
Bodies hanging from bridge in Mexico are warning to social media users (2011) - rst
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence/index.html
======
cstross
To over-generalize wildly: two classes of people want anonymity on the net:

* Those who want the freedom to abuse others anonymously

* Those who want the freedom from abuse conferred by anonymity

The debate over G+/YouTube or Facebook is usually framed in the context of the
first group, because the desire and willingness to perpetrate abuse is often a
sign of social privilege (lack of fear of consequences).

But those who want to evade abuse are usually drawn from the ranks of the
under-privileged (who vastly out-number the privileged, but whose voices are
seldom heard).

A hint as to why their voices go unheard: the billionaire founders of Google
and Facebook, and their stock-option-endowed highly-paid subordinates, are not
exactly under-privileged. And neither are the entrepreneurial politicians who
shape internet law.

It's a growing class divide, and the Mexican drug gang murders are just one of
the more drastic symptoms.

~~~
marvin
This is a gross overgeneralization, which does no justice to the subject of
online anonymity.

If you are going to take the generalization this far, at least inlude the
group in the middle: Those who don't want to abuse anyone but aren't at risk
of getting "abused" and just want the privacy and advantages of being able to
debate or express their opinions without their friends, family, employers or
random nutjobs interfering.

~~~
mtgx
That's not a middle ground. It's part of his second group. If your boss fires
you for what you said on Facebook or Google+, that's abuse. If other kids
bully you at school over what you said online, that's also abuse. The US
government not allowing you to pass US borders as a foreigner, because you
criticized NSA, is also abuse.

You don't need to be assassinated, to have your life being made very
unpleasant by others, when you say things online that they don't agree with.

~~~
marvin
Allow me to present some "middle-ground" scenarios, from the top of my head:

\- Your spouse gives you trouble for something you said on a relationship
advice forum

\- One of your friends causes drama after you express a political opinion not
popular in your group

\- It gets awkward at your family dinner because a couple of people found out
that you posted under your full name at a BDSM forum

\- You discussed some personal matter online with other people, and now the
other people involved in the personal matter give you grief because you
violated their trust by seeking advice or venting with others

None of these scenarios could in any concievable circumstance be called abuse.
These are all scenarios which would pre-internet happen behind closed doors,
in a social context where the people who would be offended by the statements
couldn't hear them. On the internet, they are accessible to everyone. Having
anonymous forums is clearly a better solution than creating seggregated online
communities which emulate the "closed-doors" scenario which would occur in the
physical world. That's not to say that the "closed-doors" scenario is
outdated. But online anonymity in a forum of strangers provides an arena of
expression which gives better opportunities for communication, than a strict
opt-in community with close acquaintances [edit: and full names].

~~~
ogreyonder
For the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you.

What are the corresponding points in those scenarios off the top of your head
where being forced to use your full, real name is a middle-ground good?

I can't see a benefit to the people in your stories having used their real
name in the first place.

~~~
marvin
On the contrary, I am arguing that these are scenarios where anonymity is a
good thing, but which are nowhere near the edge cases of online contributors
abusing anonymity or hiding from persecution.

~~~
ogreyonder
Ah, that makes sense now. I was reading it wrong; thanks for clarifying.

------
antonius
Although the article appears to be two years old, Mexican drug cartels still
do these acts today, regardless of what someone may have said directly or
indirectly about them[1]. They really are one of the most ruthless gangs out
there.

[1] Mexico mayor 'killed for standing up to drugs cartel'

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-
america-24875961](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24875961)

------
yawgmoth
Direct link to the CNN article

[http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence...](http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence/index.html)

~~~
Sprint
Also "2011". The url submitted originally has zero content added to the CNN
source, it just quotes and links to it.

~~~
VLM
"It will be nearly impossible to determine if the two victims actually posted
anything about cartels on the Internet, as people don't usually use their real
names online, he said."

Its been more than two years, was anything ever determined?

There are so many permutations based on what actually happened that I don't
think any conclusions can be drawn.

Were they innocent civilians? Wouldn't be the first time. Were they in a rival
gang basically informing on some other gang who "got" them? Wouldn't be the
first time. Targeted for other reasons that the gang doesn't want made public
(hmm maybe dude was banging the gang leaders girlfriend for years behind his
back, so they both end up dead? Or stole from a gang and got away for years,
finally tracked down and punished?) Wouldn't be the first time.

Only one thing is certain, a classic old media company posted a FUD story
about new media. Who ever would have guessed that could happen LOL?

------
tinco
Tor isn't much of a protection if it drastically reduces your k-anonymity. For
example: You are from Nuevo Laredo and you mention that in a defiant tweet.
What if in whole of Nuevo Laredo there are only 10 people who use Tor? The
Zetas will just go to the houses of those 10 people, and easily find out if it
was any of them.

And if it were 100? Just hang up random Tor users until people stop using Tor.

The real solution? Use a service that is indistinguishable from regular
traffic to connect to a host outside of the control of the cartels (aka out of
Mexico, and possibly out of the U.S. as well) and then use that connection to
connect to Tor. An example could be any VPN, SSH or HTTPS connection,
preferably made from a work setting.

Of course make sure that there's no strong correlation between the time you
post, and the time that you connect.

In any case, be very careful with what details you drop about yourself, when
you do weird stuff your k-anonymity is very fragile. The test question: 'how
many people can be perceived to be doing what I am doing at this moment'.
Whenever the answer to that is less than a few thousand, you could be in grave
danger.

------
rst
Somewhat relevant to the debate on permitting anonymous comments.

------
_pmf_
I've always been on the "nothing-to-hide" side, but this is a very compelling
argument.

~~~
fingerprinter
How does anyone on HN think this is a valid thought process?

Everyone has something to hide, at some point in their life. Everyone. And
that doesn't mean it's illegal, immoral or life threatening. One day you'll
have something to hide and realize how naive this thought process is. At that
point, hope it isn't too late for online anonymity.

And it's worse if you _aren 't_ in developed countries with "checks-and-
balances". There are too many examples of people _being killed_ for expressing
their views.

Freedom of speech comes with the cost of hearing things we might not want to
hear at times. Sometimes potential vile things (Westboro baptist church,
pretty much any Republican talking these days). Anonymity comes with the cost
of trolls, but that is the cost we should understand and be willing to accept.

------
gexla
Watch what you post here. I would hate to see a future "Show HN" with a link
to a dead hacker hanging from a bridge.

~~~
moocowduckquack
Fast forward to HN in 2018 with the latest news on the y-combinator drone army
narcowar.

------
Zoomla
Which social network was this? Did it require real names to be a user 2 years
ago? Most people unfortunately don't care about anonymity even if they should.

------
moocowduckquack
I wonder if they read hacker news. _waves_

------
berntb
There is a scary pattern with what you read about Pakistan, even criticizing
politicians are targeted there.

The Pakistani oppression is done by the Taliban, which works with the drug
gangs in Afghanistan. Another similarity.

(The main difference seems to be that the military there is (was?) also active
in "media criticism"?)

This will be interesting in how it plays out the coming decades. I wonder if
these groups [will] buy/receive software from China and Iran, to identify
complaints? Sigh, not effects you expected the Internet's increasing
importance to information.

------
nickthemagicman
Yall niggas need Tor.

