| |
 |
Thursday, May 2, 2002 |
Is anonymity a right?
[From Doc Searls Weblog]
John Balzar doesn't seem to think so. Privacy, yes; anonymity, no.
The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that anonymity is one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy. The longer that Web-heads insist on anonymity, the more the credibility and usefulness of their creation will be undermined. Already, one of the first lessons taught in middle-school computer labs is to regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder -- apt to bite you at any moment. Is this the best we can expect from the information revolution?
So instead of worrying ourselves silly about ways to protect these few who are afraid to stand up for their words and actions, we should be going in the other direction: making it harder to be anonymous, marginalizing those who try.
I think he's right to make the distinction. I also think the problem is solvable, if we create the infrastructure of personal identity [~] an infrastructure that allows each of us maximum autonomy, and still allows law enforcement folks to discover the identities of miscreants who might otherwise use the system to hide like snipers. I think it can be done.
And I think we've only begun to do it.
Anyone that doesn't think anonymity is a right should pause for a moment and think about the voting system. Once a vote is cast it's anonymous and can't be trace back to a person. Why? Because a system where voting is not anonymous is ripe for abuses of the worst kind
On the other hand, anonymity, like struggling against tyranny is a curious right, one that we hope is not ever needed. It would be nice to live in a country where anonymity wasn't necessary, it would be horrible to live in a country where anonymity was impossible.
10:46:30 PM Google It! 
|
|
Which is better: to be poor in a rich country or rich in a poor one?
10:33:18 PM
|
|
Happy Birthday Dave!. And thanks for getting Radio back up!
4:07:56 PM
|
|
A Question of Trust
At present the public have few reliable ways of detecting whether reporting is deceptive or not. We could improve matters without any trace of censorship, and without imposing regulatory burdens of the excessive, centralising sort that are failing us elsewhere. A lot could be altered by procedural changes, such as requirements for owners, editors and journalists to declare financial and other interests (including conflicts of interest), and to distinguish comment from reporting, or by penalties for recirculating rumours others publish without providing and therefore checking the evidence. Chequebook journalism might be reduced by requirements to disclose within any 'story' who paid whom how much for which 'contribution'. I leave it to this knowledgeable audience to suggest how one might ensure that journalists do not publish 'stories' for which there is no source at all, while pretending that they are protecting a source.
3:29:54 PM Google It!
|
|
© Copyleft 2005 Alfredo Octavio.
|
Diccionario RAE (Click Here)