Should anonymous posting be disallowed?

[Skeptic]

You bet . The ISP's know exactly who you are, since you pay them. And they do carefully track where you browse too, even if you browse with privacy enabled. They also track your inbound connections, blocking or throttling them jusy as they please. Not to mention they keep those records and willingly hand them over to "associated companies" as well as, when requested, to local, state, and federal agencies.

 

The newest kick is adding Phone and Security to their TV and Internet bundles. Now they know when you are home too, as well as your phone records.

 

Privacy? In your dreams. Unless of course, you have these services and never ever use them.

Things are not so black-and-white.

 

Maybe it's legal in the US, but it would be massively illegal for an ISP to track your browsing habits and sell the data to other companies here.

Obviously law enforcement requests are a different matter, but those require a warrant.

 

It's one thing for your ISP to know what your connection is being used for, it's another thing to have advertisers like Google or sites like Facebook tracking your browsing habits - especially when you consider what other data Facebook probably has about you already.

 

And why should people on an internet forum need to know who you are?

If the forum uses Facebook to "verify" that, think of what other information is now linked to the forum account.

 

 

I seem to remember a website a while back that was shown as a proof of concept, which automatically searched on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter for when people who have posted location information previously (often inadvertently with geotagged photos) and posts saying that they were on vacation.

Link that with a website like this, and thieves now have information on where to get some high value audio equipment.

 

For that matter, there are images which have been posted in this topic which include people's real names and location data, and that's without even being linked to a social media account or posting under their real names.

[The Computer Audiophile]

You bet . The ISP's know exactly who you are, since you pay them. And they do carefully track where you browse too, even if you browse with privacy enabled. They also track your inbound connections, blocking or throttling them jusy as they please. Not to mention they keep those records and willingly hand them over to "associated companies" as well as, when requested, to local, state, and federal agencies.

 

The newest kick is adding Phone and Security to their TV and Internet bundles. Now they know when you are home too, as well as your phone records.

 

Privacy? In your dreams. Unless of course, you have these services and never ever use them.

ISPs are the scariest when it comes to knowing everything about users. So far they've escaped the public scrutiny that people are giving Google and other search engines. ISPs know everything we do online. Google knows a portion of everything we do online.

[Paul R]

Things are not so black-and-white.

 

Maybe it's legal in the US, but it would be massively illegal for an ISP to track your browsing habits and sell the data to other companies here.

Obviously law enforcement requests are a different matter, but those require a warrant.

 

It's one thing for your ISP to know what your connection is being used for, it's another thing to have advertisers like Google or sites like Facebook tracking your browsing habits - especially when you consider what other data Facebook probably has about you already.

 

And why should people on an internet forum need to know who you are?

If the forum uses Facebook to "verify" that, think of what other information is now linked to the forum account.

 

 

I seem to remember a website a while back that was shown as a proof of concept, which automatically searched on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter for when people who have posted location information previously (often inadvertently with geotagged photos) and posts saying that they were on vacation.

Link that with a website like this, and thieves now have information on where to get some high value audio equipment.

 

For that matter, there are images which have been posted in this topic which include people's real names and location data, and that's without even being linked to a social media account or posting under their real names.

 

 

Not since about March of 2006 - ever hear of the EU Data Retention Directive? That not only authorized but *required* EU telecomm companies, including ISPs to retain call records, browsing records, and such for between six months and two years. The directive was validated in 2011, being found to be "very useful." It was also found to have some serious complaints, all of which, so far as I know, revolved around the *cost* of maintaining the data to ISPs and telecom companies. Not much was said about privacy.

 

By the way, I paraphrase, but the purpose of the directive was to enable identifying the source, destination, and location of communications. That boils down to knowing who you are, who you communicated with, and where you were when you communicated. What you said rather easily follows from that in many cases.

 

I would contend that by using one's real name, one is les subject to being mistaken for some creep who is saying things and trying to make it appear they are someone else, just by using a nickname. That happens a lot.

 

So, yes, there are reasons why it makes sense to use your real name in a forum. I do believe the worry about thieves is a bit overblown for most of us, though possibly not for all. If I had a half million dollars of audio gear in the house, I would be more circumspect about it.

 

That is, indeed, one reason why I moved the vast majority of my computer equipment out of the house and into a secure 24x7 location, even though it costs me a fortune just in power. Some fool breaking in my house will not find much to take, no more than $20 cash, no particularly valuable pieces of art (just reproductions), and only a few computers, none of which are particularly valuable. Some not even particularly portable to be honest... They will find loud ringing alarms, flashing lights, some mean animals with teeth and claws, and a couple or three pissed off homeowners much more dangerous than the animals. The homeowners will be armed with much more than just teeth and claws. That isn't a challenge to thieves, it is just good sense. Here, where I live, to thieves it just says, "go on down the street and try some other house." I grant it is different in different locations.

 

 

-Paul

[Priaptor]

You need to get out more. The WSJ comment section requires people use their real name but that doesn't stop people from posting some of the most intolerant and frequently racist comments you can imagine. If things get out of hand on CA, Chris can always use his power as censor in chief.

 

RA,

 

Are you talking about the patronizing racist, xenophobic, misogynistic and intolerant letters written by liberals that the WSJ occasionally posts??

 

I agree, I find those incredibly offensive and am amazed that liberals are willing to put their names on that kind of stuff.

 

Funny, when a liberal like Harry Reid makes an outrageously racist comment supposedly supporting Obama during his run for President such as "'light-skinned' African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" the patronizing racist mainstream media refers to it as "racially insensitive", whereas when those "Biblical fundamentalist creationists and Teabaggers" as WGSCOTT so eloquently refers to them from his liberal California perch disagrees with Obama, they are saddled with your racist invectives.

 

Sincerely,

Publius

[Paul R]

Gentlemen - I support you should be able to express your political views - even or especially when I disagree with them. However, this invective is rapidly approaching a line we do not want to cross. P

 

Please tone it down several notches with the political invective. Or at least, try to make folks laugh a little if you just cannot stop yourself. See example below.

 

-Paul

 

RA,

 

Are you talking about the [redacted] letters written by liberals that the WSJ occasionally posts??

 

I agree, I find those incredibly offensive and am amazed that liberals are willing to put their names on that kind of stuff.

[Redacted]

 

 

Sincerely,

Publius

[Priaptor]

Gentlemen - I support you should be able to express your political views - even or especially when I disagree with them. However, this invective is rapidly approaching a line we do not want to cross. P

 

Please tone it down several notches with the political invective. Or at least, try to make folks laugh a little if you just cannot stop yourself. See example below.

 

-Paul

 

Paul,

 

I do appreciate all the efforts you impart to this forum, including now, trying to be the forum gestapo, but I believe it was RealAudio who brought up the letters to the WSJ, a predominantly conservative newspaper as being "racist and intolerant" and WSGOTT making denigrating remarks about those low hanging "Biblical fundamentalist creationists and Teabaggers" deserving of humiliation.

 

Personally, I am not sure why you guys continually bring up these topics instead of what this forum was meant to be, namely Computer Audio, but when you do, I am here to straighten you guys out.

 

Sincerely,

Publius.

[mav52]

ISPs are the scariest when it comes to knowing everything about users. So far they've escaped the public scrutiny that people are giving Google and other search engines. ISPs know everything we do online. Google knows a portion of everything we do online.

 

got that right, everything you do online is captured

 

Just do a search on your full name and the cities you have lived in, bingo there you are....

 

 

ps: Paul can't support you on this one... it's a 'no'

[Skeptic]

Not since about March of 2006 - ever hear of the EU Data Retention Directive? That not only authorized but *required* EU telecomm companies, including ISPs to retain call records, browsing records, and such for between six months and two years. The directive was validated in 2011, being found to be "very useful." It was also found to have some serious complaints, all of which, so far as I know, revolved around the *cost* of maintaining the data to ISPs and telecom companies. Not much was said about privacy.

Again; these are measures taken for law enforcement. It would not be legal for them to use this data for any other purpose.

 

Your ISP having this data is completely different from advertisers or other companies collecting this type of data and making a profile of you.

 

Just because my ISP knows who I am does not mean that I want everyone on CA or every website I browse to know who I am.

 

Just because some people freely surrender their privacy to companies like Facebook does not mean that everyone wants to.

 

So, yes, there are reasons why it makes sense to use your real name in a forum. I do believe the worry about thieves is a bit overblown for most of us, though possibly not for all. If I had a half million dollars of audio gear in the house, I would be more circumspect about it.

No, I don't think there are any good reasons for it. You are free to use your name if you wish, but there's no good reason anyone should have to.

 

If there are problems on the forum, that's where moderators step in. A name doesn't change that.

[Paul R]

Deal Priaptor, whomever you may be -

 

Why don't you define "forum gestapo" for the rest of us?

 

-Paul

 

 

Paul,

 

I do appreciate all the efforts you impart to this forum, including now, trying to be the forum gestapo, but I believe it was RealAudio who brought up the letters to the WSJ, a predominantly conservative newspaper as being "racist and intolerant" and WSGOTT making denigrating remarks about those low hanging "Biblical fundamentalist creationists and Teabaggers" deserving of humiliation.

 

Personally, I am not sure why you guys continually bring up these topics instead of what this forum was meant to be, namely Computer Audio, but when you do, I am here to straighten you guys out.

 

Sincerely,

Publius.

[orgel]

… perhaps a compromise of using first names due to security concerns? And if your name is already taken perhaps your first name followed by a number. If we get another Teresa, that would be Teresa2. What do you think?

 

Not sure what problem this solves, unless you want to ensure that everyone has more "conventional" handles. If I'm David327, I'm only nominally less anonymous than if I'm spaceghost.

 

--David (327)

[Priaptor]

Deal Priaptor, whomever you may be -

 

Why don't you define "forum gestapo" for the rest of us?

 

-Paul

 

Dear Paul,

 

Whoever you are, I think it is quite obvious. You believe, as you have expressed on this particular thread as well as other such threads, some entitlement to determine what should or should not be tolerated, what is or is not in good taste, what should or should not be expressed or discussed. Those are totalitarian viewpoints of a Gestapo mentality.

 

Your selective "tolerance" speaks for itself.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Sincerely

Publius

[Guidof]

From a famous The New Yorker cartoon:

 

Dog sitting on chair and typing in front of computer, to dog sitting on floor and looking bewildered: "On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog."

[Paul R]

Dear Priaptor -

 

I am whom my name says I am.

 

I see, you would appear to be opposed to anyone speaking their opinion if that opinion is not in agreement with yours. Is that what you mean by a "Gestapo Mentality?"

 

-Paul

 

Dear Paul,

 

Whoever you are, I think it is quite obvious. You believe, as you have expressed on this particular thread as well as other such threads, some entitlement to determine what should or should not be tolerated, what is or is not in good taste, what should or should not be expressed or discussed. Those are totalitarian viewpoints of a Gestapo mentality.

 

Your selective "tolerance" speaks for itself.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Sincerely

Publius

[Paul R]

From a famous The New Yorker cartoon:

 

Dog sitting on chair and typing in front of computer, to dog sitting on floor and looking bewildered: "On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog."

 

You never know where Dogbert is going to turn up...

[RealAudio]

Dear Paul,

 

Whoever you are, I think it is quite obvious. You believe, as you have expressed on this particular thread as well as other such threads, some entitlement to determine what should or should not be tolerated, what is or is not in good taste, what should or should not be expressed or discussed. Those are totalitarian viewpoints of a Gestapo mentality.

 

Your selective "tolerance" speaks for itself.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Sincerely

Publius

 

 

Give it a rest, don't you have a cable news outrage of the day story to yell at the television about.

[Paul R]

It is quite obvious that most people prefer anonymous handles when posting, and I can respect that here. Those of us who do not are free to use our true names of course. I'll shut up defending the subject, but reserve the right to revisit the issue in a few more years.

 

I admit, I find it to be most annoying when being sniped at by someone whose name I do not know, as I tend to adjudge the person on the other side rather harshly, usually for claiming competence that is not theirs. That may or may not be true for anyone else - YMMV!

[orgel]

It is quite obvious that most people prefer anonymous handles when posting, and I can respect that here.

 

I don't prefer an anonymous handle, I just think there's no good reason to disallow them. That's a useful distinction, I think.

 

I also think that with only one exception, this has been a pretty civil discussion on a potentially controversial issue, so that's progress!

 

--David

[gmgraves]

It's a free forum (or should be). I'm never in favor of curtailing free speech. This universally desired right is under enough pressure these days from the notion of "politically correct" speech here in the Western Democracies, to out and out denial of that right in totalitarian governments such as China, and North Korea, and religious oligarchies such as Iran and other Muslim-controlled societies. I would be against instituting such a policy as banning aliases from this or any internet forum. Freedom of speech is a fragile freedom and it's a lot like being pregnant, there is no such thing as being "sorta pregnant" one either is or one isn't, so it is with freedom of speech, if you curtail even a tiny area of one's ability to express themselves (like they've done in Canada, for instance where one's words, written or spoken must be measured against a law prohibiting "hate speech") then the idea of freedom of speech is dead. Canadians don't have freedom of speech any more. I suspect that there are other countries that have similar bans.

 

Having said that, however, I generally feel that people should be honest and forthright at all times, and post using their own, true identities. There may be legitimate reasons for posting under an assumed identity, but that's up to the individual to decide, not the management of CA.

[Priaptor]

Give it a rest, don't you have a cable news outrage of the day story to yell at the television about.

 

Ahh the "vision of the anointed". You guys make me laugh.

[realhifi]

Good poll, good discussion. Appears the nays have it.

[wgscott]

[Paul R]

It's a free forum (or should be). I'm never in favor of curtailing free speech. This universally desired right is under enough pressure these days from the notion of "politically correct" speech here in the Western Democracies, to out and out denial of that right in totalitarian governments such as China, and North Korea, and religious oligarchies such as Iran and other Muslim-controlled societies. I would be against instituting such a policy as banning aliases from this or any internet forum. Freedom of speech is a fragile freedom and it's a lot like being pregnant, there is no such thing as being "sorta pregnant" one either is or one isn't, so it is with freedom of speech, if you curtail even a tiny area of one's ability to express themselves (like they've done in Canada, for instance where one's words, written or spoken must be measured against a law prohibiting "hate speech") then the idea of freedom of speech is dead. Canadians don't have freedom of speech any more. I suspect that there are other countries that have similar bans.

 

Having said that, however, I generally feel that people should be honest and forthright at all times, and post using their own, true identities. There may be legitimate reasons for posting under an assumed identity, but that's up to the individual to decide, not the management of CA.

 

I am not sure that truly free speech has ever existed, anywhere. Certainly, someone else's right to say what they like does not imply I must *listen* to them shout at me.

 

This would make a really good topic to discuss in a thread of it's own George. Why don't you start one by repeating what you said above?

 

-Paul

[gmgraves]

I am not sure that truly free speech has ever existed, anywhere. Certainly, someone else's right to say what they like does not imply I must *listen* to them shout at me.

 

This would make a really good topic to discuss in a thread of it's own George. Why don't you start one by repeating what you said above?

 

-Paul

 

 

Well, I suspect that I have said my piece on this subject, and there is really nothing more to discuss other than a simple clarification of your above statement about other's right to say what they want, and your equal right to not listen to them.

 

That, is , of course, implied as part of the freedom of expression. If someone writes a book or article espousing philosophies or opinions that you either do not share or find offensive, it is your right to not read that book or article. Similarly, it is your right to ignore someone saying things you don't like. You can even counter with your take on the subject and even argue the subject to the point of coming to blows over it. What you cannot do, however is have the offending person arrested and prosecuted for what they say. If libel or slander are involved, you have the right to sue the offending party, but that's a civil matter, not a criminal one. And the oft used example to support the idea that true freedom of speech has never existed; the old saw about yelling Fire! in a crowded theater being illegal, is also a false example. This might seem to be a dubious distinction, but it is a distinction, nonetheless. When you yell fire! in a crowded theater, you won't be prosecuted for yelling fire!, you will be prosecuted for public endangerment. The same charge would be leveled at you for yelling gun! or rattlesnake! under the same circumstances. IOW, you have the right to to say the words, that's not the issue, it's the consequences of saying those words that you must be prepared to answer for.

[Allan F]

Personally, I am not sure why you guys continually bring up these topics instead of what this forum was meant to be, namely Computer Audio, but when you do, I am here to straighten you guys out.

 

Sincerely,

Publius.

 

And you are complaining about the "anointed"!!!

[gmgraves]

ISPs are the scariest when it comes to knowing everything about users. So far they've escaped the public scrutiny that people are giving Google and other search engines. ISPs know everything we do online. Google knows a portion of everything we do online.

 

 

What's more dangerous, your ISP knowing everything about you, or the NSA?