As a general rule, I consider myself an advocate for the privacy of Internet users. However, more and more I think that it is one of those issues in which it is not good to take a radical position, absolutely for or against. Evidently, anonymity on the Internet has more costs than one might first suppose, and not all of them are good.
Precisely, a few days ago I came across a article very interesting from David Davenport, who opposes Internet anonymity. Here is a summary of their arguments and my comments in the final section.
The dangers of anonymity on the Internet
Anonymous communication is considered the cornerstone of an Internet culture that promotes sharing and freedom of expression, and is openly anti-establishment. Anonymity, its advocates say, ensures that governments cannot spy on citizens and therefore guarantees privacy and freedom of expression.
According to Davenport, this view is fundamentally wrong. By allowing anonymous communication, you actually risk a gradual collapse of the values that sustain democratic societies. The price of our freedom is not anonymity, but accountability.
All modern societies require some kind of decision-making mechanism to guide them, and a system of controls (police and judicial) to ensure fairness and compliance with the laws. Specifically in democratic societies, citizens give their "consent" for these bodies to resolve problems or conflicts that may arise, rather than taking action themselves. By punishing misconduct, society aims to deter the recurrence of such crimes and to send a clear warning to those who may be similarly tempted to violate the rights of others. The democratic system also incorporates controls (elections and laws) that guarantee that the governing bodies cannot abuse their position. Obviously, the resolution of any injustice, whether it involves individuals, groups of people, or the state itself, requires that those responsible be held accountable.
In conclusion, democratic societies must educate people to be good citizens and take precautions to discourage bad behavior; it would certainly be foolish not to maintain accountability as a "safety net" in case all that fails.
The consequences of anonymity
Accountability requires that those responsible for any misconduct can be identified and brought to justice. However, if people remain anonymous, by definition they cannot be identified, making it impossible to hold them accountable. Advocates of anonymous communications on the Internet, therefore, open the door to many forms of criminal and antisocial behaviorwhile leaving the victims and society as a whole completely defenseless.
Internet-based crimes such as hacking, creating viruses, denial of service attacks, credit card fraud, stalking, and identity theft are on the rise. Currently, estimates of the damage caused by these crimes are measured in billions of dollars per year, but the human cost, in terms of the loss of reputation and trust of many people, as well as the general deterioration of morale , is immeasurable.
While these crimes wreak havoc on society, there is a much more dangerous aspect of anonymity. In case anonymous communication becomes widespread, then it would be available not only to ordinary citizens, but to the state and governing authorities. This would allow for the indiscriminate leakage of highly sensitive material, the payment of bribes to secure lucrative deals, elections could be rigged, and measures could be taken against political opponents, all with impunity.
Some may argue that governments already use anonymity to cover up clandestine operations, so there would be no difference. However, those governments that currently commit these acts do so illegally. Those involved know that it is a mistake and they know of the penalties in case of being caught, thus dissuading everyone, except the most desperate or naive. In a society where anonymity reigns, this deterrent power fades.
Freedom of expression
The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental aspect of the democratic tradition. The reason for this is simple: ideas help transform society, and any idea, however strange it may seem at first, could ultimately be beneficial. Citizens should not, therefore, be unduly restricted or punished for expressing their views, no matter what they think.
The very notion of freedom of expression involves protecting differing opinions from prosecution and prosecution, but also part of the assumption that the identity of the person is known. While anonymous communication is not necessary for freedom of expression, it ensures that there are no arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions or sanctions. So, it may be asked, are the benefits of anonymity greater than its "costs," as its advocates claim?
Freedom of expression is primarily concerned with the protection of the individual against abuses of power, be it political, religious or otherwise. Anonymous communication, however, is likely to be particularly ineffective in this regard. In dictatorships and non-democratic countries where freedom of expression is most needed, these regimes are unlikely to enable this type of communication in the first place.. Also, messages sent anonymously are unlikely to have much of an impact on their own. Only if the sender of a message is known and his opinion is trusted can what he says can really have an effect on society. If communications are truly anonymous, then it is difficult to establish such a relationship, and thus reliance on anonymous communications for whistleblowing, informing the world of human rights violations, or enacting a political platform, is diluted. .
Conclusion
Advocates of anonymous communications argue that anonymity is essential to guarantee freedom of expression on the Internet, and this outweighs any harm that could result from it (computer fraud, etc.). In short, there are those who use a kitchen knife to commit a crime, but that does not make the knife bad or condemnable in itself.
According to Davenport, this opinion is wrong. Accountability is at the very heart of the democratic tradition and is crucial to the stability of a free and just society.. Removing this "safety net" would only encourage deception and lead to increased crime, increasing the number of victims who will not be able to obtain justice. Worse, those in power could use anonymity for their own purposes, eliminating any type of accountability on the part of the governing authorities.
Paradoxically, it is mistrust in governments that fuels the clamor for anonymous communications as a means to guarantee freedom of expression. The end result of not being identified, however, encourages government abuses rather than restrains them and has little real impact in terms of freedom of expression.
In his opinion, the way forward is clear: accept accountability and reject anonymous communications. Interested citizens can use the new communications enhancements to participate more fully in government. Our freedom comes at the price of respecting the law, and for that we must be able to "take charge of what one does or does not do". The shift to a more participatory form of government is a better, safer, and more stable option than that offered by the quicksand of anonymity.
My opinion: criticism of the Davenport article
Honestly, I find that Davenport's paper wonderfully articulates and synthesizes the best arguments against anonymity on the Internet. Precisely for that reason I decided to share it with you. I do not agree with many of your points, but I admit that it explains and argues your ideas very well. Also, I think there is some truth in what he says and that it is healthy not to believe that anonymity is always the best.
However, it also seems to me that Davenport forgets that anonymity is a constitutive part of democracy. In fact, the most basic act of modern democratic societies is based on anonymity: the vote. In this way, it seeks to ensure that citizens are free from any pressure or coercion when voting. On the other hand, there are situations when taking responsibility for what you say or do can lead to retaliation, such as loss of your job. For that reason, protecting the anonymity of some reports can be valid.
However, the biggest mistake of the Davenport article is that not all of our actions require accountability. That is, the fact that Google tracks what you do, at what time, from where, etc. It has nothing to do with accountability or "taking charge"; it is nothing more than an abusive maneuver on the part of a monopoly that spies on people, without our being fully aware of it, that uses that information for commercial purposes and, to top it all, that delivers that information to certain governments when they are they ask for it, without informing the original owners of that information or the reasons why they do so.
Finally, One wonders if anonymity is really possible on the Internet. In other words, from the moment our devices are identified with a number, there will always be someone smart enough to track us, no matter the efforts we make to go unnoticed.
You. what do you think?
This will be an issue that will always get hives.
From my point of view, anonymity should be limited, it happens a lot that several hide behind it to speak stupid things and disrespect without fear of reprisals. Thanks to him, the lack of empathy in the network has been lost, it has been filled with haters and people who come to download because in real life it does not give them the courage. Some time ago I read that generally haters are people who are too introverted, who are unable to express their opinions personally and that triggers their frustration, which they display on the network.
I believe that there are many points where anonymity is valid, the vote for example, a complaint in the face of a dangerous situation, but I firmly believe that whoever says or does something online, should ALWAYS take charge, be a "man", in addition, express An opinion or a complaint in a personal way, by identifying oneself, allows «as far as possible», to give a valid and at the same time verifiable solution.
Greetings.
And who is the judge to establish the limits? Governments or some "assembly of wise men"?
The points you propose to "limit" anonymity are precisely those raised by those who seek to regulate the network; that was not missing more, they do it for our "good." I would respond to that argument with a phrase widely used in my country: "... that would be throwing out the sofa and not the adulterous wife." The fact that trolls and haters hide behind anonymity to unleash their traumas, phobias and philias does not in any way imply that the rest of society pays for them, they only constitute "arguments" for the enemies of freedom They spend their time warning us of the "dangers" of the Internet and of the "irresponsible use" of it.
Charlie, just to generate a debate and keep reflecting on the issue: for you, can you protect the privacy of users without advocating anonymity on the Internet? That is, can one separate one from the other? Are there ways to protect user privacy that do not necessarily involve anonymity?
And, in any case, do you think that (absolute) anonymity on the Internet is technically possible?
Hug! Paul.
Hello Pablo, thank you very much for your attention, I will try to explain myself in the best possible way to make myself understood.
I start from the principle that every state (and therefore every government as an expression of the state) is, in my opinion, a necessary evil for the functioning of society as we know it and SHOULD be focused on establishing the rules of the game that allow coexistence civilization of its citizens (laws) and safeguard the maintenance and respect of them, both within the society or country and abroad (relations with other nations). In any case, even in the societies usually considered by the majority as paradigms of democracy (Nordic countries, Switzerland, etc.), the state must necessarily exercise repressive functions over those who violate the rules of the game.
Now, it is no secret to anyone that states (and governments) have long paid more attention to preserving the interests of the groups that hold power to the detriment of the majority of citizens (and here each one puts to these groups the name of their favorite villain: bankers, oligarchs, party, etc.), hence the repressive function has degenerated into keeping the rest of society "in control" and precisely the first step to be able to exercise that control is the identification of individuals to "isolate" or "re-educate" those considered potentially dangerous. It is clear that control over the citizens of a country with limits clearly established by law and with institutions that ensure rights is not the same as that which exists in countries with totalitarian and police regimes.
I understand that privacy is not the same as anonymity, what happens is that, in my opinion, the supreme resource to guarantee the first is the existence of the second; Let me explain, in theory, privacy should be guaranteed by laws focused on the defense of citizens' rights against the state, but if I start from the assumption developed above of the defective functioning of the states and the manipulation of laws based on their interests, only through anonymity is it possible for citizens to achieve a degree of protection from the state. Has anyone noticed that the governments most interested in the "regulation" of the network are precisely the least democratic and the most authoritarian and repressive? Wouldn't that just be reason enough to put us on alert?
Additionally, in my opinion, there is another threat as worrisome as the control of the states, which is the action of criminal organizations, computer crimes and terrorism. It would be naive to think that the mere fact of abolishing privacy would eliminate cybercrime, since criminals would be easily identified, it is most likely that identity theft would increase to cover up their crimes. Life has shown that when law enforcement institutions actually do their jobs, criminals can be caught and society protected.
Regarding absolute anonymity in the network, I am very clear that it does not exist, it is TOTALLY impossible, even analyzed from a technical point of view, but still, the anonymization tools are strong enough to force states to limit their intrusion, if only due to the lack of resources to spy on us all; and before I come up with the Snowden song, the NSA and other 3-letter acronyms, let me clarify that it is not the same collection of information as identification of ALL the individuals source and destination of the information, the mining of that data already it is complex enough to keep the great masses safe.
I think I've gone too far and have still left some ideas undeveloped, but I would like to end with a couple of questions: Are we willing to put the defense of our privacy in the hands of the states? Would experience (and I would say more, history) justify this decision?
A greeting…
Excellent. The enemies of freedom always use the same argument to curtail our rights and freedom: for our good and to fight "the bad guys."
Regards. Peter.
To the original author I would say that "accountability" is a very popular concept in totalitarian regimes. Let us give citizens a chip that identifies them at all times. That allows you to track your movements and actions. We can prevent them from committing crimes of all kinds and honest people will be safer Ha Ha !. There is not only the right to anonymity, there is also the right to privacy.
I would like to see that man with his ID tattooed on his forehead and with a GPS for a collar, with the telephone tapped, with the mail opened by third parties, and with video cameras recording his life. There he would no longer be so amused by "accountability."
And the worst of all this is that in real life they already control us with mobile phones and the Internet ...
It does not seem so extreme to me or that accountability is of a totalitarian state. Accountability is part of a rule of law, where we all have rights and obligations. Between being able to identify who commits a crime, be it computerized or "normal" and a loss of privacy there is a world of distance
It seems clear to me that you do not live in a totalitarian state, luckily for you, so it may be a bit difficult for you to understand Windóusico's approach; believe me when I tell you that there is no exaggeration in it.
It is precisely the state that must be set limits, beginning with the classification of crimes and ending with the ability to interfere in the private life of citizens, even when they, due to ignorance, ignorance or stupidity, voluntarily make their lives public in the networks.
Or because they want to make it public?
Don't a good part of the users of social networks like Facebook make their lives and miracles public. Twitter, etc.? And beware, that ALL the personal information that they publish is done completely voluntarily, without the slightest idea in most cases, of the consequences of this action.
Sebastian, there is no relationship between mass sapping and crime prevention. See Snowden's statements.
The point is that, while of course we want privacy, we want it from the point of view of those of us who have not been affected by this issue.
Let's reverse the roles with an example. Let's say that someone sneaks into your computer using anonymity methods, or that they offend you, or even attack you, that taking advantage of their anonymity assassinates or harms someone very close to you. Will you tell me that you would not have liked then that the Government or the Police had had control over each citizen to know who did that?
At the moment that we are victims, we see things very differently. That is why this topic is controversial, although no one would like an Equilibrium-style world, it would not be a bad thing to be able to track certain individuals when necessary.
That is assuming that, in any case, the government / authority does or wants to do something ... of course, I speak from the angle of someone who lives in a state of impunity.
Let me twist your assumption further. Imagine that a spy hired by a large multinational listed on the Ibex 35 enters my computer. Do you think that the Police or the Government of Spain would use that information against the powerful? They would invent any nonsense and those criminals would get away with it.
The law is not applied in the same way in all social strata. The loss of anonymity would only benefit the powerful and those who have access to all that information (police and other officials). It does not seem right to me to sacrifice freedom + anonymity for security, the former is worth more (criminals are punished with the loss of freedom for a reason). You can live in a reasonably safe world without ending your anonymity. I come across anonymous people every day and I don't have the need to identify them to walk calmly.
So is. In that sense, as I said in another comment, I think it would be better to differentiate between "defending the privacy" of users and advocating anonymity on the Internet. They are not the same thing. Now I realize it.
Hug! Paul.
Exactly estimated. Many associate privacy with anonymity and both are not used for the same purpose. That is what I mean by my previous comment.
Hi Elav!
A long time ago, but a loooong time that I hadn't read something so interesting, thanks a thousand to @usemoslinux for this topic.
Personally, I TOTALLY agree with David Davenport's proposal and how good that both you, Elav, and we use linux have clarified the great difference between privacy and anonymity. Within this logic, I would like to make an observation to usemoslinux: within democratic regimes, no vote is anonymous since to be able to exercise the right to vote it is an essential requirement to be registered in an electoral register, and to be able to vote in the polling place it is necessary to identify yourself with a credential that is issued for this purpose. Without that identification nobody votes.
Thus, the process of voting is by no means done within anonymity, although ultimately for whom -or by whom- it is voted is in private and we reserve the right to keep our election secret.
So is my dear. Nobody votes without at least giving their name, so much so that in countries where there is a high level of illiteracy, people who cannot at least write their name do not have the right to vote.
The problem is that privacy and anonymity cannot be separated as two independent compartments. If I must be identified at all times, I lose privacy (I see it inevitable). My hobbies, my friendships and my ideas do not have to be in the public or government domain.
@Tina Toledo, the vote is anonymous. It does not carry voter identification and cannot be traced. The control measures to avoid electoral fraud have little to do with it. It seems good to me that we can identify ourselves safely on the Internet, but it does not seem sensible to me that we are identified at all times (anyone can intrude on our privacy without permission). Our adventures on the Internet should only be investigated by court order, not in real time for "prevention".
@windowsico Here voting is mandatory and all those who vote must be registered in the civil registry. The secret ballot (that neither the electoral court nor anyone reveals who voted for whom) is more related to privacy than anonymity.
@Diazepan: reading the comments that have been written about it, it is clear to me that the vast majority confuse anonymity with the right to privacy. And I would like to give an example: I have always written on this blog as Tina Toledo, that is my real name and I have never used a pseudonym and the image of my avatar is a photograph of me. Therefore I am not anonymous: they know my name and my face. Does that prevent me from giving my opinion freely? NO.
However, the administration of this site can have access to my data that is confidential and private and I have the right, and they have the obligation, to keep it private and not trade with it.
anonymity.
1. m. Character or condition of anonymous.
anonymous, ma.
(From the gr. Ἀνώνυμος, without a name).
1. adj. Said of a work or a writing: That does not bear the name of its author. U. tcs
2. adj. Said of an author: Whose name is unknown. U. tcsm
3. adj. Com. Said of a company or a society: That is formed by shares, with responsibility limited to the capital they represent.
4. m. Unsigned letter or paper on which something offensive or unpleasant is commonly said.
5m. Author's secret hiding his name. Remain anonymous.
Privacy.
1. f. Area of private life that has the right to protect from any interference.
The vote is unique, that is why you must be registered and that is why you must identify yourself before voting. And it is anonymous because in the count no one knows which ballot (or whatever) you deposited in the ballot box (or whatever).
Mr. Davenport defends the ban on "anonymizing" tools (let me use the term) because he believes that anonymous ones are potential criminals. In "analog life" people hide their faces to remain anonymous. Criminals wear sunglasses, hats, visors, balaclavas, wigs, motorcycle helmets, ... to hide their identity. Do we prohibit the use of these items on public roads? A man or woman can not hide his face with legal motives? I can think of many. Freedom of expression is only guaranteed in the absence of coercion and for that you need anonymity.
Yesterday in Spain there was a peaceful demonstration calling for a referendum to choose between monarchy and democracy. Well, a group of policemen began to ask for the personal identification (DNI) of the protesters, they wrote down their data on a list and took photos. Do you see the coercion? Why is this data recorded? They want to scare you by taking away your anonymity? I think so. Do you know how I found out about that? I have seen a video uploaded to the Internet by an anonymous person. If anonymity ends, complaints will be reduced (not all of us want to be martyrs) and we will live in a worse world.
Errata: Where I put democracy, I wanted to write republic (what would I be thinking about).
@Tina Toledo -> Anonymous vote -> «does not bear the name of its author».
Author.
1. m. and f. Person who is the cause of something.
Causa.
1. f. That which is considered as the foundation or origin of something.
@windowsico is not anonymous. In the books of the voting tables the names of the voter are written together with the number of the envelope in which you cast the vote. The vote is private.
If in Tina Toledo's country it is possible to find out who each voter voted for, I apologize for not taking their nationality into account. It is a very debatable way of voting and we Europeans forget that it exists, such as the death penalty or that all citizens can carry firearms.
PS: It's a shame that I can't edit my messages, I had to fill this with Spam (if an administrator could merge the messages I would be very grateful).
@ Windóusico: At first it seems to me that you and I do not have the same concept about voting. For you a vote is a ballot where a preference has been expressed while for me it is the right and the act - public or private - to express said preference.
In my country - the United States of America - on the same election day you can vote in different ways: electronic voting, by ballot, online or by letter. It all depends on where the voter is residing and how each state has organized the voting method. For my part, since I live in Mexico for now, my most recent vote was by correspondence -epistolary-
Now, why can't a vote be anonymous? Because precisely what gives legal value to my vote, and to the entire process, is that we have the certainty of who can vote and who has voted. In other words, each voter has fully identified himself to be able to exercise his right to vote. Does the fact that the ballot - assuming that I exercise my vote by means of a ballot - where I expressed my choice does not have my name, make my vote an "anonymous vote"? NO. It only turns my election into something private, and that only if I want it to because there is no law that prohibits me from saying who or what I voted for. As an example of the latter are the famous exit polls carried out by TV networks that anticipate electoral results for a long time, and with a high degree of accuracy.
This also leads me to consider something, any act carried out anonymously has no legal value and, in some cases, may be illegal acts. What does this mean? That in order to carry out the contracting or purchase of any good or service I have to do it, by force, on behalf of a person, group or institution that has legal personality. No right can be claimed from anonymity: neither legal nor even rights as elementary as human rights, because to demonstrate the violation of such rights it is necessary to first demonstrate the existence of the victim.
Likewise, within that order of ideas, freedom of expression is neither a democratic nor a republican right ... it is a HUMAN RIGHT. And human rights go beyond any constitution, local laws, religions, and political and economic regimes.
Now, what Google, Microsoft, governments or what you like and send on the internet violate is not our identity ... IT IS OUR PRIVACY. Do you really think that Google is interested in knowing that my name is Tina Toledo? NO. For the people of Google I am only a sample within a statistic: I am one of the million and a half users who live in Mèrida, Yuc. Mex .; I am one of the six hundred and twenty people who in 80% of their searches appears the word "Beatles" ... and so on to infinity. They are not interested in knowing my name or my face ... in any case what interests them are my interests and my personal behavior and to find out they invade my privacy. For them I am an anonymous with certain tastes and tendencies.
But there is also something very important: no social, economic or political change is generated within anonymity. Revolutions and social and political changes have taken place in the streets, in the squares, on the battlefields and in public buildings. The fact that we ignore the names of all those people - because generally we only know the names of the leaders - that make up (ba) that mass that takes (ba) the streets to protest does not make them anonymous, because ultimately each of they abandoned the comfort and security of their home to risk their physicality, their freedom and even their lives. That is why many nations erect monuments to their UNKNOWN soldiers, which is not the same as anonymous.
Anonymity is wild because the only thing we achieve by staying that way is just being invisible as much as possible, but we generate no change. Someone, comments below, tried to use a quote from Benjamin Franklin -with such bad luck that Diazepan amended the page- that reads like this: “Those who would renounce essential freedoms to buy a little temporary security, do not deserve even freedom nor security ”. Here at least two reflections fit:
1.-Defend at all costs the anonymity -not privacy- on the internet, isn't that temporary security to which Franklin refers?
2.-Whoever used, clumsily, Benjamin's phrase to argue his pro-anonymity stance, made sure to put -although misspelled- the author of the quote, is it because he knew beforehand which phrase has much more impact if the author is a well-known person and not an anonymous?
@Tina Toledo, I don't have time to read so much text carefully, but looking over I can answer the following:
In Spain the vote is anonymous because the author cannot be identified. It is impossible and even so electoral fraud is unviable (investigate our electoral system and you will see). I can say that I voted for X and that is a lie. No one will know (only the author of the vote) and the same happens with works written by anonymous or anonymous letters.
Your vote is not private. The moment you share your vote with strangers it is no longer so, it does not matter if the law protects your right to privacy. You have to be very naive to believe that this information does not escape the private sphere. If we had to elect a mayor in a village of 200 inhabitants with the "private vote" system, everyone would know who voted for whom (thanks to the humans on the electoral board) and that would be catastrophic for freedom of choice. And if you do not see the problem of your private vote, I will not convince you. Continue with your system that is going very well for you.
It expresses the Spanish Constitution of 1978 in its Title III. Of the Cortes Generales, article 68:
1.-The Congress is made up of a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 400 Deputies, elected by universal, free, equal, direct and SECRET suffrage, under the terms established by law.
-http: //www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp? ini = 66 & fin = 96 & tipo = 2-
And abounds in the synopsis:
2.4. The vote must be SECRET. This characteristic also affects the principle of freedom, insofar as it makes it possible to avoid coercion or interference in the freely cast vote. Therefore, in addition to guaranteeing the principle of ideological freedom of art. 16.2, obliges the electoral administration to provide the technical and material means that guarantee this secret (booths, ballot boxes, etc.). Note, in any case, that secrecy is a RIGHT AND NOT AN OBLIGATION. Nothing prevents a citizen from making public the meaning of his vote and, in fact, this happens relatively frequently during electoral campaigns and even on election day.
-http: //www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/sinopsis/sinopsis.jsp? art = 68 & tipo = 2-
@Tina Toledo, I don't understand the quotes. I have voted on numerous occasions (municipal, regional, general and European) and yes, the vote is secret (as it is anonymous). What do you highlight about SECRET? If you put it because our vote is truly private, I admit it, being anonymous it is 100% private.
I find it terrible that people identify with a political party as if it were a sports team (flags, badges, propaganda, ...) and that they do not change their vote no matter what happens. In Spain there are people like that but it is not the norm. In the United States of America they put posters in their garden to indicate who they vote no? In Spain that is not seen (except in radical and militant sectors).
The US government was traumatized by the Watergate affair and has since convinced the population that the anonymous people are bad people, of dubious morality and with evil intentions. I like people like "Deep Throat" and if they take the Internet away they will be left with their asses in the air. In Spain we have a great tradition of anonymous names in literature and fine arts, we are very proud of their existence and we do not minimize their work due to the absence of a signature.
I understand that there are people who prefer security to freedom, it is more a question of character than anything else. I respect your point of view.
A thousand apologies @ Windóusico for not answering with opportunity. Thank you very much for bringing up the case of William Mark Felt - aka "Deep Throat." WM Felt is precisely the case of the most sinister use of anonymity:
When Edgar J. Hoover - former director of the FBI - died in May 1972, Felt was one of the candidates to succeed him, however Richard Nixon appointed Patrick Gray III as the new director of the Bureau, leaving Mark Felt as second in the hierarchy of the FBI.
It was thanks to this position that Felt had access to all the information that the FBI investigators gathered for a year - from June 1972 to June 1973 - as all the reports passed through his hands first before reaching Gray.
Felt knew very well that information is power that, and that it gives even more power when that information contains unlawful acts carried out by the President of the United States of America, so he decided to use that information for his own benefit to pressure Nixon.
Richard Nixon knew perfectly well that Felt was "Deep Throat" and that it was he who was leaking the information to journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The two, Nixon and Felt, met on June 23, 1972 on the advice of H. Haldeman, the president's secretary, who said "Mark Felt wants to cooperate because he is ambitious."
Mark Felt, unlike Edward Snowden, did not resign his post ... on the contrary: while leaking information under the alias "Deep Throat" he commanded illegal activities of the FBI. Both he and Edward Miller authorized illegal raids - operations known as "black bag" operations - during the period from 1972 to 1973. Both "Deep Throat" Felt and Miller were brought to trial in 1980 for these operations and found guilty of violating the rules. civil rights.
In April 1974 "Deep Throat" got what he wanted: Nixon forced Gray to resign as Director of the FBI and appointed Mark "Deep Throat" Felt as Hoover's permanent replacement. Richard Nixon would present his resignation months later - August 8, 1974-
From the point of view of the victim?
Let's see, 5 years ago I moved to the house in which I currently reside, in that time 7 burglaries have occurred to my neighbors and my car was stolen (one year after I finished paying for it).
And I answer, no, I do not prefer to live a lifetime monitored to capture the one who offends me for a single day (especially since monitoring is not really for that).
This kind of fear generated by the propaganda above is exactly what good George Carlin was referring to when he said:
"The upper class is there to have all the money without working, the middle class to do all the work and the lower class ... to make the middle shit with fear and continue to keep the upper class."
And it is that tracking individuals that something must, is fine and it is done, but the correct thing is that they persecute each other AFTER committing the fault and if you are suspicious that they spy under the order of a judge, not by default.
Staff: And yes, they will chase him as long as they have "clues", otherwise, if the guy erased or hid every possible trace it would be impossible to capture him. Ok, a car, a robbery, maybe it will happen, but if that guy had killed your neighbor, his children, his dog and managed to leave without a clue, it could be the other neighbor on your side, would you live in peace with that ? Because at least I prefer that at the door of my house, on a lamp post, there was at least one surveillance camera ... that is, outside ...
I'm not saying that we have a barcode on the back of the neck and that we can be tracked anywhere (what eye, for that you don't need an electronic barcode, with the cell phone is enough), but at least if there is a control over certain things. And don't say your in everyday life, but at least on the net, I don't see it wrong.
He who owes nothing, fears nothing, and if you are a type of law (even if you watch porn legally) you do not have to hide anything, therefore, you do not need anonymity. The only thing you need is a good browser, and access to sites whose policy does not allow them to take your information to sell it there.
Believe me, the first thing that goes through your mind in these situations is "what would happen if there was someone dear to my house when they enter ...".
The problem is that in the worst case scenario, if a child is killed, what is the use of finding the one who did it? Nothing is going to return the child to you. That is pure revenge, and seeking it even before something is done to you is a reflection of a terrible insecurity (on a psychological level). Personally, it seems like a very cowardly way of living, on the same level as not wanting to drive so as not to die in an accident, or not leaving the house so that I don't get struck by lightning.
The reality is that a camera does not offer any guarantee that you will not have problems, even if you want to put it, then let it be YOUR camera, inside YOUR house, where only you have access to the video and not third parties.
The statistics are there, in countries with more vigilance crime does not decrease, in which the death penalty is implemented, crime does not decrease, fear of punishment is never stronger than hunger.
And in the network, I can still be a good and honest citizen, who wants to publicly denounce a bad behavior of the government or of some criminal group (of those that are commonly to the core in the government). Wouldn't I need anonymity to protect my integrity physical retaliation for doing the RIGHT thing?
I don't think that this example has much to do with defending privacy or eliminating anonymity, it is more of a security problem for networks and systems; Come on, if your network is unprotected and you also use Windows with IE, you are almost inviting them to enter your computer. If you leave your house and leave the door open with a sign that says "I'm on vacation to the beach this week," could you blame the thieves who break in and take the power outlets? Or is it the police's fault? "Controlled" the thieves in the neighborhood?
It was Benjamin Fraknlin who said more than two hundred years ago: "Those who sacrifice freedom for security do not deserve to have either."
What Davenport postulates is nothing more than an update of the idea pursued by all totalitarian regimes: the total and absolute surveillance of citizens, based on a supposed security or protection against an internal or external enemy.
Correction «Those who would renounce liberties essential to buy some security temporary, they do not deserve freedom or security »
And according to Samuel Adams, that temporary security is tranquility. Here the context in which everything is said:
“In a state of tranquility, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, noble activity, and the fervor that made our ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be used to loosen the bond of union that makes our resistance formidable. When the spirit of freedom, which now animates our hearts and makes our weapons successful, is extinct, our numbers will hasten our ruin and make us more easily victims of tyranny. If you love wealth more than freedom, the tranquility of slavery more than the lively fight for freedom, go home in peace. We do not ask for your opinion or your weapons. Get down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains not weigh you down much and may posterity forget that you were our compatriot. "
I agree with your position, I admit that your arguments are very well structured but I totally disagree with practically all of them.
I am one of those who believe that precisely the emergence of the network, with the possibility of anonymity that was implicit since its initial conception, has allowed the average citizen to have a platform so that their voice is heard and can create consensus among their peers, not in the face of the power of the state but even in the face of opinion-creating media, to think that states (even the most democratic and pluralistic) are going to be the guardians of freedom of expression and the rights of all is too childish a chimera.
If we conceive states - and therefore governments as an expression of these - as a necessary evil for coexistence in society, the more organizational capacity citizens possess outside the frameworks established by the state (and its corresponding control), the better position we will be to limit their power over society. It is not for fun that police states, as the supreme expression of dictatorial regimes, place special emphasis on eliminating the slightest possibility of "anonymization" of people.
On the other hand, the power achieved by the great opinion-creating media gives them the possibility of establishing the paradigms of what is "politically correct" to which all of us are supposed to abide in public, on pain of being crucified and denigrated, although not in private. we agree. Only from anonymity is it possible to destroy these paradigms and supposed majority opinion states imposed from the power of the media.
Hi Charlie! Thank you for participating and contributing your opinions.
I am tempted to agree with you in everything. However, a bit the underlying question of this post and the doubt that arose when reading the Davenport article (although there are many things that he says with which I do not agree) is the following: anonymity is good and defensible in ALL cases? And, as a corollary, are the "costs" of absolute anonymity less than its "benefits"?
It also arises for me to ask if what we should defend is privacy or anonymity (since they are not exactly the same).
Honestly, right now I have more doubts than certainties.
A hug! Paul.
Totally agree, in this article they speak very well of anonymity and to be frank they almost convince me, but you are right one thing is to "render accounts" for the protection of the human race and quite another for companies like Google and Facebook to become millionaires with our walk on the web. In the case of good Facebook, people personally hand over their data. But Google is a great HDP since it uses our searches every day, our information in e-mail, our family chats ... in short, I do prefer anonymity to my personal information enriching other HDP
An article (the original) that, from my point of view, does not deserve to be replicated or to show its absurdity.
I do not believe that he "forgets" that one of the legal elements of those "democratic societies" with which he fills his mouth, is the presumption of innocence, and that if accountability is sought, it must be until later once the offense is committed, never before, or you end up with citizens imprisoned indefinitely "as a precautionary measure" (see the new airport laws of you already know which country).
Anyway, I don't think you confuse anonymity with privacy, it's just more propaganda.
Interesting! The presumption of innocence is a very good point.
A hug and thank you for joining the debate!
Pablo.
We live in a culture dominated by fear ... The culture of fear that they instill in us at all times ...
As the cypherpunk IgnorantGuru said: cryptography is the weapon that revolutionaries have to bring to light information that the system keeps at gunpoint.
Cryptography + anonymity, of course, hand in hand.
But of course, in addition to protecting activists who try to help the people, they also help the tyrants who dominate the system. The difference is that they already have forms of private communication, they have many resources to achieve it. Instead, the people are helpless in comparison.
Whoever wants to continue reading about this topic from the point of view of a cryptographic professional, I refer you to the following message (in full English):
http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/biography-of-a-cypherpunk-and-how-cryptography-affects-your-life/
Go now! Excellent article on the link, now I'm reviewing the rest of the site and I already included it in my bookmarks, thank you very much for linking it ...
What a good article. Thanks for sharing.
I think Davenport forgets that we do not live in an ideal world where you can express your opinion without any fear of retaliation and where all opinions are respected wherever they come from, although I must say that it is tempting to have some control over users but over haters but it is only a small group that spits its poison on the internet so it is not worth a comparison ... and also everyone has the right to want to be anonymous and being anonymous is not synonymous with being a bad person or perhaps we will go to extremes like in Spain where it was paid the canon just because the industry thinks you're going to "pirate" them just to buy virgin records. We are going something that would make the hair stand on end even for bald people.
I think at the end of the day in a matter of common sense that not all people who are anonymous on the network is a danger to society ... but as they say, common sense is the least common of the senses
I liked the sentence at the end, I did not know it
I don't think Mr. Davenport will forget the world we live in, I think he is just a spokesperson for those who want to "control" the rest of the world. It is no coincidence that many of his arguments coincide with those raised by Mr. Eugene Kaspersky, champion of the creation of a digital identity "passport" that has, of course, the support of his friend Vladimir Putin, "president" of all Russias and Kaspersky's former colleague in the KGB; Or is it also a coincidence? ...
a case Will we never be sure?
My opinion is rather gray ... stained by personal experiences, let's say more that I am against anonymity, that in favor, it seems good to me that each one identifies, it touches me sovereignly that all the self-conscious shielded in anonymity to throw shit at everything you come across ... and I see it very often in this world of free software ..
I am one of those who think that if you have balls to denigrate a person or project and insult via the internet, then you have to have balls to do it with your real name or profile, otherwise, you are just a coward, a dog that barks but does not bite, That is why anonymity seems to me one more excuse for all this cowardly sleeve (which in my opinion there are few). Why do I say gray? Because this for me goes beyond software, ethics is mixed, and even the economic model.
The first thing I am going to emphasize is that the concepts of liberty and debauchery must be very clear, for me the anonymity that raises is "the law of the jungle" or the also known "law of the strongest", with its consequent debauchery What do I mean? Let's start from the basis that I am one of those who think that human beings are not good by nature, I think they are violent and greedy, therefore if we leave them in total anonymity, I at least I would return paranoid, and only those who really know how to defend themselves on the Internet would be anonymous, the rest would simply be screwed and at the mercy of what the so-called "hackers" want to do with them, since there would be no condemnation since everything would remain in the Nothing, this would exponentially enhance the number of "computer criminals", it is clear that if we think that people act in good faith and ethics then this model would be ideal since for the good faith of people they would not do anything against others, HOWEVER, the theme of have a method of control over people, we fall into the other extreme .. who controls the controller ?, frankly I have no answer to this, and I don't think anyone does, someone who understands the matter would have to come up with something that allows equality for all.
On the other hand and more hooked on this last point .. it is not possible to "go around checking people because yes" ... the ideal situation would be anonymity but if you send yourself a shit there is something that allows you to be convicted, and that use only when you sent a shit (this is where ethics comes in ..)
And with regard to the economic part, I said it because we grew up in a society where sharing is frowned upon, where acquiring is synonymous with power, where money is synonymous with success, it is more than logical that we transfer all that to the field of software, in an environment of anonymity, many would be looking to steal bank accounts, other people's projects, etc., all to "be successful" or are they going to say no to me? Or they are going to tell me that in an anonymity environment, where you do what you do, simply don't they can fish, because "we are all anonymous" is not tempting? ...
Anonymity for me is like the unimputability of minors set at infinity, that is, those who are less than infinite years old are unimpeachable.
In any case, these are minor cases, of little relevance and nobody, no government or anything is going to worry about knowing who are those hackers, flamers, etc. that are hanging around the internet, since to know their true identity you should know your ip and ip is a code that only broadband companies know and I think it is secret, unless you have some political power you will not know.
On the other hand, you will not find true hackers so easy and they tend to be very specialized.
Regarding the method, the only almost completely democratic method was the agora of ancient Greece, but today it is impossible to carry it out, since there are millions of people in a country and not hundreds in a city-state. The problem with our method is that everything is very corrupt and we are content to be able to live and not be killed.
Anyway, your vision is very black, I don't know who raised you, but they taught me that it is good to share and solidarity, a lot of that is learned in the church, perhaps that is what you lack.
With regard to free software, it is supposed to be an idea of sharing and so far I have not seen anything to prove otherwise.
"With regard to method, the only almost completely democratic method was the agora of ancient Greece" Really? For your information, neither slaves nor women had the right to vote; In other words, everything is relative, even the paradigms that we supposedly know ...
Yes, I already knew that, but ignoring that, the system was almost completely democratic.
Stupidity is not linked to anonymity, on this same page you see people with a photo, name, surname and address of their blog who offend and slander people or groups. It is enough that they live in another country for their nonsense to go unpunished.
I suppose that the ideal is that those who are above that level, learn not to take what is read on the network as something personal, it is enough to know that a lie is worth nothing even if it is signed.
And when it comes to offenses, well, you don't have to be so "sensitive", nobody loses a single hair because they are offended, nor does they wake up with diarrhea the day after someone reminded them of their mother.
+100
"... who controls the controller?", I think that's the key. That is why I think it is easier (and possible) to defend yourself against hackers, trolls or haters than against states. What the former do, in general, constitute crimes from which at least, in theory, we are protected by the law, while the latter are those who make the laws at their convenience and for their own protection. It is very possible that states fail to protect us from the former but they will NEVER stop protecting themselves against us.
Charlie, I've seen you reproduce this same anti-state sentiment or idea several times. I tend to share it, to be honest with you. However, it seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in your argument. On the one hand you say that it is difficult to defend oneself from the states and on the other hand you say that as a safeguard of what hackers do, etc. there is the law (that is, the state). It does not close me. Where are we left: is the state good or bad? If it is a "necessary evil", as you say in another comment, and if that same state is the guarantor (in some societies, I am not saying in all) of certain basic freedoms, why not fight for greater regulation of some issues related to Internet? Be careful, when I talk about regulation I am not thinking about the State spying on you or restricting your freedom to express yourself, etc. but in laws that protect the privacy of users. The case of the European Union is paradigmatic: they forced Google to implement the "right to be forgotten."
http://www.lavoz.com.ar/ciudadanos/en-un-dia-google-recibio-12-mil-pedidos-por-derecho-al-olvido-en-europa
Hug! Paul.
What I mean is that at least, to defend ourselves against hackers, there are laws, which in the best of cases, are managed to be applied by the states, either in their interest or under pressure from some affected (banks, for example); In other words, the citizen can get some degree of protection, BUT when the citizen's problem is with the state, then IF we are well screwed, because in practice there are very few possibilities of obtaining protection, since most of the instances that must providing protection are, in one way or another, under the control of the state. And yes, you're right, my anti-state sentiment is very strong, almost as strong as the control that "my" state tries to exert over me. As for the dichotomy that you interpret in my comment between "good or bad states", just as a clarification, I think that there are 2 types of states: bad and worst ... 😉 It is possible that the misinterpretation of my comment is due to the loss of the context in which I did it, as it was a response to the comment of x11tete11x
However, I agree with you that laws are necessary to protect the privacy of citizens, but I only believe in them under two premises: that they be promoted and formulated by and from citizens and the second, that there is true independence of the judiciary to make them valid. The first of the premises is more feasible to achieve, precisely from the tools provided by the network to achieve citizen consensus on issues like that, but the second is VERY difficult, since the judicial powers, in one way or another, they are conditioned and respond more to the interests of governments than to the letter and spirit of the laws. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin a bit about the press and the government, I prefer a strong network and a weak government than the opposite.
And thanks for your article and comments, I think that promoting discussions of this type is very beneficial for everyone. A hug…
I disagree, it is as if someone was reading the mail they send to my house before it arrives, just to make sure that it is not in something that could affect society.
In addition, although the internet allows many things, it is not physical, you cannot blame someone for doing anything on the internet, only if they do it in real life, except for piracy.
By the way, WordPress is not anonymous and we use it, so you can be anonymous on the internet, but rejecting any page that does not promote anonymity, you would be very limited.
As always, your opinion pieces give a lot to think about. In this case, despite Davenport's good arguments, I remain in the same line as Charlie Brown, why? because the risk will always be much greater when there is no anonymity, when the situation becomes an Orwell 1984, and it is that with the rise of communications, interconnection at all times and with all devices, the latent power that has the network for surveillance is practically unlimited, I understand what he calls identification in terms of accountability, but the fault (from my point of view) of Davenport is that it judges everything from the criminal side if it can be called that of the citizen on foot, and forget his great counterpart, what happens when the "criminal" ceases to be the citizen, when in reality it is the state, or a large company? When are there no limits on the information that can be obtained from people even without their consent? Who regulates when it is sufficient to ensure "respect for the law"? Precisely that anonymity allows respect for freedom of expression, to think differently without risk of reprisals, to guarantee the opposition. Of course, this anonymity does not justify the illegality, but the problem is the same again, the illegality of whom, of the guarded or the vigilante?
Although it may seem to some that the argument of "Minority Report" is far-fetched, know that in my country there is a law that can put you in jail for the "crime" of Pre-criminal Dangerousness, something like "... You have not yet committed a crime, but the way you go, at any moment you commit it, so you go to the bag just in case… »Needless to say, they can bind anyone when they feel like it.
I agree with Aqalb8. As Marilin Manson aptly put it, "fear sells." Fear sells you alarms, weapons, insurance, more alarms, bars, better bars. When fear dominates us, our rational part gives way: that is, we stop thinking clearly, rationally.
In many countries dying in a traffic accident is statistically more likely than dying in an attempted robbery. However, people deceived by the media (the same ones that promote violence) are more concerned about thefts. Fear overrode the rational. Let's imagine someone who goes out onto the street wearing a lightning vest. The probability of dying by lightning from a storm is very low. We will say that fear overrides that person from thinking clearly.
Regards. Peter.
You should see the movie "Bowling For Colombine", if you didn't see it, talk about those things.
Thank you. Manson's phrase is precisely from that excellent documentary film.
Regards. Peter
I have a dedicated server and on it I have a .onion page.
there I enjoy absolute freedom, and when I say absolute I mean ABSOLUTE
and I am totally anonymous there.
That guy works for the nsa. Regards.
Greetings to all and all. Very good article and very good debate.
My opinion is in line with that of x11tete11x. The human being is, as a species, the most deadly of predators. We are so fierce that we even attack, kill or subdue each other.
It would be very nice to think that all people have ethical values that help them behave correctly. It would also be very nice to think that if any of us had the power to do and undo at will, without fear of any consequence, we would not be corrupted by that power. But the history of humanity is full of cases in which some people brought to power to end the abuses of the powerful, end up, shortly after, committing the same abuses, sometimes even greater.
What if any of us could do what we wanted from the Internet? Could we resist such power without corrupting ourselves? Don't you think that if we could all be totally anonymous, the Internet would end up being a "Wild West" in which those who had better machines and more knowledge would end up subduing others?
My opinion about the human being may be very black and catastrophic, but if we review the history of humanity, the truth is that, personally, it does not give me much hope. Thank you and I hope I have not bothered or offended anyone.
And what would happen if someone had access to all your data, to see the photos of your girlfriend that you keep on your cell phone?
Listen and read your conversations?
What would prevent them from blackmailing you, or taking any kind of advantage, if that spying is one-sided?
Snowden aroused a great move in this regard (privacy, anonymity, etc.), but he himself, who leaked "gross" data (let me use the very Argentine term), and nevertheless asked that his identity be revealed to the important newspapers as " The Guardian and The Washington Post released Snowden's identity at his request, days after the leak. He explained his reasoning for renouncing anonymity as follows: "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."
But as Pablo said, privacy is not the same as anonymity.
Also each opinion will be very marked by having been a victim or perpetrator. I think that we must create awareness in the use that we give to what is called "free" on the Internet. Goolgle cannot give you anything "for free" when we know what only and only is spent on electricity consumption of a datacenter, no matter how small, knowing that there are other issues. It is raising awareness about how we use social networks, how we handle ourselves on the Internet in general. But the final decision is up to you, not someone else makes it for you, it is you who decides what to do with your data; and I know how difficult it is for any common user to take care of these things.
Another issue is the free will that the State of each country grants to the different companies, and that it allows it itself. Well, if she allows it to other companies, especially Internet providers (ISP).
A small and limited analysis, I think there are many things left out, and I do not want to make a will.
Greetings and hug.
PS: forgive the trust and the tuteo.
Wikipedia source.
The reason Snowden made his identity public is that in doing so he became a public figure, which is a fairly effective way of protecting against possible "accidental death"; well, with the uproar it created, the US government had a very difficult time organizing a "health modification" and convincing the world that it had nothing to do with it. Any former member of an intelligence organization of any state that reveals secrets knows perfectly well that he has two options: become a public figure and pray that his government does not dare to bear the political cost of killing him or seek protection in the "enemy camp. »; Obviously Snowden does not have a fool's hair and preferred to buy the 2 policies for peace of mind. But hey, if you want to believe that he did it out of courage or honesty and you are happy with that, well, nothing man, believe it and live happily ...
He could have made the material public from the purest anonymity, however he did not.
Was he foolish to reveal his identity?
Anyway, my happiness goes somewhere else. And this does not affect anything in my life, even if you look for the four legs of the cat and also the fifth, it does not affect me. This is just a comment, nothing more.
Greeting and hug.
What is most needed is privacy, not anonymity on the Internet, not snooping our emails or indexing our searches, at least not actively, that is what we really need.
Only suspects of a crime are monitored, so if they respected privacy, no anonymity would be necessary. Except extreme situations.
So is. I fully agree.
And who is going to be the guarantor that this is fulfilled? Who is going to typify what is criminally punishable?
It is one thing to give your data to the entity in charge of managing public data such as RENIEC and / or SUNAT in Peru, and another is for a company like Google to require you to use your real name to be on a social network such as Google+ (at least, Google's naming system has allowed to raise the level of pseudonyms that until now there is no on Facebook that even one can afford to create an alter-ego in said service). That is why I have loved Diaspora *, although I must admit that there are few women in this social network.
On the side of the concept of anonymity and private life, the first is used mainly for voting and debate, and the second is to keep the dignity of each person afloat.
What surprises me is that the people who supposedly know about these issues speak in such a confused way that one cannot understand, which even involves the promotion of ignorance in the popular imagination.
In addition, it is frustrating that even the NSA uses tactics used by the most mediocre media figures that exist in Latin America to continue misinforming and misrepresenting these concepts and thus not realizing the real problem that the network is in.
At the end of the day, it is too late to remove the MPAA from the W3C (thanks to them, Mozilla has been forced to implement the DRM system in Firefox).
It does not matter that the privacy policies allow them to do what they want with our information. It doesn't matter that they can keep it "forever." Who cares that they change them without notifying their users or having to accept them again? Your emails do not have to be private, they will see them too. Your photographs do not belong to you, you have given them to them and they can do whatever they want with them.
But don't worry. It's for our safety. It is for the greater good, YOUR greater good. It has almost nothing to do with them taking millions out of our data to monitor us. It does not matter that it is not even our own government, but the US government, which is dedicated to managing all this information. Lest we become Terrorists if they are not watching what we do at all times.
They have sold you the story, and you have believed it. Do you think that if data were stolen from your computer, they would worry about recovering it? This is not for our safety, they do it to make money, and to be safe. They could steal your computer, file a complaint and only return it if by chance they find it.
Internet + Microsoft + Apple + smartphones + Facebook make Stalin's dream come true. Or the dream of the control of individuals by the puppet governments of financial corporations. Davenport is a mere instrument in the service of creating pro-control ideology. Let's not be so stupid to justify control. There have always been sheep, now they are digital. The androids of tyranny dream of electric sheep ...
V for Vendetta !!!
Stalin's dream was simpler: "Disconnect all the networks, shoot the people of CERN and everyone who has an abacus is sent to a Gulag in Siberia ..."
With all due respect I will give my point of view:
I think that, if I have nothing to hide, why will I remain anonymous? … I am not in favor of anonymity; I am consistent with my actions. Thank you!
With all the respect in the world. What an article that has been published ...
This type of argument in my town is called DEMAGOGY.
Compare modern societies with democracy ...
Democracy, democracy, democracy ... And more democracy ... When everyone knows that this is not democracy, if not capitalism.
Oh my ...
I think governments (and the multinational companies behind them) seek to restrict freedoms. Our freedom. And the excuses are more or less the usual ones: for our good and to fight the bad guys. With the excuse of terrorism, today rights and freedom have been cut in the US. With that same excuse the US invades countries to loot them.
I am against restricting rights and freedom on the internet. But I also recognize that the advancement of technology outpaced internet legislation. What is missing is to legislate on the internet. And that does not imply restricting rights or freedom. It implies that new forms of crime are recognized and punished. Because trespassing on someone else's computer is a crime. And it must be sanctioned. Nor can everything be a ticket where they can get into our computers to steal, use us, etc. It is different to say that anonymity must be prevented and the right to privacy curtailed.
Regards. Peter.
Anonymity is a necessary duty for this small reason, corporations are in control of our lives.
Everything is an intelligent design, in the world everything is a LIE, and you decide which lies to believe: http://gutl.jovenclub.cu/asegurando-linux-al-maximo
Free will is all I have to say
Free will does not mean doing what I want.
In the words of Saint John Paul II, "Freedom does not consist in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we should."
Hello! Goodnight
I will try to explain in a few words what I think without going into details of what the words mean in language.
Justice was always there, even before there was a computer and they were dedicated to searching investigating the "facts", they were times when the presumption of the facts was innocent until the investigation of "the facts" prove otherwise.
Today they want us to believe that the presumption of innocence is that we are guilty until the facts prove otherwise.
Stop and think about the implications of this matter, declare anyone guilty until proven otherwise.
This is what any totalitarian government wants or not, to be able to scare those who think differently or those who have evidence to bring those public officials to trial because they are precisely the cursed ones.
I am totally in favor of anonymity, I am a good person, I know it and that is enough for me, I do not need others to find out if I am a good person "I am according to me", if I get off the rails then with facts and verifiable evidence. that they prosecute me and even condemn me if necessary ... it's their job
for that we pay their salary ... not to forget, they are our employees.
Dear, a single correction.
"Freedom of expression" is not a "democratic" value, it is a "republican" value. Democracy is a mere mechanism for the election of authorities, and today there are several "democracies" in which freedom of expression is a euphemism that costs you jail.
Freedom of expression can only occur in a system in which the judiciary is totally independent from the executive, which is normally the target of the citizen's tirades.
It does not work in countries where their officials declare that "whoever wins an election, does what he wants." Of course, well shielded in privileges that allow them to do and say what they want.
The word "democracy" has been bastardized and prostituted to such a degree that a one-party regime like China is considered a democracy because they regularly run for elections.
A monarchical society like the English one is freer, where one can publicly insult the queen, on the condition that he does not step on English soil, that is, on a bench.
To say that anonymity is a tool for illegality is to divert the subject as the system always does. The crime is due to lack of education and equity in the world, and that lack of education and equity is promoted by those who have power (who are the millionaire minority) and do not want it to change. One of its tools is fear, "you have to be afraid of crime that can easily be caused by anonymity."
PS: I had to leave my name and email to post 😛
"The crime is due to lack of education and equity in the world"
On the part of education, 'tamo' agreed.
On the part of "fairness" ... from there to the thinking of the abolitionists of criminal law, there is a step.
It is to reduce human dignity to a mere economic factor: "Crime exists because of the symbolic violence exercised by the capitalist system, because of the irreconcilable differences between those it has and those that do not."
If that were the case, there would be no criminals like the 35 who are imprisoned in Venice today.
this page and this note are great.
(Let's see if they don't delete me now)
My opinion about anonymity is that you can choose to be a rude person who uses bad words or it can also be a person with principles and morality in that aspect one is free to choose is the good thing about being anonymity.
In my case I like to be a good person who does not like to say bad words to other people but it is good to remember that there are always other people who are the opposite of being good hahaha anonymity is always useful you just have to use it correctly 🙂
Those with power are surely powerful enough (worth the redundancy) to pay for anonymity, if they deem it appropriate. Anyway, the measures against anonymity ... who decided?