Anonymity and You

There have been recent articles about situations in which people did something "anonymously," were found out, and reaped huge consequences from it. In one noted case, an 11 year old girl posted an acidic, obscenity-filled rebuttal to rumors she was dating the lead singer of a band. People on the web trolling site 4chan found out her real name, phone number, and address, and en masse decided to make the girl's life a living hell. She is now banned for a time from any internet activity and she is in police protective custody. The police are building a case against some of the 4chan people as it appears they may have broken the law in their relentless pursuit of this girl. Or the teacher who was fired for posting comments about a student, even though she didn't name the student directly. There are even articles that are now poking some fun at the issues.

As the humorous article points out, many of us choose anonymity not because we're criminals, but to hide simple embarrassments or to show either positive or negative support for things that matter to us, but for which we might get "flamed." I call this blog "John's Omniverse" because the name John is ubiquitous (hell, unidentified prostitution users and toilets are both called John, that's how prevalent the name is) and I don't have my real name or anything else associated with it. This small layer of anonymity allows me to post political, religious, and social commentary in a way that gives me plausible deniability should I need it. Do I think I'm truly anonymous? Of course not. There are many clues to who I am. Blogger and Google both have access to my data, and "know" who I am. But to the casual reader, I could be the guy next door, or someone on the other side of the planet.

Most sites have you sign in with your real name and create your ID. Many sites you are granted permission to use after making a purchase from the site owner, so they have your credit card name on file. All sites have the means to monitor the IP address you use to enter the site. So, while the sites have access to data that can be used to identify you, they do not adequately police the blogs, boards, or what-have-you that they host, and don't warn or stop trollers from trolling. While I think that the RealID solution presented in the Cracked article is one way to go, shouldn't the real first step be enforcing the rules in the first place?

In both of the Super Hero MMORPGs that I play, every time you want to play the game, but before you can actually enter it, you have to accept the game's EULA (End User Licensing Agreement). Both EULAs clearly state that you cannot use names and/or likenesses of owned or copyrighted characters. Yet I cannot move around any zone in either game without seeing an Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Wolverine, Rogue, Batman,  Superman, or another licensed/owned/copyrighted character "clone." Matter of fact, after each of the big comic book movies is released, for the next 2-4 weeks the games are filled with clone after clone of those characters in the movie. These same people who accepted the EULA, and then broke the rules they just accepted, get all pissy when someone inevitably reports them to the GMs and their character gets "generic-ed." They come crying to the forum boards with woe-is-me stories about it when they argue with the GMs and get a 1-3 day ban from playing. I have no sympathy-- they broke the rules and they got caught, deal with it.

America literally has thousands of gun laws in every state and federally. There is quite literally no situation you can think of that involves ownership rights, purchasing, resale, and/or using guns that there isn't a law already in existence to cover. Yet people want more gun laws. The problem with all those existing gun laws and any new ones people insist on having is:

1. Criminals don't follow the rules.
2. The rules are hard to enforce.
3. There aren't enough government employees (i.e., cops, feds, et al) to enforce the existing laws 100%.

Anonymity does allow certain people to feel free to do as they please, and anonymity is the haven for those who wish to perform criminal activities. Some will stop their bad behavior if they have to use their real name and/or address. But many won't stop because they simply do not fear retribution. If those who moderate these sites do so quickly, efficiently, and to the fullest extent, many internet trolls will be found, banned, and will lose the right to post their hate speech. But, just as with game GMs looking for clones and law enforcement officers looking for illegal guns, there are far too few moderators to adequately handle the rules/laws already in place.

There are some advantages to a RealID program, however. If you have your actual name attached to anything you say online, people will choose not to say as much online for fear of reprisals. As my mother once said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Just Don't Say It

Yet another article I'm reading has one of the many permutations on the phrase, "The person, who wasn't authorized to discuss the changes publicly, spoke on condition of anonymity" (emphasis mine). I think this phrase is absolutely to blame for most of the reporting we see and most of the erroneous news we uncover.

I read a lot of sports pages. Any time that PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) are discussed, that phrase is linked. 9 out of 10 times that a list of suspected users is leaked, it is from someone hiding behind this phrase, or a variant. Frankly, if you are not supposed to be talking about it, then DON'T. Honor your contract with your company, honor your position, do your job, and stay the hell out of it.

Nearly any time I see an article about some celebrity being arrested or accused of something, that phrase appears again. Almost every time, some smaller scandal about one or more police officers being reprimanded or dismissed due to them being the leak comes out a few weeks later. If any organization should understand that you do not leak or release sensitive data, especially if you are not cleared for that data or to release it, it should be a cop. Just do your job, respect the law, and SHUT UP if questioned.

How is it that sites like Ain't It Cool News and Drudge Report get divorce papers, police reports, and other sensitive and confidential information about stars and celebs so quickly? There's that phrase again. Instead of treating that information as sensitive and thinking about how little they would like it if their same information were leaked about their divorce, domestic abuse, or financial woes, the people want to earn a quick buck and become that anonymous source that tells all... for a price.

Now, I will grant you that whistle-blowers are needed in certain circumstances. When a business is doing something patently wrong, that harms people directly, and in conflict with the laws regulating their business or the rights of the people, then people need to step up and make it known. But do it correctly; go to a legitimate law enforcement office or a lawyer. Don't go to the nearest internet news site or contact Hard Copy, ET, your local TV, or whatever.

If I were running a business that had sensitive data (like tracking drug testing in sports, for example), I would use some sort of version control or similar software, plus physical procedures, to track each person who had access to and contact with the sensitive data. I would have a policy in place that stated any leak of that data while it was in your possession or checked out to you, regardless of whether YOU actually did it, would result in your immediate and summary expulsion from the company and criminal proceedings filed against you. In this way, the people who worked for me would know absolutely that I don't care if someone looks over their shoulder or uses their passwords/logins or whatever-- it is their responsibility to do everything that they can to keep this data private, or they can work elsewhere.

Freedom of the press is one of the many things that makes America, and most of the free world, great. However, in this day and age of instant news and scooping the other 1001 agencies, the press has forgotten that their right to report ends where the rights of the individual to privacy begin.

Matter of fact, that is a lesson that most of America seems to have forgotten or chooses to ignore; your rights end where my rights begin. Your freedom of speech doesn't trump my right to privacy and to defend myself from slander and libel. Your right to peaceably assemble ends where my rights to individual property ownership and safety begin. Your right to practice the religion of your choice ends where my right to practice the religion of my choice begins. Your right to protest against the practice of abortion ends where another's right to a safe, clean medical procedure begin. Etcetera. This is why the Supreme Court is supposed to do its damnedest to ensure that its rulings cover the biggest majority of opinions in this country, even if some of those covered by it don't like it.

I guess it comes down to this: your right to your 15 minutes (more like seconds, these days) of fame and a monetary payoff end where my right to privacy begin. Be accountable for your own self first and leave me to be accountable for me.