Out of Pod Experience

It really boils down to whether the people posting information on the internet are being truthful at all with the information they are providing. Even online transactions can lead to nowhere if the user knows how to do it.

call tinfoil on me if you want but....

-If I had to disclose who I was in order to post on the internet, there is no way I would do it. I'd probably stop posting altogether as would most people (or drastically reduce activity and certainly self-censor).

It wouldn't be the same, it would be a facade/mockery/parody of it's original unbridled self.

-Now consider for a moment, many people in positions of power are intimidated and threatened by the leverage provided by the social movement/internet/communication revolution.

All you have to do is see that while this is a tool for 'little people' everywhere, governments only like tools like this when they work to their advantage. A perfect example of this is the hypocrisy displayed by western governments who will cheer organized dissonance fueled by social networking in countries with governments they do not like, while condemning the very same networks and social revolutions when they create actions that run counter to their goals withing their country or in countries similar to/friendly with their own.

People in power like you to be vocal and enthusiastic when you support them. They want you to get together in big crowds and amplify your voice when you support them. Not so much when you don't.

So, put yourself in the shoes of those in positions of influence and power. How do you limit this environment to preserve your status quo and stifle any risk of mass organizations you do not condone? Remove all ability for anonymity.



This gains them the best of both worlds. You allow the perception of freedom of speech, preserve the environment that provides you with so many other gains (commerce to name one) while knowing that people will not actually speak their minds in matters of radical/revolutionary talk for fear of backlash, whether from the government/powers that be themselves or other extremist proponents acting independently.



It is, in my humble opinion, imperative for anonymity to be preserved on the internet. It should be and hopefully one day will be regarded as a right. I feel forcing people to display their identity when expressing opinions and ideas on the internet to be outright stifling of free speech and on par with actions like warrant-less wiretapping. While this may seem to be a nonsensical association at first glance I'm sure many can agree that there are valid parallels. At the end of the day you are silencing political dissent.

In an advanced and intelligent society (relatively speaking) such as our own, positive development of the free world depends on the ability to freely share ideas. Democracy is built on this. If you doubt that, then consider for a moment what Democracy might become if you were forced to openly identify how you vote.... hmmm, is it possible anonymity there and here is related? Is it possible one is just as important as the other?

In the free world (again, relatively speaking)... in democracy, we live or die by the ability to challenge and debate standing ideas in a scene where said ideas are voiced, measured and challenged for what they are. To remove anonymity from the platform would warp that setting to one where ideas and thought may no longer be countered in kind. This is tantamount to removing the platform entirely.

The US Air Force may have invented computer networking, but society as a whole developed the internet. I would say that it belongs to us all and we have a responsibility to guarantee that it exists for us all, not to be perverted, limited or stifled by an elite few who wish to bend it to serve their personal agendas.

I didn't intend it to mean guerrilla communications but I suppose thats valid to take out of what I said. My intention was more regarding civil discussion, dissent and disobedience which I think is required to keep a democracy healthy and inline 'by and for the people' instead of the alternative.

Then again, the line between civil dissent and guerrilla/revolutionary action can be similar to the line between ugly and beautiful... all in the eye of the beholder.

The ability to speak openly without fear of repercussion beyond debate is one of the things that keeps our civil discourse from becoming uncivil and it protects us from needing secretive and secure guerrilla communications altogether.

Just as I can write a letter to the editor to be printed without including my real name and address, just as I can protest a business without registering who I am with the authorities or the people I'm protesting, it's my opinion we should be able to engage in open and anonymous communications on the internet with the same expectation of privacy.

So you spend your entire life never worrying about things unless everyone else is worried? Maybe when the TV tells you something is a problem? It's really easy to just sit back and deny things, on the basis that if it were a real possibility everyone would be worried. People like yourself make up a large part of the population, and that's fine, really, just don't start insulting people who think for themselves. It's them who always see future problems before the majority. Even if there are people out there claiming all kinds of crazy things, it doesn't mean you should ignore everything that goes against popular opinion.

And to just call an opinion 'tinfoil hat' is very ignorant and dismissive. In my case, the Prime Minister of Canada has sworn to put things like this in place, has drawn up extremely totalitarian internet legislation which he's going to attempt to pass, and you're saying it's nothing to worry about, because you haven't come into contact with such information in your little bubble. By the time it's finally on TV, and in your realm of understanding, it will be fait accompli.

Whether or not you own a TV, you're still living in a consensus trance.

Not sure why you think i'm mad, and dismissing all the rational points i made. Maybe that's just more avoidance? Little cognitive dissonance going on, maybe?

When every moron out there who gets his ship blown up has access to full contact information of the person who attacked him, this game will stop being fun rather quickly. Imagine getting ten emails a day and daily phone calls from someone you pissed off in an internet game.

I agree with the above. That being said, though, the timing does lend this credibility. First came the hiring of the former NYC Police Commissioner, next was Blackberry's more recent statement that in the event of future disturbances they would cooperate with British police. (Sorry: I remember reading the latter article but can't find it.)

I know I'm in the minority here, but this makes at least some sense. One of the great advantages to the Internet is the anonymity that goes with it. Stripping away the anonymity makes it easier for a guilty party to be identified. Or in this case, it gives people a "moment of pause" before they consider if they really want to do something illegal or questionable.

Alternatively such a move could promote the rise of online vigilantism. But I really think that this risk will be downplayed over the short- and medium-timeframes. The political climate is vicious in the wake of the riots, according to the press reporting over here. If the courts are throwing the maximum sentences at people for simple looting, you know it's bad.

The one subject I'd be more interested in knowing more about, is how this clashes with the rest of the EU zone. Privacy protection laws on your side of the pond are stricter than they are here in the U.S., to the extent where European banks have balked at handing over information on terrorism suspects. Will this push by the English government trump civil liberties and be allowed to stand by the rest of the EU zone?