Anonymity End Law

Link here. Even I am a little nervous about this thing.

Thoughts on this new libel law?

Personally, while it does have its uses, there is a lot of room for abuse of this law.

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.

Even aside from it being wrong for a large number of reasons, how would you even enforce this? There are extremely few websites set up to definitively determine identity; almost everywhere runs on usernames, with real names optional and unverifiable. You'd have to overhaul almost every forum, blog, and other interactive site on the web to actually get identification that meant anything in a legal sense. Unless I'm missing something.

Even if I admit there is a tiny bit of me that finds the thought of being able to sue /b/ and ED off the internet amusing.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

I have considered and advocated ways to positively identify Internet users; mainly through use of a Universal Electronic ID that would be managed by a central database. Privacy considerations aside, requiring use of this for any login-based information resource would solve the identifying and tracing problem to a significant degree.

Given privacy and other considerations, it is about as likely to happen as the Sun turning into Muenster cheese.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So that the government can control who says what at all times? That's so authoritarian it's beyond description.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I don't see how it would automatically result in controlling what people say. There's far too much data streaming onto the web at any one time for any sort of monitoring set-up to keep up with it. It would allow identification of who really said something after the fact, though.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I'd like to know that the Joe Smith I'm getting an email from is the actual, authentic, Joe Smith, without requiring that we have previously exchanged a trust signature. There is no way other than universal ID for that to happen. Various commercial entities have tried this — Microsoft's LiveID, Google ID, Facebook, etc. — but it's still linked to unverified and falsifiable data, it's in the hands of a corporate entity that might be compromised, and it's not universally adopted.

The system could be voluntary to the extent that users and businesses are not required to use it, but most would if the major providers started to require it for transactions. For example, Visa, MC, AMEX, and Discover could require Universal ID for all online credit transations. Similarly, SMTP could be replaced with an authenticated protocol using UID to stop falsified mail headers.

You could still have anonymity by not implementing Universal ID on your private site, or running private SMTP services, but I imagine that most mainstream 'net software (email clients, chat clients, etc.) would be shipped to block non-UID transactions. I know I would do it in a heartbeat if it meant getting spam out of my inbox.

In other words, you could still have your back-alley Internet, but you'd be unable to use any mainstream services without your UID.

Yes, I know, Big Brother, censorship, etc., etc. I'm not saying this is ideal, merely that it would solve one set of problems, namely me getting a dozen emails every week to increase the size of my penis. Oh, and vandalism/jerkassitude on this wiki (or indeed any site) would be pretty easy to deal with. One ID = one ban = happy moderators.

Heck, if you really don't trust government (but for some reason trust companies — does not compute), you could set up a government-sponsored, nation-independent corporate entity to manage the ID system. How you'd stop them from snooping on your data, I have no idea — governments at least have the distinction of being responsible to the people.

I have some other thoughts about authentication, namely that each major node in the backbone/trunk structure of the Internet would be a trust entity and would be responsible for authenticating all traffic that passes through it. If it finds a site or host passing bogus traffic, it flags it for review. Sufficient weight of failed authentications would get that node taken off the 'net. This does mean that your ISP would be required to cut off your Internet if you get infected by malware, or risk getting cut off itself.

edited 21st Oct '11 9:53:27 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Most forms of illegal online activity (aside from illegal downloads, teehee), such as spam, originate from countries with questionable regulation to begin with, like China and Russia. Could you implement this kind of thing globally? Because that's how big the net would have to be, if your reason for implementing it is 'to stop spam and other online crimes.' I don't think there's any point in worrying about it right now, because by the time we get to where that kind of solution is really feasible, we'll have transformed into a totally different kind of environment anyway, with its own sets of issues.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

You want my fully honest answer? I think that countries hosting a preponderance of bad traffic should be cut off from the global Internet completely until they clean up their act. What would happen if all major nations stopped receiving traffic from China?

Oh, and FYI, I don't consider, "But I want to do illegal stuff anonymously," a valid reason for anonymity.

Sorry for serial edits, but this would probably work better if rolled out as the much-maligned "Internet 2.0" or whatever the name is now. That way the back-alley Internet would eventually get marginalized via obsolescence. Tempt people in with higher speed access (nationwide broadband efforts) and near-foolproof security and you'd be on your way.

edited 21st Oct '11 9:56:48 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm absolutely against this, anonymity on the internet must be protected. This is the last free port of information in human civilization where you can easily keep people from finding out what you are looking at and what you are saying.

Fuck. No.

I want to keep my anonymity and independence, even if that means spam, viruses, and possible computer related crimes I'm vulnerable to.

edited 21st Oct '11 10:03:47 AM by Barkey

Yeah, me saying that I don't want an end to anonymity would be a huuuuuuge understatement. Some people need anonymity for things they're too afraid of talking about in real life.

something

This one [1]does not appreciate suggestions of cutting Russia out of Internet

Aside of that, this one agrees that anonymity in the net is essential. This one does not see much point of using Internet without it. And surely wouldn't be posting on this forum were her name widely knows

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I don't trust governments to determine what is "true, reliable or trustworthy."

So yeah, this is indefensible.

And treating websites as publishers of anonymous comments? What if there was a comment that they missed, does that really need to blow up in their faces like that?

EDITED IN: And the whole point about "lying without risk" is a moot point. Society's biases will let some people get away with lying anyway so long as these lies are in the same direction as said biases. It's only when one goes against society's biases that they're going to be branded a liar, and not just when they lie either; what if you're the only one telling the truth, and others want to make your statement out to be a lie? Society is too prone to witch-hunts for me to trust anything but anonymity.

edited 21st Oct '11 10:20:58 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

My concept would still allow sites to display comments anonymously — their login protocol would not necessarily have anything to do with how users interact with one another. You can log in as you and then post as "Mary Jane" or whatever; that would be up to the site's owners. Taking TV Tropes as an example, rather than a separate login for each handle, with no authentication, you'd go to the site's registration page, click "Log in with my UID", and *paf*, you're done. Then you could create one or more posting handles and configure their profiles independently. The admins/mods would be the only ones with the ability to see which handles link to which login.

Now, the law under discussion is the worst of both worlds — forcing sites to be responsible for anonymous activity without giving them a technical means to authenticate the identity of posters just means that they'll cut off commenting, with a loss for all involved. Dumb.

edited 21st Oct '11 10:22:02 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yeah, even as someone who's actually OK with using her Real Name when it makes sense, I still think getting rid of the option of anonymity is a really, really, really bad idea. Sorry, Fighteer. I hate spam as much as you do, but it's not worth giving up our much more important right to privacy and unrestricted free speech. My junk mail filter can just deal with it.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

"You want my fully honest answer? I think that countries hosting a preponderance of bad traffic should be cut off from the global Internet completely until they clean up their act. What would happen if all major nations stopped receiving traffic from China?"

So, let me get this straight: you want what amounts to economic sanctions and restricted access to the global information network for a period of time for millions of people because you haven't yet figured out how to make a separate email account for registration to all websites that do not practice stringent privacy policies?

edited 21st Oct '11 10:36:01 AM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

You think this is about spam? Hah. It's about fundamental information security. Like not getting millions of zombie computers used to attack sites.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

China does seem to generate a lot of bad activity on the Internet. We should build our own Great Firewall and sit back and laugh.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Mm. I am torn on this. I obviously like having privacy, but internet anonymity is a particularly dangerous thing, I've found.

I think I like Fighteer's idea best, broadly speaking.

Honestly, people need to realize that society as we knew it ended when they turned the internet on. The way we're going, things will end being very, very different, and not necessarily for the better. A lawless internet is a fundamentally dangerous one.

The trick is figuring out how to regulate it without making it useless.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Let's face it, the reason the Internet has prospered in the modern era is not the ability to exchange subversive emails or download illegal MP 3's. It's because it has become a vehicle for commerce. Commerce requires strong security. Fraud and hacking is the single largest source of financial risk to companies on the Internet. Ergo, secure universal online IDs benefit commerce.

I already said we can keep the "old Internet" where people can run around and be all "freedom lolz". But Joe Random User can only benefit from improved security, anonymity be damned. If done right, he can even keep his anonymity ... from other individuals.

I said that this British thing seems like the concept done very badly.

edited 21st Oct '11 1:32:02 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Completely inappropriate. And for what?

If some yokel online says "Hey Starship Maxima is a douche." So what?

This culture of hypersensitivity is gonna be the death of us all.

It was an honor

The idea to force everyone to create a unique personal ID and cut off the countries that fail to follow the regulations is so laughable and short-sighted, that I almost want to see somebody try it. But seriously, do people think these things through before they post?

1. If you think identity theft is bad now, you've got another thing coming for ya with this kind of idea going on. Incidentally, look up how many people are victims of identity theft every year. So Yeah.

2. Cutting off countries from the internet won't hurt those countries, it will hurt you. Also, how will you enforce this on an international scale? Especially with wireless communication? You will get sued out of your mind by corporations. Even if you don't, it will be functionally impossible to restrict access.

Even if you do somehow pull it off, welcome to another global market crash as information companies lose trillions of dollars. Congratulations, you just fucked the struggling global market right back into the Stone Age. I hope you feel proud. I also hope you know how to hunt for food.

3. You can't create a unique id that cannot be hacked. If you do spend enough time and resources to make it impractical on a large scale, such as ensuring a global, every-site 128 or even 256-bit hexadecimal encryption that constantly refreshes, you will spend trillions in upgrading the entire network to support that architecture, slow down everything, and then you will increase bandwidth consumption because of the insane global security protocols.

edited 21st Oct '11 1:43:26 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

Well, naturally it can't actually be restricted. The internet, IMO, is the functional personification of modern anomie. Ultimate freedom, and ultimate lack of moral standards (I think the term is GIFT?).

It must be regulated, and yet we cannot hope to do so. Such is why it's going to rip down everything we ever thought about society, as time goes on and it becomes more and more a part of our lives, and I don't think it will be all change for the better.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@USAF: The Internet cannot lack standards - even your standards; as it is conglomeration and summary of all users, it has all of their moral standards by default. As I am sure you are a self-professed person of moral standards, and a user of the Internet, you automatically invalidate your own statement.

edited 21st Oct '11 1:42:20 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

@Korochun:

1. Identity theft is largely possible only because people give out their identifying information freely when someone simply calls and asks them. Associate the UID with some kind of physical device and you make it nearly impossible to counterfeit unless you have both the device and the owner's identity information. Smart cards are in use everywhere around the world except the U.S. and they have vastly cut down on point of sale credit card fraud. There's no reason why we can't apply the same principles.

2. Corporations suing what, governments? Yeah, good luck with that. Anyway, it is already in their best interests financially to do everything in their power to minimize fraud and security risks. Pitch this as a tool to aid them with that and you have instant full support.

Regarding enforcement, 'net traffic routes around the world and everything crosses some kind of boundary where its point of origin can be identified. Stop the traffic at the point where it enters the global data stream. Anyway, market crash? I think you misunderstand — the corporations will be the first in line to fix the security problems leading to the shutdown.

3. The technology for secure authentication already exists and is in use globally. Smart credit cards, SecureID tokens, and other forms of two-factor authentication do not impose any great burden on the current system. You're vastly overstating the scope of the problem.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm talking about it in a sociological way.

The internet may have standards on a site-by-site basis, but it's not like society as a whole. Anomie is the process by which personal freedom results in a flagrant disregard for any societal standards—good or bad. The internet provides the ultimate freedom—total anonymity—and thus you see a total and complete lack of regard for any of the usual social standards most of us follow.

Do you think a troll or Internet Tough Guy would honestly act as they do in reality, to your face? That's what I'm talking about it. We all know what it is I'm referring to, but when framed in the greater sociological picture it's no longer just annoying, it's terrifying.

Think about it this way: right now, the primary function of the internet is for personal or social use, with a secondary function of business in the finance world.

In the next few years, we'll start seeing many businesses—especially in the entertainment industry—move onto the internet for its incredible ability to reduce distribution costs to near-zero. You'll also note that many people are calling for a partial or complete end to copyright.

The internet, in essence, is going to effectively destroy an entire section of the economy—and the part that produces the majority of popular culture, to boot—as we know it. Now, to most people, this is pretty much fine. Free stuff, right? But then we face either a sudden and startling lack of innovation, creativity, and production in the cultural entertainment sector, or a complete socialization of the process.

Either way, it results in a fundamental shift in the way we think about society. Soon, it will move past just the entertainment industry, as literally anything that can be put online loses any and all economic value in the eyes of the consumer. And this is just on the materialist economic front, and ignores the social implications of impersonalization and bureaucratic inertia.

The world ended in the '80s, with the simultaneous end of the Cold War and the introduction of the internet. It's taken until now for us to realize it, and is, I think, a part of why there is so much horrific upheaval right now.

It's not going to return back to normal. What was once normal is now abnormal. Our world is never going to be the same, and I don't think it will be generally better, the way people treat the internet—that is, as a free ticket to do what they like.

As I said, anomie personified.

I am now known as Flyboy.