Will anonymity in internet be over?

[eMTe]

To put things straight: do you think it is possible that in future (I say not so near, but who knows) we will be REQUIRED to use internet under real-life names (including webforums, email accounts and social network sites of various sorts) and using internet will be subjected to the same laws as rl. We will have to use cyber-id etc. Ive been browsing some music Youtube videos and again, like usual, instead of comments to the video or music in general Ive found such a great deal of hatred, racism and personal threats that my first thought was - we should ban this. You want to make a comment - ok, but from now on you will make it under your real name. And we will see your id photo.

The very idea came from the discussion with my friend via Facebook (which actually works like this futuristic idea, the twist is - people narcistically subject themselves to these "laws", nobody forces them to reveal who they are) who was the subject of anonymous cyber-bullying (not so anonymous, actually it involved her former boyfriend) and expressed the desire that cyberspace should be deeply controlled. There's an old rule - if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of. It works in rl. Internet is so far a little more free - you can cheat, you can establish fake or simply multiple accounts, you can offend people and in majority of cases it ends up in nothing - "that's internet". Do you think we need more strict control over cyberspace or not?

It may sound like a chapter from an unpublished William Gibson novel where my role is as a bad guy (always wanted some, being a nice person in rl ), but I think it is interesting issue, even if it's only a futuristic rambling.

[Zyx]

There's an old rule - if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of. It works in rl.

No, it does not work in real life. It's a dangerous fallacy, not a rule. See for example this or this.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn declared, "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is."

[Scythe]

This only happens in dictatorships, where people in power have a reason to track any "subversive" elements.

Besides, you go ahead and try being the one to "control" and "police" a global information/entertainment network.

[Chroelle]

Wow that was an extensive article and just as I had some form of clearity and went to write about it here, the next paragraph shot me down.
I am sure thatyou need to divide the matter up into sections before we can argue it properly.

Privacy via surveillance: I have no problem with being surveilled by cams on the street, as it would also mean that alot of crimes gets stopped, and a lot of accidents could get a short responsetime, with the ability to make the right decisions on what to send as the accident happens and not after someone got there as the first person on the scene. If that means I ahve to sacrifice being able to scratch my butt unnoticed in public then so be it. And when it comes to traffic violations, then... well come on...we know its wrong when we do it...

Privacy online: being able to speak your mind without being recognised.: Well I think we ae so far doing ok on this. Just dont go and scream I AM GONNA BOMB THIS AND THAT if it is a prank, because noone finds that funny anymore.

Privacy - as in having your information disclosed. This should of course not happen, but it could happen now as well, and it would still be a problem.

Privacy - is so much more, and that means there should be a debate on all points. But then again aren't we already experts in dividing stuff up into atoms and making legislation on different matters of it?

[Zyx]

Besides, you go ahead and try being the one to "control" and "police" a global information/entertainment network.

Sadly, this is the easy part. Any telecommunications giant, like Nokia Siemens, Cisco or Ericsson has readily available technology to monitor cell phone / internet traffic. For examples, see the Great Firewall of China, Iran, Pakistan, or USA.

Of course, no solution is bulletproof and one can use cryptography, Tor and others to bypass these restrictions. So, what a state to do? Make them illegal and punishable by serious jail time, of course.

The harder part is to do the Orwellian thing and make people believe this is ok and normal; for the children, against terrorism, against content theft, against cyber-bullying.

Congratulations, you now have a de facto police state, where you didn't even have to actually censor anything because people will censor themselves - saving you the hassle.

Unfortunately for the wannabe police states, the internet is full of people who firmly believe in the hacker ethic, that all information should be readily available (I'll refrain from using the loaded word "free" here) and are actively building infrastructure to keep information flowing even in the most totalitarian scenario. This was the naive goal of Google entering China, they believed that by giving the Chinese better access to information, the people would demand a more free internet access. This did not happen, because it wasn't a technological problem.

However, unlike in the US where freedom of expression is for some a totally sacred right without any limits, there's a different tradition in Europe where, if you go and look, the freedom of expression has certain limits in the basic EU law. These for most part are to make people understand that this freedom has certain responsibilities. Also, in some countries like Germany and France, there are further cultural legacy about being ok with restricting speech relating mostly to the Nazi Germany. However, the same basic EU laws also prevent any blanket monitoring of internet traffic. However, the entertainment industry in their zealous pursuit of protecting their caveman era business practices are trying to subvert these basic ideas, and certain countries are more than happy to help them to that (shared) goal.

Facebook, on the other hand, believes firmly that each person has one and only one identity (unless you're a celebrity). This is so against all normal human nature that it will either be the downfall of Facebook or the human social behavior. I'm hoping for the former. Right here on CWF, we are all writing under pseudonyms. We're not anonymous, we have an identity that in some cases can be linked to actual persons but we probably behave differently. Would I share my CWF posts on my Facebook timeline under my real name? No. Am I trying to hide them? No.

Anonymity and pseudonyms are a vital component for a fully functional democratic system. No-one should fear using their inalienable right to freedom of thought. However, by using that right you must also acknowledge that there are certain responsibilities. You should be free, without any attempt to censor you by the state, to (cyber-)bully, to express hate speech or deny holocaust. However, you'll be responsible for that. The internet doesn't change a thing from a legal point of view. We are subject to the same laws on the internet which is part of our real life so any distinction between the two are useless. The problem is that there exists capability to monitor and restrict speech on the internet that is way beyond traditional media, just like the reach of the internet is.

If someone is stupid enough to use the cover of anonymity to express hate speech or otherwise be a dick, we shouldn't give a f***. It is troublesome that the echo chambers of the internet seem, for some people, to legitimize some extremist views. When the conservative, immigrant-"skeptic" party entered the parliament in last elections here in Finland, it seemed like the people who favored these views thought that it's now ok to be a racist... even on Facebook under their real names. Even if they were party officials of the said party(!). Who f*** stupid you have to be?

It's a shame that people abuse their right to be a complete f*** but it does not justify taking that right away. The whole society is worse off. I'm terrified of the tendency to self-censorship oneself. It's insidious.

[Zyx]

Privacy via surveillance: I have no problem with being surveilled by cams on the street, as it would also mean that alot of crimes gets stopped, and a lot of accidents could get a short responsetime, with the ability to make the right decisions on what to send as the accident happens and not after someone got there as the first person on the scene. If that means I ahve to sacrifice being able to scratch my butt unnoticed in public then so be it. And when it comes to traffic violations, then... well come on...we know its wrong when we do it...

The did that under the guise of terrorism and traffic violations in London. Didn't work. Crime did not decrease and they were of little use to solve them. So they ended up using the cameras to fine people for not picking up after their dogs.

[Chroelle]

But then again it seems a very expensive system to build up if it all about getting people to pick up after their dogs... But I dont really think so when I come home and my daughter has stepped in something and dragged it all over the building and her clothes...!

I saw in some places that they used cameras in the night-life cities and that way were able to stop some fights, and judge rightfully in other fights, as they could see who started what and who did what. That is a big issue to resolve in my book. I would like to know that if somebody attacked me on a friday night in the city, then someone would see it, send cops, and later on when thre was a trial, the guy(s) could get time for the exact things they did instead of them getting off as I didn't see who kicked me in the head after the first guy did it... Trust me, I have a friend whose attackers got off except one because noone was able to say that the rest of the guys were actually part of the assault. So got attacked by 3 guys and only one got a sentence, and that was only probational...(is that the right word?)

I know that can not account for all situations but it certainly helps me decide if I would like surveillance cameras in the nightlife streets.

I liked the fact that you would not post your CWF posts on Facebook. Made me think -I agree but I cannot say why!

[eMTe]

you go ahead and try being the one to "control" and "police" a global information/entertainment network.

I can go even further and claim that Hitler, Osama and Breivik delivered an important messages to the world. They're just the part of a global information/entertainment network. If we're all just a blend of cells, neurons and fluids (in what I personally believe) - than I agree, you're right, controlling this system is wrong, because it prevents the spread of knowledge about our existence, goals to pursue, things to be done regarding ecosystems, huge cities etc. But Im not really convinced that people (understanding people as 7 billions currently occupying The Earth, including those who don't have opportunity to think about these matters, because they are busy fighting for a living) are truly prepared for such a knowledge at this point. Maybe in XXII-th century, but not now.

I am sure thatyou need to divide the matter up into sections before we can argue it properly. Privacy via surveillance:

Agree!

I have no problem with being surveilled by cams on the street, as it would also mean that alot of crimes gets stopped, and a lot of accidents could get a short responsetime, with the ability to make the right decisions on what to send as the accident happens and not after someone got there as the first person on the scene. If that means I ahve to sacrifice being able to scratch my butt unnoticed in public then so be it. And when it comes to traffic violations, then... well come on...we know its wrong when we do it...

Agree!

Privacy online: being able to speak your mind without being recognised.: Well I think we ae so far doing ok on this. Just dont go and scream I AM GONNA BOMB THIS AND THAT if it is a prank, because noone finds that funny anymore.

Agree to some point. It's hard to believe anymore that internet isn't a part of life and for some it has become the core element in fact (I have a former friend who is unemployed for several years [but has a wealthy mother] and "builds his reputation" by increasing the number of Facebook "friends" (usually female), going to pubs, exchanging funny and cool thoughts and "looking for a fun job" [job can no longer be just a source of money, it must be "fun"]). For some people (mostly young at the moment) internet and life are the same thing, but it will change with time - internet will be a core element of lifestyle for majority of people in developed countries. Issues like bullying, persecution, molesting, frauds, cheating etc. will be transferred from rl into cyberspace (in fact they have been already to some degree). I am not a supporter of any kind of Stasi or Securitate browsing web for "subversive elements", but I simply feel that we will not avoid an internet police. It will become necessary someday, maybe in next century, I dont know.

Privacy - as in having your information disclosed. This should of course not happen, but it could happen now as well, and it would still be a problem.

I have nothing against privacy (understood as an exchange of e-mails, being intimate with your partner etc.), this is not the issue, I dont support an Orwellian scenario by any means.

Privacy - is so much more, and that means there should be a debate on all points. But then again aren't we already experts in dividing stuff up into atoms and making legislation on different matters of it?

Just like you said at the beginning of your post. Privacy is one thing, surveillance (when needed) is another. All I say is that internet has become in recent years not only a phenomenon, sort of fashion, but it is a part of real-life. People spend such a great deal of their spare time in web (and numbers will increase) that you're practically one and the same person offline and online. That's why (I think so) we should have a greater look on what happens online. There are already examples, like Police supported by special programs to search for pedophiles. It already happens.

The internet doesn't change a thing from a legal point of view.

Well, find a video on Youtube where some redneck tortures an animal or read comments under another one where people call themselves "kikes", "chimpanzees" and send themselves to hell (or simply to the gas chambers). What you do? Report these guys to "youtube"? (Sue them?) What "youtube" does? Nothing. Why? Because it doesnt matter to anybody anymore - that's how internet works. "People just express their views". I say - ok, but who are these people, do they feel responsible for what they say, do they have some identity? I want to be sure that the guy who does a pigsticking and submits the video to YT will be punished under US law, but he will be not. Why? Because nobody at YT cares for an anonymous guy from Poland. "So, you watched the video and you feel disgusted, be on your way and dont watch it anymore". What can I do? Start a crusade? Spend my own money? Do you really believe that laws are applicable to internet? Internet is global, to bring some order to it we need global organisations pursuing some global agreeements. Sure, they will never be perfect and probably most money will be lost and they will be heavily criticized like UN, but we need them, at least to show that somebody cares.

When the conservative, immigrant-"skeptic" party entered the parliament in last elections here in Finland, it seemed like the people who favored these views thought that it's now ok to be a racist...

It's ok to be a racist, leftist, rightist, liberal, conservative, gay-supporter, anti-abortionist etc. as long as it it is your theoretical stance. Thinking doesnt hurt!

each person has one and only one identity

This is true.

We're not anonymous, we have an identity that in some cases can be linked to actual persons but we probably behave differently.

And here comes the problem. People WANT to talk, think and behave differently. You're a normal guy on Facebook, you have friends, people (girls!) like you, you like to travel, you love Italian cuisine, Dr. House and Paulo Coelho. By chance, for two years you also construct the bomb in your garage which will kill some of the Coelho and spaghetti lovers. :ballooon:

I'm terrified of the tendency to self-censorship oneself.

How about persuading people to stay in the middle; have some work, family, kids. Or not - spend free time as they wish. But never let them "fight". From what you read you can conclude that I am a really disturbing person, while the truth is quite opposite - what I really hate is people who constantly fight for something, instead accepting that they live in the given period of time and they are given the finite number of tools to live their lives peacefully.

I hate referring to one of my favourite thinkers, Krishnamurti (being aware of the existence of the Godwin's Law which can be easily reverted), but when debates become hot - why not?

>>If one wishes to understand, for example, a machine of high revolution one has to slow it down, not stop it for then it becomes merely a dead matter; but make it turn gently, slowly, to study its structure.<<

Here comes my free Saturday.

[Scythe]

Besides, you go ahead and try being the one to "control" and "police" a global information/entertainment network.

Sadly, this is the easy part. Any telecommunications giant, like Nokia Siemens, Cisco or Ericsson has readily available technology to monitor cell phone / internet traffic. For examples, see the Great Firewall of China, Iran, Pakistan, or USA.

Yes, but try to police this globally. It can't be done. Juris my dicktion and all that.

As for rest of this page, too long, didn't read.

[Chroelle]

Jurisdiction would be quite a problem. Searching something (fx the muhammad cartoons) on Google might be criminal in one country and not in another, so is it illegal for an Iranian muslim visiting Denmark to search fro the cartoons? And in that case should the Danish police catch him and ship him to Iran? Or should the Iranian police wait for him to return, or is it all just a little too complicated and they will leave him alone.

Should it be down to the placement of the computer, the website, the owner, his placement when doing this or what...

If that same Iranian guy knew a guy in Denmark and when he was back home he used Teamviewer to access his PC and through that searched the cartoons out again, then where is the crime being done??? A lot of interesting cases in this cunundrum.

[eMTe]

I dont think this page is "too long". It is probably a bit chaotic and emotional, but I think there's something important at stake. Even if we all (four people answered to this thread and there are billions capable of doing it all over the world) don't agree - what's wrong in it. I think it's quite fun to argue from time to time.

[Scythe]

I'm not saying anything's wrong, it was just longer than what I personally wanted to sit and read.

[eMTe]

I'm not saying anything's wrong

Well, if we're all the same (call us "humans", "homo sapiens" or something) on the basic biological level and some of us say "yes" to some things (be it personal feelings, political and social changes, history, anything) and some of us say "no" - you can deduct that there are at least some questions to pose. So, either we are different (on some basic level: common denominator is yet to reach an agreement) or some of us deliberately lie. Dogs dont differ, they just sniff and bark when something's wrong (regardless of breed), all of them. We, on the contrary, also sniff, but tend to not bark.

Oh boy.

[Scythe]

Your definition of "wrong" differs from mine.

[eMTe]

Well, to be true, I dont have a fixed definition. At the moment, I feel (!) people are different on a culture/society/development level and this is why they claim contradictory things. If youd take Osama and Geert Wilders (mind exercise), put them into an isolated room and open the room only after some time (providing them of course with food and some means of entertainment like PS3 or something ) I doubt you will find two dead bodies and blood on the walls. I truly believe you would find two close friends.

[Scythe]

You like mind exercises better than I do (these days anyway), this makes for a fundamental difference in desire to argue/debate and spend time on theoretical scenarios.

But Osama played some mean shooters, or so I hear...

[Chroelle]

But he sucked at it, because he always went running headfirst into rooms shouting DEATH TO THE INFIDELS, and then detonating all of his grenades in his belt... Even if the room was empty.

[eMTe]

Well, the discussion slowly deviates from the course and, indeed, turns into mind games and philosophy... (me guilty) Coming back to my first post. My point is that with the further advancement of technology (now we have only social websites, computer games like Second Life and internet in our cellphones, but sooner or later web will become not only a "place where you spend your free time", but will be integrated with our life. See the "glass" video which I posted in "interesting videos" topic or read for example about Internet of Things concept. Shopping, sex, doing simple everyday tasks - everything will happen simultaneosuly in two realities, but in fact in one huge reality. Maybe we'll even have bionic limbs linked to web and what now is the cellphone will be just a chip in our brains. Who knows? So, all I say, is that there will not be an opportunity to be anonymous, whatever it means, because what is now internet and what is now so-called real life will simply blend. There will be no use for "forum profiles", "avatars", various e-mail accounts used for different purposes etc., because internet will not be what it constitutes now - a sort of hideout, a place of freedom, and a helpful tool. Internet and rl (or more precisely: technology and nature) will be to some degree one and the same reality.

Phew...

[Zyx]

Unsurprisingly, the French are looking into monitoring internet traffic, because, you know, terrorists.

It's good to remember that it's election time in France and this stuff has to be against the constitution or EU laws.

[eMTe]

I returned to this topic mainly because my biggest dream of one huge global webforum (not some sort of "social site" like Facebook, but forum, where people actually speak to each other and where your avatar ought to be to the real human as 1:1) resurfaced during the offline discussion yesterday.

Do you know of any project that tries to fulfill such an idea? I don't mean a topic on some unimportant forum, I mean serious project with financial backup and serious contributors.