To over-generalize wildly: two classes of people want anonymity on the net:
* Those who want the freedom to abuse others anonymously
* Those who want the freedom from abuse conferred by anonymity
The debate over G+/YouTube or Facebook is usually framed in the context of the first group, because the desire and willingness to perpetrate abuse is often a sign of social privilege (lack of fear of consequences).
But those who want to evade abuse are usually drawn from the ranks of the under-privileged (who vastly out-number the privileged, but whose voices are seldom heard).
A hint as to why their voices go unheard: the billionaire founders of Google and Facebook, and their stock-option-endowed highly-paid subordinates, are not exactly under-privileged. And neither are the entrepreneurial politicians who shape internet law.
It's a growing class divide, and the Mexican drug gang murders are just one of the more drastic symptoms.
I think it's important to point out that the targets of people operating under the second category think that it falls under the first category.
In short: drug cartels no doubt think that they are being abused when people criticize them online. Any ability to stop "true" abuse is almost guaranteed to also help stop "abuse" targeted at bad people.
This is a gross overgeneralization, which does no justice to the subject of online anonymity.
If you are going to take the generalization this far, at least inlude the group in the middle: Those who don't want to abuse anyone but aren't at risk of getting "abused" and just want the privacy and advantages of being able to debate or express their opinions without their friends, family, employers or random nutjobs interfering.
That's not a middle ground. It's part of his second group. If your boss fires you for what you said on Facebook or Google+, that's abuse. If other kids bully you at school over what you said online, that's also abuse. The US government not allowing you to pass US borders as a foreigner, because you criticized NSA, is also abuse.
You don't need to be assassinated, to have your life being made very unpleasant by others, when you say things online that they don't agree with.
Allow me to present some "middle-ground" scenarios, from the top of my head:
- Your spouse gives you trouble for something you said on a relationship advice forum
- One of your friends causes drama after you express a political opinion not popular in your group
- It gets awkward at your family dinner because a couple of people found out that you posted under your full name at a BDSM forum
- You discussed some personal matter online with other people, and now the other people involved in the personal matter give you grief because you violated their trust by seeking advice or venting with others
None of these scenarios could in any concievable circumstance be called abuse. These are all scenarios which would pre-internet happen behind closed doors, in a social context where the people who would be offended by the statements couldn't hear them. On the internet, they are accessible to everyone. Having anonymous forums is clearly a better solution than creating seggregated online communities which emulate the "closed-doors" scenario which would occur in the physical world. That's not to say that the "closed-doors" scenario is outdated. But online anonymity in a forum of strangers provides an arena of expression which gives better opportunities for communication, than a strict opt-in community with close acquaintances [edit: and full names].
On the contrary, I am arguing that these are scenarios where anonymity is a good thing, but which are nowhere near the edge cases of online contributors abusing anonymity or hiding from persecution.
First, this happened on Twitter where being anonymous is allowed, it didn't help much. Second, you can still get anonymity on G+/Youtube by creating a youtube page. So what's your point exactly except ranting about some execs having a bigger paycheck than yours?
There is no mention of Twitter on the report, why presume it's Twitter?
The CNN report[0] says they mentioned 2 sites that allow anonymous drug abuse reporting. It's of my personal opinion that these people didn't even bad mouth the drug cartel via these sites or Twitter, but are instead being used as examples.
> To over-generalize wildly: two classes of people want anonymity on the net
What about those (like me) who don't want to abuse others, and don't have much reason to fear abuse from others?
What about those who like the benefits of privacy and want to control our own identities? Or those who feel creeped out by the way the internet is becoming a panopticon?
I don't fear abuse, but I do feel unhappy at the need for people to put me in a box addressed by a single label. I also think privacy has a positive value, not just as a fight against negative things.
Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the way surveillance makes me want to self-censor.
Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the way surveillance makes me want to self-censor.
Congratulations: that makes you part of the second category, the under-privileged -- like the inmates of Bentham's original panopticon, felons under surveillance in gaol, unsure whether they were being watched at any time.
(Seriously, if you're retreating into self-censorship and worrying about privacy because of a lack of anonymity, then you're clearly in the disempowered group. Not as underprivileged as some, but sufficiently to be feeling the chill wind down your neck. Welcome to the club.)
To some degree, I think you're right. But I also think there's another argument to be made here:
Put as straightforwardly as I can, the two conditions in your original post seem to me negative:
a) Those who want to abuse others anonymously create negatives in society.
b) Those who want freedom from abuse are trying to escape negatives in society.
I think in addition to those, there is something that makes privacy a positive.
Here's an analogy: it's like defining mental health as "not being sick." A lot of psychology has historically treated it this way, but then I read people like Victor Frankl, or look at the Self-Actualisation piece of Maslow's Hierarchy and I see health can mean connectedness, joy and many things that don't fit on a purely negative level.
I don't know how I'd even begin to articulate the things I find positive about privacy, but I do think there's something. Perhaps I'd start with appealing to you as a writer. Isn't the ability to get lost in your thoughts and be creative without censoring the flow somehow connected to privacy?
Although the article appears to be two years old, Mexican drug cartels still do these acts today, regardless of what someone may have said directly or indirectly about them[1]. They really are one of the most ruthless gangs out there.
[1] Mexico mayor 'killed for standing up to drugs cartel'
"It will be nearly impossible to determine if the two victims actually posted anything about cartels on the Internet, as people don't usually use their real names online, he said."
Its been more than two years, was anything ever determined?
There are so many permutations based on what actually happened that I don't think any conclusions can be drawn.
Were they innocent civilians? Wouldn't be the first time. Were they in a rival gang basically informing on some other gang who "got" them? Wouldn't be the first time. Targeted for other reasons that the gang doesn't want made public (hmm maybe dude was banging the gang leaders girlfriend for years behind his back, so they both end up dead? Or stole from a gang and got away for years, finally tracked down and punished?) Wouldn't be the first time.
Only one thing is certain, a classic old media company posted a FUD story about new media. Who ever would have guessed that could happen LOL?
Tor isn't much of a protection if it drastically reduces your k-anonymity. For example: You are from Nuevo Laredo and you mention that in a defiant tweet. What if in whole of Nuevo Laredo there are only 10 people who use Tor? The Zetas will just go to the houses of those 10 people, and easily find out if it was any of them.
And if it were 100? Just hang up random Tor users until people stop using Tor.
The real solution? Use a service that is indistinguishable from regular traffic to connect to a host outside of the control of the cartels (aka out of Mexico, and possibly out of the U.S. as well) and then use that connection to connect to Tor. An example could be any VPN, SSH or HTTPS connection, preferably made from a work setting.
Of course make sure that there's no strong correlation between the time you post, and the time that you connect.
In any case, be very careful with what details you drop about yourself, when you do weird stuff your k-anonymity is very fragile. The test question: 'how many people can be perceived to be doing what I am doing at this moment'. Whenever the answer to that is less than a few thousand, you could be in grave danger.
How does anyone on HN think this is a valid thought process?
Everyone has something to hide, at some point in their life. Everyone. And that doesn't mean it's illegal, immoral or life threatening. One day you'll have something to hide and realize how naive this thought process is. At that point, hope it isn't too late for online anonymity.
And it's worse if you aren't in developed countries with "checks-and-balances". There are too many examples of people being killed for expressing their views.
Freedom of speech comes with the cost of hearing things we might not want to hear at times. Sometimes potential vile things (Westboro baptist church, pretty much any Republican talking these days). Anonymity comes with the cost of trolls, but that is the cost we should understand and be willing to accept.
Which social network was this? Did it require real names to be a user 2 years ago? Most people unfortunately don't care about anonymity even if they should.
There is a scary pattern with what you read about Pakistan, even criticizing politicians are targeted there.
The Pakistani oppression is done by the Taliban, which works with the drug gangs in Afghanistan. Another similarity.
(The main difference seems to be that the military there is (was?) also active in "media criticism"?)
This will be interesting in how it plays out the coming decades. I wonder if these groups [will] buy/receive software from China and Iran, to identify complaints? Sigh, not effects you expected the Internet's increasing importance to information.
* Those who want the freedom to abuse others anonymously
* Those who want the freedom from abuse conferred by anonymity
The debate over G+/YouTube or Facebook is usually framed in the context of the first group, because the desire and willingness to perpetrate abuse is often a sign of social privilege (lack of fear of consequences).
But those who want to evade abuse are usually drawn from the ranks of the under-privileged (who vastly out-number the privileged, but whose voices are seldom heard).
A hint as to why their voices go unheard: the billionaire founders of Google and Facebook, and their stock-option-endowed highly-paid subordinates, are not exactly under-privileged. And neither are the entrepreneurial politicians who shape internet law.
It's a growing class divide, and the Mexican drug gang murders are just one of the more drastic symptoms.