UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity 282
An anonymous reader writes with a bit of pith from TechDirt: Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online." They don't seem to understand just how shortsighted such an idea is. It's one that stems from the privilege of being in power. And who knows that particular privilege better than members of the House of Lords in the UK — a group that is more or less defined by excess privilege? The Communications Committee of the House of Lords has now issued a report concerning "social media and criminal offenses" in which they basically recommend scrapping anonymity online.
Online in England, maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they forgot that the Internet has no borders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Online in England, maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
1. lawmakers propose outrageous idea that no sane person could possibly agree to
2. after outrage, lawmakers say they will redraft the law in consultation with the public
3. lawmakers proudly present a 'watered down' version that any reasonable person would still say was kafta-esque, were it not for the previous suggestions of step 1
4. the laws they wanted all along make it onto the statute book
This simple process was used time and again by former home secretary David Blunkett, and the Conservative party have learned his methods well.
Re: Online in England, maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
That followed by many years of conditioning into modes of thinking that make those laws seem sane.
Classic U.K. strategy.
Re:Online in England, maybe (Score:4, Informative)
You're forgetting:
3a. Rush it through the legislative process, so opponents have as little time as possible to act
http://www.theguardian.com/tec... [theguardian.com]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2... [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Online in England, maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
"Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online.""
Oh, they completely understand the importance of anonymity and how it enables dissent. And that is exactly why they come up with "just end real anonymity" [no need to make it specifically mention online].
Re: Online in England, maybe (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the problem. If they want to end anonymity then they need to provide legal repercussions for ANYONE who would abuse the data being gathered on people. Even if its over a border and especially if it is our CORPORATE MASTERS. This would require something that governments the world over have proven themselves incapable of: saying no to billions or trillions of dollars in bribe/lobby/campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they want to end anonymity, then they need to stop lying and just call themselves a police state, and make everyone forget about things such as "fundamental liberties."
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that they cannot end anonymity. It's impossible.
Using TOR and encryption is a first, easy step to stay relatively anonymous. Internet cafes and wardriving is the next step, to completely eliminate the possibility of finding the source of an anonymous message.
Re: (Score:3)
Their idea would be that you would use biometrics, SIM cards or ID cards to get access to any internet terminal (smartphone, desktop PC, laptop, netbook or tablet). Anything with a SIM card would have a registered user.
That has been the plan all along. They absolutely hated desktop PC's and laptops because home owners could always "uninstall" whatever spyware they tried putting on the systems. Netbooks, smartphones and tablets are better because they are single chip systems and it's impossible to modify com
Re: (Score:3)
The UK just passed a law that says any company whose website has UK users i.e. all of them has to comply with UK surveillance requests. It's as bad as the USA when it comes to those kinds of extra territorial laws now.
Politicians have generally not been able to handle the notion of borderless transactions and information flows. This "you have to comply with our laws if your service is accessible to our citizens" trick is their solution. You say, how do they enforce it, well, through exploiting the internati
Re:Online in England, maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they forgot that the Internet has no borders?
No, they remembered:
http://www.publications.parlia... [parliament.uk]
'The only way as we see it to resolve questions of jurisdiction and access to communications data would be by international treaty.'
Coming soon to a legislature near you!
Re:Online in England, maybe (Score:4, Funny)
Anonymous report recommends: end UK Government online.
obvious solution is obvious (Score:5, Funny)
All Brits officially change there name to anonymous coward. Problem solved.
Legitimate concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
I'm not saying the argument for Freedom of Expression is irrelevant, but the other perspective has legitimate concerns as well.
Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills but we've seen a substantial rise of bullying, hate speech and terrorism-advocacy in the past decade. Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working. Great in theory but doesn't work in practice.
We need to find a middle ground that will help curtain online abuse with minimal impact on Freedom of Speech, but the statue quo is not sustainable.
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think making it possible for bullies to determine the RL identities of their victims is going the REDUCE online abuse?
Re: (Score:3)
I am NOT at all even slightly for eliminating online anon; but playing the devil's advocate:
So you think making it possible for bullies to determine the RL identities of their victims is going the REDUCE online abuse?
No, but determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase a quote on a different subject: "If you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous online."
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase a quote on a different subject: "If you outlaw online anonymity, only outlaws will be anonymous online."
Actually the quote only really works with guns.
With guns, "only outlaws have guns" is a "problem" because guns confer confer considerable power over others to the outlaws.
With anything else, the response "So what?"
For example, if you outlaw wearing red, only outlaws will wear red. So what. It makes it easy for the police to round them up and toss them in jail. Good riddance to stupid outlaws
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Informative)
What happens when someone steals someone's account and does bad things?
Cyber bullying tends to takes place over a period of months years. A single death threat sure... you can use that defense and get away with it, with nothing more than "now change your damned password" and don't share it.
But weeks on end? After multiple incidents reported?
"I'm sorry your honor, those darned hackers just keep breaking into my account every single day... and I'm really trying to keep them out. And all the witness testimony about how I hate the victim, and was a beast to her at school...its all lies. And those texts sent bragging about making the bullying posts from my phone after 11 different incidents -- um you know... I'm always leaving my phone where strangers can have a go at it..."
That's the thing about evidence. It accumulates until you are "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
Re: (Score:3)
No, I think it works just fine. If I own a gun, and suddenly they become outlawed, I too become an outlaw.
That has never been what the phrase meant. It has always meant that if you outlaw something, then it won't stop the outlaws from having it, because by virtue of being outlaws they'll ignore the law anyway.
In the case of guns specifically it amounts to effectively disarming the law abiding citizens, leaving only the criminals with guns.
It has never meant that if you outlaw something that suddenly all the
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
I don't see any reason to think this is true. The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
Re: (Score:2)
The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
I dunno, RL bullying tends to stay just within the law and/or incidents are very difficult to prove boiling down to he-said she-said. I ran into bullying at school at few times over the years -- and ran into first hand how hard it was to effectively combat -- they're criminals and thugs but evidence is nearly impossible, and even if the police or school want to help its really hard to get evidence or pursue
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and some of the most abusive right-wing lunatics on twitter post under their real names, because in the wingnut subculture being horrible, and bullying anyone who's smarter than the Fox News manufactured-reality crowd, is something to be proud of. When a whole subculture sucks, being terrible holds no social repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
Suspecting you know who is doing something and being able to prove it to a sufficient standard to secure some action against them are two very different things.
Some children growing up today face an entirely different scale of abuse from their peers to what anyone of my generation had to put up with, and the major difference is how much of that abuse can now be done widely and yet anonymously because of modern technologies.
I find my views on this issue unsettled, because on the one hand true anonymity effec
Re: (Score:3)
And meanwhile, as you worry about a hypothetical threat from your government
1) It's not hypothetical; history has shown many thousands of times over that people with power will inevitably abuse it. To say it's merely "hypothetical" demonstrates that you're ignorant of history.
2) Banning anonymity would infringe upon freedom of speech, privacy, and various other rights in and of itself. The government need not 'abuse' it in order for it to harm people's freedoms.
Though I don't expect you to be capable of understanding that infringing upon fundamental freedoms in the name of safety (
Re: (Score:2)
determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
I don't see any reason to think this is true. The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
But is it known to the entire world what the bullies are doing and their real names? (I think it's dangerous for other reasons to [partially!] de-anonimize the internet.)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you just entered the.....
DUN DUN DAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAaaaaaaa.........erm
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that is the scope of who gets to see the ip, persons address and how to flag the online activity.
What if a local political leader is seen using a tax payer funded car for personal use?
Say a staff member tips of the local press via online communications? That local political leader could then unmask the origin of the story using a simple legal data request made to look like a local gov was tracking a "criminal".
An automated
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the children?? People will always find ways to be anonymous if they want, even if they have to tunnel connections to outside UK. The Internet is a global village, and the cat is out of the bag. Furthermore, terrorists will always be terrorists, and it is a lame excuse. It is like forbiding guns, and then the only ones having guns are the criminals. It does not work at all. As for dealing with hate speach, grow a pair, and ignore what you dont want to see/read.
Words have an impact.
In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.
I don't care about people's feelings getting hurt. I care about people getting physically hurt. These are legitimate concerns for which you have offered
Re: (Score:2)
I propose we forbid (attack) violence. Then no-one will be hurt physically, and we can still have anonymous free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I propose we forbid (attack) violence. Then no-one will be hurt physically, and we can still have anonymous free speech.
In practice, what ends up happening is that police is caught off guard and arrests are made after people have already died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Words have an impact.
In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.
What you are proposing abridges freedom of speech. If a person decides to jump off a bridge because someone called them fat, too bad. We should have learned as a society that restrictions on actions do not make us safer unless those particular necessarily lead directly to harm of others. Advocating violence against an ethnic group, while reprehensible, should be protected speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater necessarily leads directly to the harm of others, so restrictions are acceptable.
What in
Re: (Score:2)
Words have an impact.
In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.
What you are proposing abridges freedom of speech. If a person decides to jump off a bridge because someone called them fat, too bad. We should have learned as a society that restrictions on actions do not make us safer unless those particular necessarily lead directly to harm of others. Advocating violence against an ethnic group, while reprehensible, should be protected speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater necessarily leads directly to the harm of others, so restrictions are acceptable.
What invariably ends up happening is government takes too much control. Just look at what's happening in England (to Tottenham's Yid Army or the ridiculously racist hit job the FA did on Luis Suarez for using the perfectly acceptable by South American standards word negrito). If you give government power, they will abuse it. Every time. The question should be: is the abuse worth it? In this case, definitely not.
When protesters yell "Kill the Jews" and proceed to attack a nearby synagogue full of people I think we've reach the point where it's worse than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater necessarily leads directly to the harm of others
Nope. Wrong. Panicking and trampling over people does that, but it's not the speaker who directly made them do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Words have an impact.
In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.
The thing is that not allowing people to speak their mind leads to everyone living in fear. Bullying will happen to some extent, and I think real li
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Universities and others that make hate speech a crime are violating the principle of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech is just that. Speech. It should never be prohibited.
Universities and others that make hate speech a crime are violating the principle of free speech.
The people on the receiving end of said hate speech would disagree, especially when it results in physical attacks on them as has been the case in France recently.
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
For speech to result in physical attacks - a strong causal connection - that's no longer hate speech, that's "incitement to riot". We've had no problem keeping "hate speech" legal but "incitement to riot" illegal in America for centuries now.
Speech should always be protected as speech. But telling your bodyguard to shoot someone is not illegal because of the words you use, but instead because of the immediate desired outcome of that speech. Running on a platform of killing all the Jews is political speech, and should be protected (and for goodness sake, please oh please let the candidate actually say that sort of thing on camera, not keep it as a secret agenda, so that democracy can happen properly there). Saying "hey, lets go attack that guy right there, right now!" has never been protected speech.
"On a computer" changes nothing.
Re:Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
For speech to result in physical attacks - a strong causal connection - that's no longer hate speech, that's "incitement to riot". We've had no problem keeping "hate speech" legal but "incitement to riot" illegal in America for centuries now.
Speech should always be protected as speech. But telling your bodyguard to shoot someone is not illegal because of the words you use, but instead because of the immediate desired outcome of that speech. Running on a platform of killing all the Jews is political speech, and should be protected (and for goodness sake, please oh please let the candidate actually say that sort of thing on camera, not keep it as a secret agenda, so that democracy can happen properly there). Saying "hey, lets go attack that guy right there, right now!" has never been protected speech.
"On a computer" changes nothing.
No one is that dumb. You will be hard pressed to find direct/immediate causality between repeated demonization against ethnic groups and the subsequent violence protests that ensue. But there is also no denying that when people post videos that incite hate against ethnic groups, coupled with a caption that says "Fucking Jews!" it tends to have a real effect. I just saw a video spread on Facebook that claimed to show Israeli soldiers burying Palestinian children alive with exactly that caption. Now, the soldiers in question were not Israeli (the Jordanian flag on the uniform kind of gave that away) but most of the viewers did not catch on. The video received over 1,500 shares with 1,200 comments to the effect of "Jewish bloodsuckers, we should end them". So sure, I can't count how many of the people who viewed this video went on to commit violence against Jews. But I can guess many of them were negatively affected and a sizable portion of them went out to protest, and a portion of them turned to violence.
It's no coincidence that Hitler employed a strong propaganda campaign. If this kind of crap didn't work, he wouldn't have bothered. We need to admit that words, photos and videos make a difference and do lead to increased racism and eventually physical violence. We need to find a way to balance these concerns with Freedom of Speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The people on the receiving end of said hate speech would disagree
So you claim to speak for all people who are 'victims' of hate speech?
Furthermore, that's nothing more than an ad hominem attack; a fallacy. "You're not a victim of hate speech, so all of your arguments are invalid." Someone's arguments stand on their own merit, and whether or not they've had hate speech directed at them has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is a very US-typical way of thinking.
In the UK, it's more of a "where is the harm" approach. If there is more perceived harm in the exercise of said speech than in allowing it, it won't be allowed. This is more difficult to administer (it means someone, usually a judge) has to make a decision about this rather than it just being black and white. It does make life more pleasant for more people.
Having lived in the UK and the US for over a decade each, I have some perspective on this, and personally I thi
Re: (Score:3)
Having lived in the UK and the US for over a decade each, I have some perspective on this, and personally I think it's worth it
Because you're anti-free speech. I know not all people in the UK despise freedom, just like I know not all people in the US despise freedom; sadly, we may be a minority.
[*] It's not a real absolute in the USA, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre in the US either
Yes, you can. Even under our stupid rules (most of which violate the constitution), you can at least shout "Fire!" if there is a fire. If you falsely shout it and it causes a panic, then you can be punished. What you said was simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I would pay much if any attention to an anonymous troll's attempts to bully, denigrate or terrorise me. If you have something to say, do so from an identifiable account else expect to be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't a teen.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for a long time - but I was a teen once, and I know how important others' opinions are to a person at that age. Learning which opinions to value and which to discount is an essential life skill, and acquiring it usually leaves a few scars. Believe me, the desire to insulate the poor darlings from the rough and tumble that develops character isn't going to help them in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
and I know how important others' opinions are to a person at that age.
Well, I don't. Not everyone was oversensitive as a teen.
Re: (Score:3)
I see where you are coming from, and even admire it in a way, but I feel compelled to point out another side of the issue (one other side, there are probably 20 more). Online bullys don't usually just make speech involving insults and putdowns. There's a high degree of these being accompanied by false accusations that can easily count as libel, and by misinformation which is often damaging in other ways. (In fact, for cases where bullying goes on for over 3 months, the chance of one or more of these other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the ability for anonymity to be used to avoid bullying, etc online. The obvious example is speaking out against a tyrannical regime. If I post a political rant against a powerful public figure (be he the head of a country or some local mayor who uses the sheriff as his own personal guard dog) under the name "Jason Levine", it might be easy to track me down. If I post it as "Political WatchDog 1776" or some other pseudonym, it becomes harder.
To give a more concrete example, and one that affec
Re: (Score:2)
I've witnessed similar behavior. One particular individual was of the hyper-partisan political nature - I will not speak details, but suffice to say he was one of those who strongly identified with left/right, and considered those of the opposite faction to be treasonous scum, and it his personal patriotic duty to purge the world of them. He got increasingly carried away with this in the usual agresssive internet flame wars, which culminated in him registering a domain name using the alias of one of his opp
Re: (Score:2)
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
I haven't actually seen any evidence that anonymity causes any of those things. I have seen evidence that the lack of anonymity doesn't reduce those things. So yes, I disregard it until there is a good reason not to.
We need to find a middle ground that will help curtain online abuse with minimal impact on Freedom of Speech, but the statue quo is not sustainable.
Well, I don't agree that there is some kind of crisis that needs to be addressed immediately (let alone that we need to give up any rights for), but ignoring that: please explain how removing anonymity will curtail any of the things you bring up. Since it hasn't worked in parts of the internet w
Re: (Score:2)
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
No we didn't. Free speech easily trumps all of those concerns. Period.
It's better to live terrified in chaos, than safely wrapped in golden chains.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to many of these problems consists of having enough self-confidence to shrug off insults.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to many of these problems consists of having enough self-confidence to shrug off insults.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not complaining about words that hurt one's fillings. I'm complaining about words that lead to physically violence/death. When protesters yell "Kill the Jews" and proceed to attack a nearby synagogue full of people I think we've reach a point things have gone too far.
Re: (Score:2)
When people attack synagogues.... that's against the law, already. When people actually encourage people to kill Jews, that's already against the law. I'm not sure how them being anonymous or not online would affect the attack on the synagogue.
Very, very few people are actually anonymous online now. It's pretty easy to track most people down.
Re: (Score:2)
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
No, I don't. Anything could be abused, but it's 100% anti-freedom to say it should be banned merely because of that. These are not legitimate concerns. Freedom is more important than safety.
Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills
No, they haven't.
but the statue quo is not sustainable.
It is and has been sustainable. There is no "middle ground" which doesn't violate people's privacy and speech rights, which makes any such "middle ground" 100% unacceptable. Why not move to North Korea?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullying is a form of harrassing, which tends to be illegal.
If saying something repeatedly to someone online qualifies as "harassment," and it's illegal, then that country is not a free country at all.
Furthermore, "bullying" is subjective. What is and is not offensive is subjective. Great standards there, fool.
Even in free-speech countries like the U.S. Terrorism-advocacy tends to have its own special laws.
Even if that is so, all it proves is that the government ignores the constitution. We need to fix that, not make it worse.
Have government go first. (Score:5, Insightful)
If government wants to have peeps into our private lives, I say they should offer themselves up first. Have every government employee's financial records, emails, purchases, and other records completely public. Install GPS trackers on them so we can all track their movement. Put cameras in their homes, cars, and offices so that we can watch them 24/7.
If they want the panopticon, let them go first.
Re:Have government go first. No. (Score:2)
No. Because that suggests we are in part for it and only negotiating conditions.
You know they would be against this, and we are not in a position to negotiate. So stop the bluster until you have something to contribute.
Re: (Score:2)
The restrictions we place on government make the government's job harder. We're under absolutely no obligation to make it easier for them to catch 'criminals' (in this case, people exercising their free speech rights). I'm sure we could catch more criminals if we allowed the government to break into every home for any reason. Hey, that would be people accountable!
In the end, though, freedom is more important than safety. If you disagree, I hear North Korea loves people like you.
Completely infeasible (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the proposal by the House of Lords, it's completely infeasible. What they want is for websites to have verified identity information on hand, but then allow people to post anonymously or using a pseudonym. This is infeasible for several reasons, mostly that to truly verify someone's identity, you need a government-issued ID number. I'm not British, but in the US, that would be the Social Security Number. Now, let me tell you what happens when a government forces SSN identification for things that should not need an SSN.
Some time ago, there was an insanely popular MMORPG in South Korea known as Lineage 2. The administrators behind Lineage 2 (I believe the game was owned by Microsoft but I can't say for sure) required that anyone registering a Lineage 2 account (which required a monthly fee) give them their Korean Social Security Number (KSSN) which works exactly like the US SSN does. I don't recall whether this was because the Korean government was scared of anonymity and demanded it, or because the game's owners wanted it for verification and were not required to get KSSNs by the government, but in any case, a KSSN was required to play the game.
A few years later, Lineage 2 got hacked. The database of KSSNs they had was leaked, meaning that the identities of thousands of people were freely available on the internet. After the Korean government learned of the Lineage 2 hack, they actually tightened their restrictions - all MMORPGs operating in Korea were now required to ask for a KSSN upon account registration, even for F2P games.
The result is that any time an MMORPG gets hacked in Korea, KSSNs get dumped. It also led to things like mass identity theft - players from outside Korea who wanted to play the Korean version of various MMOs (the ones based in Korea are usually regularly updated in Korean but not in the International versions) would have to find a leaked KSSN and use it.
Requiring an identity verification for anything but the most major financial transactions (insurance, banks, employment) should never happen. A credit card verification is different - you can verify a credit or debit card without needing an SSN - and should be enough for pretty much everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Completely infeasible (Score:5, Informative)
Worse,
In the UK there is no compulsory identification. My brother does not have a single identification document. No driving license, no passport, no "ID card" (we've never really issued them since WW2 except for a brief, abandoned, experiment*). He has a normal life.
So, what are you going to use for ID? National Insurance Number? It's meaningless and doesn't correspond to much. It's not even CLOSE to the American SSN, and you can freely give it away without fear.
Driving license number? Some people don't drive.
Passport number? Some people don't have a passport at all, and may never have had one.
Then, you're into pseudo-ID that isn't definitive and isn't legally required.
The UK is one of the few countries in the world where it's perfectly legal to NOT CARRY ANY ID WHATSOEVER. If you're ever challenged by police, they can ask you to prove who you are but that "proof", because of the "no ID card" thing, can be as low as someone recognising you. Precisely because there is no single definitive means of identification.
So, in that atmosphere, how any single website would ever be able to "authenticate" your ID, I have no idea. Banks generally require two forms of ID to open a bank account, which can include things like bills addressed to you, and a wage slip. Neither are actually proof of ID, but you can get a bank account with them.
My brother ran into no more trouble than usual getting a bank account. He has no definitive form of ID in existence. How does that translate to a non-anonymous Internet?
*We had a voluntary ID card scheme a couple of years ago. It was completely abandoned and all the people that paid for the cards wasted their money and never got a refund. The cards are useless and now not accepted as proof of ID, despite a hugely complicated sign-up process. I can just imagine the response to "another" ID card fiasco....
Re: (Score:2)
How about tamper-resistant cryptographic biometric devices? Use your government-issued fingerprint reader to log into Big Brother's system, then each server is required to make sure you have a valid current login certificate from BB before providing any services. Complete records must be kept indefinitely and will be audited against upstream connection logs.
Nobody
Re: (Score:2)
Complete records must be kept indefinitely and will be audited against upstream connection logs.
So much for the right to be forgotten...
Re: (Score:2)
So as a purely hypothetical question, if he wanted to obtain a passport, how would he go about it ?
Re: Completely infeasible (Score:2)
Not unfeasible at all, unless they need actual identites. For example here in Norway all phone numbers must have an owner identified with our version of an SSN, even unlisted and prepaid numbers. So an easy way to have an "id" is to send a one time code to the cell during registration. That account is now linked to my phone number which links to my id. If they're hacked, all they have is phone numbers. Many discussion boards already do that to reduce spam and make bans more effective
Re: (Score:2)
For example here in Norway all phone numbers must have an owner identified with our version of an SSN, even unlisted and prepaid numbers.
What a sad state of affairs.
Another value of anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
It greases up communication. If I had to attach my name permanently to this comment, at best I would have to spend 15 minutes fully thinking out every implication of it, at worst I would likely not make it at all.
However using either AC or a pseudonym I can post my initial thoughts and let someone else support/refute some of the points using their own personal experience and knowledge.
One arrives to the truth much faster by collaborative debate than by solitary thinking or not posting at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, so if i had been saying something even more controversial I would have posted it as AC. For the purposes of my previous posting pseudonymity suffices. For others I want full AC protection [say when uploading whistleblower files].
They Understand Just Fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online."
I disagree. These people understand perfectly well the importance of anonymity. Which is precisely why they want it banned.
Outlawing this fun too? (Score:5, Funny)
At a local pizza shop. I placed my order
and paid cash. She asked:
Q: May I have your name sir?
A: Yes
After a while I hear on the speaker.
"Yes, your pizza is ready".
Re: (Score:2)
"My name is Mr. Cash Purchase. I do not have a fixed address. I do not have a telephone."
Not Short Sighted At All (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't seem to understand just how shortsighted such an idea is.
It's not short sighted AT ALL. It may not be conducive to your view of how things and/or the internet should work but it isn't a short sighted suggestion in any way, shape, or form. It works, 100%, towards their true goals and aspirations - to hold people accountable for what they say, to better track who is saying what, and to shut people up. They may attempt to sell it as beneficial for something else to make it more favourable to the public, but that's their goal and it's a long term goal which ending an
Re: (Score:2)
Real report link (Score:5, Informative)
After many clicks, I came finally to the real report and the section on Anonymity.
http://www.publications.parlia... [parliament.uk]
and the bold part is here,
From our perspective in the United Kingdom, if the behaviour which is currently criminal is to remain criminal and also capable of prosecution, we consider that it would be proportionate to require the operators of websites first to establish the identity of people opening accounts but that it is also proportionate to allow people thereafter to use websites using pseudonyms or anonymously. There is little point in criminalising certain behaviour and at the same time legitimately making that same behaviour impossible to detect. We recognise that this is a difficult question, especially as it relates to jurisdiction and enforcement.
So it seems they are not complete idiots, just trying to make things easier for investigative purposes. How they want people to identify themselves, well, that's another story.
Your truly,
A.C.
CAPTCHA: thanks
Turn about is fair play (Score:2)
The UK Government recommends scrapping anonymous users.
As an anonymous user I recommend scrapping the UK Government.
Sure, let me start... (Score:2)
George W Bush
Walker's Point
Kennebunkport, ME 04046
Oh yes, please do sign me up for advertisements from your partners! And I love newsletters and can't get enough insurance offers.
Anonymity has never existed on the internet (Score:2)
There has never been true anonymity on the internet. Anonymity is an illusion. There have always been ways to identify people over the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been true anonymity on the internet. Anonymity is an illusion. There have always been ways to identify people over the internet.
Yes but as it currently stands, you don't have to worry about your potential employer being put off by something you said 20 years ago under a pseudonym, that they happen to disagree with. Not for most employers, in any case.
They've wanted to end anonymity for a long time (Score:3)
Since at least The Federalist Papers. [wikipedia.org] I'm glad they didn't succeed then, and I hope they don't succeed now.
The british government runs on anonymity (Score:5, Informative)
Meeting held under this rule do not allow the the disclosure of who said what. The "what" can be reported, but no-one is permitted to say who said it. That permits people to express views, or ask "what if" questions (and get considered, informed answers) without having to always play to the (media) audience and make guarded, ambiguous and watered-down statements.
Since the government recognises the value of these sorts of meetings (as well as the established protocol of "off the record" briefings, which cannot be quoted) it's ludicrous that they would think that removing anonymity would be a good idea. This can only be one of those "silly season" media reports, usually made up by journalists who are bored as politicians are away during the summer months.
Privilege? (Score:3)
They can ask for my name. (Score:2)
But as far as the internet is concerned, I have ten names and none of them are my real one.
Reads like a "Modest Proposal" to me (Score:2)
The techdirt article quotes this delicious excerpt:
I am certain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dennis: Listen, strangely dressed men sitting in old buildings distributing titles is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical fourteenth-century ceremony. If I went around saying I was Emperor, just because some old guy threw a piece of paper with a title at me, they'd put me away.
Re: (Score:2)
The Lords can't actually do anything themselves these days. The only power they have is to block the commons, something they rarely do. Some consider them a useful safeguard against popular fads - as they don't have to worry about reelection they can take a longer-term view, and not get caught up in the public's demand for hasty ill-considered action on a particular issue.
Re:House of Lords? (Score:5, Interesting)
The House of Lords is a vestige political body with only powers to delay legislation, but because it is unelected (as of yet), it actually serves a very useful function in British politics.
Montesquieu, whose political theories heavily influenced America's founding fathers (especially regarding the balances of powers in government, which he greatly admired in the British government at the time), also supported hereditary aristocracy. In any case, most of the House of Lords are not longer hereditary peers, as life peers are now the norm.
The reason an aristocracy is *sometimes* desirable in government is that they do not have to answer to the whims of the masses as they are not elected. The political fervour that is whipped up in the populace, from security theatre / war on terror, the war on drugs, etc, takes a life of its own in a pure democracy. The idea is that you with an aristocracy, the actors can take a long term view and can judge and react independent of popular sentiment.
The British parliamentary system actually contains elements of three different types of government - Monarchy (constitutional, providing the head of state which is apolitical), aristocracy (the House of Lords comprises of hereditary peers and also life peers appointed for certain accomplishments), and democracy (the House of Commons). The House of Commons, as the constitution currently stands, holds all of the cards, but the House of Lords (and to a lesser extent, the Crown) also serves to temper the populist nature of the politics in the House of Commons.
As the government is formed by the biggest party in the Commons, the executive is formed by the biggest party in the legislature, it is no surprise that the British system is more productive politically - it rarely ends in gridlock like the US government. If it does (the government losing confidence of the Parliament), then new elections are called to end the gridlock. Arguably, if America adopted this system, it would be a huge step forward. This also points to a major advantage of a system with a unwritten constitution - the political system can gradually evolve, whereas in countries with written constitutions (such as the US), it is much more difficult for better or for worse.
Re:House of Lords? (Score:5, Insightful)
The political fervour that is whipped up in the populace, from security theatre / war on terror, the war on drugs, etc, takes a life of its own in a pure democracy.
Who whips up that fervor, the war on drugs wasn't started as a grass roots campaign, for sure, it came from the top. It's the same in the US and UK, I think, certainly with the same dark motivations and same ill-gotten power. Anonymity is a friend to the masses and an enemy to power. Whistle-blowers, leakers and disharmonious speech are threats to the status quo, the same one that provides the wealth they wield to have this alleged long-term view.
I don't disagree with the concept of having a ruling body that is not beholden to the mob, I just haven't seen any mechanism by which that body can be kept honest and magnanimous. That is the same spirit which brought down monarchies to begin with.
I'm certainly too ignorant to decide in what ways the UK system or the US system are better or worse, but in this particular example I do not see any significant difference.
Re:House of Lords? (Score:5, Insightful)
So who is whipping up the fevour? More likely than not it is people with money and connections.
Democracy allows government to be directed by the mob. Who controls the mob controls the government. That's the whole problem with campaign finance and lobbying in the US. In such a system, the politicians in government are only puppets servings moneyed interests. These are the people funneling money into lobbying and the political machine (e.g. Koch brothers) or controls the press (think Murdoch and Fox news).
It is blindingly obvious that it is not the people in government that calls the shots, it's the people that have the money to get the people in government.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a parliamentary system like 99% of the rest of the world? Nope, this is America. we'll stick with our self serving and corrupt dual headed hydra.
Also -- the Metric system? You've got to be kidding me.
Re:Tomorrow's news (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/09/house-of-lords-commons-democracy
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/08/28/the-contemporary-house-of-lords/
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of people who will harass you for your viewpoints, and merely banning the behavior will not stop them. For instance, try speaking out against the "for the children" crowd and disagreeing with them about child porn, and you're going to be targeted and called a pedophile. Imagine if they had your real name, and then you might find yourself surrounded by an angry mob - literally. Unpopular viewpoints like that need to be anonymous.
Also, it is a violation of free speech. What happens if you c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please fuck off, people like you would have been whining about all those darkies 50 years ago, now you hide behind the last vestiges of "acceptable" racism by disguising it as anti-terrorist sentiment.
Re:That's the British for you... (Score:4, Funny)