Posted on by Christopher Carfi

Anonymity Is Required

In the context of the Gizmodo social hack, Seth writes:

"Anonymity is the enemy, whether it’s online or walking around a trade show with a clicker in your pocket."

I vehemently disagree with Seth’s statement.  Here’s why.

Seth’s viewpoint of "anonymity is the enemy" only works if one is secure: physically, financially and emotionally.  Unfortunately, there are still many, many people in the world where that is not the case.  Here are three:

  • Whistleblowers
  • Political Dissidents
  • Victims of violent or family crime

For any of those groups, anonymity is the means through which they can effect change.

In some cases, for those groups, anonymity is the thing that’s keeping them alive, literally.  On that note, I want to make a shout out to the TOR Project.  The TOR site says:

"Hundreds of thousands of people around the world use Tor for a
wide variety of reasons: journalists and
bloggers, human rights workers, law enforcement officers, soldiers,
corporations, citizens of repressive regimes, and just ordinary
citizens. See the Who Uses Tor? page for
examples of typical Tor users.
See the overview page for a
more detailed explanation of what Tor does, why this diversity of
users is important, and how Tor works."

What Gizmodo did was a social hack, not unlike a flashmob or Santarchy. 

It was not a crime, as Seth called it. 

If someone turning off a TV is a crime to get up in arms about where you live, consider yourself very, very fortunate.

11 Replies to “Anonymity Is Required”

  1. Thanks for reading, but I thing there’s a distinction to be made here.

    None of the people you list (all of whom I root for every single day) has ever once benefited from the anonymity of wikipedia postings, the anonymity of computer cracking, the anonymity of spam or comments. Not one of them.

    Freedom and responsibility go together hand in hand. Sites that deprive people of either are rarely useful. CES wouldn’t be a better event if you didn’t have to register to get in. And it’s not a better event if you can walk around doing social hacks. One seems ‘funny’. What are a hundred?

    I’m super lucky I live in a secure part of the world. It wouldn’t be better for me or for the oppressed if vandalism were permitted or even encouraged, would it?

  2. First off, I’m not going to rise to the bait in the hanging question at the end, as that’s not the issue.

    You say that “not one of the people you list has ever once benefitted from the anonymity of wikipedia postings, the anonymity of computer cracking, the anonymity of spam or comments. Not one of them.”

    Patently false.

    Example: Myannmar (Burma)
    http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/09/28/myanmar-internet-blocked/

    Freedom and responsibility DO go together hand-in-hand. As does self-reliance. There are always arms races, in technology, in nature, in evolution. Do you leave your WiFi network at home “open?” Why or why not? It should be a personal choice.

    If there is a vulnerability to be exploited, someone may choose to do it. What happened at CES was using a well-known exploit, and, hell, even Scoble wrote about it here on January 2nd:
    http://scobleizer.com/2007/01/02/ces-warning-watch-for-people-turning-off-tvs/

  3. here here – that is exactly what I told the editor of wired magazine. You don’t need Anonymity – you don’t control anyone’s life or livelihood. You need dual transparency for a productive conversation. Accountability helps with the jackasses.

    I applaud Giz for being transparent about it. It’s the only way a prank like that should be done. It is social commentary. Any of us that go to conventions often get overloaded… booth vendors should pay attention to the commentary being made.

    When you add in the danger factor – anonymity becomes a very different game. You don’t have flame wars – you have discussion. Tis a crucial contextual shift and it automatically severely changes the tone of discussion. That social control factor of shame is no longer needed.

    and yea for promoting TOR.

    and on the wikipedia comment – wow talk about not having done your research first? Ask Jimmy about some of the debates on the non-english wikipedias in conflict torn arenas and how well they have gone…

    Some of it will be in his new documentary they are filming.

  4. Some good points, thanks.

    I’ll grant you the wikipedia point, I was too strong. It’s interesting to note that I spent most of the day with Jimmy on Wednesday, and mostly we talked about how wikia search can’t possibly work if there’s anonymity, and talked about how hard it is to create a useful anonymous wiki on a topic in which people likely have conflict of interest. Yet another example of where it interferes. If I look at the million best articles on Wikipedia (in English, the only language I speak), I wonder how many actually helped the downtrodden. What if we spent that effort creating a site that really and truly helps the downtrodden who have a need to be anonymous? Not sure how allowing, say, a mortgage broker to be anonymous is useful. But what do I know.

    As for vandalism, perhaps we could all agree that someone marching through an art gallery with an erasable marker writing graffiti (hey, all you have to do is wash it off!) is a vandal. Silona’s (real name?) comment that the Giz ‘prank’ was a social commentary about overloading consumers and that vendors should take notice is so forced it doesn’t really deserve rebuke. If you think CES has too many monitors and too many products, don’t go. Wrecking it for the vendors and the others who spent a fortune is juvenile vandalism.

  5. Yes, Silona is Silona’s real name. More here: http://tinyurl.com/28hp4b and http://leagueoftechnicalvoters.org/ .

    I’m still not entirely sure how we got to the “vandalism” topic, as the point of this post was around online anonymity and its importance in the defense of civil society. If someone wants to tackle the vandalism issue elsewhere, please feel free. The Nevada Revised Statutes for Malicious Mischief are here: http://tinyurl.com/yodeb4

    Yes, it is difficult to create an anonymous wiki on a topic where people are likely to have a conflict of interest. In that case, one approach is to have a wiki page set up for each major viewpoint, and allow individuals to self-select into their respective camps.

    But let’s go back to the central and larger point: that without anonymity online, the opportunity for tyrannical behavior increases markedly. As long as stories like this

    Chinese Blogger Bludgeoned To Death
    http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=113766

    and this

    Stories China’s media could not write
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7171648.stm

    exist, we *must* have anonymous communication as a tool that can be employed in order to effect change.

  6. Interesting discussion, but I wonder if (as is often the case) different rules apply in different settings? Or rather, I think I’d promote the idea that probably shouldn’t be a single rule that always applies.

    I think it is important to allow anonymity to be an option, but I (personally) do not think it is ever the *best* option.

    The dissidents we know by name protected themselves most strongly by becoming so well know as “name brand” dissidents that it became harder to take them out. Not that there weren’t assassinations, character murders, battles that dragged on to the point of self destruction, etc. But I think the people who’ve caused the most change have done it by being able to operate in the open, even when taking a terrible risk in the process. Lot’s of small victories have been won or aided by the anonymous tip… but the battles, and the wars, are usually fought by those who have a public face, no?

    I’ve always felt that if you do everything in your own name and claim all your acts (right or wrong) at least you can’t be nailed for the things you didn’t do. (“I couldn’t have committed that murder, officer… I was comatose on drugs in a brothel across town and I’d left my car upside down in a ditch, ummmm, well somewhere, let me know when you find it, wouldja? I need the heist money in the glove box for a poker game tonight.”)

    Just a thought.

  7. Seth, The irony of questioning whether or not Silona is my real name is not lost on me. A google search would have told you much about me since I am the top 40 links. And yes it is my given name. I am the only “Silona Bonewald” in the world. And since I have been on the net since 86, I learned early that privacy as secrecy is gone. I also started creating large Database systems for political campaigns in 88. I did targeted direct mail pieces on a neighborhood level in 92.

    Jimmy and I actually discussed my Open Source Social Network idea 2 or 3 years ago and how it could compliment things like search and spam. We hope the OSSN will be available soon to supplement Wikia Search. So um I’m the gal that hopes to contribute to what you mentioned earlier…

    http://www.podtech.net/home/4045/lunchmeet-jimmy-wales-on-a-transparent-federal-budget

    I just have to state again that I agree with Chris in that for some instances anonymity is required. My vote in a election – is a private thing. There are real dangers in this world. What I am exploring is that of authentication of identity while maintaining privacy. I had a wonderful discussion about this actually with the Kiwi govt since they have a system that does this. (See the prezo below – A more civilized country with privacy rights and all.)

    Though for the majority of us –
    I do think privacy as secrecy is gone. We need to start thinking of privacy as rights. The CIO of Iowa just quoted me on that after my prezo at ec3.org http://www.slideshare.net/silona/social-networks-and-government-application

    and sometimes – that right is anonymity. Well I’m tired and should sleep now.

    Seth – hope you come to SXSW – then maybe we can meet and discuss in person 🙂

  9. I’m currently working on a book about transparency and have done a great deal of research on the nature of anonymity online. One thing I’ve found in a lot of discussions around this subject is a quick focus on the extremes-how some dissidents, etc. using their real names would put them at risk (physical or otherwise).

    I don’t think anyone would slight a person in this position for not using their name online. We also probably would give an articulate, fact-heavy whistleblower license to not use their name knowing they were risking their livelihood.

    But what hasn’t been covered here as of yet is the nature of trolls/flamers using these extreme/specific examples as an excuse to remain anonymous and spread cowardly invective into legitimate conversations. This is the behavior I certainly believe has to stop immediately and shouldn’t be condoned. I’m all for having the right to say what you want when you want but stripped of the context of your name or at least a repeated handle, anonymity is simply a veil for churlish time-wasting.

    Another aspect to this conversation is the growth of services online that let you prove your online identity to others. I interviewed the founders of BeenVerified.com in this regard and think this is an important aspect to the conversation in regards to transparency and anonymity. More and more there are ways to not only give credence to your words/argument by stating your name, but in proving your credentials by getting third party verification of them (as many lie/buff up their resumes with places like LinkedIn, for instance).

    Services like these often also allow you to keep your name hidden but state the basics of your career standing (“a VP in new media”). Anonymity in these instances could still provide a candor (benefit) for discussions while providing a context and credibility that typical, current online anonymity (flamers, etc) doesn’t have.

  10. Seth is right on in his condemnation of these punks.

    Have you seen the prices on renting a nice LCD panel at a trade show???

    This was not a political statement. It was not a free speech moment.

    A “social hack” – what is that? Is it like dropping a stink bomb? Is it victimless?

    It WAS vandalism, plain and simple. And vandalism is actually a crime.

    Last I checked, those monitors and TVs were paid for by vendors paying to display at CES. These vendors were plying their trade, promoting their business.

    Can you imagine if these jerks had gone into The Forum Shops at Ceasars and covered up all the advertising? or facades? And then tried to giggle about it! Saying it was a “social hack”. Las Vegas’s finest would have led them away in handcuffs.

    This reminds me of a kid who comes upon a game of kickball, but he doesn’t like the rules. SO, first chance he gets he kicks the ball over the fence/takes it away/ you catch my drift.

    Grow up.

    On the anonymity angle – can we get these punks names and go viral so we know who to shun.

    And let’s not use THIS episode for the better discussion on anonymity. There are so many others.

  11. Again, the point of this post was to disagree with the statement “anonymity is the enemy.” it was not to have a conversation about whether or not this was “vandalism.”

    >can we get these punks names
    The act was not done anonymously. Google “CES TV prank”
    Five seconds of research would give you the information you wonder about.

Comments are closed.