Nobody has the right, or should expect the right, to anonymity on the web. Yes, most people post on the web under pseudonyms (me included), but most of us realise that we are not truly anonymous. I’m sure that I’ve provided enough clues in my internet activity for anyone who wished to do so to uncover my true identity. However, I doubt that anyone would bother to do so because frankly I’m not a very interesting person, and I haven’t set myself up to be “the web’s number one creepy uncle”. If somebody did post my true identity then would I really be that bothered? No. If being “doxed” would ruin your life, then perhaps you ought not to have been doing whatever it was you were doing under the cloak of anonymity.
The internet isn’t some game that is totally separate from real life.
Because the very idea of Freedom of Speech doesn’t have much teeth, unless we are willing to honor the right to unpopular, but not illegal (fraud, libel, etc.) speech. I do not like Violentacrez’s speech (typing, text, etc.), but I respect his right to make it.
Doesn’t that also protect the journalist? You clearly don’t like that he delivered the information on who VA is, but you’ll protect and respect his right to do so right?
From most criminal charges, yes, unless there was some hacking involved. But I don’t think it should protect the journalist from a civil suit. Nor quite honestly should VA’s employeer be protected from a law suit for wrongfull termination suit if the right-to-work crap ever gets scrapped. It’s a payday loan company. I find it really hard to believe the arguement that they have an image or reputation to protect.
Nobody has taken away anybody’s rights to free speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions. It kinda goes with the territory, ya know?
Why the hell not? In fact, one of the internet’s greatest attributes is the its ability to act as a forum for the free exchange of ideas on their own merits, separate from the identities and personalities of the people exchanging them. And in fact, among people who care deeply about the internet and are involved in activism related to its future, issues of privacy, anonymity, and security are paramount concerns.
“The internet” isn’t any one thing. Reddit forums pretty much are totally separate from real life.
And the point is, you keep issues to the place where they are a concern. If you are a boss, you don’t call your employee’s mother because his Powerpoint presentation sucked. Or even if he is sexually harassing other employees. You keep it between HR and the police. Likewise, you don’t call your husband’s secretary because he didn’t put the toilet seat down. And your boss and your mom have no right to know what you post on your Facebook account unless you want them to.
The exceptions to anonymity on the internet should be only as follows:
There is evidence of illegal acts, or planned illegal acts. Personally, I think it’s a dick move to report on technically illegal acts that aren’t harming anyone (blue laws), but I wouldn’t have less respect for someone who did so if they legitimately believed in those laws and weren’t just reporting someone to be spiteful.
There is danger of someone being harmed (including the poster harming themselves).
Harming the anonymity of someone who is harming the anonymity of others. If someone is publishing a list of people they saw go into an abortion clinic, then turnabout is fair play.
Outing the identity, works, and acts of public figures who are hurting people, through their position. This does not mean that their private acts are fair game, unless they are directly related to making their official actions and positions hypocritical.
This could be easily folded under the others, but I’ll also specifically mention any forms of cyberbullying, where the subject of the bullying real life identifiable.
Note that, for example, if the various pictures the troll published of under skirts included anything that made the subjects identifiable, then I would be comfortable with outing him, since that violates number 3.
But if you want to make racist comments or write fantasy stories about baby rape and cannibalism under the cloak of anonymity, have at it.
So just to be clear, you also feel this way about the story that was mentioned within the original Gawker article, about the teacher who was fired after he posted photos of his students to the Creepshot subreddit?
Oh, come on! That teacher didn’t do anything illegal! If that teenage girl didn’t want a bunch of weirdos on the internet masturbating to her legs, she should have covered herself up, amirite?
I strongly believe the tools to be anonymous should exist and be freely available to everyone. When Google+ refused to allow people to use pseudonyms in their profiles, I considered that an unacceptable breach of privacy.
However, it is on the individual to decide how much anonymity they have, and it should not be expected of anyone to respect a level of anonymity the individual themselves are not adhering to.
It’s not a breach of privacy because nobody is forcing anyone to sign up to Google+ (and to prove it, last time I checked, pretty much nobody had). Believe it or not, using the internet isn’t compulsory. If a particular site wants you to use your real name and you don’t want to, then guess what? You don’t have to use the site. If a site lets you post under a pseudonym, then knock yourself out, but don’t act all offended when you turn out not to be anonymous, because nobody ever guaranteed you that you would be.
I don’t know what it is about the internet that makes people such utter entitled pricks. The vast majority of the time they’re paying precisely jackshit to use a technological playground that was the stuff of science fiction 20 years ago, and then they whip up all kinds of grievances if everything isn’t exactly how they goddamn well want it to be.
Well of course. It was an unacceptable breach of privacy, so nobody used it.
However, there are frequent pushes from lobbying corporations and various factions within governments to deanonymize the internet. That kind of thing you can’t opt out of. I just picked Google because it was something that did happen and that folks publicly objected to.
The people in those pictures were identifiable, so that violates the rule I mentioned. Also, depending on the context of the posts, it may have been clear they were taken from within a classroom, and therefore good evidence of a threat to the kids safety. The article also doesn’t say what the general posting rules are for that website. Also, if the place is identifiable, there’s no reason not to alert the person in charge of the establishment to look out for bad behavior, even if you don’t identify the person responsible.
Yes, a Monopoly game technically takes place in “real life” too, but the mechanics of the game aren’t meant to affect things in the normal context of their existence. You can’t go to a store and buy things with Monopoly money, or live in a Monopoly house. I think it’s clear what I meant by “real”, and it’s ridiculous for you to try and make some kind of point over some twisted reinterpretation of it. But if you can’t handle that for some reason, chalk it up to, the punishment didn’t fit the crime, probably in severity, and definitely in terms of context.
I agree it’s a sleazy thing to post, but if the act itself is not illegal, and there is no way to identify the people in the pictures, then he still deserves protection. If either of those things changes, then I warrant that his anonymity can be violated.
