NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Real Names, Guilt, Self-Censorship, and the Identity War
I have worked in IT for over 30 years, and have another example for you.
As you can see in my signature (which I rarely use) I am associated with
various suppliers and organizations. I recently read an article where I
would have had a very constructive comment, but could not make that
comment for fear of repercussions from one of these organizations. If I
could have made that remark under another name, I would have, but in
this case I couldn't take that risk. Sad!
Gary Baribault
CISSP, TOGAF, RHCE, CCNP, MCSE
Consultant en sécurité informatique / Computer security consultant
On 07/26/2011 03:46 PM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>
> Real Names, Guilt, Self-Censorship, and the Identity War
>
> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000884.html
>
>
> "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
> -- William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (circa 1760s)
>
> - - -
>
> In the mere month since the public launching of Google+, it has become
> clear that this innovative and highly useful service -- that I've been
> happily using since its initial availability on June 28th -- has
> triggered a growing controversy over foundational issues of identity
> on the Internet.
>
> Yet make no mistake about it, Google+ itself is not the real issue
> here at all.
>
> Complex issues involving real names, nicknames, pseudonyms, anonymity,
> verified identity, and more have been pulled into the spotlight by
> this launch, largely due to Google's desire that users' associated
> public profiles include their real (or at least their "commonly used")
> names, and questions regarding how users' adherence to this
> requirement are being evaluated.
>
> These are all issues that not only predate Google+, but that in fact
> involve all manner of non-Google Internet-related services as well --
> obviously including other social media sites like Facebook, but also
> much more broadly in terms of public discourse, government involvement
> in identity systems, and an almost endless of array of associated
> aspects.
>
> In two earlier postings regarding identity and Google+ ("Google+,
> Privacy, and Balancing Identity" [ http://j.mp/qhfelo ] and "Google+'s
> 'Identity' Controversy: No Easy Answers" [ http://j.mp/ny8XFd ]), I've
> attempted to provide some sense of the highly complex, interrelated,
> and often conflicting factors involved in these matters, and suggested
> some possible "balancing" paths forward for consideration. If you
> haven't seen those postings, you might wish to glance over them before
> proceeding below.
>
> Google+ is very new and evolving rapidly. We can expect various
> changes to an array of aspects involving the service -- I anticipate
> that these will ultimately involve profiles and naming requirements as
> well.
>
> Yet we continue to see various arguments associated with Internet
> identity being driven significantly by what I personally believe to be
> incomplete and inappropriately skewed examples and reasoning.
>
> An example of this is an article that appeared a couple of days ago in
> the UK publication "Guardian," titled "How the internet created an
> age of rage." ( http://j.mp/oMqueZ )
>
> The article comes down very hard against anonymity (and by extension,
> pseudonymity), blaming these for the "coarsening" of discourse on the
> Net. The piece ends with "Generally, though, who should be afraid to
> stand up and put their name to their words? And why should anyone
> listen if they don't?" -- saying in essence that anonymity and its ilk
> should only be acceptable in a small set of very limited
> circumstances.
>
> Hundreds of years ago, the English jurist William Blackstone made the
> statement I quoted just above at the start of this essay, commonly
> called "Blackstone's formulation" today, about the need to protect
> innocents even when that means that some guilty may go free.
>
> While this concept is usually applied to matters of criminal law, as
> exemplified by pronouncements such as "innocent until proven guilty,"
> I believe that Blackstone's words may also speak to us across the
> centuries regarding identity issues on the Internet.
>
> Because the point of view expressed by that Guardian article, various
> Congressmen, and other authorities, who have been publicly castigating
> anonymity/pseudonymity and equating these concepts with criminal and
> antisocial behaviors, is very much in keeping with a "guilty until
> proven innocent" mindset.
>
> One way to see this clearly is to examine one aspect that I consider
> to be among the most important in these debates -- the chilling
> self-censorship that can occur when persons are forced to reveal their
> identities in situations where this really should not be necessary.
>
> I definitely feel that knowing persons' real names in social media
> does generally have very positive aspects -- but that there are also
> many situations where this can indeed be quite problematic.
>
> Many arguments (such as those made by the Guardian and others) against
> anonymity are phrased in terms of the perceived abilities anonymity
> provides "bad actors" to be impolite, nasty, ugly, or even behave in
> criminal manners.
>
> These are all decidedly negative behaviors. But I would argue that
> persons who truly want to "anonymously" comport themselves in these
> manners will always find ways to do so. Absent draconian and absolute
> government-linked Internet access identity requirements, not only will
> these persons create real-appearing false identities, but in practice
> they may find themselves tracked down anyway by IP addresses or other
> means in serious cases of abuse (or at least accused abuse).
>
> This points out an important truth -- what most people think of as
> "anonymity" on the Internet tends to usually be something much less if
> enough resources are directed at finding the sources of specific
> posted materials.
>
> So in all honesty, I believe the focus on persons who wish to abuse
> "anonymity" is something of a red herring.
>
> What we should instead be focusing upon is what I believe should be
> the default case -- how identity issues impact innocent persons who
> have justifiable reasons for not wanting to be identified with
> particular Internet postings and the like.
>
> I've previously discussed obvious cases such as whistleblowers,
> political speech, and persons living lifestyles that might be viewed
> "skeptically" by current or potential employers, insurance companies,
> and other entities.
>
> But there are many more cases where persons who could have useful
> information and insights to contribute to online discussions, will
> self-censor themselves into silence to protect themselves or others,
> to the detriment of the community at large that might otherwise have
> benefited from that discourse.
>
> Here's just one "thought experiment" example. Imagine someone who has
> a disease with an associated social stigma, or even more to the point,
> who has a child with such a disease.
>
> Is it reasonable to require a parent to reveal their own identity --
> and so effectively in many cases reveal the identity of their
> children -- in order to participate in a social media discussion about that
> disease?
>
> Remember, the Internet has a long memory, such materials will likely
> remain online indefinitely.
>
> Similarly, should an adult taking care of a parent with Alzheimer's
> disease be required to identify themselves (and again, by extension
> likely their parent as well) in order to seek out advice on a social
> media thread, or to author a potentially useful public comment on an
> article or blog posting?
>
> I would argue no in both cases.
>
> Think about it for a bit and I'm sure you'll be able to visualize many
> similar situations, some even more serious. Remember, it's not just a
> question of identifying yourself, but in many cases you also end up
> effectively (by association) identifying your friends, co-workers,
> family members and others without their permissions, in discussions
> that may persist online for years or decades.
>
> These are the affected innocents of whom I spoke earlier.
>
> And this also helps to explain why I feel that an optional mechanism
> that holds concerned users' "real names" in a sort of "escrow" -- not
> publicly visible under normal circumstances -- could be a potential
> way out of this dilemma in many cases.
>
> The bad guys are going to falsify everything they can anyway. But the
> innocents as in the parental/child examples above -- who feel that
> they cannot publicly discuss key matters when identified by their real
> names -- do not have evil motives, and so there should be no harm to
> the Internet in permitting their public nomenclatures to be something
> other than their real names in the vast majority of situations.
>
> I am certainly not claiming that the logistics of making this work in
> practice would be simple. There would be a lot of details and work
> involved in bringing such a system to fruition.
>
> Many of the debates regarding Internet identity have dangerously
> skewed into a "presumed guilt" sort of prejudice, asserting that
> applying rules to everyone that are appropriate for the bad actors,
> for the guilty, is somehow necessary even though most persons do not
> fall into such nefarious categories.
>
> I prefer using my real name on postings -- but as I've mentioned
> previously, I have also self-censored myself regarding some sensitive,
> personal matters where I felt there simply was no need for me to be
> identified, and questions that I could have answered (e.g., on sites
> using the "real identity required" Facebook commenting system) were
> left unanswered as a result.
>
> We seem to have turned the assumption of innocence on its head, and
> have allowed fears of abuse to create an atmosphere were everyone is
> treated as if they are likely abusers.
>
> If nothing else, this is not in keeping with the best traditions of
> Anglo-American jurisprudence, is fundamentally just not fair, and is
> potentially damaging to society at large in the long run.
>
> I believe that jurist William Blackstone, if he were alive today,
> would feel very much the same way.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
> Founder:
> - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
> - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
> - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
> Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
>
>