PDA

View Full Version : How Important is Anonymitty to you?



Doctor Mike
March 29th, 2010, 07:21 PM
If you spend any amount of time online today you likely also wonder about your private information. Not just you financial information, but even the more private aspects about yourselves. I'm wondering if this will be an endless upward curve (more private) or are people starting to make peace with the idea that nothing is truly private anymore.

_h_
March 29th, 2010, 07:21 PM
Big Brother is always watching regardless of the tactics you use to try and stay hidden.

Bachstelze
March 29th, 2010, 07:23 PM
Wait, is this thread about privacy or anonymity?

CharlesA
March 29th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Big Brother is always watching regardless of the tactics you use to try and stay hidden.

This.

There really is no way to be totally anonymous on the internet. There will always be logs of IP addresses and whatnot.

I don't care for the most part. I do use strong passwords and don't go to "questionable" sites, so maybe that's why I don't care so much.

EDIT: @Bachstelze: I don't know.. good question. As for privacy, I don't post any personal info online outside of my name and email address, unless it is for a bank or other business.

Doctor Mike
March 29th, 2010, 07:26 PM
This.

There really is no way to be totally anonymous on the internet. There will always be logs of IP addresses and whatnot.

I don't care for the most part. I do use strong passwords and don't go to "questionable" sites, so maybe that's why I don't care so much.That's the point are people getting more concerned or are they adapting.

Phrea
March 29th, 2010, 07:26 PM
I voted 'Important', so I'm in the middle of your poll.
Like the above poster said, use strong pwd's and try to avoid questionable websites.

swoll1980
March 29th, 2010, 07:27 PM
I was on the website of a local radio show, and saw a picture of my teacher on one of the profiles. For fun I googled the profile name that went with his account there. I found out way more about him then he would ever want me to know. By this one google search I found an account he had at a gay swingers web site. I'm sure he wouldn't want that info to be public, but it is. Scary stuff.

tica vun
March 29th, 2010, 07:27 PM
Don't use antisocial networking sites, don't read or send unencrypted mail, block google analytics, etc...

Bachstelze
March 29th, 2010, 07:27 PM
There really is no way to be totally anonymous on the internet. There will always be logs of IP addresses and whatnot.

You are wrong. The Internet is by definition anonymous. IP packets do not carry any information that identifies a person. At best, it is possible to identify an IP address.

EDIT: Read http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html

Doctor Mike
March 29th, 2010, 07:30 PM
I voted 'Important', so I'm in the middle of your poll.
Like the above poster said, use strong pwd's and try to avoid questionable websites.I agree because I can't really hide if someone is determined to find me or my information. So my avatar is a picture of me.

PuddingKnife
March 29th, 2010, 07:33 PM
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/anonymous.jpg

Very. You?

Also, moot spoke at TED:
http://arstechnica.com/staff/palatine/2010/02/4chans-moot-takes-pro-anonymity-to-ted-2010.ars

Phrea
March 29th, 2010, 07:37 PM
Wait, is this thread about privacy or anonymity?

Valid question, very different things indeed.

Doctor Mike
March 29th, 2010, 07:41 PM
You are wrong. The Internet is by definition anonymous. IP packets do not carry any information that identifies a person. At best, it is possible to identify an IP address.

EDIT: Read http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.htmlYour right and your wrong. If you leave a little bit of information about yourself (here and there) over time it can be brought together to provide a rather significant description of you.

I've tested this about myself and know I've been reasonably careful. I've left footprints going back to before WWW. Other's may have been less careful.

tjwoosta
March 29th, 2010, 07:47 PM
This.

There really is no way to be totally anonymous on the internet. There will always be logs of IP addresses and whatnot.

I don't care for the most part. I do use strong passwords and don't go to "questionable" sites, so maybe that's why I don't care so much.

EDIT: @Bachstelze: I don't know.. good question. As for privacy, I don't post any personal info online outside of my name and email address, unless it is for a bank or other business.

Actually there are ways to be completely annonymous on the internet, if your dedicated enough. For instance using something like this method..

1. Disguise your mac address. (use different mac every time you connect to a different network)
2. Connect to the internet only from public connections (like wifi hotspots)
(if your devious you could just crack some random weak wireless encryptions and connect through random peoples home networks)
3. Always connect from a differenct location (don't continue using the same hotspot for days or even hours, jump around to different hotspots and such)
4. Dont divulge any information about your true self, EVER (even when setting up your OS, just in case) (actually using a live cd would probably be best)
5. Use a common browser with common settings (so the user agent doesnt stick out like a sore thumb)
6. Block all cookies, javascript, and flash.
7. Regularly erase any and all temp files system wide (just in case)
8. Use strong passwords everywhere.
9. Never connect to your home network with the same system that your using annonymously, it would defeat the purpose.
10. (optional to buy yourself a bit more time at each spot) Use annonanymity proxies, like tor for instance.


Doing these methods your NOT secure, but you ARE annonymos. There is a major difference.

Bachstelze
March 29th, 2010, 07:48 PM
Your right and your wrong. If you leave a little bit of information about yourself (here and there) over time it can be brought together to provide a rather significant description of you.

I've tested this about myself and know I've been reasonably careful. I've left footprints going back to before WWW. Other's may have been less careful.

This is why anonymity and privacy are different things. Even with all the footprints you left, if you really want to make for example a post on UF that can't be traced back to you, it's reasonably easy.

madnessjack
March 29th, 2010, 07:53 PM
I voted little or no importance but I want to make it clear that it's of no importance whatsoever.

doas777
March 29th, 2010, 07:54 PM
You are wrong. The Internet is by definition anonymous. IP packets do not carry any information that identifies a person. At best, it is possible to identify an IP address.

EDIT: Read http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html

until you do a join on a isp dhcp database that indexes account info. the courts have used sham logic like this to allow the admission of IP logs into evidence, but then join it with other evidence that does specifically identify the individual. it's pure sophistry to claim that IP is non-identifying if the dhcp logs are accessible.

Dayofswords
March 29th, 2010, 07:55 PM
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/anonymous.jpg

very. You?

Also, moot spoke at ted:
http://arstechnica.com/staff/palatine/2010/02/4chans-moot-takes-pro-anonymity-to-ted-2010.ars

+1

Doctor Mike
March 29th, 2010, 07:55 PM
This is why anonymity and privacy are different things. Even with all the footprints you left, if you really want to make for example a post on UF that can't be traced back to you, it's reasonably easy.Yes but anonymitty is used to protect your privacy online, so it's part of this issue (online).

doas777
March 29th, 2010, 07:55 PM
This is why anonymity and privacy are different things. Even with all the footprints you left, if you really want to make for example a post on UF that can't be traced back to you, it's reasonably easy.

but anonymity is the best possible way to protect your privacy.

Bachstelze
March 29th, 2010, 08:09 PM
until you do a join on a isp dhcp database that indexes account info. the courts have used sham logic like this to allow the admission of IP logs into evidence, but then join it with other evidence that does specifically identify the individual. it's pure sophistry to claim that IP is non-identifying if the dhcp logs are accessible.

And what if the machine was in fact hacked? Sure, the ISP will "identify" someone, but it will be the wrong person.

arvevans
March 29th, 2010, 08:36 PM
I was never here.

swoll1980
March 29th, 2010, 08:38 PM
I was never here.

Who was never where?

doas777
March 29th, 2010, 08:54 PM
And what if the machine was in fact hacked? Sure, the ISP will "identify" someone, but it will be the wrong person.
the us courts have been quite dismissive of defensive claims to that affect. the unsecured wifi argument has lost out several times, and only once has anyone managed to claim in a us court that they are innocent of a crime because a virus did it (and that was only because of conclusive evidence of the malware and it's behavior).

is someone sufficiently "Identified" for your argument, if they are doing hard time over it?

doas777
March 29th, 2010, 08:54 PM
Who was never where?
me, thats who

lisati
March 29th, 2010, 08:55 PM
Random musing: When I had a dynamic public IP address, the whatismyipaddress (http://whatismyipaddress.com/) web site was usually correct in identifying the city I live. When it was mistaken, it was usually off by about no more than about 20km or so. The static IP address assigned by my ISP shows up as Auckland, which is something like 600km away!

swoll1980
March 29th, 2010, 09:01 PM
I always wonder how websites I go to know where I'm at. They default to Mentor, Ohio which is exactly the city I live in.

_h_
March 29th, 2010, 09:04 PM
I always wonder how websites I go to know where I'm at. They default to Mentor, Ohio which is exactly the city I live in.

IP tracing script.

Tristam Green
March 29th, 2010, 09:05 PM
I always wonder how websites I go to know where I'm at. They default to Mentor, Ohio which is exactly the city I live in.

But your profile says Cleveland, which is without a doubt "The Mistake by the Lake".

Bachstelze
March 29th, 2010, 09:05 PM
is someone sufficiently "Identified" for your argument, if they are doing hard time over it?

No. Someone is "identified" if they are the person responsible for something. If person A does something bad and person B gets in trouble for it, then person A suceeded in obtaining anonymity: they did something bad, and didn't get in trouble for it. The fact that someone else did is probably of no concern to them.

doas777
March 29th, 2010, 09:18 PM
No. Someone is "identified" if they are the person responsible for something. If person A does something bad and person B gets in trouble for it, then person A suceeded in obtaining anonymity: they did something bad, and didn't get in trouble for it. The fact that someone else did is probably of no concern to them.
what I'm saying is that just because an IP address is not considered personally "identifying",doesn't mean that it can't identify people. I argue that that is a distinction without meaning, because it invariablly allows someone to be identified, whether correctly or not. the courts and policy makers are trying to have it both ways by claiming that nothing need be done to prevent the leakage of IP based data, because it is not identifying, but then they use it to identify folks.

swoll1980
March 29th, 2010, 09:29 PM
But your profile says Cleveland, which is without a doubt "The Mistake by the Lake".

Mentor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor,_Ohio)is 15 minutes from Cleveland. I moved out of Cleveland a couple years ago.

Naggobot
March 29th, 2010, 09:44 PM
I was a bit divided on this subject. As a citizen democratic Scandinavian country it is actually not very important to me personally. We still have some freedom of speech remaining in our country even though the general direction in the development of civil rights is the same as everywhere else.

I ended up voting very important just for that reason. It may not be important for me right now and I might not care very much about my anonymity but it think that on-line privacy and anonymity are contexts which will enforce our civil rights. If we were to accept that we were deprived of our right on this matter we will probably be deprived of some other rights quite quickly. On-line privacy and anonymity enable us to raise our voice on subjects that may be controversial without fear of retribution. If our civil rights are sound we can raise those same issues with out anonymity but

this is no reason to deprive us from the right to remain anonymous

and therefore I feel actually strongly that anonymity is important and I must be able to choose if I want to remain anonymous.

murderslastcrow
March 29th, 2010, 10:28 PM
I think anonymity should be a right.

Crunchy the Headcrab
March 29th, 2010, 10:38 PM
I use Facebook and Last.fm so I guess not very important. I still voted important though. I think you just have to realize that all your efforts to be private are blown to heck if you post personal information on the web.

handy
March 29th, 2010, 11:00 PM
Big Brother, is not my friend.

Doctor Mike
March 29th, 2010, 11:23 PM
I use Facebook and Last.fm so I guess not very important. I still voted important though. I think you just have to realize that all your efforts to be private are blown to heck if you post personal information on the web.That was one of the points behind this post. I don't use Facebook and other similar tools because eventually you will provide enough personal information to provide a profile of sorts. Anyone here could try backtracking their own information and see what they can dig up. The question is do we have the right or the ability to control our own information?

handy
March 30th, 2010, 12:13 AM
Through self control, if we are somewhat disciplined. Apart from that, on the web, we can only do what we are prepared to do. I do a lot, but I don't use a free or paid for proxy at this stage, though it could happen as a response to effects of the mega-corporations take over the internet.

Wiebelhaus
March 30th, 2010, 12:26 AM
I don't know , I'm not sure it matters anymore , I'm not trying to be a pessimist but I think it's to late. I'm the same dude on the internet that I am off , I don't have any secrets and as you can see by my avatar I want my community to see my face when we are having a conversation.

Letrazzrot
March 30th, 2010, 12:35 AM
Is wearing an aluminium foil hat going too far? :p

I keep the "important" stuff private (i.e. financial info), as well as I am able. Most of the rest is just a loosing battle.

Some things are put on the internet without you realizing it or having control over it. For example, people are often surprised when I can show them, in about 2 minutes, where the following publicly available information about a property (given an address or name) can be easily found online: Mortgage holder(s) or owners, legal description of property, dimensions and general layout of their house, how much they paid on taxes last year, aerial photograph of the property, any liens or other legal docs attached to the property (running back a number of years) -- this may include things such as delinquent alimony payments or other unpaid expenses. The list goes on.

These are all public records, and the internet has made they very easy to research. On one hand, it makes my job easier, but on the other it certainly reduces anonymity -- albeit in a practical sense more than a technical one.

This is why people complaining about Google Street View always confused me. Perhaps they have more stringent laws regarding public records than where I live.

handy
March 30th, 2010, 02:27 AM
As I see it, the most important threat is from those that hold the power of control (political, religious & financial) over people as being of paramount importance. Such control requires various degrees of control on what & how people think. The implications of such are very complex & also very scary.

Due to this drive by powerful corporations/entities we are already involved in a battle that is proceeding on many fronts in various stages in every country.

What we are fighting for is personal freedom. In this case the freedom from having our internet services become a series of paid for use services (that run at the highest speed) & non-paid for use services being crippled or made unavailable altogether. The ideal for such schemes is that they are both promoted & run by the national government (paid for by the taxpayers of course).

The people being told that such a scheme is in their best interest & of course in the best interest of the entire population. The use of various false reasons that cloak the truth from the vast majority. The blunt truth is that they want your money & your attention (e.g. Fox) as they want the most control over what you think politically/religiously/& as a consumer.

Basic marketing taken to the extreme:

The control of the worlds capital requires the control of the populations mind.

Personally, apart from the username/password kind of thing, there isn't anything important on my computer that anyone would be interested in. As far as my usage of the internet goes though, that is a completely different story.

There exist multitudes of people interested in collecting that kind of data, because they can process this information in sophisticated fashions for THEIR benefit, not mine. Though being told that it is for our benefit one way or another is certainly a very well used tool in their shed.

It is an invasion of my privacy to have my usage tracked on the internet. It should be outlawed & only available to those that choose to opt in.

yester64
March 30th, 2010, 04:05 AM
You are wrong. The Internet is by definition anonymous. IP packets do not carry any information that identifies a person. At best, it is possible to identify an IP address.

EDIT: Read http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html


Example: IP packets

IP packets are composed of a header and payload. The IPv4 packet header consists of:
4 bits that contain the version, that specifies if it's an IPv4 or IPv6 packet,
4 bits that contain the Internet Header Length which is the length of the header in multiples of 4 bytes (eg. 5 means 20 bytes).
8 bits that contain the Type of Service, also referred to as Quality of Service (QoS), which describes what priority the packet should have,
16 bits that contain the length of the packet in bytes,
16 bits that contain an identification tag to help reconstruct the packet from several fragments,
3 bits that contain a zero, a flag that says whether the packet is allowed to be fragmented or not (DF: Don't fragment), and a flag to state whether more fragments of a packet follow (MF: More Fragments)
13 bits that contain the fragment offset, a field to identify which fragment this packet is attached to,
8 bits that contain the Time to live (TTL) which is the number of hops (router, computer or device along a network) the packet is allowed to pass before it dies (for example, a packet with a TTL of 16 will be allowed to go across 16 routers to get to its destination before it is discarded),
8 bits that contain the protocol (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc...)
16 bits that contain the Header Checksum, a number used in error detection,
32 bits that contain the source IP address,
32 bits that contain the destination address.
After those, optional flags can be added of varied length, which can change based on the protocol used, then the data that packet carries is added. An IP packet has no trailer. However, an IP packet is often carried as the payload inside an Ethernet frame, which has its own header and trailer.
[edit]by wikipedia

The question is not really if it is by defenition anonymos rather how much information you share with the internet.
If you share your information on facebook or any other social site you givin already up your anonymity.
At least facebook knows you and so does google or any other search engine. Everything you searched for on the internet can eventually be turned against you.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10150669-38.html

The point is, you can be found and that means that you are not erasing your tracks.
Also, everytime you do a transaction or you visit a website, you are tracked.
Of course, at first you will be only seen as a ip with no person or face. But once other action fall into places a picture can be formed what the person behind the ip is.
I believe its a myth that you can be invisible to the rest of the web. It is like to walking outside with a bag over the head and pretending no one sees you.

But, in the mass of people attending the web it is very unlikely that you be tracked on purpose and so the data gathered from you might be land just in NIL anyway.

MasterColdSoul
March 30th, 2010, 04:11 AM
I put 2nd highest because anon is only 1/2 the equation. If it's not secure, then being anon is nothing.

Anon+Security = Very very important.

The reason I feel this way is because we as a people, no matter your government need to be able to do one thing.

Speak our mind, and come together freely, share ideas on how to make our lives better collectively. If something is making ours lifes worse, and we wish to be able to speak about it, then anon+security is what everyone should have.

History has shown that groups who take power from another (British VS US, India VS British, WWII Germany) they will make it as hard as possible for anyone of those people to come together and talk about change. In all 3 cases it was against the law for groups to come together in the public and talk. There have been massacres of people just for meeting together to talk.

The internet allows everyone to come together instantly from all over the world. I feel it is the biggest social tools for change in existence besides human thought/body. Because of this we need to keep the ability to come together in good times as well as bad, when nobody is trying to stop us, and most definitely if someone is.

Sorry my grammar sucks :P

yester64
March 30th, 2010, 04:17 AM
=handy;9047612]As I see it, the most important threat is from those that hold the power of control (political, religious & financial) over people as being of paramount importance. Such control requires various degrees of control on what & how people think. The implications of such are very complex & also very scary.

Due to this drive by powerful corporations/entities we are already involved in a battle that is proceeding on many fronts in various stages in every country.

What we are fighting for is personal freedom. In this case the freedom from having our internet services become a series of paid for use services (that run at the highest speed) & non-paid for use services being crippled or made unavailable altogether. The ideal for such schemes is that they are both promoted & run by the national government (paid for by the taxpayers of course).

The people being told that such a scheme is in their best interest & of course in the best interest of the entire population. The use of various false reasons that cloak the truth from the vast majority. The blunt truth is that they want your money & your attention (e.g. Fox) as they want the most control over what you think politically/religiously/& as a consumer.

Basic marketing taken to the extreme:

The control of the worlds capital requires the control of the populations mind.

I think that anyone should be accountable for what he does on the internet. There has to be a balance between what you can do and what not. But that is my point of view. I am not sure if it should be regulated, but to have a wild west is also in no ones interest. Especially if it involves kids. Corporation already own everyone in that what they collect how, where and for what you spend your money with you card. The same happens over the internet. I am sometimes surprised if i read that people worry about the government but not about the private sector who actually has more data then the government. I would predict that with more newer technology you get more visible to the everyone, or more precise to special interests.

red_Marvin
March 30th, 2010, 05:07 AM
To me, not very much, but it, and privacy, should always be opt-out.

Almost each day we are reminded of how much power the private sector can excert over governments, and how little it represents the people, and the private sector does not represent the people at all. Internet is the last outpost, because it puts us on equal ground. I can publish something just as easy as a multinational company. Because of this I much prefer the wild west version of the internet. By now I think my post is drifting of into the ACTA thread territory, but I will put it here, since it was partially spawned by yester64's post. (esp. Think of the children vs. Cowboys)
I.E. I do not think that the internet should be built on the assumption that the one navigating and exposed to the content might be a child.

handy
March 30th, 2010, 05:13 AM
The "it's already this bad, so why bother, as it will have no effect" & the "we are powerless against such odds" are defeatist attitudes & carry no weight.

Nothing changes for the better when people give up due to such negative attitudes.

Nothing is more powerful than the common people united in a common purpose.

That is a scenario that scares the hell out of the controllers.

amitabhishek
March 30th, 2010, 07:02 AM
In a world that I live in...does anyone really care if I am anonymous or not...?;)

BTW I don't have a Orkut or Facebook page.

Naggobot
March 30th, 2010, 07:53 AM
but to have a wild west is also in no ones interest. Especially if it involves kids.Actually this is in my opinion a bit contradictory. The current wild west of Internet has brought us many things we enjoy, this forum being one of those. But as you see below I do agree to some extent.

For some reason we (as participants in our societies) easily and often without counter arguments accept the limitations imposed on the Internet and free speech if the limitation is imposed for the good of some minority group.

Just some examples of these groups are as mentioned, kids versus adult content, artists versus P2P file sharing, ethnic minorities versus unmoderated discussion forums and so on.

Now with every limitation we accept for the good of some group we give up small piece of our freedom and make context of censorship more acceptable. It is a tough choice. Do we select the easy way out by pulling down a blindfold on the content that is bad and pretend it does not exists or would it be better to grow up and start acting responsibly as individuals, group and society.

In Finland we have selected the blindfold. The most despicable content is censored but the interesting part is that the censorship list is secret. Someone used to keep a list of the sites that is censored, he's point was that the list contains also sites that do not contain mentioned censored content. End of the story was that he's site got censored.

Now this system was imposed upon us without much discussion. It probably is a good compromise but it is a system for children and we as a nation should be adults. Our representatives have decided that producing and distributing this material is illegal and I must emphasize that in my opinion this is right and it is right that this law is enforced also to the Internet.

But the system should be made for responsible adults. If we as a nation decide that we do not want the most hideous content and that it should be blocked then it should be all of our responsibility to make sure that this is so. It should be responsibility of every Internet user to report this content to authorities, the block list should be public and there should be a legitimate way to access the mentioned blocked content for those who might have a legitimate reason. And in this case I do not believe in anonymity. Access should be available only from selected police stations after providing identity.

Now why this is in my opinion a adult nation? Since by this way it would be our collective decision, collective responsibility, with a transparency. Access to blocked content is important so citizens can verify that authorities do not misuse their power. Also by this way it would be in our power to enforce the law or not to enforce it. There is no question if this particular law would be enforced but there will most likely be other blocklists we people would not support and these lists have already been proposed at least once.

I got a bit far from the subject. Now my point actually was bring out the idea that in democratic nations it should be so that we people as a majority decide what we want. Currently we are in a system where the good of the few governs the many. Our legislative authorities have made criminals of practically all teenagers and fair amount of adult population by deciding that the MP3's they carry in their players are result of criminal action.

The other day I was unable to give advice on how to watch DVD's with Linux since our practice of law is a bit sketchy in this matter and if this advice could have been considered illegal. This was concrete example where I personally suffered from the rule of the few we have been imposed upon. The sorry state of this is that the info can be found in 0.13 seconds by Googling but I do not know if I can legally give this information to someone and also am I unsure if I break some law by writing this here.

Now how does this not limit my freedom of speech. As long as there is a way to express opinions and matters anonymously through Internet I can choose to give aforementioned advice at least anonymously and have my freedom of speech and there fore in my opinion anonymity is important.

Doctor Mike
March 30th, 2010, 02:20 PM
I understand that some have expressed concern about an uncontrolled WWW being a threat to children. I agree that it is a great threat, but control of the WWW is not the solution, nor is it conceivable to fully exercise control.

The "Chain Saw Argument", is an argument I launched a long time ago. It's intention was to educate and inform parents about the power of a simple computer in the hands of a child.

The argument is as follows:

1. A computer is a power tool - one must know how to operate it safely.
2. Would you operate a chain saw without reading the instructions?
3. Would you hand that chain saw to your child without making sure the child understood its operation and safe handling?
4. Assuming #3 would you not prefer to monitor the child while using the chain saw?

Many parents (more in the past than today) fell into the fallacy that a computer is a passive entertainment medium. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When I constructed and promoted that argument most adult computer users were more aware of the uses and safe handling of computers. Today there are 10:1 adult users who have no idea what they're doing and might benefit from this argument.

Nisal
March 30th, 2010, 02:24 PM
its very important to me! and there are many ways to be anonymous and well being anonymous is good from everyway :P

red_Marvin
March 30th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Naggobot: Your post is pretty agreeable imo, but I think that there is a problem with considering censorship of the internet as a solution to anything. This because imo the internet in many ways is a mirror of the real world so to speak. And just as painting over the part of a mirror depicting something unwanted does not make the unwanted object in the real world go away, the same goes for the internet and censorship.
But if we should have censorship, I agree that your idea of the people being in control of it (special education for the task is needed though) is better than the outcome of some corporate lobby actions.

Naggobot
March 30th, 2010, 05:42 PM
As handy said in this thread


It is like to walking outside with a bag over the head and pretending no one sees you.People still do see. So I do heartily agree, real world problems exist despite of Internet as unfortunate events in Ireland proved. So far I have not heard anyone suggesting that Catholic church should be censored. For some reason with the Internet the censorship is often the first remedy proposed.

I guess that the big difference is that it is technically easy to use censorship on Internet so it is easy to convince that it should be done. If something is technically feasible it has to be done seems often to be the primary motivation behind many things. We were fine without cameras all around town but now "security" cameras are everywhere. I remember that in some sketch show guys stole the plaques telling about the camera surveillance, no one paid any attention. So much for added security.

As for corporate lobby actions I needed to apologize for my children for bringing them in to this world after reading this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/opensource-intellectual-property



"Guadamuz has done some digging (http://www.technollama.co.uk/encouraging-open-source-could-land-you-in-trouble) and discovered that an influential lobby group is asking the US government to basically consider open source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/opensource) as the equivalent of piracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/piracy) - or even worse."I actually felt sick. I understand that sick people do horrible things but how do these guys sleep at night. Of course there is always the answer from Futurama action film star Rainier Wolfcastle


"On a big pile of money with beautiful women"
(I ask for every one reading this post to honor the rules of forum and refrain from commenting more deeply on the matter of church, religion, and related matters. And please moderators, if this post is improper please remove this post or improper references)

yester64
March 30th, 2010, 07:57 PM
To me, not very much, but it, and privacy, should always be opt-out.

Almost each day we are reminded of how much power the private sector can excert over governments, and how little it represents the people, and the private sector does not represent the people at all. Internet is the last outpost, because it puts us on equal ground. I can publish something just as easy as a multinational company. Because of this I much prefer the wild west version of the internet. By now I think my post is drifting of into the ACTA thread territory, but I will put it here, since it was partially spawned by yester64's post. (esp. Think of the children vs. Cowboys)
I.E. I do not think that the internet should be built on the assumption that the one navigating and exposed to the content might be a child.

To answer the question, anonymitty is important to everyone.
But, as i pointed out, i do believe that there has to be a balance of some sort.
There are instances where people get bullied, where people get abused over the internet etc..
So the theory of wild west and let it like it is, is not sustainable.
To be anonymous to the rest of the community is desirable. This is an indiviual right which everyone should have the right to do.
Now, how is it with people who would like to plan theorist attacks over the internet or to murder someone. Should anonymitty also apply to these people?
What i am getting is, that there is a conflict of interest and it can not be answered easely.
But i do predict that in the future the indiviual freedom will not be the same as it was in the haydays of the internet, before web 2.0.
Not many people use newsgroups anymore where you can be really anonymous to the rest and even to some extent to providers. I argue that today you less anonymous to your provider on a forum.
It is true that you can eliminate some of your traces by changing locations etc. but who does this? Not a lot of people. If you use your cellphone your provider will know to who and whom you talked or wrote a message.
Normaly i would not be concerned really about that, but i am not sure how long these datas are held.

NightwishFan
March 30th, 2010, 08:00 PM
I share my contact information and interests on the off chance someone finds they like something as well and can enjoy it, such as Nightwish; Chicago; Linux. Also I have no aversion to being asked questions or for help etc. I do not give out my home address as that is something that is only granted on valid requests.

Austin25
March 30th, 2010, 08:13 PM
If I wanted to be anonymous, I would use private browsing in firefox, then not enter any secret information.

But I do not want the internet giving away my physical address.

handy
March 30th, 2010, 09:31 PM
I understand that some have expressed concern about an uncontrolled WWW being a threat to children. I agree that it is a great threat, but control of the WWW is not the solution, nor is it conceivable to fully exercise control.

The "Chain Saw Argument", is an argument I launched a long time ago. It's intention was to educate and inform parents about the power of a simple computer in the hands of a child.

The argument is as follows:

1. A computer is a power tool - one must know how to operate it safely.
2. Would you operate a chain saw without reading the instructions?
3. Would you hand that chain saw to your child without making sure the child understood its operation and safe handling?
4. Assuming #3 would you not prefer to monitor the child while using the chain saw?

Many parents (more in the past than today) fell into the fallacy that a computer is a passive entertainment medium. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When I constructed and promoted that argument most adult computer users were more aware of the uses and safe handling of computers. Today there are 10:1 adult users who have no idea what they're doing and might benefit from this argument.

The problem with your chainsaw argument, is that most often the children know how to operate a computer much better than their parents do.

I (& an overwhelming majority of the child protection organisations in my country) do agree though, that national censorship is NOT how you protect children.

The funds required to setup & maintain such a system could be put to use far more effectively by feeding & growing the multifaceted approaches that already exists.

Naggobot
March 30th, 2010, 09:33 PM
Now, how is it with people who would like to plan theorist attacks over the internet or to murder someone. Should anonymitty also apply to these people?
What i am getting is, that there is a conflict of interest and it can not be answered easely.

Yes I agree, there is a conflict of interest and each and every one of us must make our own mind about this matter and do our best the make the web we want both in real world and in the cyber world. The question we should ask from our self before deciding is

Does privacy have value just for criminals?

I know that there is a great difference of general opinion in this especially over the pond. My personal opinion is no, privacy should have value for every one. Criminals can misuse the liberties we have and for that we need police and courts and the surveillance should only be imposed upon individuals by police with the power of courts. Surveillance should not be made by automatic systems to everyone or by copyright organizations to Internet users. The fact that our liberties can be misused by criminals should not be a reason to limit those liberties. If we do that then we have given in and the those that do wrong have won.


Normaly i would not be concerned really about that, but i am not sure how long these datas are held.

In Finland this is 12 months, in Germany 6 months. 2.3.2010 courts found in Germany that 6 months is against the constitution. Now it should be asked if the Germans have learned a lesson at some point in their history and this maybe is why they do not like this particular item that was brought to us by the war on terror?

We lost a lot of our anonymity in Europe with this legislation. Every one who owns a computer or a telephone is now considered potential criminal while at the same time anyone can buy a prepaid mobile connection anonymously. If I was a conspiracy theorist I might suspect some sinister motive behind all this. Unfortunately it probably is just normal cluelessness.

NCLI
March 30th, 2010, 09:35 PM
Important enough for me to use a proxy for the traffic I don't want others to know of.

red_Marvin
March 30th, 2010, 09:50 PM
So the theory of wild west and let it like it is, is not sustainable.
I fear that once there is some sort of control of the internet, there will be groups to argue and lobby that it is not enough, this until all the positive qualities of the internet has been destroyed.
The fact that the lobbying is often done in a non-transparent way and under false pretences, makes me feel that I have no choice but to take the opposite opinion.

handy
March 30th, 2010, 10:18 PM
...
Does privacy have value just for criminals?

Great question!

Which begs the following:

Are all of our laws equitable?

Or do some laws exist due to the lobbying of immensely powerful & highly funded corporate entities?

lisati
March 30th, 2010, 10:33 PM
We were fine without cameras all around town but now "security" cameras are everywhere. I remember that in some sketch show guys stole the plaques telling about the camera surveillance, no one paid any attention. So much for added security.


That reminds me a little bit of the situation down at my nearest shopping centre. Plenty of "security" cameras and plenty of "no skateboarding" signs. That doesn't stop teenagers riding their skateboards on the footpath.

Off topic side note: unless something has changed in the last few years and I didn't notice, riding your bike on the footpath has been illegal here as long as I can remember. It annoys me when I'm taking a walk to do some errands, someone is riding their bike on the footpath and I have to do a side-step to avoid being run over.

superarthur
March 30th, 2010, 11:33 PM
I don't care about anonymity, but I do care about security, like my credit card details.
As long as people don't stalk me and post all my personal information on the internet, I don't mind people know more about me. :D

Doctor Mike
April 1st, 2010, 04:35 PM
Bump

user1397
April 1st, 2010, 05:14 PM
IMPORTANT AS HELL

I wish to be as anonymous as possible, but I have to wait till after I graduate from the uni for obvious reasons.

Afterwards, I have a few ideas of what to do...one is try to clean up my internet records as much as possible, then I would close my bank account, legally change my name, and go live in a remote area of the world, where I would grow/hunt my own food and survive off the land.

NightwishFan
April 1st, 2010, 05:20 PM
Have fun. You should legally use the name Chuck N. not Norris, but just N. People would look twice at it wouldnt they?

Like I said anonymity is less important for me but I have nothing really to lose, and I follow every law.

Doctor Mike
April 1st, 2010, 05:20 PM
IMPORTANT AS HELL

I wish to be as anonymous as possible, but I have to wait till after I graduate from the uni for obvious reasons.

Afterwards, I have a few ideas of what to do...one is try to clean up my internet records as much as possible, then I would close my bank account, legally change my name, and go live in a remote area of the world, where I would grow/hunt my own food and survive off the land.Yes, but there are some days I wish I didn't have to do that.

undecim
April 1st, 2010, 05:45 PM
Anonymity and privacy are two different things:

Privacy: You have control over what information is shared with others.

Anonymity: No one knows who you are.

Doctor Mike
April 1st, 2010, 06:14 PM
Anonymity and privacy are two different things:

Privacy: You have control over what information is shared with others.

Anonymity: No one knows who you are.Yes, but they are intertwined here because the illusion of anonymity leads to the greater loss of privacy. Privacy is a thing that doesn't really exist anymore. My personal opinion...

handy
April 2nd, 2010, 12:55 AM
IMPORTANT AS HELL

I wish to be as anonymous as possible, but I have to wait till after I graduate from the uni for obvious reasons.

Afterwards, I have a few ideas of what to do...one is try to clean up my internet records as much as possible, then I would close my bank account, legally change my name, and go live in a remote area of the world, where I would grow/hunt my own food and survive off the land.

Ah, yes, I remember the days when I felt like that.

Now I'm older, & my body finds new places to hurt for no apparent reason, apart from the fact that I got out of bed that day.

Living off the land is great when you are young & fighting fit, beyond that, it is an incredibly hard life.

Just growing all of your own food is incredibly physically demanding; there are never enough hours in the day to do all of the things that must be done.

gnomeuser
April 2nd, 2010, 02:11 AM
The option to remain anonymous is important to me as it is an insurance that free speech will always be an option. Be it for oppressed people, whistleblowers or even the casual user.

That is one reason I am a dues paying member of the EFF and why I am currently attempting to set up an old Zonbu machine as a low powered Tor Exit Node.

There is one technical problem with this though, Tor requires you to always donate a given amount of bandwidth and to keep the performance of my network this is going to be low. This is rather unpractical since at night or when nobody is home Tor might as well use my full connection and there seems to be no way of having it dynamically adapt these settings.

ndefontenay
April 2nd, 2010, 02:23 AM
I got my whole genealogy published, only, on BOTH sides of my family...

I write a blog under my real name because I consider myself responsible for the things I write and eventually the heat I could get from it (only once though).

I would say I'm not anonymous but also, I want to be able to choose what people can see from me. I didn't want people to know my genealogy if they google me but that was not my doing. I do want to put a bit about myself on my blog.

Outside of that, it'sn ot a good idea to publish any kind of tastes or beliefs or whatever on any web site. It can be made public anytime.

Doctor Mike
April 3rd, 2010, 05:08 PM
Six days left: Bump...

yester64
April 5th, 2010, 12:47 AM
i know there is a lot of people out there who like to be anonym to everyone, but use google where you ip gets saved for eternity.

There are also some searchengines which do not save data at all.

Try IxQuick for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixquick

At least your datas are quicker deleted.
I can not hide that i do not like google that much since this company gathers datas like crazy. Anyway, try to consider.

leia
April 5th, 2010, 01:12 AM
Staying anonymous is difficult - yes, IP only might be recorded, but some governments are increasingly forcing service providers to give up info on clients - without any "good" reason.
I find one worrisome thing about this issue is that we all know ways to tap into another IP or use anonymizers, etc. (not all work - but even with my limited computer skills, I have been able to use other's wireless IP connections - even when they "thought " it was locked down). So in the sense that someone's IP is being recorded and one is held responsible in some way for the actions taken under that IP - it's a bit creepy to think about.
As for privacy, I am cautious about what is posted and available. I do research on people for part of my job - you'd be shocked how much I can find, intuit and interpret about people just from what is available on-line.

yester64
April 5th, 2010, 01:43 AM
Staying anonymous is difficult - yes, IP only might be recorded, but some governments are increasingly forcing service providers to give up info on clients - without any "good" reason.
I find one worrisome thing about this issue is that we all know ways to tap into another IP or use anonymizers, etc. (not all work - but even with my limited computer skills, I have been able to use other's wireless IP connections - even when they "thought " it was locked down). So in the sense that someone's IP is being recorded and one is held responsible in some way for the actions taken under that IP - it's a bit creepy to think about.
As for privacy, I am cautious about what is posted and available. I do research on people for part of my job - you'd be shocked how much I can find, intuit and interpret about people just from what is available on-line.

Very true indeed.
You see, i have nothing better to do today. Thats why i quote now. :)

I think to be worried about the government is ok, but one should be the same concerned about private entities who collect data's on a secondly basis.
To be honest, i think private entities know now more about someone than does the government.
But, at least in the US, any private entity is obligated to share any information with the government upon request without any further notice to the user from whom the data is collected.
So it looks like a loss vs. loss case.
You just always loose to someone.
But you can limit it to some degree. My example was the search engine. Even most users will hail google for contributing a lot of usefull 'free' tools, they do come at a price. The price of privacy.

And there is another aspect one should not forget.
It is true that you can limit your exposure on the internet from your homecomputer. It is another thing to do the same from your cellphone.
That is at least without convenience.

How important is my personal anonymity? High, but controlled not so much. Thats the personal choice you make.
But who or for whom personal data's are collected, that it is out of my hand. I have no control over it and this is worrisome.

user1397
April 5th, 2010, 03:22 AM
Ah, yes, I remember the days when I felt like that.

Now I'm older, & my body finds new places to hurt for no apparent reason, apart from the fact that I got out of bed that day.

Living off the land is great when you are young & fighting fit, beyond that, it is an incredibly hard life.

Just growing all of your own food is incredibly physically demanding; there are never enough hours in the day to do all of the things that must be done.very true words handy...I must say you are probably one of the wisest people on these forums, I don't think I've ever disagreed with one of your posts.

That being said, I was only half-joking in my post :popcorn:

handy
April 5th, 2010, 03:53 AM
very true words handy...I must say you are probably one of the wisest people on these forums, I don't think I've ever disagreed with one of your posts.

That being said, I was only half-joking in my post :popcorn:

Thanks for the compliment.

Beyond that, I'm just another fool. ;)

dragos240
April 5th, 2010, 03:56 AM
Important. Just enough to keep me alive, I have a video of me at the GNU windows7sins launch on the GNU website. I'm not afraid of the internet (well, maybe 4chan.org or linsux.org)