New York bill to ban online posting anonymity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/anonymous-comment-ban-legislation-new-york_n_1543033.html


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


Similar topic thread:

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/33842-Username-and-why-we-use-them-

It should be noted that this has yet to come into force and may never even come into law in the first place as it is a 'first draft'

Also TOTJO is based in Texas which, as this report is saying, protects online anonymity

But should we be allowed to post online anonymously or not?

Reasons for and against?

Please open the debate, Akkarin ...

Its pointless without requiring some verification of the identity, anyone can use any name or email address if it is not going to be verified and so, from what I've read above, its a massive waste of time from people who have no clue about what they are talking about. I guess they'd have to require all comments to come from a registered/verified account to begin with, track IP's, and even then all of that can lead to no real identity.

Alexandre Orion wrote: Please open the debate, Akkarin ...

People use anonymity to cyber bully people and that is a sad but common fact...

On the other hand, anonymity has many many advantages of its own

For one thing, the very thing that allows you to cyber bully other people also protects you from being bullied in return...

You can express a view, make a criticism and people don't know who you are and thus can't make any threats against you

What if you lived with your parents and were a pro same sex marriage supporter but they were vehemently against it? If you tell them your view you may very possibly be kicked out and have all communication with your family cut off...

If you're an anonymous person online you can still go around offering your views and support to people can having discussions without ever having to be exposed

The value of what is said is just as true if you know who says it as it is when you don't know who said it

You can run away online if you're anonymous... that is a very great power. Sure some people abuse it, but how many people use that ability to be who they want to be when no one is looking?

You can't be judged when you're anonymous, but all hell can come down on you from family, friends and your employer if they know you've done something they disagree with morally

I support anonymity online for those reasons

I'm aware that people can use it for bullying and attacking, but ultimately those posts can be removed, those users banned and if the threats are genuine you can contact appropriate authorities (not in each case though)

I think the advantage of being anonymous is greater than the disadvantage

This is a good topic.

I support the idea of anonymous posting, but as with most things I say, I'm not black/white on the issue.

I don't like cyber-bullying and I feel that requiring identification to post could curtail that a little bit, but I don't think it would completely. I mean, real bullying on the playgrounds happen everyday and the sufferers know who their abusers are. Even on sites where the identity of posters are known, some people are just jerks and bully anyway.

But why I do support anonymous posting can be pointed to a subject that's very close to me: my former religion, Mormonism.

Mormon leadership has taught for years in sermons and the written word that criticism of the upper-echelon (Mormon leaders) is off-limits. One famous quote by a Mormon Apostle: "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true."

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcwghb_don-t-ever-criticize-us-even-if-th_news

We were also taught this: "if he [the President of the Church] ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet

So where was I, as a Mormon at the time, supposed to give voice to the things I found wrong with the religion? I couldn't do it at church, I couldn't do it with my church friends. Any of those avenues led to potential consequences with the church leadership.

That left me with posting anonymously about my concerns online where I was free from damaging repercussions. I still post anonymously once in a while on Mormon discussion boards and I'm glad that's in place and hope it always remains so.

Those are my two cents on this topic.

MTFBWY,
LTK

Jack covered her mouth to muffle a snicker. Then, with a beckon of her hand, summoned her characters whom were also extreme anime otaku.

'I am L!' Kakeru cheered.

'No, I am L!' James argued.

'But maybe I'M L.' Benedict put in.

'Who says that I CAN'T be L?' Sissy asked.

"What, nobody's gonna claim to be Kira?" Jack asked. James rolled his eyes and whined.

'But Kira's the VILLIAN. Nobody wants to be him.' He turned to look at the CMC, whom had, for whatever reason appeared, 'Unless...'

'I'm more of a Zero. Different show and different character, entirely.' The Count chided, managing to look very dignified as he talked about anime, of all things.

'Ano... sa...' Tsuneo cautiously raised his hand.

"You're confused, Kawai?" Jack asked, not even looking at him.

'Yeah... what are you guys talking about, anyway?'

"It's a reference to Death Note." Jack explained, at least for all of the 'L' talk, "But the real point is that of how do we identify anyone, anyway? We mostly have to count on them being honest. When you talk online, being identified versus anonymous depends on you being honest. Even with websites that require you to input your personal information, all you have to do is provide phony info -- or maybe fudge some numbers, like 'accidentally' switch around some digits in your phone number or something -- and nobody would even know."

Tsuneo scratched his head, digesting this. So, if what the author had just said was true, then that made the whole bill in discussion a very moot point. But, also considering this, how did he even know that she'd been honest in identifying herself as 'Jack' all this time? For all anyone knew, she'd put down a false name when so much as applying for the website. What if she'd never used any real information for ANYTHING, even when talking with them?

"Um, Kawai?" Jack mumbled, able to tell what he was thinking, given that he was just one of her delusions, "Maybe that's a discussion for another time? Y'know, when someone wants to bring up the idea of identities as concepts instead of online fact checking?"

'Well, wait -- how DO people check these things online? If what you just said is true, then identifying yourself on websites IS the same problem as the existential problem.' Akitaro mentioned.

"Technically, computers can be tracked by IP numbers. Thing is, all you need to do is use a public computer like in libraries or something and, even if you post a name, you can still use a vague one. How many John Smiths are there in America, for example? My point is, regardless of the advantages or disadvantages, all you need to do is lie, just like in real life, and you still remain anonymous. No matter what bills they try to introduce in the government, until we have computers that force you to log in with DNA samples, anonymity is going to be a given on the internet."

I like doing it to experiment with expression - but there is a time and a place where it is not appropriate. I guess the problem is people abusing anonymity or in those places where it is inappropriate to use, so perhaps legislation should be that it is illegal to abuse website policies. A website needs to be designed, moderated and have policies to suit its intended use - and anyone abusing a particular site could perhaps be better tracked and punished if they really want to try and clean up internet bullying, hacking etc.

As elaborated LTK, this can be seen as not an issue of black/white.

So search the underlying implications : this is relatively similar to the discussion we had over the 'edit' button. The ethics of putting into vigour laws (or just 'rules' for that matter) for the purpose of nullifying (or just as a deterrent to) an eventuality, are nebulous at best. Restrictions placed on liberty beyond liberty's natural boundaries, we may prefer to avoid. On the other hand, it remains a tendency that liberty is the quality of our lives that we abuse daily, if not hourly, from less to more harmful degrees, thus supporting the suggestion for such laws ...

From one perspective, what LTK said is quite apt. The pressures of living are many, and there are many more burdensome constraints on our beings that, for many, the anonymity and seeming remoteness of a Point of Presence on the internet functions as a sort of virtual confessional wherein they find sufficient security to permit themselves expression of what impulses they otherwise 'refoulent'. This, in and of itself, presents two apparent dangers (easily noticed ones -- there are probably more), those being vicarious living and/or accidental influence.

Vicarious living can prove to be narcotic. Hegemony determines a vast degree of one's self-image. It can be oppressive and engender counter-intuitive behaviours throughout every echelon of society. One who finds comfort of expression through the bias of internet anonymity is susceptible to fall under the seduction of The Ring of Gyges (of Lydia) effect, leading to destructive behaviours (one cannot say 'only' virtual -- virtual selves are real in this sense) ranging from bullying to outright criminality, depending on the degree of suffering of the individual and his/her other coping strategies. It does stand to reason that if one's identity was not so tightly concealed, one may not be so 'at risk' to allow one's self a total impunity of action.

Whereas the internet can take the form of a convenient confessional, the metaphor ends at the screen. Contrary to a confessional, where one may be confident that on the other side is a trained, receptive consciousness, and that via the condition of exercising the penitence pronounced, one is pardoned of one's inequities, the internet does not conform to this confidentiality. The internet, and the lectorat of internet forums (not most of them anyway), are neither trained in the conditioning of the soul/self encountered, nor are they individuals. When one expresses one's self into the internet, it has a potential audience of millions - each seeking/receiving the expression of every other ... Internet, and its participants, do not 'absolve' inequities, anonymous or otherwise. And as we have seen over the past twenty-five years or so, it actually can (though of course not in ALL cases) diffuse and proliferate them.

So, although I have not said one way or another whether this law is just or otherwise, (as by the topic of voting rights for prisoners) tendencies seem to indicate that this detail does not matter. The underlying issue could be this :

* Peoples' liberties (the inalienable right to be one's self) are abused.
* This leads in turn to a rebound effect, driving people to abuse such liberties as they feel denied (suffering -> the need to feel empowered)
* Anonymity acts as the Ring of Gyges ; the seduction by one's ego is greater if one feels 'invisible' ; anonymity protects the aggressor and the innocent alike
* People feeling the need to empower themselves generally begin by taking it from others, those others usually being in even less advantaged positions than themselves
* Denying anonymity to internet users can itself be abused for arbitrary influences

Given these, how can we continue the construction of premises to suggest a synthesis more apt than a simple blanket legislation ?

faithfully,
~ A/O

Don't want to be bullied online? Don't go there. I don't even understand how it's possible to be cyber-bullied.

I seriously hope this bureaucracy does not infect the internet any time soon! Why can't people just be left alone to choose for themselves, if you want to reveal your details then go for it, if not, then don't do it. If someone is annoying you on the internet then on pretty much every single website there's an option to 'block' them or what have you.

I would also say that the internet can be so exciting because it allows you to take on a new persona but, within that persona, you can also be yourself entirely and perhaps in a way that wouldn't be possible in the real world. For instance, on this very website everyone listens to each other and takes Jediism very seriously and I love that fact, however, I would imagine that most of my friends and most people, in fact, would laugh at the whole idea of Jediism and dismiss it, so that in real life this whole 'thing' probably wouldn't even exist for me and I would have thought that was the case for many other people. Being anonymous also means that there's no sort of self-consciousness or fear of being judged etc. that might not be an issue for some people but it is for some, so in some cases the more anonymous you are on the internet, the more of your true self comes through because there's no consequences or real judgement of your actions because no one knows who you are.