No more anonymity on the internet!!

[Elind]

Have you ever wondered how YOUR internet behavior would differ if there was no anonymity on the internet?

Your IP and real name would be attached to anything you sent. You wouldn't necessarily have to reveal that on every website you looked at, any more than you do if you are window shopping in the mall, but newspapers around here at least won't publish your letters without a real verifiable name; the same would apply to forums like this and your email couldn't be forged or using random handles.

For those of you under 30 or so; it's not such a strange concept really. Most people lived with that until very recently.

Spam would be gone for a start. That's a plus. Manners might come back, and counting to 10 before hitting send, might also come back.

But some aspect might be more boring.

Is the ability to lessen or even drop conventional social protocols on an anonymous internet a social force for good, or ultimately one that will reduce social cohesion, for example?

[The Atheist]

Some of us choose not to be anonymous for precisely those reasons. When I say something, I'm happy for everyone to know who it is saying it.

I'm not sure that people's style or behaviour would change all that much anyway.

[Dorian Gray]

I was on one at my college, which forced you to use your real full name. I didn't hold back at all, other than the usual language, verbal abuse, etc.

But then, I was posting on the Young Republican web site.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Anonymity on the Internet is an illusion. It is not anonymous, particularly if you commit a crime.

As a webmaster, I've been able to find out vast amounts of information on users based on tiny bits of information.

I remember earlier this year, I found virtually everything one would want to know about a person based solely on the email address (using a generic service) of a user on another forum. I knew his appearance, name, address, phone number, friends, and girlfriend. This is because the user, who posted anonymously everywhere, also used his generic email address on his myspace account. A simple Google search not only showed who he was but also what other places he posted and what he said in those posts.

As I used to run a fairly large online forum, I've actually gotten pretty good at Internet sleuthing. Although today, I do it more for my own amusement.

[Elind]

Yes, I appreciate that anonymity is not perfect, depending on how hard one actually tries to achieve it, although I suspect those who use excessive profanity, trolls etc., think it is. Nevertheless anonymity is real to most typical users who might either worry about repercussions or wish to take action outside the internet simply because most people don't have the ability to trace such information.

Some years ago I wrote a letter to my local newspaper about a current issue, that was published and they even came up with a cartoon about it. I used my full name which anyone can look up in the phone book, and promptly received a number of kook phone calls. Nothing warranting police action, but it was enough to put me off writing letters to the newspaper, and to some extent that feeling applies even here.

On the other hand, I suspect some of the nastier posts and writings, sex sites, hate sites of all kinds, including terrorism supporters, would feel a major change in their "freedoms".

There can be a real case for anonymity in some situations where people need help on something that they simply cannot discuss with acquaintances, but I can't help but feel that overall it would be a better world if we were not able to "hide" so easily. Human society has never had that capability in 99% of it's evolution. To some extent the development of large cities and easy travel has already allowed much of the same, but as we become more and more reliant on electronic communication I can't help but wonder if it is not a more significant issue for the long term than one might think.

[Elind]

Some of us choose not to be anonymous for precisely those reasons. When I say something, I'm happy for everyone to know who it is saying it.

I'm not sure that people's style or behaviour would change all that much anyway.

Yes, but you are in beautiful NZ with what, 4 million people, and on top of that you can see anyone coming from a long way off:cool:.

[The Painter]

Some of us choose not to be anonymous for precisely those reasons. When I say something, I'm happy for everyone to know who it is saying it.

I'm not sure that people's style or behaviour would change all that much anyway.


Yeah right. You don't even say where you live. Location? Where?

[Puppycow]

Yeah right. You don't even say where you live. Location? Where?

Try clicking on his name and 'view profile.'

[Puppycow]

Responding to the OP: I think there should be a place for both. I kind of prefer anonymity myself, but I'm not super secretive either. Even though I am semi-anonymous, I know that the webmasters here could figure out who I am IRL. I'm just a regular person though, so it wouldn't be very interesting.

[The Atheist]

Try clicking on his name and 'view profile.'

Not that hard is it?

;)

[The Atheist]

Yes, but you are in beautiful NZ with what, 4 million people, and on top of that you can see anyone coming from a long way off:cool:.

Yes, we can see them coming, but with no airforce and a fishery protection navy, we can't stop 'em coming!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In older more gentile times, pretty much everyone posted on Usenet using their own names. I see by Google that I did in my first post on Aug 17 1993. Hmm. Anniversary coming up!

I think I stopped doing that about 4 years later.

The biggest worry was kooks and their real world activities. :mad:

[skeptifem]

i love anonymous. I would be sad if anonymous died.

oh and grouphug would be gone :( i love grouphug!

[rtalman]

Spam would be gone for a start.I have, since the beginning of the year, received 62,951 spam emails at my work address. Anything that could substantially reduce or eliminate this is just peachy in my book.

[Elind]

I have, since the beginning of the year, received 62,951 spam emails at my work address. Anything that could substantially reduce or eliminate this is just peachy in my book.

As of this moment I have only had 42499, but that is from a few years, so you must be doing something even worse than me. I have however reported every last one of them via spamcop, which gives me a small amount of imaginary satisfaction, even as I clutter up the bandwidth even more.

[Axiom_Blade]

oh and grouphug would be gone :( i love grouphug!

I dunno. I prefer gropehug.

[rtalman]

so you must be doing something even worse than me.
For several years, everyone's email address at our company was posted on our website and easy pickings for web crawlers. With some downsizing over the past couple of years, I have 3 former employees' emails automatically forwarded to my address, so I get four times the spam of an ordinary mortal.

[Cuddles]

your email couldn't be forged or using random handles.

How would you stop people faking things?

Spam would be gone for a start. That's a plus.

I doubt it. I get plenty of junk snail mail where I know exactly who the sender is. There are lists you can register with to make it a criminal offense for them to send it, but it doesn't stop them. I don't see why the interweb would be any different. In addtion, most spam is sent out from hijacked computers, so the name that appears wouldn't be the person who actually sent it anyway, it would be an innocent idiot who let malware onto their computer.

Manners might come back, and counting to 10 before hitting send, might also come back.

There are plenty of woos and conspiraloons who already post under their real names with no attempt to hide anything. It doesn't seem to make their manners any better.

Is the ability to lessen or even drop conventional social protocols on an anonymous internet a social force for good, or ultimately one that will reduce social cohesion, for example?

I don't think anonymity has any effect on socialisng, it is the existence of instantaneous global communication that has the effect. Anonymous or not, I can choose to join a community one day and leave the next, or I could be a member for years and then disappear without another word. The social order is changing because we no longer have to socialise with people who live near us, we can pick and choose from pretty much anyone with any interests and have very little to force us to stay in any one community. This is true whatever I choose to call myself.

[Thanz]

Anonymity on the Internet is an illusion. It is not anonymous, particularly if you commit a crime.

As a webmaster, I've been able to find out vast amounts of information on users based on tiny bits of information.

I remember earlier this year, I found virtually everything one would want to know about a person based solely on the email address (using a generic service) of a user on another forum. I knew his appearance, name, address, phone number, friends, and girlfriend. This is because the user, who posted anonymously everywhere, also used his generic email address on his myspace account. A simple Google search not only showed who he was but also what other places he posted and what he said in those posts.

As I used to run a fairly large online forum, I've actually gotten pretty good at Internet sleuthing. Although today, I do it more for my own amusement.
Interesting. This is something I have wondered about - if people could figure out my real name, etc. from my posts on this forum.

Think that you can?

[Elind]

Interesting. This is something I have wondered about - if people could figure out my real name, etc. from my posts on this forum.

Think that you can?

I don't see how unless you give clues. However the Jref knows and can, if given a court order to do so.

[Elind]

How would you stop people faking things?



I doubt it. I get plenty of junk snail mail where I know exactly who the sender is. There are lists you can register with to make it a criminal offense for them to send it, but it doesn't stop them. I don't see why the interweb would be any different. In addtion, most spam is sent out from hijacked computers, so the name that appears wouldn't be the person who actually sent it anyway, it would be an innocent idiot who let malware onto their computer.


I made this OP on the premise, theoretical, that such issues were overcome. I think they could be, if one wanted to make the effort.


There are plenty of woos and conspiraloons who already post under their real names with no attempt to hide anything. It doesn't seem to make their manners any better.

Well, some have never had any. However plenty of people change character online, just as some do when driving. I was speculating on how things might change if one removed that barrier.



I don't think anonymity has any effect on socialisng, it is the existence of instantaneous global communication that has the effect. Anonymous or not, I can choose to join a community one day and leave the next, or I could be a member for years and then disappear without another word. The social order is changing because we no longer have to socialise with people who live near us, we can pick and choose from pretty much anyone with any interests and have very little to force us to stay in any one community. This is true whatever I choose to call myself.

Sure, we can all live lives without the internet and never have relationships with people who know who we are, but that would have been considered a mental deficiency in pre internet times. Now we do it all the time, and I'm sure some have no other relationships. Seems to me that is more significant than you think.

A practical example would be the hate groups, and I now include Islamic fanatics. These people can be, and often are, semi literate with perverted ideas, but in the past they would have been dealing only with those they knew personally and sitting around complaining. Now they have the ability to do much more. That would change radically if every IP could be tied to an individual. This is theoretical, so I don't want to discuss how one can forge things, for example, but I'm sure you get the idea.

[Thanz]

I don't see how unless you give clues.
Which is why I wonder. Over my time here, I have given out little snippets of information about myself. If one were so inclined, you could discover my city of residence, profession, and at least one quirk about my name. Other stuff that may be available includes my age, marital status, whether or not I have kids, religious affiliation and probably other stuff I have forgotten about.

I don't know why anyone would want to wade through 3000+ posts for this, other than the challenge of it, but it does make me curious.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Your IP and real name would be attached to anything you sent. [snip]... the same would apply to forums like this and your email couldn't be forged or using random handles.


Well, that's certainly a recipe for confusion! I wonder how many "Anne Siler"s use AOL? I get mixed up with another Anne Siler on the genealogy boards (where use of real names is common) all the time! We're not even researching the same families or areas. It seems that her old email address is defunct, so people see my posts and think that I'm her with a new email address. I'm not concerned about internet privacy, but I do like the idea of picking a unique handle for posting, email, and unique user identification.

Also, I wonder how would such identity policies could be enforced and checked. Fake identification in the real world abounds, and I assume that fake e-identification would be even easier to maintain.

[Elind]

Which is why I wonder. Over my time here, I have given out little snippets of information about myself. If one were so inclined, you could discover my city of residence, profession, and at least one quirk about my name. Other stuff that may be available includes my age, marital status, whether or not I have kids, religious affiliation and probably other stuff I have forgotten about.

I don't know why anyone would want to wade through 3000+ posts for this, other than the challenge of it, but it does make me curious.

I'm sure the NSA could do it in the blink of an eye:D

[Elind]

Well, that's certainly a recipe for confusion! I wonder how many "Anne Siler"s use AOL? I get mixed up with another Anne Siler on the genealogy boards (where use of real names is common) all the time! We're not even researching the same families or areas. It seems that her old email address is defunct, so people see my posts and think that I'm her with a new email address. I'm not concerned about internet privacy, but I do like the idea of picking a unique handle for posting, email, and unique user identification.

Also, I wonder how would such identity policies could be enforced and checked. Fake identification in the real world abounds, and I assume that fake e-identification would be even easier to maintain.

This was a theoretical concept, not a technical redesign of the internet. However the idea is not that far fetched, and doesn't have to be fully bullet proof to work.

Take a phone number. There's no reason everyone can't have an internet ID in the same way we have phone numbers today.

[Darat]

This struck me as an interesting story given the subject of the thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

[robinson]

Fascinating link.

[geni]

Your IP and real name would be attached to anything you sent.


My IP is. Obvious this is of limited use without a court order since I every time the router is reset I get a different IP from my ISP.


You wouldn't necessarily have to reveal that on every website you looked at, any more than you do if you are window shopping in the mall,


Unless you use proxies you need to tell the websites you view your IP.


but newspapers around here at least won't publish your letters without a real verifiable name; the same would apply to forums like this and your email couldn't be forged or using random handles.

So you hack someone elses email account what of it?


For those of you under 30 or so; it's not such a strange concept really. Most people lived with that until very recently.

Yes and no. There have always been forms of comunication where it is hard to trace the sender.


Spam would be gone for a start. That's a plus.

Not really. It is posible to send an untraceable letter. Same will always be doable online.


Manners might come back, and counting to 10 before hitting send, might also come back.

Because both are so provalent in meatspace.

[geni]

Take a phone number. There's no reason everyone can't have an internet ID in the same way we have phone numbers today.

Pre-paid mobiles can be a pain to trace to people. Steal one and you can make a fairly untraceable phone call.

[Elind]

My IP is. Obvious this is of limited use without a court order since I every time the router is reset I get a different IP from my ISP.

But you miss the point. I was talking about redesigning the internet to suit what we want, if we wanted it.

[Elind]

Pre-paid mobiles can be a pain to trace to people. Steal one and you can make a fairly untraceable phone call.

Come on now!! Let's make an small attempt to be theoretical for now. All these loopholes "could" be closed to a reasonable extent if we thought it worthwhile. As already said, this is a thought experiment.

[articulett]

This struck me as an interesting story given the subject of the thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm


What a cool link-- thanks!

As a woman, I prefer the anonymity of the internet... I think it allows women to speak more freely... the more hoops any potential stalker or angry person with a gun has to jump through to find me, the better. I enjoy being barbed
on line... I am more easily cowed in person when presented with an irrational blowhard and the like.

[Elind]

This struck me as an interesting story given the subject of the thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

Hi Darat. Long time no see.:eye-poppi

I got it a little earlier from: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26650_Whos_Editing_Wikipedia_and_Why&only

But I applaud the BBC for publishing before we hear who edited from the BBC:D

Actually though, I'm proposing a structure that would not need such sleuthing; as in: Edit at your risk of nanosecond exposure!!

Just a thought game.

[geni]

But I applaud the BBC for publishing before we hear who edited from the BBC:D


Eh there was some issues a couple of years beack with some Edits comeing from the BBC traeting fictional characters as real.

[geni]

Come on now!! Let's make an small attempt to be theoretical for now. All these loopholes "could" be closed to a reasonable extent if we thought it worthwhile. As already said, this is a thought experiment.

You can't close all the loopholes without becomeing a police state.

[Elind]

You can't close all the loopholes without becoming a police state.

Wow!:eek:

Now there is a statement with the whiff of substance! (I corrected your spelling, grace be to Jref)

Actually that sounds suspiciously close to a troll comment, even though I know you are not one from my previous life, if my memory serves me right, still.

Still, you are quoting Orwell in spirit and you have a point that is not irrelevant, but you could point to any number of other examples that would be more valid; like what your medical insurance company knows about you today.

What I proposed, on the other hand, is no different from what we all lived with just 20 or 30 years ago.

Which one of us is really proposing the police state, or just pissing in the wind?:rolleyes:

[Elind]

Eh there was some issues a couple of years beack with some Edits comeing from the BBC traeting fictional characters as real.

Sorry, no comment on that without more specifics. There has however been a lot in the news/internet the past year about the mainstream media treating anything they get as real news, and I think the BBC has been in the thick of that with their obvious political biases.

But that's a topic for another thread.

[geni]

Wow!:eek:

Now there is a statement with the whiff of substance! (I corrected your spelling, grace be to Jref)


Then you don't understand how the internet works.


Actually that sounds suspiciously close to a troll comment, even though I know you are not one from my previous life, if my memory serves me right, still.

Still, you are quoting Orwell in spirit and you have a point that is not irrelevant, but you could point to any number of other examples that would be more valid; like what your medical insurance company knows about you today.

What I proposed, on the other hand, is no different from what we all lived with just 20 or 30 years ago.


Rubish. It is posble to send an untraceable letter. Not easy but posible.

[Rolfe]

I prefer to be a bit anonymous on the forum because it keeps the homoeopaths and other woos at arm's length. Quite a few members have PMed me to say they found it fairly easy to figure out who I was, however that's not the real point. Woos (homoeopaths in particular) seem to be pretty dim, and the chances of someone like Bach or Xanta figuring it out are remote. At the same time the smarter people know who I am, and we can even go out to dinner!

One casual remark I made concerning the title of a lecture I saw advertised in a shop window just after I moved to my new house allowed one poster to find me quite exactly - the society running the lecture series has a web site, and they listed the titles of the season's lectures on it. The name of the society revealed the name of the (quite small) village where I now live.

I think there's often a general lack of appreciation of how much can be found out about someone very easily. Look at dear old Malcolm Kirkman. Came here with name and location (Manchester) freely revealed, and boasted of his wealth, success, intellect and qualifications. Without apparently realising that there was only one Malcolm Kirkman with an Internet presence, anywhere, that he indeed lived in Manchester, and that it was very easy indeed to discover that he was none of the above things. A bit of a downer when you're trumpeting your devotion to the "Truth"!

Even if some geek hacker could find out all that by other means, simply registering on the forum with an anonymous handle would probably have prevented all these revelations, because nobody would have taken the trouble to do anything more than a cursory Google search on the name.

That's what I mean by "a bit anonymous". Not that a lot couldn't be discovered, but that you're anonymous enough that most people probably won't bother.

Rolfe.

[ktesibios]

A Google on my handle turns up 22 pages of hits. Most of them are about my Alexandrian namesake, but I was also pleased to discover that I'm a software package for designing pipe organ wind chests and an award for advances in cybernetics and automatic control.

Oh yeah- there are a few of my posts on various fora, but the one item that would link the handle to my real name is way down in the list. To find it, I had to do a search within results with another keyword.

Anonymous? Not really, but good enough for me not to be afraid to speak my mind.

[Elind]

Then you don't understand how the internet works.



Rubish. It is posble to send an untraceable letter. Not easy but posible.

You don't understand, as I have already said, that this was supposed to be a thought experiment on how things might be different if we redesigned the principles and functions of the internet to eliminate to any significant extent, the possibility of being fully anonymous on it.

You are trying to educate me on what we have now, which I do have some understanding of.

[Elind]

I prefer to be a bit anonymous on the forum because it keeps the homoeopaths and other woos at arm's length. Quite a few members have PMed me to say they found it fairly easy to figure out who I was, however that's not the real point. Woos (homoeopaths in particular) seem to be pretty dim, and the chances of someone like Bach or Xanta figuring it out are remote. At the same time the smarter people know who I am, and we can even go out to dinner!

One casual remark I made concerning the title of a lecture I saw advertised in a shop window just after I moved to my new house allowed one poster to find me quite exactly - the society running the lecture series has a web site, and they listed the titles of the season's lectures on it. The name of the society revealed the name of the (quite small) village where I now live.

I think there's often a general lack of appreciation of how much can be found out about someone very easily. Look at dear old Malcolm Kirkman. Came here with name and location (Manchester) freely revealed, and boasted of his wealth, success, intellect and qualifications. Without apparently realising that there was only one Malcolm Kirkman with an Internet presence, anywhere, that he indeed lived in Manchester, and that it was very easy indeed to discover that he was none of the above things. A bit of a downer when you're trumpeting your devotion to the "Truth"!

Even if some geek hacker could find out all that by other means, simply registering on the forum with an anonymous handle would probably have prevented all these revelations, because nobody would have taken the trouble to do anything more than a cursory Google search on the name.

That's what I mean by "a bit anonymous". Not that a lot couldn't be discovered, but that you're anonymous enough that most people probably won't bother.

Rolfe.

That's funny, although I'd be careful who I went to dinner with if they go to that much trouble to sleuth around. Sounds a bit like peeping to me, although I guess there is an intellectual challenge there that would appeal to hackers in particular.

I'm the only one with my name in the US, so perhaps I feel more vulnerable than some, but if the woos were as identifiable as I am, then perhaps I wouldn't care as much.

[geni]

You don't understand, as I have already said, that this was supposed to be a thought experiment on how things might be different if we redesigned the principles and functions of the internet to eliminate to any significant extent, the possibility of being fully anonymous on it.

You are trying to educate me on what we have now, which I do have some understanding of.

Ok come up with a valid mechanism for doing so without a police state.

[skeptifem]

I understand where the op was going with this.

my opinion is that the internet would become very boring. one thing i like about the internet is how people can express things that otherwise would have been kept a secret forever. on the other side though it becomes a way for people to lie to others without having to deal with the ramifications. Im not so certain that everyone here would be comfortable talking about how they are athiests or other things if their families could find out about it with a quick google. it would be as restrictive as irl strangers speaking to each other. i would hate it.

[Modified]

In older more gentile times, pretty much everyone posted on Usenet using their own names. I see by Google that I did in my first post on Aug 17 1993. Hmm. Anniversary coming up!

I think I stopped doing that about 4 years later.

The biggest worry was kooks and their real world activities. :mad:

I still post on usenet using my own name and (obfuscated) email address, but only to technical or diy newsgroups.

[MWare]

So if the Internet wasn't anonymous, would that mean I'd finally receive a check from Microsoft and AOL for all those e-mails I forwarded?

[Elind]

Ok come up with a valid mechanism for doing so without a police state.

Did I say I would? Do I have to?

Were we a police state before the internet made anonymity so easy? Are you in cahoots with skepticgirl?

Seems to me openness makes police states harder than annonymity, not the other way around, but we could come up with imaginary anecdotes to make either case I'm sure, ad nauseam.

[Elind]

I understand where the op was going with this.

my opinion is that the internet would become very boring. one thing i like about the internet is how people can express things that otherwise would have been kept a secret forever. on the other side though it becomes a way for people to lie to others without having to deal with the ramifications. Im not so certain that everyone here would be comfortable talking about how they are athiests or other things if their families could find out about it with a quick google. it would be as restrictive as irl strangers speaking to each other. i would hate it.

I agree, but I also wouldn't see this as being absolute in all situations. There is no reason a particular web site for discussion Viagra doses, for example, couldn't agree to keep it's members names confidential. But the webmaster would know who they were, in case anyone started telling pedophile stories, or saying that Osama needed to know how much to take for 10 year old virgins. Right now there is no practical way to ID anyone from another country, or hidden in other ways.

Some sites might insist on full names, and they would be able to verify them. Nobody needs to make an ass of themselves if they don't want to.