Esther Dyson Grudgingly Defends Internet Anonymity 516
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview, Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings, describes anonymity on the Internet as similar to abortion: a bad practice that people should still have rights to. Calling anonymity one of the greatest disappointments of the Internet's evolution, Dyson said: 'I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing. I think the same thing about anonymity: Everybody should have the right to it, but it's not something one wants to encourage.'"
Why Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a test for you:
On Slashdot Post:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
At any tech user group meeting stand up and say:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
And then come back and say that "anonymity doesn't affect anyone"
-Rick
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
There. Anonymity doesn't affect anyone.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
Now you know the difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, but then that conflicts with the first post, "Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?"
Anonymity does affect someone. It prevents the people in power having more power to control and influence the people they seek to maintain power over. Therefore the people in power do not want their mi
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, I just tried this, and DAMN I see the light now. I now fully appreciate anonymity and its ability to keep my person and my clothes free from frothing spittle, multiple-chin sweat, and greasy cheetos stains.
Though standing a little closer to the door would have had largely the same effect as anonymity. They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.
You might think that. Just wait until you discover the sort of sites that the police now trace to your IP address.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
So may people incorrectly think that the powerful deserve to be defended from the powerless, completely losing sight of the fact that it is unnecessary since the powerless are incapable of attacking the powerful. These well meaning people are merely reinforcing the inequity. With anonymity the person in your example at least has the option of making their comment. Without anonymity the powerless person loses the power to make the comment, even it it is true, because it they do they will have to defend themselves against the powerful.
Hint: The vast majority of attacks on anonymity that you hear come from powerful people. This is because the powerless generally do not have a voice. Powerful people have a vested interest in maintaining their power.
The problem is not anonymity. The problem is that people need to learn to think critically and evaluate everything that is said to them. That way they can spot BS, whether it comes from an anonymous source or not.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
You are kidding arent you ?Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.
If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.
I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mods should take a look at this, as they obviously have difficulty distinguishing a troll post from an offtopic one. A troll post such as this would achieve its core goal - to use misinformation to state their point, goading people into replying to correct or admonish the original poster while the poster gets to sit back and have a good laugh at the people who didn't recognize the post for what it was. The bathroom stall posts that are here ev
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have just created the perfect troll.
No, he didn't. [jerryleecooper.com]
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...And a computer without hardware is what...
That is why Apple is the ONLY company that makes both hardware and software, together, as a complete SYSTEM, not some cobbled together pile of random parts from who knows how many places, That you are using. The so called "computer" you are using evolved from random hardware and software parts. Macs are intelligently designed by some real engineers. People that recognize this, are willing to pay a little extra. That is why Apple makes good profits, while the othe
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not encourage anonymity?
Because it also encourages the lack of accountability that goes along with it.
Or, put more crudely. [penny-arcade.com]
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite. Plastering your name over everything you do, waving your tiny banner as hard as you can trying to get people's attention and adoration.. it's pretty pathetic. Just toss in your little contribution and disappear into the crowd with the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again.
.
Exactly. It encourages a sub-optimal solution (put up with oppressive corporations and governments, just hide from them) instead of the optimal one (everyone in the world stand up to them and fight them out of existence).
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what you describe in your first paragraph is exactly why many of us who cordially dislike Internet anonymity (I'm Aaron Babb, by the way, hello) understand that sometimes it can be a good thing.
When I'm willing to use my real name it's not that I'm looking for people to see my e-mail address and say "Wow, that's Aaron Babb! Isn't he awesome?" (I'm not). Rather, it's my way of saying that this is my real name and I don't mind if you know it because I'm not going to be an asshole who is unwilling to back up what he says and/or admit when I'm wrong.
Not everybody uses their Internet anonymity to be a jerk, but enough do that I wonder if things would be different if they were using their real names. Still, I have no interest in forcing people to use their real names, mainly because it's not really any of my business if someone doesn't want to do so. I'm free to ignore anonymous jerks, just as I'm free to ignore jerks who use their real names.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
[citation needed]
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hi. I'm an anonymous jerk. I'm the one who hit your car in the parking lot and didn't leave his name. Pleas
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everybody uses their Internet anonymity to be a jerk, but enough do that I wonder if things would be different if they were using their real names.
Ever walk the streets of New York (or any large city for that manner). Whole throngs of people walk around being jerks at each other. And they're doing it right there in person! Right in front of you. Within arm's reach.
Yeah, sure. Some people are jerks when they're anonymous. But its hardly the root cause of the problem.
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Informative)
Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)
poleis
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again.
I agree completely. Anonymity is a cornerstone of free society.
Without anonymity we wouldn't have vitriolic bloggers; we wouldn't have this fantastic forum of discourse where we can speak our minds and not worry about being smacked with a lawsuit (well, not including the video professor).
Of course, that doesn't mean we should encourage people writing inflammatory bullshit just for the sake of it, because they're trolls and know they can hide their bias behind the veil of anonymity.
Or, in other words, anonymity definitely has its uses, but that doesn't imply it should be encouraged.
And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite.
No, it's honest and expected.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not just create tools that take the annoyance out of trolls, anonymous or otherwise?
I've been "browsing at -1" since Slashdot invented moderation, and the system of denying attention to trolls *works*. The amout of trolling, and especially crapflooding, on Slashdot has fallen *dramatically* over the last 5 years or so. When's the last time anyone saw a GNAA post? We get less than one racist or gay porn copypasta post per story these days, and clever goatse.cx links almost non-existant.
There was no change in the difficulty of being anonymous here. There was little change in the maturity of Slashdot readers (arguably the average was less mature while the trolling was falling fastest, in the last year before Digg), yet trolling and crapflooding has almost vanished, compared to the bad years.
I don't think we need to discourage anonymity. We need to vigorously discourage trolling, and ignoring the trolls is the best way. Technology can help with that.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
It's like the original Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)
Poleis, actually. That's the first time I've ever gotten to use that particular bit of useless knowledge. Thanks!
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not encourage anonymity?
Because it also encourages the lack of accountability that goes along with it.
it's only been six weeks since the u.s. election -- and already people are forgetting the importance of anonymity.
in the united states, indeed in every western democracy, ballots are secret. no one questions this anonymity -- indeed, it's mandated by law.
the reason we have secret ballots is simple: the framers of the constitution (any western constitution) realized that people could only truly vote their conscience, express their political preference, if they could do so without fear of reprisal or ridicule. anonymity is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.
it's kind of a shame that ms. dyson doesn't realize that.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bite. Who gets to decide when it's necessary?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the same could be said of abortion.
No, the nonliving mass of cells in the woman's uterus doesn't count.
I think the problem some people have with abortion is that it IS a living mass of cells
I think what you meant to say is the non-self aware mass of cells in the woman's uterus does not count.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how this discussion has an explosively controversial issue built right into the discussion, but such that it really has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. It's like it was written to guarantee the topic of anonymity would get almost no attention at all.
I find it both entertaining & amusing. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd almost think that TFA was written as flamebait to generate maximum pageviews and that comment based news sites like /. were carrying it for the same reason!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when did you *eat* meat the last time?
Or eggs?
Or anything else living?
Abortion is forbidden in Germany, if the child is already sentient above a certain level. Sure, that level is different for everyone.
Remember: There is to "sentient" or "non-sentient". It's a huge gradient.
I think it's the decision of the woman. With 6 billion (=milliard) people, and soon 10 billion (=milliard) humans on this planet, life is overrated by far. (I specifically do not exclude myself here!)
And I specifically do not "forbid
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
that's why it's hypocritical to oppose abortion to protect a nondescript clump of cells without any observable sign of sentience, much less sapience, while one continues to support the slaughter of clearly sentient animals such as chickens, cows, pigs, lambs, etc.
it makes even less sense to support capital punishment while claiming to be pro-life and calling the use of emergency contraceptives "murder." an embryo doesn't have any more sentience than a plant. nerve endings/pathways don't even fully form until the 28th week of gestation, precluding the possibility of experiencing pain (or any other sensation) before the 27th week of gestation. so how can one justify terminating the life of a human being (especially knowing the justice system is far from infallible) when it is presumably wrong to terminate the life of an embryo which has no capacity for pain or conscious thought?
and the only connection between anonymity and abortion is that Esther Dyson is wrong about both of them. though anonymity can sometimes facilitate rude behavior, it's not the cause of it, and it certainly doesn't a make everyone behave rudely (just as a lack of anonymity doesn't prevent rude behavior). besides, anonymity is just an extension of personal privacy; and like privacy, there are different levels of anonymity. signing an e-mail or forum post with your full name doesn't really eliminate anonymity completely. and signing a message with an e-mail address or pseudonym still isn't completely anonymous. so should everyone's address, photo, and phone number be attached to every message in order to qualify as no-longer anonymous?
most people have a natural tendency to be cordial and sociable regardless of whether they have "anonymity" or not. it's just an evolutionary adaptation. we're social creatures, and being able to co-exist and cooperate with others is an integral part of our survival. only those with sociopathic tendencies would intentionally be rude to others just because they have some semblance of anonymity. so there's no reason for anonymity to be discouraged.
likewise, abortion shouldn't be something to be held against a someone for having. the cultural stigma that still surrounds abortion is a vestige of the religious fundamentalism that dominated our culture in the past. there's no good reason to look down on someone for making the responsible decision to not have a child when they're not ready. it's really no one else's business, and making women/teenage girls feel ashamed of making a personal choice about their body is really just continuing the persecution that women/girls were subjected to in decades past.
Is she related to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Freeman Dyson is her father. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson [wikipedia.org]
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Funny)
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
No. If you FTFA, you will note that she is actually the offspring of a woman and a demonic Dyson vacuum cleaner.
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Funny)
No. If you FTFA
Fuck the fucking article? Sounds like fun, but how does it help?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing.
No, really? Is there anyone who is pro choice who doesn't feel the same way? I mean, I've never heard anyone who was honestly "pro-abortion," just "pro-having the option when life hits the fan."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
My GF has had an abortion. No big deal. Her words.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've had one. No regrets. Not quite in the category of "put on a condom", but not something I lose sleep over.
Wha..... (Score:5, Funny)
So you're saying by posting anonymous cowardly then I'm advocating abortion?
I almost feel as sorry as when I heard that god kills kittens when I masturbate... those poor kitties.... millions of poor dead kitties... :(
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, every time you don't masturbate, god kills a kitten. Think of the kittens.
Re:Wha..... (Score:5, Funny)
If that's what you think about when you masturbate, you have issues~
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, every time you don't masturbate, god kills a kitten. Think of the kittens.
Well then if you see a dead kitten, it isn't my fault.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Creates a new Milky Way...
Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if there weren't so many jackasses out there trying to get us all pregnant with ads, malware or the like. Anonymity is an important part of a user's self-defense when using the internet. So in a way, she is right... it is unfortunate that we need to defend ourselves, but we do. We absolutely need to protect ourselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand what the problem with anonymous speech is. Or to put it another way, I don't understand what's so great about having a name and number attached to everything. Anonymous speech is NOT a necessary evil; it's nothing less than a fundamental prerequisite to freedom. Why? Because the only way to eliminate anonymous speech is through aggression. Coercion. Physical force.
Beyond that, anonymous speech is simply a concept which is neither inherently good or bad. It can be used for good, and i
Re:Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, the presence of a trackable name or number cannot possibly influence whether the logic is correct or incorrect.
Logic is logic. It is exactly as valid when anonymous or not. But, most discussions involve matters of fact, as well as logic. And, unless you feel everyone should know everything, I'm going to have to take the writer's word for, at least, some point of fact. So, I have to come up with some way to rate the writer's credibility. And standing behind something and putting your name to it, improves your credibility in my eyes.
You know, over the years slashdot has become more and more hostile to anonymous speech, and after 11 years here, I'm just about ready to hang it up. If you all really don't want us -- even when we have logical and useful points to add to the discussion -- then I just give up.
No, no, no. There's no reason not to have anonymous posts on /.. I could set my preferences to mod them to oblivion if I wanted. All I'm saying is that an anonymous poster has to do better than an "onymous" one to get the same amount of respect.
I'm not bashing anonymous speech at all. I think it plays a valuable role in all sorts of situations: corporate and governmental whistle-blowing, or for controversial stands on issues. But, if something is posted anonymously, I tend to examine their facts more closely.
As a bonus, on the internet the signal-to-noise ratio for anonymous speech is significantly worse then for attributed speech. Filtering out the anonymous is a quick and easy way to improve content.
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymity is crucial in ensuring that those who need to speak out have the means to do so without fear of retribution.
Not to nitpick, but anonymity is the treatment for the symptoms of the abridgement of free speech, not the symptom itself. Just as with treating disease, we need to treat both the symptom (retribution for speaking out, etc) and the primary disease (abridgement of fundamental rights).
To comment on the specific POV in question, I feel that Esther Dyson views (perhaps subconsciously) anonymous speech as making it easier for people to infringe the rights of others. My disagreement lies with with the assumption that words themselves (from a non-authority figure) can impinge on ones' rights.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the right to free speech? This is so abridged that regular people feel the need to speak anonymously, lest they be fired from their work, denied a new job, sued, etc. So, it seems to me that anonymity is a symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental right that is being violated.
It reminds me of stars that use their name recognition to draw an audience to give political speeches. And then they get upset if those political views cause others to decide to not do business with them and it affects their careers. It seemed to me that they wanted to trade on their name to gain attention but didn't want to be responsible for their actions.
Along the same lines, I've had various professional accouterments (titles, uniforms, etc.) over the years. I had to be very careful sometimes that what I said would not be mistaken as representative of my employer. I found that this was easier if I didn't stress my employer and position when using my name or discussed things under a pseudonym.
With all this in mind... it seems to me that the option of being anonymous is a part of the ability to exercise free speech rather than a crutch due to other limitations of it.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: Dixie Chicks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I sincerely doubt you can name even one case of that happening.
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and the Baseball Hall of Fame / Bull Durham tempest-in-a-teapot. Dixie Chicks (or at least Natalie Maines) and the Bush-from-Texas-embarrassment brouhaha. Those come immediately to mind.
Note that I don't mention Bill Maher as politics is his schtick (talking politics is his job) and I'm not aware of him actually suffering repercussions for anything he's said.
Also note that this is not about whether any specific comments were "right" or not. My criticism is restricted to sta
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And then they get upset if those political views cause others to decide to not do business with them and it affects their careers.
Can you name one example where said star was publicly upset that their business was impacted as a result of their political statements?
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and the Baseball Hall of Fame / Bull Durham tempest-in-a-teapot.
More bull. Here is what Robbins said:
Reached Wednesday night, Robbins said he was "dismayed" by the decision, He responded with a letter he planned to send to Petroskey, telling him: "You belong with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame."
Robbins and Sarandon, his longtime partner, have been active in peace rallies to protest the war in Iraq. In his letter, Robbins said he remained "skeptical" of the war plans and told Petroskey he did not realize baseball was "a Republican sport."
"To suggest that my criticism of the President put the troops in danger is absurd.... I wish you had, in your letter, saved me the rhetoric and talked honestly about your ties to the Bush and Reagan administrations.
"You invoke patriotism and use words like 'freedom' in an attempt to intimidate and bully. In doing so, you dishonour the words 'patriotism' and 'freedom' and dishonour the men and women who have fought wars to keep this nation a place where one can freely express their opinions without fear of reprisal or punishment."
Catholic New Times, May 4, 2003 [findarticles.com]
There is not a word in there even remotely hinting at dismay over loss of business or impact on their careers. Not a single word.
See my response to the other poster regarding the Dixie Chicks. Nothing from them complaining about losing business, not a word complaining about damage to their careers. But plenty of words stating that the people doing the boycotting are doing it because they are essentially "wrong thinkers."
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, how about this angle?
Years ago, when I was working the swing shift at a 7-11 store, my boss -- a great old guy by the name of Dave Clarke, now passed -- told me that if you're going to write something down that you want to say to somebody, you sign it. In fact, you sign it and date it, so people know when you said it. If you don't have the nerve to do that, then maybe it shouldn't be said. Maybe you're just being a petulant little jerk.
The more I thought about this, the more I took it to heart. Today I absolutely believe it. If you have something to say, then people should know that it was you who said it. I file it under that time-worn category that your grand-pappy would call "building character."
But imagine if, somehow, I never had the option to write something anonymously. What if we had future space-pens, and if I wrote a note and stuck it on the dorm refrigerator, they could analyze the ink and find out if it was mine? What if there was NO WAY for me to leave anonymous messages? Probably I would just not say half of the snotty things that occurred to me to say, out of fear of consequences. That would be beneficial to other people, I guess. But in a world like that, how I would I build character? How would I grow up to be a mature, responsible adult with integrity?
As irritating as it is to everybody who has already passed this particular milestone in their lives that I describe, building character basically comes down to learning to make good choices. Unfortunately, it's not a skill we're born with. If people are never even encouraged to try to learn the skill, my hunch is that they never will. Every choice that you take away from people limits their effectiveness as human beings. I believe this absolutely.
You made mistakes when you were younger. I made mistakes. It's unfortunate that grown-ups like us still have to live in a world where people still keep making mistakes, but c'est la vie. Mistakes are how we learn.
And at the end of the day, I absolutely know what Esther Dyson is saying and I agree 100 percent. On both counts. I think it's a shame that I can make a statement like "I am against abortion" and people will assume that I want to pass a law outlawing abortion. The two ideas aren't the same. And I, too, don't see a need to go around posting anonymous messages, but I actually fear the kind of world we'd live in if that were not possible. For several reasons.
P.S. Bruce, you've made your opinion on the signal-to-noise ratio on Slashdot plain many times, but I consider myself an intelligent person, and I for one browse at -1. Maybe it all comes down to expectations.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it seems to me that anonymity is a symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental right that is being violated.
We'd have to agree to disagree. Suppose I saw my next door neighbor kill someone, and he's from a huge family of drunken rednecks. We currently get along because I go my way and they go theirs, but I want as little as possible to do with them. I want to tell the police but I do not want my name on the report lest I get killed.
Anonymity because you'll get fired if you write someone on your blog is sad. Anonymity because you'll die if you're caught speaking is a good thing.
Anonymity? (Score:5, Funny)
Google and Apple suck.
I am a man who likes men.
George Bush was a great president.
His son was better.
Digg is the best place for all news.
I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable. Even in a future where a fetus can be transplanted into another mother I suspect the "pro-choice" crowd will insist that the mother can still choose to abort it.
Likewise, with anonymity, I think it's one of the best parts about the internet. It's hardly unfortunate that it makes it difficult for governments to track down dissenters, etc. Sure, people use it for bad things as well, but that's true of ANY freedom. Might as well suggest that "free speech is unfortunate thing that people should still have the right to." People will 'abuse' free speech in other different ways but it's still inherently a good thing.
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your suggestion doesn't make any sense and has nothing at all to do with abortion and entirely to do with adoption and custody rights.
Men already have this right (as do women). An old roommate of mine got his girlfriend pregnant. When they split up he signed away his rights. He will never owe child support and she can never come after it in exchange for him having no rights or claims on the child. Lone mothers who give their children up for adoption also sign away their rights, such as the case of my young
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
Men already have this right (as do women). An old roommate of mine got his girlfriend pregnant. When they split up he signed away his rights. He will never owe child support and she can never come after it in exchange for him having no rights or claims on the child. Lone mothers who give their children up for adoption also sign away their rights, such as the case of my younger (adopted) brother.
You're citing rare cases. What typically happens is the girl gets pregnant, discovers her maternal instincts and decides to keep the baby. The man, at that point, is at the whim of everything she subsequently chooses to do, while she is free to pursue her preferences with the full force of tradition, public sympathy, friends, family and neighbours, the efforts of the local district attorney and a court system eager and able to help behind her. Any rights the man has (a tentative and often dubious set of concepts) are there for him to pursue on his own, with the expenses bourne by him exclusively.
That's a long way of saying that most men who find themselves in this situation pregnant will spend the next 18 years involuntarily signing off on what typically amounts to 1/4 to 1/3 of their gross income to the woman. If the guy's lucky, he may get visitation.
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:4, Informative)
Right now women really have no motivation to keep from getting pregnant with anyone but the poorest of guys. It's a free lunch for them.
Anyone who would label nine months of pregnancy followed by an expensive delivery a "free ride" for the woman has clearly never lived with a pregnant woman. Pregnancy puts a woman's body through the ringer and damn near incapacitates them, and at the end you either pay a ton of money for surgical removal of the baby or suffer in agony as its rips through a too-small opening to get out.
Poor, single women who repeatedly get pregnant aren't making smart choices when they get pregnant, but for some of them if they made smarter choices they wouldn't be poor and single and pregnant in the first place. Getting pregnant certainly is not a way out of being poor and single.
Oh, and day care costs so much that it's impractical unless you have just one child and a reasonably-paying job. If you make lousy wages or have multiple children you're just hosed.
Of course you're an AC just trolling...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who would label nine months of pregnancy followed by an expensive delivery a "free ride" for the woman has clearly never lived with a pregnant woman. Pregnancy puts a woman's body through the wringer and damn near incapacitates them, and at the end you either pay a ton of money for surgical removal of the baby or suffer in agony as its rips through a too-small opening to get out.
Why do economically advantaged women have more than two children?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A free ride? Man, that's quite the laugh, isn't it?
Maybe if they get knocked up by a millionaire or something. Most states child support laws don't come close to covering half of the real costs of raising a child. And there are several states where need is not taken into account at all (thus a very wealthy woman can still get child support payments from a poor man.)
The rules are all out of whack.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus
You would have made a better argument with "unthinking embryo."
"Fetus" is a term that is applicable from about the 11th week of pregnancy all the way to childbirth. Is a 1 day pre-term baby an "unthinking fetuses?"
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Interesting)
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
You yourself admit its tricky to define.
Most pro-lifers think an unthinking fetus IS a person, so for them it IS a moral problem.
And they aren't "wrong" for thinking that. Its a perfectly rational position. After all, your suggestion that simple self-awareness is required before you can be considered a person raises questions about certain classes of mental handicap, people in comas, brain damage, etc... these are a people that are not self aware. And a fetus actually has a very good chance of achieving self-awareness. Like you said, 'person' is tricky to define. So if someone believes the definition includes an unborn fetus, I can see the argument is reasonable, whether I agree with it or not.
Further, your arm analogy has multiple flaws. An arm is not, was not, and will never be an independent person. A developing fetus has its own unique DNA, and is steadily sliding along a continuum towards being an independent person. I don't see a logical error being committed by arguing that a living organism with its own DNA that is actually developing into a fully 'normal person' should be protected more than a limb.
And it certainly seems reasonable that it shouldn't be protected LESS than your limbs?
And that's where it gets interesting... you can't just go in and get your arm lopped off because you feel like it. And its indisputably 'just' a part of you. Yet it would be pretty challenging to find a doctor willing to amputate your arm without a medical necessity. A fetus is arguably a person, and at the very least developing into a person. In fact, where I live at least, it would probably be HARDER to get a healthy arm amputated than to arrange for the abortion of a healthy fetus.
Hell, I'm pro-choice and that even seems out of whack to me.
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem happens when they want their morals to govern everyone else's actions.
That is not generally a problem. Good laws don't restrict your actions more than are required to prevent harm to another person. Right?
ie You can do what ever you want, as long as you don't hurt another. The reason you aren't allowed to shoot someone isn't because I want to control you but because letting you do that hurts someone else. Were protecting them, not controlling you. See the difference?
This is where abortion gets tricky. If the fetus is a person, that it merits being protected from you. An anti abortion law isn't really about controlling you, as it is protecting them.
The dispute of course, is whether the fetus merits protection. If its its own person it does merit protection. If its not a person, then you should be left alone to decide for yourself what its fate will be.
To me, the mere fact of it being such a complicated issue is all the more reason why women should be able to make the individual choice for themselves.
Normally I'd agree with this. If society can't come to consensus, than it should be left to individual. However, this case has some nuances -- the first is that its a right to life case so I'm inclined to err on the side of life, even if its 'wrong'. And secondly, the life in question is an *independent* life, so the mother is not just deciding for herself, she is deciding for the new being as well. So again, I'm inclined to err on the side of caution here.
That's just me, making a moral judgement.
Despite all this I identify as pro choice without hesitation when it comes to rape, incest, medical risks, etc, and while I would vote pro choice in any ballot, I think abortion-as-birth-control or as convenience is reprehensible.
Even a healthy pregnancy is not nine months of sunshine and rainbows, and I'm not even going to mention the things birth can do to the female body.
Life after birth isn't all sunshine and rainbows either. My wife tells me that the first 6 months after our kids were born were far harder on her than the actual pregnancies themselves. Should we be allowed "post-partum abortions"? Surely not.
And as for what a pregnancy does to the body... a lot of that is more a sad reflection on society and its unrealistic, unhealthy standards of beauty than anything else. (I get that attraction to youthful beauty is to some extent hardwired in to our biology -- but the degree the obsession has reached in society is more sad than useful.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now...owning a penis also encourages a lot of bad behavior. I think our right to own penises far outweighs any perceived right to not have to deal with penis owning assholes.
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are twisting the facts a bit. There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue:
1) The time of brain activity. Before a certain time, there is no brain activity (for some time, no brain at all). Thus the fetus really is nothing more than a collection of cells. If the brain isn't active, there's no self at that point.
2) The time of reasonable fetal viability outside the mother. Before a certain point, a fetus cannot survive if removed from the mother or should the mother die. Even if care is immediately available, there is still no saving it. Thus in a very real way it is a part of the mother, not an individual entity.
Now if you don't like those that's perfectly fine, but please stop trying to distort the argument. The biggest problem I have with the abortion argument is people get so passionate about it that they let all logic go out the window and try to completely misrepresent the other side of the argument. People aren't interested in weighing the issues, thus they try to make the other side's issues appear to me irrelevant or monstrous and so on.
It is not a simple issue, and both sides have valid points. Don't try to distort that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue
Yes, I understand. I'm arguing the basis of those arguments. Both of them are trying to establish when life begins.
The first one is pretty basic. Brain Function/Capacity for pain = life.
The second equally so. The fetus can not survive without the mother, and is therefore not a life, simply a part of the mother.
My point is that both of those arguments can be expanded beyond just fetuses.
Lets look at the first one. Brain activity. This, to me, isn't a good test for life. Ants have brain activity, AND t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the current rate of post-natal depression among new mothers, I think legalising such a barbaric act could be a very, very bad thing.
That's your view. And playing the devils advocate here...
Perhaps we would remove a lot of the burden on the health and welfare systems if we legalised it. Mothers won't suffer so much PND and will be less reliant on support services. There's also be less infants who are poorly cared for and hospitalised. We could certainly use the population reduction that it would bring - there's a lot of babies made simply for the sake of having sex. Perhaps if there were a lot less of them we wouldn't be in the shi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's funny. Ya know, if you have post-natal depression and you kill your baby, you can't be convicted of a crime.
I wouldn't count on that. It strongly depends on how your jurisdiction handles the insanity defense with regards to homicide. The insanity defense is not a free and easy to use "get out of jail card" like a lot of people think it is, but due do that perception many jurisdictions don't even have an insanity defense anymore in the wake of the attempted assassination of Reagan (and instead have "guilty but mentally ill" which means that you serve your prison sentence once you're no longer insane).
And that ig
until human beings can be trusted not to reprise (Score:5, Insightful)
anonymous posting is NEEDED.
there are many who want to silence those that post opposing views.
until we 'fix' that (it will never happen) - the ability to post without tracable info directly to yourself is a MUST HAVE.
she's dead wrong. this is a fundamental RIGHT, or should be considered as such.
the argument about spam is different and you don't solve one by 'ruining freedom'.
Her views on broadband is wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
Broadband is not a technology issue, it's really a financial issue. How should it be funded? Should it be subsidized? I tend to think not. Broadband is a miraculous technology, and it ought to be able to pay its own way. We need competition; we also need attractive enough propositions [in which] companies will invest.
Broadband CAN pay for itself... and companies do spend money on infrastructure. The problem is that they won't put broadband everywhere. They only put it in places where they believe there will be a high rate of return on investment. "Cherry picking" leaving every place else without anything more than dialup which is barely acceptable for email. If the nation is to move forward and have broadband everywhere, companies will NEVER do it of their own volition. They have to be required to do so by government mandate. This is what utilities commissions are for. They just don't often include requirements for broadband... yet. And they should.
its like a mad libs... (Score:3, Interesting)
Every [government] should have the right to [know your personal beliefs on every issue you have ever cared to discus], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [corporation] should have the right to [research your life to be used for directed marketing], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [insurance company] should have the right to [your medical history], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
I don't think many people like the symptoms, but maybe we should stay focused on the actual problem.
Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there will be bad actors on both sides, but I'll pay that price as opposed to the alternative.
In Defense of the Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Insightful)
We are entering an age where everything will be recorded for eternity. Every word you speak, every transaction, any time you are in public in view of a CCTV camera or any time a friend of yours captures your image on their cellphone. It's only a matter of time before lax security at the corporations and governments that store the security will be breached and their promises of privacy will be meaningless. Your secrets will be easily found by any Google search. I want to make my opinion known without retailiation.
As far as defamation goes, why does anyone believe an anonymous source? An anonymous source which cannot be verified. Who cares if an anonymous source writes that you have sex with puppies on the Internet. Journalists spend a great deal of time and effort to maintain their credibility. Do we give everyone on the Internet the same degree of respect?
Child pornography is a huge problem. A huge problem which will not be solved at all by taking away anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, two perverts can exchange their collections using portable storage devices which will never touch the Internet. Why take away my privacy to implement a measure when criminals can just bypass it.
As far as terrorism goes, let the terrorists believe that they are communicating without giving up their identities. I'm not under the delusion that if the NSA really wanted to find me, they couldn't. I believe most terrorists avoid the Internet for this exact reason. Stripping the average person of their privacy will not catch terrorists. If everyone has their privacy protected(including terrorists), the terrorists are more likely to have a false sense of security and use the Internet, allowing governement action (with a warrant) to uncover their schemes. Otherwise you need an informant or deep cover agent. Take your pick.
I don't believe that piracy is an issue. I think most hardcore pirates are incorrigible and will never buy legitimate media. The people on the fence tend to pirate a bit and buy what they want. Think of it as marketing. They like first episode and then buy the box set because it fits nicely on their shelf. People actually do spend money sometimes.
You can take away my privacy if you can come up with a good reason. As far as I can see it, there isn't a good reason.
I kind of makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, if birth control is widely available, pre natal care is available to all comers, and food, shelter, and education is given to all children, without question or exception, then one can imagine a world in which every child would be wanted. Likewise, if maximum information and open debate were seen as a asset, and everyone was encouraged to have their say, all everyone was honestly listened to, and no one would retaliate based on personal superstitions, then one could imagine a world in which everyone could be open and honest with their opinions.
In the real world, though, significant militant groups enjoy killing people who disagree with their superstitions. For example, groups have felt the right to kill people [armyofgod.com] who believe differently from them, following a tradition that killed the man that believed that the heart pumped the blood [faqs.org]. Clearly when the righteous feel the right to kill based on beliefs, anonymity is necessary.
But I will be a rebel and say that even in a perfect world where all superstition was gone, both anonymity and abortion would still have a place. No matter how careful and care full we are, there will still be that one case where a family might have to choose between the mother and unborn child.
Democracy depends on voter anonymity (Score:3, Interesting)
For decades I have actively promoted the usefulness of strong identity to secure many conceivable uses of the Internet. But voting is one example where both identity and privacy have to be maintained. I don't consider that a "bad practice" but an essential capability.
This is about Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
PJ has confessed she had to move six or seven times since starting to do Groklaw because she receives death threats she must take seriously. Anonymity is a defense against those jackasses that will bully you or worse in retaliation for spreading ideas they don't like and telling facts they don't want to be known. Insinuating that anonymity could be something dirty is nauseating. The right to anonymity is nothing less than a requirement to Freedom of Speech.
And yes the bullies and the issuers of threats are doing their misdeeds anonymously. It does not mean anonymity is wrong. Bullying and death threats are what is wrong.
Or to continue the analogy, kitchen knives are used to murder spouses. Should we consider kitchen knives bad?
Anoniminity isn't the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
People have thin skin, the desire for control, and the inability to look at context that's the problem.
Never apologize for freedoms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is never the problem. It is the solution.
Oppression is the problem. When someone uses their free speech rights to trample the rights of others (i.e. libel, etc...), the problem is not that they have free speech. The problem is always a matter of the actual harm caused by said speech.
Likewise, when people use their anonymity on the internet to hide their crimes against others, the problem is not a matter of anonymity, but rather, the crime committed in the first place. The value of a society where speech is effectively anonymous far outweighs the loss caused by the occasional criminal who uses it to hide from law enforcement.
Before the internet, and even today, one can send hate mail through the postal service *anonymously*. We didn't shut down the Post Office when the Unabomber used it to send bombs to people, instead, the FBI went looking for the perpetrator.
I can't help but wonder if Ted Kazinksi (sp?) would have become an internet troll rather than the Unabomber, had he been born 20 years later.
From time to time, there are people who suggest that we could catch criminals if we eliminated anonymity. They are lying or just plain naive. The fact is, if you remove anonymity from one medium, criminals will use another. Think about that for a moment. Now, in the era of the internet troll, frustrated individuals take out their passions online, rather than sending bombs through the mail. Which would you rather have?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that Ted Kaczynski could be found by tracing down his movements and actions. There is no correspondence to the Internet.
If you don't brag and use reasonable caution it is possible to connect actions with a high probability to a computer. It is not certain and it never can be. It does not connect with a person at all, and cannot ever. Unless the person is stupid, you can't use any tracing information available on the Internet to connect to a person. Period.
What this means is that any crim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last botnet herder convicted of anything? It will never happen.
Heh. I think that you've missed something.
Most of those folks are out of the country. (Which country? Most *any* country.)
Argh! Obfusciation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were a wiki post, I'd use the term "weasel words" to describe the analogy--The author is confusing several issues. Women's rights have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the issue of anonymity online.
The material issue here is whether the benefits to society in allowing anonymous posts outweigh the harm in doing so. And in the United States, we already have the answer -- we have a long history (albeit, recently screwed up!) of supporting free speech and expression as a general rule. And nowhere does it say that you must reveal your identity to protest -- for example KKK protests. In fact, anonymity is an indespensible tool in a society where it is a moral offense to be different from your neighbors. In every case I've seen where a person clamoured for a secret identity to be revealed one of the following has been true:
1. Money or economic interest; ie, quash a leaked trade secret, protect a brand name, or a copyright.
2. Personal attack; ie, Myspace, Facebook, "cyberbullying"; Where someone didn't like being told they were a douche, etc.
3. Batman
4. Political dissent
5. Unpopular viewpoint (NAMBLA, for example)
6. Illegal; ie, terrorism, white collar crime, etc.
In my opinion, #4's benefits outweigh the risks and harm caused by all others, and also applies to all others. Things are made illegal (such as file sharing) that are not necessarily in the public interest all the time. Money or economic interests -- money doesn't vanish because someone made a comment, it just goes somewhere else. They're reciprocally free to post their opinions. Personal attacks are a fact of life... Deal with it people. Same with unpopular viewpoints -- they're an anecdote to mass hysteria and mob thinking.
Anonymity is a necessary first step in political protest, because protest is never necessary when the majority approves... Remove anonymity and what you've got left are circumstances ripe for tyranny either by the few or the many, but tyranny all the same.
It's not a perfect world (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Esther, both anonymity and abortion are unfortunate things.
In a perfect world where people never made mistakes in judgement, where contraception never failed, where women were never raped, where sudden medical complications didn't arise out of nowhere, where events beyond your control never turned your life upside-down without warning, we'd never had a need for abortion.
And in a perfect world where people with power never abused that power to take revenge against those who made their misdeeds public, where bullies and petty tyrants never attempted to "punish" those who didn't bow to them, where fraudsters never attempted to masquerade as others, where criminals never attempted to use information for illicit gain, and where small-minded people never made life miserable for those who weren't exactly like them, we'd never have a need for anonymity either.
Pity this isn't a perfect world we live in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot to mention that in this imperfect world, we also have imperfect (and downright immoral/wrong) laws. Anonymity is a defense against bad laws, such as the criminalization of marijuana for instance, amongst many others. And in the case of women having abortions, this imperfect world also has finite resources along with a huge and continuously growing human population. While I wouldn't advocate forced abortions and such like the Chinese are known for, by choosing an abortion a woman is not only servi
don't give up rights (Score:5, Insightful)
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H.L. Mencken
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was actually struck by how similar your post is to the following quote. So much so that I wonder if you've seen it before?
Either way, both you--and he--are very much correct. The quote:
But. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
This nonsense is getting to the point where rights aren't even a good thing anymore. By that I mean claiming that people have the "right" to be given health care, or the "right" not to be discriminated against, or the "right" to be married. Any right that grants benefits entitlements is not good.
Why does she hate freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Without privacy you have no actual freedom.
Without anonymity you have no actual freedom of expression.
Without freedom individual life is pretty meaningless, and choices are arbitrary.
Wow, what a surprise. (Score:3, Informative)
The same person who thought the Clipper chip and the government escrow of encryption keys was just okie-dokie and that we should trust experts like her to say the security was good enough is uncomfortable with anonymous speech. I'm shocked.
I don't mind anonymity as long as we had a way to (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing wrong with anonymity... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not against it at all. I use it for all my throw-away activity (sorry, that's
Another analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymity for defending the rights of free speech is the same as requiring women to wear a full veil so they're free to move in public.
People don't use their real names on the net to not have to fear any consequences. What they get is that they can say what they want without anyone listening and without changing anything.
Getting people to hide from each other is the best way to make them powerless and frustrated. They will cry and whine and protest in the virtual world and hide and do as they're told in the real world. It's so easy to vent your frustation online and then to do nothing and change nothing in the real world.
Yes, anonymity should be a right on the net. But being able to use your name and your identity and actually be an individual being (that is: a not divided being) is a right, too. Freedom does not mean doing what you want as long as you're able to hide, it means doing what you want in the open.
Anonymity is not free, it comes at a high price. Just like abortion it's not the easy way out.
Re:Anonymity Overrated (Score:5, Funny)
We know we are human because we have judgement. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, people who keep secrets for fear of sanctions or penalties would not keep them if we held a more reasonable view on punishment.
In my opinion a punitive legal system does not make sense. If someone does not know they are doing wrong, you only have to tell them and they will stop. If someone does know, but does it anyway, punishing them is not likely to stop