What would the net be like without anonymity?

[Quall]

I just read this little bit of news about Kentucky;
http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic ... -0011.html

To sum it up. A man in Kentucky wants to make it illegal to post on the internet anonymously. Meaning that you will have to register your real name for postings. Once one states adopts it, it would spread like a plague to others.

Can you imagine what the internet would be like without anonymity, at least not for those in the US? Can you imagine getting fined thousands of dollars for not keeping track of that stuff on your own site? Part of me says that this will never get passed, but the US law system is pretty screwed up with things like this, so you never know. They were interviewing people, and what scares me is that a lot did not appose the idea.

It would make it so much easier to take on someone's identity. Lets not even get into child predators.

[warmi]

This thing has no chance of going anywhere, you know it, I know it ... even Tim Couch knows it.

Just a waste of time and money ... but the guy will get his name out and a lot of old ladies and "concerned mothers" will remember it ( or so he hopes)

[johnhpus]

I agree with warmi. It will never happen.

Not only is it insane, it's completely unenforceable. Even if the politicians managed to push such a law through (which would be opposed by big computer lobbyists), skirting around it would only be a matter of installing TOR.

[sinbad]

I think the idea of making it law is bonkers, but in general I do think it's a good idea to promote & support verifiable identity on the web as a voluntary thing. The tech is all there (digital signatures etc) but it's rarely used very well - and I for one find it to be a better atmosphere when people are personally responsible for their posts in a forum. I think you'd get less trolling anyway - we're quite lucky in this community in that most people are balanced and considerate, but that's not always the case.

I think we could use a standardised system for validating your identity on forums and such, so long as it:

1) Was voluntary - but many communities would probably embrace it
2) Allowed you to fully control how much personal information you give out in each instance
3) Allowed deletion of posts should you want to retract them at a later date - everyone makes mistakes from time to time

I personally would quite like being able to go to a new community and prove that it's me easily if I wanted to (and equally, prove when someone is not me).

[betajaen]

I personally would quite like being able to go to a new community and prove that it's me easily if I wanted to (and equally, prove when someone is not me).

OpenID and Gravatar seems to fit that description, now if everyone supported it - We would know the Sinbad I talk to on the "Famous '80 British Comedies" forum is the same Sinbad on this one.

However here is a question for you guys; Does Freedom of Speech mean Freedom of Anonymity?

[Quall]

I think it should be, but the US constitution doesn't actually state anything about anonymity. It only says that you have the right to speak your mind. Being anonymous is contestable, and seems more like a privilege.

I would not mind if it were optional to implement. I mean, it is optional now. I believe Cisco, for example, requires you to register with valid credentials and also state the company you are working with. I am not sure if they enforce it, but they state that they may terminate any accounts with false credentials. I think Ageia is the same way as well.

I know that something like this would be very hard to enforce, but eventually, I believe more an more people would come around to following the law. At least, the people hosting the sites will require it. Even if people do constantly ignore it, the government would make hundreds of thousands of dollars off of fines alone (in each state).

[betajaen]

I would not mind if it were optional to implement. I mean, it is optional now. I believe Cisco, for example, requires you to register with valid credentials and also state the company you are working with. I am not sure if they enforce it, but they state that they may terminate any accounts with false credentials. I think Ageia is the same way as well.

Yes, but don't you enter an agreement to use their SDK, Software, Code or Service? Something that is legally binding? To give out fake information, makes the contract void and open to a wealth of legal problems.

Going back to OpenID; You can use your own domain name as part of the ID. When you register a domain again you must prove yourself to the registrar with the WHOIS information and payment details (credit card). Unless you can fake them; which John Smith of London cannot do and James Bond of MI6 can.

People who want anonymity will get it, people who don't have plenty of options to prove who they are.

[warmi]

I know that something like this would be very hard to enforce, but eventually, I believe more an more people would come around to following the law.

Yeah, well, is it illegal to lie to someone in a casual conversation about who you are and where you live ?
Would you really want a law like that and would people really abide by it ?

I don't think so .. and by the same token it shouldn't be illegal on the Internet as well.
Of course, in a situation where both parties are conducting some sort of formalized business , this kind of interaction would be governed by the same set of rules it would normally be governed if both parties were in the same room or negotiating over the phone.

In other words, I guess it wouldn’t hurt to be able to establish your true credentials on the net but only as a voluntary option and not as a prerequisite.

[xavier]

I think it should be, but the US constitution doesn't actually state anything about anonymity. It only says that you have the right to speak your mind. Being anonymous is contestable, and seems more like a privilege.

I want to chime in here about this point -- which perpetuates one of the great myths that seems commonplace around the nation and world in this day.

The Constitution is not a "set of things which the people can do."

It is an enumeration of the limited powers allocated to the federal government by the several states, and if it does not appear in the Constitution, it is thereby left to the several states and/or to the people.

I hear this crap all the time: "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution", and it's always repeated by those who don't understand what the Constitution *is*.

Carry on.

[denreaper]

Well, being a resident of Kentucky I'll vouch that we are basically a bunch of inbred hillbillies.