Comments on: On Anonymity

By: Nomen

Nomen — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:41:18 +0000

Mike, “we don’t live in an oppressive regime,” but you suggest the Feds could coerce Adam into revealing information by using a “bamboo shoot or two.” Err… ?

By: notIang

notIang — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:17:16 +0000

Making it an economic argument is sidestepping lots of messy details around human rights. At the current rate, the economics of tyranny would win because no one in power will go for real free-market economics; they might be out of power if that happens.

By: "Gerald Wiley"

"Gerald Wiley" — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:05:25 +0000

> Anonymity lets us review the idea, not the person.
Exactly, follow my URL.

By: Iang

Iang — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:31:19 +0000

We can make strong cases for and against anonymity, and the philosophy and politics will go on forever. At the end of the day, I’d suggest that the question will be settled by economics. IOW, if it is economic to allow anonymity, it will win. If not, then it will fail.
So for example, publishing leaflets anonymously is protected because it is so easy to do and so hard to stop. Yet libelling online is not protected because we can chase your IP numbers and sue you. Or something similar…

By: Ross Brown

Ross Brown — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:07:53 +0000

There is much value in anonymity, from the need to whistler blower protection to the ability to comment without prejudice, that makes it worth protecting. While what’s going on with Kathy Sierra is disgusting and potentially actionable from a criminal standpoint, it’s also within the toolbox of law enforcement to subpoena IP records and break the veil of Internet anonymity when they need to.
But anonymity serves another purpose – it forces us to evaluate arguments and comments without context of the sender, which is why nom de guerre and nom de plume are parts of our literary heritage. Out of context, the writings of the Unabomber weren’t completely ignorant, but some of the statements made by Bill Gates, without attribution, are moronic. Anonymity lets us review the idea, not the person.
Perhaps I should have commented anonymously…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:11:43 +0000

I use anonymity frequently to comment on various blogs which could backfire on either myself or my employer (by my association) – who then deals with me with a lart tool.
Yes it’s cowardly (I’m too chicken-Shyte to stand up for my opinion when it counts). And sure anonymity can easily be abused by scum.
But without anonymity then my incredibly well thought out and valuable opinions (technically known as “crap”) would not be shared with the world.
In my case that may be a good thing. But overall I think that anonymity is important

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:53:01 +0000

Mike, don’t be silly. I won’t give up your privacy until our non-oppressive government declares me an enemy combatant and waterboards me at a secret prison.

By: Mike Rothman

Mike Rothman — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:06:06 +0000

To be clear “Arthur,” neither you nor Mordaxus is really anonymous. Shostack and many others know who you are and if you did something wrong, the Feds would shine a light in his face for about 10 seconds and he’d give you up. Perhaps it would take a bamboo shoot or two, but they’d figure out who you were.
And we don’t live in an oppressive regime. The folks that I’m talking about are cowards, and I still think that it gets back to accountability. You need to be able to stand behind the things you say and write, and I assume you do that.
If not, then well… If the shoe fits…