

The End Of Online Anonymity - twampss
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_end_of_online_anonymity.php

======
swombat
I think there is another possible outcome than forcing everyone to "be on
their best behaviour" all the time.

Many things are today regarded as inappropriate that are really not that
important. Who cares whether such and such intern (or even CEO) once dressed
up as a woman at a party. Only bigotry keeps people turning up their nose at
such trivial nonsense.

As behaviour that was previously hidden and taboo becomes more and more
visible, there are two possible outcomes:

1) (proposed by the article) the behaviour is eliminated because it cannot be
tolerated. This would likely be the case for disastrous behaviours such as
child abuse and conjugal violence, which, as they become more visible, are
unlikely to be tolerated.

2) Social norms evolve and learn to tolerate that behaviour.

I think it is not unthinkable that in the near future many behaviours which
are today still looked down upon will be accepted as normal and irrelevant to
most considerations. In the inevitable collision between outdated laws/social
norms and the huge masses of people who do the forbidden anyway, history tells
us that the huge masses of people win.

(of course, do whatever you need to ensure you don't become roadkill on this
march...)

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Yes the huge masses win. The mob will win because it will be the mob that
decides what is actually 2) and what is 1).

Minorities lose because their (our?) behaviour may be suspicious to the
masses. The judge is replaced the mob.

But that's not all. Since the mob doesn't have a clear picture of everyone's
actions, someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute
a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is.

HR managers will no longer personally google for applicants. The whole thing
will be outsourced and those affected will never know why they didn't get that
job or that bride.

Something suspicious, nobody will know what. The algorithms might use
heuristics and random factors so nobody can ever find out why a particular
decision was taken other than that the suspicion factor was too high.

~~~
dejb
> someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a
> simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers
> will no longer personally google for applicants.

I think this is unlikely. If this 'simple number' was not an accurate measure
of likely job performance then companies who relied on it would be at a huge
disadvantage. Companies (and by extension their HR departments) who ignored it
or incorporated their own information would tend to prevail.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
You're implying that there is an inverse correlation between this number and
job performance. That's not necessarily the case. And of course this number
won't be the only factor in the decision making, but if there's a risky
candidate and a less risky one in terms of that number, why would anyone
choose the riskier candidate, everything else being equal? There's only one
reason and that is salary. People with stained public profiles will earn less
money and will be out of a job for longer.

~~~
dejb
> You're implying that there is an inverse correlation between this number and
> job performance.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that if others actually believed this figure then
it would tend to push down the wages of those who had a higher number and they
would represent better value for money. Companies who essntially ignored the
number and hired based on other factors would tend to get better employees and
would flourish. This would tend to reduce the 'wage gap' down to whatever its
true predictive power was.

Of course as you have mentioned this whole notion of one all-powerfull number
is unlikely.

~~~
eru
Let's hope we'll have enough competition to enforce tolerance.

------
TrevorJ
Once again we see the misbehavior of the few encroaching on the freedoms of
many. Of course none of us want to see bullying online, but to create a
situation where breaking TOS agreements for web services can be used in court
to CRIMINALIZE behavior is a ridiculous precident. Essentially what the court
said was that because the defendant violated the terms of service, the was
guilty of fraud. Can you imagine how hard it will be to find new users for a
service when they must treat your TOS as a document that will open themselves
up to criminal prosecution is breached?

------
tdavis
I have never felt a need to mask my identity while online, even when I was
younger and stupider than I am now. Hell, up until this year I didn't even
bother to censor anything I said online. Unfortunately, now that I have the
reputation of a business to worry about I have to be far more careful, but
it's still not that big of a deal.

Life is about trade-offs. You trade some anonymity for some convenience or a
useful service. Being anonymous on the Internet, in the sense of nobody
knowing your true identity, hasn't really gotten any harder. Sign up for
whatever you want, just don't use your real name. Pick some kind of innocuous
handle and use it for all the inter-connected services you need and make sure
those services don't also connect that ID with your "real" one.

------
gills
Four very different thoughts here...

1.There is precedent for criminal convictions of pretexting as part of some
larger criminal social engineering act. Personally, I think bullying is a
stretch. It's a feature of the Internet, and if a person can't shrug off
anonymous Internet bullying then that person has deeper psychological
problems.

2.Should go back and re-examine (and possibly overturn) all criminal cases in
which pretexting and/or false identities were used by the authorities? If
there is precedent that this behavior is illegal, then we need to reinforce
that law enforcement tactics are not above the law.

3.The shell of anonymity is only safe when it is perfect -- leaks create the
opportunity for blackmail. In many situations it is more important that you
are not in a position to be blackmailed, than to disclose any 'undesirable'
behavior or association.

4.How could this case stand on appeal? Didn't the judge essentially interpret
breach of contract into criminal law? MySpace obviously granted Ms. Drew's
account -- her access to the system could not have been "unauthorized" as
claimed in the wire fraud charge. Most contracts and TOS have pretty clear
terms about what happens when one party breaches, so this should have been a
simple case of "you broke the TOS, we closed your account, as stated in the
TOS." In my opinion, the more serious crime here is that the judge decided he
could usurp the legislature's power and turn random contract text into
criminal law.

------
sh1mmer
This article seems to draw some big conclusions from seemingly little
research. If the author had used Yahoo's OpenId IDP they would know you can
log in as "yahoo.com" and then choose a site specific anonymous OpenId.

That and the charges in the court case being reffered to was just an upholding
of the TOS. Hardly a landmark hearing.

------
TrevorJ
Are there any other articles that detail exactly how this ruling makes it
'illegal' to have fake identities online? I have my doubts and at the very
least would like to read more.

~~~
m0nty
And the other, related question: just how do "they" propose to stop us? Did I
commit a criminal act when I signed up to HN using "m0nty" rather than my real
name? Am I in fact trying to impersonate the other HN user "monty"? Does the
fact that my real name is also shared by a moderately well-known UK politician
mean I am, de facto, impersonating him?

As your question implies, I think it's the bullying, not the anonymity, which
was the issue in the court case.

~~~
TrevorJ
[http://www.marketingvox.com/watershed-ruling-in-myspace-
suic...](http://www.marketingvox.com/watershed-ruling-in-myspace-suicide-case-
may-criminalize-fake-net-personas-042175/)

This link would seem to indicate that it was not, in fact the bullying but the
false identity that they convicted the defendant of.

~~~
m0nty
I still think the bullying was the issue. There was much talk when the story
came out that (in point of law) an actual offence might not have been
committed. So I think this represents the court casting about for _some_
reason to convict, on some grounds, owing to public clamour. But does this set
a precedent which will lead to the death of online anonymity? Not in itself,
and it will be interesting to see if any other cases follow on from this one.

------
Anon84
I wonder what makes them think that online anonymity still exists for 99% of
users.

------
fallentimes
Long live 4chan.

Anonymity and a lack of taxes & bureaucrats is what makes the internet
wonderful...and sometimes awful.

~~~
unalone
Yeah. I don't see 4chan and its ilk disappearing any time soon.

You can't have wonderful things without awful things. Things that would make
one hard make the other hard as well.

~~~
fallentimes
I hope you're right.

Agreed. And I think the wonderful in this case far outweighs the awful.

~~~
unalone
There was a comment from Reddit from a kid who grew up with 4chan. It
fascinated me. And it showed me just how different my generation will be from
any one before it.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/7f8x3/hey_reddit_whats...](http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/7f8x3/hey_reddit_whats_the_creepiest_thing_youve_ever/c06imuu),
if you want to read.

~~~
GHFigs
Saw it coming from a mile away, before it came near. Nobody can write that
much about 4chan without doing it.

~~~
unalone
Somehow, it came across as sentimental to me. This was somebody reminiscing
about a place that he saw the decline of. Then, I find the oddest things
sappy.

------
debt
Why don't we wait and see how people react to these new changes?

Also, just as long as I can view all the data "they" have on me, then I'll be
cool with it.

