months by daily connection attempts to my system. They come at irregular times of day usually 3-5 times daily to different ports, and the packets have always had spoofed source addresses.
    I realize that you're being harassed. I realize that you are frustrated and angry. You should be. But should harassment like what you are experiencing be criminal?

    What they are doing to you is equivalent to prank phone calling you. Should prank phone calling be criminal? Even now, I can make any phone call anonymously by using a prepaid phone card. The phone card blocks Caller ID. The person called cannot be sure of the identity of the caller. Should this be criminal?

    What they are doing to you is equivalent to toilet papering the trees in your front lawn. It's annoying and stupid, a futile gesture. But it's still minor vandalism. Should this be a criminal act?

    And are these "criminal" acts so serious that we should give up our privacy so that they can be prevented?

  • Gentlemen, I have a solution, for Slashdot at least, for total anonymity of posters. The AC flag just does not cut it, but how about this?

    Joe Random User. We create a slashdot account in the name of JRU (assuming it hasn't been taken yet), password the same, and anyone who wants to post anonymously just logs in as that person. With several hundred/thousand people using that account there is no way for anyone to PROVE who posted what under that psuedonym.

    IP addresses? Wouldn't the account just have the LAST one used? Can Cmdr Taco fix it so that happens if it doesn't already? Does the Hollywood quote "I'm Sparticus!" mean anything to you?
  • While the Supreme Court has ruled on protecting my right to speech, it does not protect my right to remain anonymous.

    ***BZZZTTTT*** I'm sorry; that answer is not correct.

    The correct answer is: The Supreme Court has upheld the right to anonymous speech [wired.com] in several cases (e.g. MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Talley v. California).

    Assuming true anonymity were possible, the person harmed has no recourse. It is almost impossible to "un-prove" something.

    First of all, true anonymity is certainly possible. If I were so inclined, it would be simple enough for me to post an AC message declaring "K33FA IZ A D00FUS" instead of tearing apart your position using facts and logic.

    As for "recourse", it is impossible in any case to refute every hare-brained notion that someone might circulate. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of credibility -- which is the advantage of this post over the random insult described in the previous paragraph.
    /.

  • The constitution was written at a time when firearms were hand-made and unreliable. The term "well-regulated" referred to the firearms themselves, not to the militia. A well-regulated firearm is one that is kept in good working order, like a "well-regulated clock."

    I guess I'll have to take your word for it. A "well regulated militia", seems to me to mean a well regulated, and organized body of people. Although I suppose it could also mean a militia well-equipped with quality firearms.

    The founders abhorred the concept of a standing army. In fact, the constitution does not allow for a standing army.

    Yes, well, we HAVE one. And for a democracy, we have a very damn large one. Either we shouldn't have a standing army because of the very threats the founding fathers were afraid of (and because, perhaps, at least to me, it seems hypocritical for a democracy to have to defend itself with a large conscripted peace-time army). Or we should institute a standing army and domestic police force which should render the necessity for the average person to bear firearms void (sure, if you live in a dangerous area, like guns for collecting or hunting, or are just really insecure I suppose you might want to have a gun).

    The founders intended that the ordinary citizens possess the power to defend themselves, not only against foreign enemies, but against their own government if necessary.

    That may be true, but in this day and age it is just plain ridiculous. Arm everybody in the US. We're still not going to overthrow the system with firearms. Perhaps the founding fathers should have made provisions for artillary, bombers, missiles, etc.

    A modern translation of the amendment would be, "Because it is necessary that the citizens be able to personally defend their freedom, and because it is necessary to ensure that the citizens have working weapons to do so, the government may not interfere with private gun ownership.

    I still don't think a gun defends anybody's freedom. A gun may protect your life. But at least in my opinion, the loss of life and potential violence, accidental and opportunistic, of an entirely armed populace far outweighs that of an individual being able to protect themselves from arbitrary and sporadic violence. In short, I believe More Guns = More Injured/Dead Innocent People. Apparently the gun lobby does not agree with this and would rather everybody live in the false security of a personal arms race (I feel safe because a neighbor only has firepower enough to kill off my family 5 times over, while I have enough to kill off his family 10 times over). Shouldn't, by the same token, nuclear proliferation and stockpiling keep us all much "safer"?

    The reason our society is violent isn't because of the guns. It's mostly because we are living under drug prohibition -- which has progressed farther and destroyed more of our freedom then alcohol prohibition ever did, and because the government is actively waging a civil war -- the drug war -- against its own people. Violence is the natural result of prohibition and the black markets it creates.

    Well, that comment came out of thin air. Are you saying that society is violent because people are upset with not being able to take any drugs they want? Most of the senseless gun violence I remember involved insane, emotionally disturbed people, or was accidental. I can't remember the last time some person who was unhappy about not being able to use drugs shot some place up... Sure, the war on drugs is expensive (in various ways) and stupid. But I don't think that is what is causing gun violence. The sickness is much deeper in the society than a bunch of people being barred from using drugs...
  • It's about individual rights, not gun rights, etc. Gun control is just one of these rights trying to be stripped or made extremely difficult to excersise. Extremism is rampant, and it would seem to me that the extremists are the ones pushing to eliminate individual rights from either the right or left.

    Agreed. Although extremists come in various flavors. Some want to prevent you from doing things they don't think you should do, while others would like to have new rights conferred to them.

    As per gun control, etc. I am going to argue infinately that an armed society is a polite one.

    Perhaps you are right. An armed society is a polite one because if you're not polite you get shot. Great. I don't want to live in a society in which people are free and able to shoot each other because they don't think others are "polite" in some manner. Being afraid of being shot by everybody is an inhibition on my freedom. I don't want to live in a state in which my neighbors are the police.

    When people feel as though they are not protected by the police, friends, family, or while walking home in the evening etc. they feel violated. Why do people feel violated when they are left completely defenseless you ask? -- I would charge you to ask yourself that question again.

    I don't feel violated walking home in the evening or when police, friends and family are not around. Why should I? Should I be scared? It sure seems gun advocates are really paranoid. It's amazing how other western countries who have much stronger gun control have much lower gun voilence and a much higher percieved sense of safety. Somehow England, Europe, the Scandanavian countries, which have tighter gun control and a less armed populace are so much safer. You can go overseas and walk the streets of capitals feeling much safer than you can in the middle of nowhere in the US.
  • Because just as the founders of this nation rebelled against THEIR government, so may the people one day have to rise up against the US Government.

    Well, this, I guess is really what I take issue with. Sure, I understand the reasoning of the writers of the constitution. I _understand_ that they wanted to build in the ability to overthrow the system. But face it - it's not 1776 anymore. Nobody is overthrowing the government with firearms. It makes the whole argument that "we have weapons to ensure the government behaves because otherwise we'll overthrow it" totally bogus. Nobody is overthrowing anything with firearms. Tanks, bombs, missiles...maybe. Firearms...nope. And IF that provision no longer makes sense, what really is the justification for the collateral damage it causes in excessive accidental or opportunistic violence? What are we really GETTING for this price we pay?
  • I wouldnt even get into this shit anymore with you anti-gun people. Just do me a favor.


    PUT A "GUNFREE HOUSE" SIGN ON YOUR DOOR.
    Please?
    Prettyplease?

    This is a typical mentality. It is actually a classic case of tragedy of the commons. Here is the rationalization:

    * I percieve that there is some vague threat to my safety.

    * I obtain a gun. This reduces the threat to myself some amount, and increases the threat to everybody else by some amount. But this amount is shared.

    * This is entirely logical and appears sound to me. Every other rational person behaves in this logical manner, figuring that the safety it affords them as an individual is greater than the danger it poses to the society as a whole.

    * Everybody follows this rationale until the whole system collapses at some point because the system as a whole can no longer bear the stress that everybody introduces into it with their individual actions.

    Replace "guns" with "nuclear missiles" and you will see this mentality is very stupid. I will not participate in arms-race mentality with you.
  • Yes, and as we can see those rebels fighting the Russions sure has helped alot. And what will they do when the Russians start rolling in artillary or bombing them??
  • People *HAVE* the right to keep arms, however, the government *HAS* the right to "regulate" them. If you disagree with this don't bitch about it here, change the Bill of Rights.


    I am not arguing that people NOT have the right to keep arms. IMHO it is ridiculous how LITTLE regulation guns have compared to products of other industries. I don't disagree with this at all. But the NRA and the gun lobby do. They like the former right, but they don't like that latter at all. And I'm sure they have no qualms about changing (and plenty of money to help them) the Bill of Rights.
  • By getting a gun for personal protection, you do not increase the threat to everyone else, you decrease it. The knowledge that you may have a gun is a deterrant to would be violent criminals. Your statement assumes that *everyone* is a would be violent criminal. I personally take that as an insult.


    Bullshit. Again you fail to realize that many, or perhaps most, deaths with firearms are caused by accident or as a matter of opportunity. I am not claiming a gun owner is a criminal at all. I am claiming that by having a gun, increasing the number of guns own domestically, will increase accidental and opportunistic injury. What about the kid who finds it and accidentally kills himself or somebody? What about the angry and distraught teenager, who, in a fit of angst decides to kill somebody because the gun is available. What about the guy who gets into a heated argument, and, having a gun in arms reach, in a fit of rage, murders somebody?? All of these cases are accidental or opportunistic. They occur in direct proportion the number of guns we have domestically. Unfortunately, the DON'T only happen to the gun owner or family of the gun owner, so the RISK is increased to society as a whole.
  • Face it. MAD worked.


    Hmm...what about MAS by getting RID off all the damn nuclear weapons. MAD works only when both parties DON'T want to die. It doesn't work when one party is just friggen off its rocker and doesn't CARE whether it dies or not, or accidentally fires. In that case, REDUCTION, and ELIMINATION and real defense against such weapons (not defense by the assumption that the enemy is too afraid of being eliminated himself) is the ONLY way to safety.

    Take the advice of one of the other posters. Stick a "GUN FREE HOUSE" sticker on your front door and post to us a year later how you've faired.

    And again, you are just falling into the tragedy of the commons, arms race, short term mentality. "The world is dangerous, therefore I should stockpile as much dangerous stuff as fast as I can". In the LONG RUN this is not a solution. Having a world in which everybody is brimming with nuclear weapons, assured that if ANYBODY fires, we're all toast, having to teach our children how to avoid or live in a nuclear aftermath - THAT is not peace. THAT is not safety.
  • Witness Tiananmen Square, the forced resettlement of Ukrainians by Stalin, Indonesia and East Timor, the Kurds in Iraq, the Kosovars, Pol Pot, El Salvadoran death squads, etc. History is unfortunately populated with the skeletons of populations who did not possess such a counterbalancing force.

    And I'm sure firearms would have solved all of these problems. I'm sure the soldiers, seeing the students had firearms would put down their weapons and give up instead of just slaughtering them faster and more indescriminantly. Same goes for the other situations. Firearms would NOT have prevented those situations. They would merely cause more casualties on both sides. I cannot believe the arms-race mentality of gun advocates. Annihilating your enemy MORE than he annihilates you is NOT a victory. If we were talking about nuclear weapons would your opinion be the same? Naturally the safety of ALL would be increased if we were locked in a nuclear stalemate...right? When you are all dead, does it MATTER how many of the other side you have killed? You do not solve violence by more violence.

    Part of those numbers also include idiot gunowners being selected out in a Darwin-like fashion when they clean their loaded guns.

    I submit that this is hardly a logical rationalization. How about doing away with restrictive seatbelt or driving laws and just selecting for people with the thickest skulls and ribcages? Or maybe doing away with FDA regulation and just selecting for those who best survive dangerous chemicals?

    But even a large portion of those homicides would likely have been committed with or without the use of a projectile weapon.

    What about ACCIDENTAL deaths? Rosy O'Donnell cries "12 children die every minute". How many children a minute is acceptable to YOU? Do you really think that children would have gotten their heads blown off "with or without the use of a projectile weapon"?

    The reason the gun issue rose again was, face it, the Colorado incident and the media hype surrounding it. Sure, it was a tragedy. Sure, it shouldn't have happened. But did anyone mention that there are TENS OF MILLIONS of high school students in the United States (millions who do have access to guns in their parents' homes -- I did) who didn't decide to take out the wrestling champ or the homecoming queen?

    I ENTIRELY agree with you here. Columbine was not "because" of guns (although tighter regulation might have avoided their first attempt at getting weapons...they probably could get them elsewhere). Sometimes the liberals obscure the real issue with the whining. Guns were not the cause here. Video games were not the cause. The cause was, for whatever reason, an environment which made two young men emotionally unstable enough to commit a heinous crime. Why and how these individuals felt they should do such a thing should be questioned. Normal people don't just buy guns and blow up stuff randomly.
  • You know, I think my taxes are too high...I think I'm going to walk down to Washington and throw off that old yoke of tyranny with my revolver here...
  • It's called the theory of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. If you fSck with me, I can fSck back, HARD!

    And we'll all be very safe when we're all dead right? That's not what I call safety, and that's not a world worth living in.

    That is what kept the nuclear peace (and still does) for these 50 or so years that nuclear weapons have existed.

    Being afraid of nuclear incineration daily, and having to teach our children to duck under desks and wear fallout gas masks is not what I consider "peace".

    If disarmament Pollyanas like you had had your "Better Red than Dead" policies enacted in the 60's and 70's, we'd probably be Red by now. But guess what? We didn't disarm, we kept the peace and we're still free.

    I don't know what jingoistic world you are living in, but Reagon (what a Pollyana) made the START treaty, and Clinton START 2 for Reduction and Limitation of nuclear arms. We DID disarm, keep the peace and remain free. God knows what would have happened if we CONTINUED the arms race. Did you learn NOTHING from the Cold War? Your McCarthyistic claims that we'd turn "Red" are sensationalist 50s mentality. Nobody is or would have turned "Red". But if we did turn "Red" (like those damn hippies! gasp!), I sure would rather be alive.
  • Well for stories where anonymous input is needed, they could have an 'allow AC posts on this story' switch.

    As far as throw away accounts, I don't think that would really be an issue. Sure, there are die-hard trolls that would go through the process of adding an account just to add a comment, but most people adding useless banter to a discussion would be turned off by it.

    I read at a 2-4 level most of the time (except when meta-moderating) so I don't even see most of the troll and useless posts. But I think slashdot could improve some of its content by following a slightly more exclusive system. Number one, we wouldn't be wasting moderation points on a lot of drift, and could really moderate up those that deserve it instead of moderating down those that abuse the system.

    But, this makes slashdot more exclusive rather than inclusive, and I really don't know CmdrTaco's aim for slashdot.

    -Adam

    And don't even ask my my opinion on the so called "HellMouth stories".
  • The only good reason I know of to have AC is that it allows people to say things without most of the fear of legal repercussions. We've had lots of good inside info about companies which we could not have gotten otherwise.

    How about we make it harder for you:

    Registered users only can post ACs. Their AC post starts out at 1 degree lower than a regular post would (my normal is +1, so my ACs would be 1. Many users would have 0 AC posts) A user could not post AC posts until they have been a user for at least a week and/or they have a karma 5 points above the default karma given to new users.

    This would take care of the majority of the crud that appears in many of these channels. The opportunity to post anonymously would become a priveledge, not a right (as it is now). This is restrictive, but I haven't seen any good AC posts which couldn't have been made using the above system.

    -Adam

    Campaign to regulate Abusive Chatterbox(AC) comments on Slashdot!
  • Leaving the country en masse? Don't be silly, it'll take at least a month to process each application for exit visas. Seriously, as long as the process is gradual, most people will not notice, or care about a decent into facism.
  • I connect to the internet via DSL. I connect to a machine in a datacenter in NYC via ssh. I tunnel through that connection, and using a connect() wrapper, appear to always be surfing the web from this NYC machine. several other people do the same thing with NYC-box. we're anonymous in that the NYC-box doesnt keep logs, and any traffic originating from this NYC-box could be any one of us. the more of us there are, the more anonymous we become.

    Sure, the telco knows im connecting to the box in NYC, but they dont know whether I'm downloading questionable material as long as they cant compromise ssh, my local machine, or the NYC machine.

    what's mythical about that?
  • Can't you have it both ways? You have to have a login, but you can check "post this item anonymously". Slashdot records who posts an item anon. (dammit! I can't ever spell that word. It NEVER looks right!), and that way could threaten to close accounts that are abused.....

    I just thought of the problem with THAT. folks could just keep creating accounts ad nauseum... maybe "posting anon." is only an option for folks who get above a certain karma level?
    ---
  • . .deserve niether freedom nor privacy.

    There is a need for privacy and freedom on the internet.

    Today, at least in the united states of america, there is no law preventing me from collecting and redistibuting a digital biography on any persons activity in the comunity. This data may consist of seemingly irrelevant facts about you and your daily life, but distrobution of this data, or tracking data, has value to the right person in the right market.

    The cost of keeping, maintaining and distrubuting this data falls every year, and the laws to address this problem continue to be ignored. As tracking data continues to be collected without the expressed consent of the person being tracked, what is a person to do?

    Opt out. Remain anonymous when possible. This is the only tool a person has against keeping bad information from proliforating without his or her consent. There is no legal recourse for an individual whos tracking data is incorrect, incomplete, or patently false. There is also no legal recourse for an individual to try and stop the distrobution of this data. One's only hope is to keep it to a minimum.

    I favor laws asking companies to ask the consent of the user before collecting and redistributing tracking data. I favor laws giving the user an oportunity to view and dispute the data being collected about her. When these laws are in place, I'll gladly use my G(lobaly) U(nique)ID(denification) with confedence that I have legal recourse to protect my digital biography. Intill then, anonymity is the only tool.
    ___

  • Actually, I live in fear of the people with the guns - both in the government, and civilians. Even if I had a gun, I would still be in fear of them - and they might be in fear of me.

    I would prefer that neither had guns, then it would be more difficult to hurt each other. Unfortunately, due to the "prisoner's dilemma"-type situation, if any party has a gun, then to maintain the balance of power, the OTHER parties have to have guns. Then everyone sits around waiting for each other to pull the trigger - and sooner or later, some crazy will.
  • While I agree with many of your previous points I have to take exception to this. Many very disturbed people can appear reasonable and normal to others, rapists and child molesters don't have signs on their back that say "I'm a craaazzy kook, arrest me!". These people dont't "stand out a mile", and that's the problem.

    From what I've read, I'd agree with this. I also think, however, that handing a centralized authority the ability to monitor EVERYone's behavior is not the best way to handle these cases. The preferable way to handle situation is through DISTRIBUTED monitor & enforcement - e.g., training the members of your society to make rational judgements about the health of the others they are interacting with, and to be able to respond in ways that will improve their health, or to protect society from danger.

    Any centralized law enforcement organization has the possibility of being corrupted.

  • True, but when the MASSES have been "corrupted" with propaganda, then they are doing what they "want" to do (even if what they want to do has been influenced by the propaganda).

    As far as the mass monitoring is concerned, you will note that I did *NOT* state that the information being collected by the society's individuals go back to some kind of central agency - the means of enforcement must ALSO be distributed. The examples you mention above assume that a centralized organization is using the "masses" solely for monitoring purposes, but keeping the control for themselves.

    The whole point is to distribute both monitoring & reaction decisions throughout the fabric of the society. There must be NO centralized point of control, and the "rules" of the society should be set up to resist any attempts to create such a point of control.

    With this kind of system, altho there will probably be great diversity (and frustration for ppl traveling outside of their niche), any changes in the functioning of the society must be carried out by the members of the society, and must therefore be accepted by the members of the society, instead of delegating the responsibility for societal functions to centralized organizations which can be corrupted.
  • As annother counterpoint, what about criminals who travel? Unless criminal records are replicated centrally a person could just move and take advantage of the next town. My dad (who is a cop) always complains about personal license plates for this reason, many cops get killed because they cannot quickly ID a plate and don't know that they might be dealing with an escaped convict, drug smuggler, etc.

    A valid point - in a distributed environment, where each person is only really aware of those people that he or she immediately interacts with, they can only really protect themselves from such activity by cooperating with each other to "watch each other's back". If a stranger comes into the community, then they are going to be watched extremely closely by the members of that community before they are accepted.

    On the negative side, if the "distributed" society becomes stagnant (e.g., elements of the society are not being exposed to new ideas on a regular basis), then there is a high potential for severe xenophobia (for example, the stereotypical response of small towns in the USA Deep South before mass media became such a pervasive influence).

    The system probably needs some kind of underlying "idea churn" - a low-level, chaotic element which makes sure that the elements of the society don't enter statis. (Actually, travelers, and yes, criminals, might actually be part of this churn process.)

    I could prob. BS a little more social engineering, but I'm running on 8 hours sleep in the last week, my last brain cell is shutting down, and it took me 5 minutes to type the last sentence.

  • > But that just doesn't happen anymore - it's all
    > just spam like the "first post-a-lizer" and oher
    > crap.

    Personally, I very rarely post AC (I have on ocasion). I like that the option is there. It would allow me to post things that I would not normally feel comfortable posting under my name becasuse things I say could be traced to real people, other than myself. (people I know whose
    story I am relating etc).

    Yea, there is alot of stupid spam, but its hardly
    so much that it really gets in the way of discussion. I tend to think it gets allot more attention than it deserves.

    > if you don't like it, well, it *is* my site
    > after all,

    Very true. You have the right to do whatever you wish, including getting rid of AC, closing the site, or changing it to a porn site.

    Hell if it were my site, I woudn't have logins at
    all, I would get rid of moderation, and take steps to make sure that even I couldn't remove or modify posts. (as it is I am planning to setup an IRC server that has no concept of ops and no way for the admin to kick or ban people in any way)...but, thats just how _I_ like to do things :)
  • Without anonymity, there can be no privacy on the Internet. It is hard enough already: Pretty much anyone can be tracked down, despite the "anonymous" quality of the Internet as it exists today. If I happen to view a website that the government doesn't like, they can trace my IP, check with my ISP, and get a lock on me pretty quickly. I know because I've done that sort of tracing before. So much for privacy.

    I understand the view that anonymity is not as important as privacy. Law enforcement agencies would obviously rather have things handed to them than to have to work for them. In a perfect world (for them), they could trace and locate someone at the click of a button. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be too much fun for those of us who are trying to enjoy our "privacy."

    There's little enough privacy as it is. Do we really need to lessen it?

  • I believe a site that does some of what you want is opensecrets.org
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Not any more. The (im)poster was using the entity reference &#84, which is displayed as 'T', in their user name. At new user registration the slashcode thought that CmdrTaco != CmdrTaco and let it through as a new user. When your browser saw CmdrTaco it displayed CmdrTaco.

    For some reason (I don't know why) the User Info link still sent you to the real CmdrTaco User information page.

    Nice hack but they've fixed it now. Quick going, eh?

  • The Home Recording Rights Coalition [hrrc.org] is active in keeping Napster and similar systems legal. They point out that the movie industry tried to kill the VCR, they lost that issue, and the movie industry is more profitable than ever. Their sound bite on Napster:

    Kids introducing their online friends to new music are not "pirates." Congress long has known how to address willful commercial copyright infringement through the Copyright Act, and only recently has clarified the definition of and amplified the penalties for such commercial misconduct. By contrast, for more than 20 years Congress has declined to deem personal music uses as "piracy," and there is no reason to do so now.

  • Look here. [freesoft.org] You see the fields 11 and 12? It says there clearly: Source IP Address, Destination IP Address. That thing is called a packet. FreeNet, Gnutella, Hotline etc. all work over TCP/IP over the Internet. Now, if a packet like this one was sent over the Internet it passed through a series of nodes (gateways or ISPs) and your IP could be recorded. If you send a message over TCP/IP the destination computer of the packet can also be found, so in fact you compromising two (2) computers at once. If a filtration program is set up on an ISP to search specifically for FreeNet or any other encrypted packets, it could do so, it could match the packets contents and assemble your messages. If your software uses polymorph protocols or even a combination of protocols, you still can be traced if you are connected to an ISP and that is how you get to the web. Now, if you are using a private line and PPP for example, then you are mostly anonymous, but not completely! You can be traced by your local phone company, your messages can be recorded and deciphered. If you are using other ways of telecommunications such as satelite links or radio you can be monitored by hundreds and thousands of various organizations. In fact, even if you establish a direct lazer connection you can probably be traced by using some kind of a filter that can be put in between your lazer transmitter and receiver.

    There is another way to communicate safely, but it is not all there yet - direct messages with quantum encryption. This in principle can not be compromized and if it is, the message becomes unreadable (destabilizes quantum polarization.)
    Good luck staying anonymous!
  • "If you can't be held accountable for your actions, you shouldn't be doing what you're doing." - I think that is the point, if you can NOT be held accountable for your actions, you WILL be doing what you are doing, whatever it is! :)

    In RL people prefer and are allowed to stay anonymous specifically not to become target of criminal structures, corporations or combinations of the two.
  • While you, people, are discussing the ramifications of elimination of anonymity on the Internet, which I must say I find amusing in a way, I just wanted to remind you that you actually never really had anonymity on the first place.
    From the Arpa project and the first BBSs to the latest ISPs and various so-called anonymous services the Internet was always ruled by centralized systems that became more and more dispersed, however I claim that there is no anonymity on the web right now. The only way to really become anonymous is not to own your own Internet connection, not to be registered with any ISP and not to have any computer accounts on any systems. - This is the base case - Maximum Internet Anonymity - it is only possible if y ou are not on the Internet.
    There are other ways of-course most of which are considered somewhat illegal or at best immoral.
    Using someone else computer account is illegal on some systems, dissallowed on most. Setting trap doors and trojans is mostly illegal, spreading computer viruses is illegal.

    Someone might think that such tools as Anonymizer, Gnutella or FreeNet make one completely anonymous on the Internet, but they really do not. Anonymizer (www.anonymizer.com) still has information about your connections, Gnutella protocol can be penetrated and so can FreeNet even if polymorphic protocols with encryption are introduced - there can always be someone sitting for the fun of it (at best) and getting Gnutella or FreeNet or Hotline user IPs.

    The question becomes - do we really want to have Laws that prohibit any anonymity on the Internet? I don't think that these laws have merit, I believe that if society is so much afraid of its members and it feels that Laws like that must be established, then the society does not deserve to continue its existense.

  • How did they manage to kill Cnet? Based on some of the other articles I have read on this, I don't quite get it. How can you have privacy without anonmitity? I mean if companies were honest, it might be possible, but from what I have seen, if you are not anonymous you can forget about privacy. Companies will say they are respecting your privacy while tracking everything you do. Then act shocked when confronted witht he fact that tracking everything you do is inconstistant with privacy. "What do you mean... We totally respect your privacy.. we just want to make money off of targeted ads... how is that not private?"

  • So, who was Deep Throat? Why is it every time someone speaks out against the government or the big corps from inside they speak on the condition of anonymity? I don't see the mainstream press being forced not to take anonymous sources.

    Kiddie porn and warez, even "terrorism," (which is fine when the government perpetuates it but not fine when ordinary citizens engage in anything that could remotely be construed as it, including going into hiding from said government) are nothing but big boogiemen.

    The killing of anonymity is something that big governments and corporations want so that they can more easily persecute people for their viewpoints. After all, once you know who is leaking inflammatory memos your CEO writes saying that your product should be made to destroy other companies (for example), you can fire them for something else, or otherwise make things very difficult, even if you don't just fire them for, say, leaking proprietary information?

    The spectre of a world in which people are not allowed to think and share ideas is much worse than any of these other threats.

    The whole reason that the internet is so empowering is that it allows theordinary person equal footing. On the internet, no one knows that you are a dog. Your writing will be judged by what it is, not on the fact that you are actually Joe the Plumber. The fact that your company is based in your living room and run by you and your wife does not prevent people from buying your products if they are good.

    Most importantly, you can speak your mind on the net and then go to work the next day and have a job. Something that might not happen if you say the wrong thing and it is attributed to you as a real-life person.

    There is no fine line between anonymity and privacy. In today's world, where a prosecutor can subpoaena your reading habits from barnes and noble, your eating habits from the grocery store (and why did you buy all that vaseline?), your email is read on a regular basis and kept forever, SOME FORM OF ANONYMITY is the only way you can express something and have it be private.

  • Actually, a decision at the federal level stated that you in fact only need to carry your identification on you when you are driving. I won't even get started on how ridiculous the law is related to driving and automobiles.

    Also, the police are restricted from searching your person when on the street for anything but weapons. This doesn't, of course, stop them from taking you to jail for the suspicion of carrying an illegal substance, but it's better than nothing. The rules of evidence say that if they find something illegal on you that isn't a weapon while searching for weapons, then they have engaged in an illegal search and they can claim it as contraband, but they cannot arrest you for it. Sometimes they do, and you have to make a call to the ACLU.

    One final note on how the law is different with regards to your car is that according to some interpretations, exiting your car and not locking it indicates a willingness to allow the police to search your car, without a warrant. Hence, if you are asked to step out of the car, roll up the window and lock your doors. In any case, without a warrant, the police are not allowed to search your car without your permission. You have more rights than you may know.

    Just remember, you cannot be arrested for failing to show ID to a police officer when requested (Even if arrested!) UNLESS you are driving OR a passenger in a car. If you are under the age of 18, you are exempt from that requirement unless you are the DRIVER of a car; You need not carry one while on foot.

    Finally, if you are not a legal resident of the United States, none of this is true.

  • It's a good question, but I think the two are separable in many people's minds.

    As an example, I point out the standard office user who believes their email is private. Everyone knows who the individual is by his/her name (there goes anonymity), but presumably his/her email is not read by a third party (thus the concept of privacy). We all know what a farce this is, but we also have all encountered people who believe in this "privacy".

    For the more savvy users among us, we encrypt content and take other precautions in proportion to the "risk" involved in the communication. Once again, we are not anonymous, but we are going the extra mile to ensure our privacy.

    The other thing I would add is that every time there is a DDOS attack or site hack, the powers-that-be try to nail down a username (assuming the perp has not made it easy on them). Presumably, this is because they can track users by reputation, something that just cannot be done where strict anonymity is involved.

    -L

  • I think it's a bad idea. An AC by any other name is still an AC.

    If you force people to log in to post, you may cut down on some of the spam, but since the spammers that stick around will have to log in to post also, you'll then have ACs posting at 1 instead of 0, thereby lessening the current value of logging in to post.

    Also, there is a certain value to being able to voice your opinion without fear of repercussions. Don't let the trolls and flamers take away that privilege from intelligent users.

    -Tommy

    ------
    "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."

  • GeekPress [geekpress.com] has a link to an inflamatory article [osopinion.com] on the horrible failures of the Slashdot moderation system. The criticisms are idiotic and off-base. Slashdot's method of moderation does far better than most. (It's not like these guys had an alternate, better method to propose.)

    As for the postings of AC, it's a real pain to have to register before testing something out. But, the trolling is also a big nuisance. So who do you want to piss off more: new users and trolls or your regular posters and readers?

    -- Diana Hsieh

  • In an ideal world, anonymity in not necessary in order to have privacy. Even though identifying information would be available, it is possible for people not to use it for personal or commercial purposes. The one factor that my "ideal world" scenario does not take into account is the value of identifying information.

    If you stumble across a $100 bill on your way to work, would you pick it up? Even if you knew, at the back of your mind that somebody will probably be looking for it? With personal information floating in the information ether, companies would be hard pressed *not* to amass database of identifying information. If just one company decides to amass a large database of personal information without individual consent (picking up the $100 bill in the example), the possibility for abuse exists. As individuals and consumers, we have a responsibility to protect ourselves from this abuse through the use of anonymity.
  • Our first two rights in the Bill of Rights are constantly attacked from the right and left, respectivly.

    Actually, the first amendment is constantly attacked from both the right and the left. Remember Tipper Gore's crusade against dirty lyrics in music? I suspect that at the moment, more censorship attempts come from the right than from the left because the right is currently ascendant.

    For lots of examples, I highly recommend Nat Hentoff's book Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other. (Unfortunately out of print--check your favorite library or out-of-print-book-finding service.)

  • I can understand why some people would want to eliminate / reduce the anonymity of the internet, but I think doing so at the risk of losing privacy would be a big mistake. Sure, you might catch some criminals, but I'm sure this would just be exploited to the point where people would be tracked for engaging in harmless activities (looking at homosexual porn, downloading pirated music, what have you) because the practice happens to be illegal (sure, homosexuality isn't illegal in all states, but you get my point), rather than going after serious criminals (like child pornographers). Yes, you might think that law enforcement would only track serious criminals, but think about it ... do you think cops spend more money, time, and manpower looking for murderers, rapists and other serious criminals, or for people who break the speed limit?

    Smell the GeekFlavor [geekflavor.com].

  • My 2 units of local anarchy (Score:3)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak&yahoo,com> on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:29AM (#1033926) Homepage Journal
    First off, I have to say I disagree with most of the comments I've read. They sound, to me, more like dark age mentality, than anything.

    First off, it is NOT the goal of ever organism to survive. There are plenty of examples of organisms which put the survival of the species, and sometimes even the BETTERMENT of the species over and above individual survival. (Prarie dogs and Bottlenose Dolphins are two such species. "Experts" have had a hard time understanding them, because it's "not natural to not be a self-centered bigot". Sorry, but self-centered bigotry has a much worse survival rating, over the long term, than caring and working for the whole.)

    Secondly, the price of freedom is NOT "having to listen to other's opinions". That's why we've got filters. Freedom to speak is NOT equal to an obligation to hear. If anything, it's the reverse. The more we can filter out the crap, and concentrate on the useful, the more time we have to speak! Without boundaries, there is no freedom, because there is no choice.

    Now, back to the topic at hand. Privacy versus anonymity. I don't see that there's a conflict. The only way to be truly private is to restrict access to information. Your identity is information. Therefore, anonymity REQUIRES privacy, to be enforced. Privacy, likewise, REQUIRES that anonymity be an option. If it weren't, then whatever you transmit can be traced to you, and privacy is lost.

    People mention law enforcement, as though it was some kind of Holy Grail. Sorry, but if law enforcement officers are so incompetent that they have to rely on the villains handing them the evidence, they've no business enforcing anything. Take a child abuser - the typical sort of target the Law Enforcement agencies are claiming to want to catch. If a person is capable of abusing a child, both they and the child will stand out a mile. It is impossible for abusers to act like other people.

    (This is NOT the same as the "profiling" gumph that Pinkerton threw out. It is possible to be different and yet have a strong empathy for other people. It is NOT possible for an abuser, thief, axe-wielding maniac, etc, to have that same empathy. If they had, they couldn't do what they do.)

    But, instead of looking for what Scott Peck calls "People of the Lie", the agencies would rather sit on their backsides and get paid for drinking coffee & screwing their secretaries. Maybe they fear that too many of them would show up positive if they implemented such a program. From their attitude, I couldn't disagree with that.

  • Anonymous mail (Score:3)

    by gatzke ( 2977 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:00AM (#1033927) Homepage Journal
    People forget that the US postal system has always allowed anoymous mailing. This has allowed people like the Unibomber to commit some terrible crimes. They do have people that monitor and try to intercept some things (kiddie pron, etc.) but pretty much anyone can send illegal material by snail mail completely anonymously.

    The problem is picking up packages anonymously. You could get a PO box, but those can be monitored easily.

    At least there is a way to allow anonymous publishing of material.

  • Re:Let's live in fear! (Score:3)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @08:25AM (#1033928) Homepage
    Gee, I never realized that there were bracketed clauses inserted into the 2nd Amendment. Funny how no one but you has noticed them for over 200 years.

    _MY_ copy of the 2nd amendment reads: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    Now then. In 18th century English 'well regulated' roughly means 'well maintained' or 'competent.' Thus, a well-regulated militia means one that knows how to use their weapons, and/or where the weapons are in a state of good repair. It has nothing to do with a chain of command.

    Militias are composed of any able-bodied person who can serve in them. Virtually everyone in the US is implicitly a member of their state's militia. The National Guard is not a replacement for this. It is more of a supplement on the one hand, but remember we're talking explicitly about STATE militias, and not the Federal military, so in that respect the National Guard doesn't count very much. (While organized by state, that means nothing. Until WW1 most army divisions were raised from states. Which is why in the Civil War you had units like the 12th Pennsylvania Cavalry, or whatnot.)

    But here's where you make your biggest blunder. You assume, erroneously, that only militias, or the National Guard, or the Military have the right to bear arms. It very clearly states, 'the right of the people.'

    The 2nd Amendment does NOT read: "The right of well-regulated Militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    It does NOT read: "The right of the Army and Navy to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    It does NOT read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be regulated."

    You seem to find a million hidden meanings in a very simple 2 clause sentence. Perhaps you should work in the field of data compression. I'd like to be able to expand a single bit into the OED without needing to transfer anything else.

    Have you considered the ultimate use of the 2nd Amendment? Let's go back to that 'defense of a free state' bit. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not trust their creation. They were human. They were fallible. The government they made was not perfect and they were well aware of it. But they did know that it is more important for people to be free than it is for the United States of America to exist. When these two conflict (and don't be a dope - we all know that we must make a sacrifice of the most miniscule parts of our freedom in order to continue to exercise the others) freedom must trump the government.

    The people have arms, without being required to be in the militia, though they can call pretty much any organization they like a militia; without being required to be in the formal military; without having to be in favor with the government. Because just as the founders of this nation rebelled against THEIR government, so may the people one day have to rise up against the US Government.

    Freedom is more important than the US. The US is just a name basically.

    Now I hope to God that it never does come to this. The government serves the people, derives any claim to legitimacy it has from the consent of the people, and no government anywhere, ever has the right to infringe on the freedoms of the people any more than is absolutely necessary. Tyrants can disguise themselves as members of democracies, republics, monarchies, communes, etc. but their guise does not erase the need for the people under their thumb to be free.

    I am 100% unwilling to bet my freedom and the freedom of countless generations after me on the continued good will of the government. This is one of the most important reasons (though not the only one) for which I support the 2nd Amendment. History shows us, sadly, that good governments do not last. Good governments may arise in the place where bad ones once stood, but you would have us foolishly throw away the means by which bad governments are felled to make room for good.

    It must be nice to be a Pollyanna. I hope you enjoy it.

  • Re:Let's live in fear! (Score:3)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @09:56AM (#1033929) Homepage
    What do you want us to use? Harsh language?

    Guerilla warfare *is* feasable as long as the opposing side can't tell the difference between civilians and guerillas and doesn't want to kill off the civilians.

    Vietnam and Afghanistan are rather good examples of successful guerilla war, though there were other forces at work as well (enemies of the would-be conquerer helping the conquered)

    An oppressive government is more likely to want to rule the people who live there, rather than have to replace them with people from somewhere else.

    Besides, even in 1776 hunting muskets were insufficient to fight the British. The Americans bought, stole and borrowed heavier armaments like cannon whenever they could.

    So fortunately (another example of thinking ahead) the US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the President ordered the army to kill everyone in Montana it's debatable what they would do. Most likely, in a situation in which the populace or a significant fraction therof rebelled, the military would be divided in their loyalties. We've already seen this during the Civil War.

    So it still makes sense for people to have arms for the purpose of fighting against the government. But there is no explicit reason why people MUST bear arms - simply that if they want to be free they had better be willing to defend themselves, when necessary, from those who wish to infringe upon those freedoms.

    To say that the 2nd Amendment is ONLY good in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of a free state is like saying that the freedom of speech only protects political speech. (which has been argued before) Neither is true.

    People have a natural right to defend their freedom. Do you believe that this is not true - that people must always submit to those who want to rule them?

    Freedom is dangerous bucko - free speech is objectionable, free religion is heretical, free assembly can lead to violence or conspiracy, privacy from the government can permit crime to occur. I'm willing to take those risks and be free. I'm not excusing criminal behavior, but I'm not going to give away the rights that I derive from my very existance for the 'safety' you would rather have.

    Besides, we live in the real world - would you really be safe? No. People who want to kill will still do so. It's sad that accidents happen, but perhaps education would be better; it works for cars. I would have taken Firearms Ed in high school.

  • Re:Let's live in fear! (Score:3)

    by jms ( 11418 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @07:44AM (#1033930)
    The constitution was written at a time when firearms were hand-made and unreliable. The term "well-regulated" referred to the firearms themselves, not to the militia. A well-regulated firearm is one that is kept in good working order, like a "well-regulated clock."

    The militia was, at the time, defined as the available pool of adult, male citizens who possessed firearms -- NOT a standing army like the military or the national guard.

    The founders abhorred the concept of a standing army. In fact, the constitution does not allow for a standing army. The authors of the constitution had just overthrown their own government -- the British government, and were well aware of the danger of having a standing army. The founders intended that the ordinary citizens possess the power to defend themselves, not only against foreign enemies, but against their own government if necessary.

    A modern translation of the amendment would be, "Because it is necessary that the citizens be able to personally defend their freedom, and because it is necessary to ensure that the citizens have working weapons to do so, the government may not interfere with private gun ownership.

    Saying that the 2nd amendment provides for gun control completely turns the intent of the amendment on its head.

    The reason our society is violent isn't because of the guns. It's mostly because we are living under drug prohibition -- which has progressed farther and destroyed more of our freedom then alcohol prohibition ever did, and because the government is actively waging a civil war -- the drug war -- against its own people. Violence is the natural result of prohibition and the black markets it creates.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @06:00AM (#1033931)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Re:Yeah, I'm thinking about getting rid of ACs (Score:3)

    by akey ( 29718 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:50AM (#1033932)
    Still I think that the Post Anonymously option should be kept for those who are logged in.

    Absolutely. To post, you should be logged in, but have the option of hiding your info from the world. If your login ID abuses the system too much (judged by downward moderations), then it should be disabled, or automagically adjusted to -1 for a day or so.

    ---

  • Re:Let's live in fear! (Score:3)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:41AM (#1033933)
    "First, take away the guns from all law abiding people - now they can't hurt each other, or better yet let's use the media to teach the common person how evil guns are."

    *Bullshit*

    "Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Note: A _WELL_ _REGULATED_ _MILITIA_, [in its function of] being necessary to the security of a free state, [confers] the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

    It is clear that the second amendment was intended, in a time when we had no free standing army, to allow a militia for the defense of the nation, and HENCE the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the extent required for said militia. The right of people to keep and bear arms is ONLY a CONSEQUENCE, and is CONTIGENT UPON, having a militia.

    We have no militia. We have a free standing army. Which is well trained and well armed. That it is our God-given right to tote around guns for the sheer pleasure of doing so is a fantasy fabricated by the NRA and gun lobby, so that they can make people feel good, nay, MORAL, in holding up their "responsibility" as citizens.

    Unless you are shooting a clay disk or bottle, or hunting some animal (for pure sport itself an activity of questionable ethics) guns ARE evil. Bombs ARE evil. Devices intended to kill people and things in general ARE evil. The media is not the one to confer these values to people, but still, the "common person" SHOULD be aware that these are generally "bad" things.

    However, since most Americans believe it is their right to arbitrary own guns, the society for the most part plays along. In fact, of all things that it would seem should be extremely regulated, guns are regulated very little, if at all (despite the fact that the second amendment says "WELL REGULATED"). Toys for children go through intense scrutiny...but the gun they pick up and blow their heads off with goes through none.

    "Second, let's make certain that we again use the media to educate the common man and tell them how infinately small and insignificant they are, and tell them they don't have the right to privacy."

    Oh please. Stop charging your argument by attempting to link gun control with privacy. Since when has owning a gun lead to a social good? Does owning a gun confer freedom of speech or expression or religion? Having a right to privacy, and the freedoms that spring from it are not comparable with the "right" to own a gun. No freedoms spring from owning a gun, and a gun won't protect your freedoms (yeah, I'm so sure you're going to take on the entire military and police establishment by yourself with your magnum like some lone cowboy).

    "Heston on Dateline the other day, he referred to Benjamin Franklin when someone asked "what kind of government have you given us?" - and when he replied "a democracy - if you keep it"."

    Hmm...I suppose the gun lobby is actually trying to "keep" the democracy by dumping tons of lobbying money into the government. Sorry I was confused about that. Funny how this special interest has managed to stifle the voice of the vast majority of citizens for so long. Yes, please, let's have democracy. It certainly won't be in the gun lobby's favor.

  • Re:Let's live in fear! (Score:3)

    by gotan ( 60103 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @06:17AM (#1033934) Homepage
    Sorry, I don't understand why many US citizens are so fascination with weapons (about 20 lines of my rant deleted) but in stark contrast to weapons anonymity has more defensive character, forbidding it is more like forbidding kevlar vests, because with em you might raid a bank without the government being able to shoot you.

    The bogus thing about most arguments against anonymity is, that the people who really want it (the big bad mafiaboss planning to soak america in cocaine) will still have it, there are too many ways on the net to become anonymous by redirecting information, if i want to hide the source i redirect the information often enough, if i wnat to hide the recipicient i encrypt it and send it to some newsgroup.

    So a government will always have a hard time explaining to citizens who think a little about it why anonymity must be forbidden, the catch is they don't need to do this, since most citizens don't stop to think about it, even most politicians don't, it's much easier to listen to the big industry and reiterate their phrases.

  • True Names (Score:3)

    by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:27AM (#1033935) Homepage Journal

    Vernor Vinge, a personal favorite Science Fiction author of mine, predicted the problems with Anonymity vs. Privacy in a networked world in his short story True Names. This short story is collected in the anthology True Names and Other Dangers in 1987, but I think the short story True Names predates that collection by several years.

    I really enjoy Vernor Vinge. Being a Comp. Sci. Professor helps him get the tech "right", which I enjoy in Science Fiction.


    -Jordan Henderson

  • Re:Responsibility (Score:3)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@carpaYEATSnet.net minus poet> on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:19AM (#1033936) Homepage
    > And "stand up to be counted" is sometimes the
    > right thing to do, but often is not. For
    > example, I believe that drugs should be
    > legalized. I am prepared to argue the point in
    > forums like Slashdot,

    This is a good point.

    Throughout history governments and large groups of many differnt kinds have used all sorts of pressures, ranging from threats of violence to social pressures to silence dissenting voices.

    Even in the US we are not free of these problems. Whether the power group is a large corperation, a cult, or the government itself, sometimes anonimity is the only way a person can talk about certain subjects without putting themself at risk.
  • The threat of the Internet and its accompanying information revolution is not only that "it is a powerful weapon against [goverments] if they choose to deprive their citizens of freedom" as pointed out by Alarmist.

    The anonymity and more importantly the privacy of the Internet denies an essential element to the survival of any goverment: the ability to tax its citizens.

    The internet enables people to conduct commerce, both internationally and domestically without a nation's government being able to monitor exchanges, and thus determine who can be taxed what.

    It is quite ironic though that if national governments do fall due to being unable to tax, then who is left to maintain the same communication networks that bought governments down in the first place?

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:52AM (#1033938)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Re:Responsibility (Score:3)

    by scott@b ( 124781 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:14AM (#1033939)
    I think that you will find that much of the early pro-independence pamphlets in the USA were printed anonymously. It is not unusual to do so when criticizing the powers that be, for those powers often can make life unpleasent for one or even terminate it.

    Yes, it shows that you really believe in what you are saying when you sign it. However, if you are likely to be locked away or killed the first time you do so, your effectiveness at changing things may be greatly reduced. If you can continue to publish your offically unpopular ideas, you may be able to influence enough of the public to bring about change (and allow you to start signing those publications).

    Think of the major represive countries in the 20th century, and then tell me that you would be will to publically and non-anonymously criticize them. Then think back to the anti-Vietnam war protests in the USA, and the earlier McCarthy era Red bashing.

    Or perhaps you are discussing something that happen to you. You may not want it known that these events happened to you - as a identified person; however you may still feel that telling about them anonymously can help others.

  • What about privacy? (Score:3)

    by don_carnage ( 145494 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:03AM (#1033940) Homepage

    Loose your anomynity and they promise to stop crime.

    Try to be anonymous and you're a criminal.

    #!/don/carnage


    --

  • Re:Responsibility - Yes (Score:3)

    by lbrlove ( 164167 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:39AM (#1033941)
    Actually, having a handle is significantly less anonymous in the context of this forum (than ACs are). Moderation is performed, karma is ascribed, and one's reputation is formed. To some people, their public persona is of the utmost importance. To others, it does not mean squat. That difference is reflected in their posting scores, and their ability to affect moderation on others.

    No, you really cannot pin down someone's true identity through the handle. This "anonymity" is proportional to the amount of "damage" that can be done through their speech; it is extremely unlikely that words on Slashdot are going to do more harm than good IMHO.

    -L

  • stuff and such (Score:3)

    by wishus ( 174405 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:49AM (#1033942) Journal
    I can't get to CNET, so I haven't read the article.

    But when have we ever really been anonymous on the internet?

    Working in the telecommunications field, I can tell you that hardware/software exists that can, should someone want to, track every call from your house to an ISP, and print it out in a neat little list.

    Compare that with the server logs at the ISP and we can associate name with IP.

    When you've got a name/IP association, you are no longer anonymous.

    Now, i have no idea about any laws governing this kind of thing, but regardless of laws... If it's possible to do, someone is doing it.

    It becomes even easier when your ISP is your phone company (SWBell, Spring, AT&T) as most of the new broadband technologies seem to be.

    Anonymity is a myth.

    I will repeat - if it's possible to do, someone is doing it. And once it's been done, no court of law can undo it.

    wish
    ---
    $ su
    who are you?
    $ whoami
    whoami: no login associated with uid 1010.

  • Then you must be PRO kiddie porn. (Score:3)

    by SlushDot ( 182874 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:41AM (#1033943)
    I don't want to live in the world where every time you visit a sight you get a call at home from a salesman, or every time you download a file you get someone sending you and email that offer the full featured version of that software for the low-low price of 29.95 + shipping.

    Then you must be PRO kiddie porn.

    At least this is how issues like this are turned into law in congress. Worst case scenarios of how anonymity can be abused are invented, portrayed as "this could happen to your kids", and then legislators must then vote on the basis of either being for this or against this. Classic spin tactics. (Like the "million" mom march that wasn't even 10% of that.)

  • Loss of anonymity is loss of freedom. (Score:4)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:03AM (#1033944)
    A free person should be able to walk the streets in anonymity. I would like to see the same principle applied to the internet.

    Interestingly, the United States, the preachiest of the "free" countries, doesn't seem to respect this principle. After moving there for a few years I was shocked to discover that one is expected to carry ID at all times. I was told that I risked being being treated as a vagrant, etc, by the police if I couldn't produce ID on demand. Hmmm, sounds like an authoritarian police state to me.

    I don't know how any one government could force anonymity on the web: it's an international system. I certainly hope that they don't try. The internet isn't fully understood by enough of the population for such decisions to be made: this will effect everybodies lives in the future. Only in the future will the implications of such actions be more fully understood by the populace, by which time it might be too late

  • The Method.. (Score:4)

    by PigleT ( 28894 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:58AM (#1033945) Homepage
    Perhaps one ought to stop worrying about the terms "anonymity" and "privacy" and wonder about the role of "identity" instead.

    The thing is, the use of a GPG or PGP key does not say "everything signed by this key is written by PigleT"; it says "there is a creature called PigleT who's applied a signature to a document". The nature of this creature is debatable - you have to find some way of pinning it down to the same chap who pays his taxes at a given address (or in criminal cases, doesn't pay... ;) and you might find that either it's an organization where more than one 'real live human' knows the secret-key password or it's been compromised...

    The thing I'm driving at is that people have multiple identities: there's one of me that types this here, potentially "another me" who you get to know by verifying one signed document, potentially another for another signing key... you have to piece them together like a daisy-chain to prove "identity".

    Anonymity is defined as using one identity with no chains off to other identities.
    Privacy is limitation of knowlege of a particular set of data to a restricted set of identites. (E.g. PigleT on his own; MyOrganization.co.uk; or "my private key and your private key, babe" or whatever.)

    Anonymity is a good thing to be able to use at will. If an idea needs expressed but doesn't want to be traceable for some reason, it should be possible.
    Privacy is also essential. I just don't *want* the US or any other government poking its snout in my life - and I don't have anything particular to hide, either.
    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

  • The Right Laws (Score:4)

    by MrChips ( 29877 ) <cvs@c[ ]toronto.ca ['s.u' in gap]> on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:07AM (#1033946)
    There seems to be this assumption that the laws we have today are the right laws to have from now until hell freezes over. If this is what you believe, then of course you want to see all law breakers prosecuted. If not, you will realize that civil disobedience and protest are an essental part of a democratic society and much easier if one can be anonymous.

    As more people realize the oppresive nature of intellectual property laws, they are going to want to change them. This scares the hell out of corporations and hence they want to see all such individuals silenced and jailed. This is much easier to do if anominity is non-existant.

  • Anonymity is our only sheild from tyranny. (Score:4)

    by BoLean ( 41374 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:02AM (#1033947) Homepage
    When there is inequality in any system, being able to strike bat at the opressors without being caught is important. If I were to describe a place where everything you say or do is monitored- where you have no shield against your oppressors- what comes to mind? Nazi Germany where neighbors were encourages to report their neighbors? Communist Russia where saying the wrong thing could have sent you to a Siberian Gulag? Communist China where reporting the truth could have you put in jail? Anonymity is sometimes our only sheild from tyranny.

  • Re:Fine Line? (Score:4)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:53AM (#1033948) Homepage
    People who actually want to change things rarely do it anonymously...Anonymous actions rarely have the same effect.
    Nonsense. American (USAmerican) provides numerous counter-examples. Common Sense [let.rug.nl], which helped spur the Americian Revolution, and the Federalist Papers [loc.gov] which helped lead to the founding of the union, were both written anonymously.

  • Prices for freedom (Score:4)

    by blakestah ( 91866 ) <blakestah@gmail.com> on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:56AM (#1033949) Homepage
    There are prices we pay for freedom.

    A price for freedom of speech is having to listen to opinions we do not like.

    A price for the ability to protect ourselves from an oppressive government is having to protect ourselves from each other.

    A price for a person to be secure in their person and things is the loss of control of what people do with their persons and things. This applies to the current situation. With the right to be secure in my person and things, I can get away with doing almost anything. This creates a fundamental problem in a free society in which corporations want to control what happens with their product AFTER possession is taken of it. (There is another analogy in a certain war the US government has been losing for 30 years, but leave that for now).
    Personally, I value the right to privacy more than I value the right of the copyright owners to be secure in the "free" sharing of their copyrights. Invasion of privacy is no solution to the problem.

  • Let's live in fear! (Score:5)

    by PenguinX ( 18932 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:00AM (#1033950) Homepage
    Let's all live in fear my friends! Because a crime can happen by the few, let's make certain that the many have no methods of privacy, protection, or overall peace. Because we think we can do better, let's force everyone else to do the same.

    Rubbish, this flawed logic irritates the hell out of me.

    This is how it really is:

    First, take away the guns from all law abiding people - now they can't hurt each other, or better yet let's use the media to teach the common person how evil guns are. Second, let's make certain that we again use the media to educate the common man and tell them how infinately small and insignificant they are, and tell them they don't have the right to privacy. You DO know that individual freedoms are always compromised at the expense of the greater good. Third make sure -- well sure that you please them just enough to get re-elected (such as in Washingon State's i695 [wa.gov]

    This is mostly the corrupt government's fault - but I would charge the reason that it exists on the American voter. We don't vote, don't care, or vote for who everyone else votes for. Very few people take the time to think critically that actually *do* vote - most of these people go off of gut feeling, or "moral" beliefs. Disgusting isn't it? As I was listening to C. Heston on Dateline the other day, he referred to Benjamin Franklin when someone asked "what kind of government have you given us?" - and when he replied "a democracy - if you keep it".

  • Re:Responsibility (Score:5)

    by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:59AM (#1033951) Homepage
    If you aren't willing to take responsibility for what you do or say, you shouldn't do or say it.

    It's not a question of responsibility. It's a question of pressure from the majority and/or a vocal minority. It has long been recognized that anonymous speech is very, very important to a democracy. There are multiple Supreme Court cases where this is said explicitly.

    And "stand up to be counted" is sometimes the right thing to do, but often is not. For example, I believe that drugs should be legalized. I am prepared to argue the point in forums like Slashdot, but I will not attempt to convert my co-workers to the idea (they consider me enough weirdo as is :-) )

    Besides, you cannot really separate privacy and anonymity. Both of them break the link between the actor and the action, it's just that in privacy the actor is known, but the action is not, while in anonymity the action is known, but the actor is not. They are just two sides of the same coin.

    Kaa

  • Supreme Court has upheld anonymity (Score:5)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @05:10AM (#1033952) Homepage
    To the chagrin of those who would control us [the government], time and time again the US Supreme Court has upheld the right to publish anonymously. This also includes the right to read anonymously. Much of the "Federalist Papers" were published anonymously for fear of reprisal.

    Anonymity [in spite of it's pejorative connotation] is nothing more than a stronger form of privacy. Privacy is the right not to be snooped "at home". Anonymity is basically the right to make snooping impossible "in public". If everybody followed certain confidentiality rules, you might be able have privacy without anonymity. If people don't follow the rules, then the only privacy _is_ in anonymity.

    Since rules are always broken, skirted, loopholed or otherwise compromised by interested parties, the only safe privacy is through anonymity.

  • Crimes on the Internet. (Score:5)

    by Alarmist ( 180744 ) on Thursday June 01, 2000 @04:41AM (#1033953) Homepage
    This comes back to the old citizen's rights-versus-state's-convenience argument. Our governments want to monitor on-line usage to "protect the children" and "protect the artists" and "protect the country."

    Hogwash, ladies and gentlemen.

    The goal of any organization is, first and foremost, continued survival. Beyond a certain point, organizations take on characteristics of living things: they consume, they repair damage, they grow. They also defend themselves against perceived threats.

    Governments (and large corporations, but it's really the same story) everywhere in the industrialized world realize that the Internet is a powerful weapon against them if they choose to deprive their citizens of freedom. The Internet is an excellent medium for dissemination of information and collection of same. As it is difficult to defeat a knowledgable citizenry without the use of arms, every government bent on maintaining itself as a parasite on its people will try to regulate (and perhaps eventually, eliminate) access to the Internet.

    The era of thoughtcrime and the Ministry of Love is not far away, if we do not do something about this now. Remember this: your government may not have your best interests at heart. Realize this and act accordingly.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. -- Oscar Wilde Most UNIX programmers are great masters of style. -- The Unnamed Usenetter

Close