The beginning of the end of online anonymity?

reply to post by theyknowwhoyouare


While not a perfect solution, using the TOR browser ought to stop any "plaintiff's" in these actions dead in their tracks.

I very seriously doubt that any plaintiff and/or any local or state judges could force an agency like the NSA to "unmask" anyone for any civil action. It is not a trivial exercise to determine the identity of a TOR user and doing so would expose means & methods they absolutely do *not* want exposed. Hell they don't even want anyone to know they can do it at all.

I personally find trolls pathetic and tiresome, but to paraphrase - I will defend to the death their right to be a-holes...

reply to post by Riffrafter


I wonder if this line of thought could eventually lead to laws defining the use of TOR as illegal in it's own right?

If ID or some definite means of being ID'ed to activity some day becomes law, then using TOR would be a circumvention of law your ISP would be obligated to interfere with and prevent, then possibly report, if you kept bypassing. After all, the fact someone is using TOR can't be hidden and the first Entry node is known. It's what happens past that in the 'hyper-space' void of the Onion network that causes one to vanish into the ether.

That first step is very easily cut for most people, if knowing what is crossing the TOR connection becomes secondary to simply having one open as breaking the law.

Scary things we're seeing in some ways. Big Brother is getting bigger.

reply to post by bloodreviara

Well, looks like they argued under a broad definition of "defamation" and the judge agreed.

I wonder what the name was (anyone know)?

But in essence, its name calling.

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law.

So lets say you want to call someone a "name" and that person is a public figure, you may have just committed defamation.

First off, the media is in DEEP doo doo, which is GREAT. Some of their "articles" are nothing but personal attacks.

What I want to know is how in the hell can we discuss scum bag politicians without name calling!?

It looks like people will have to learn how to get their point across without personal attacks (crazy I know).

"President Obama is a jack hole". NO. NOT PERMITTED.

"By signing into law the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, President Obama has grossly undermined the protections afforded by the Constitution". ACCEPTABLE.

Wrabbit2000

For the average person tho? meh.... Anonymity is a laugh and ends at your ISP. If they won't give up your name by request, you're about that anonymous. If they will send your ID to a legal request....well, you're not that anonymous. Pretty simple, I'd say.

Well, I think it's been that way for a long time. I never took that for granted. Your ISP knows who you are if no one else does. As long as you're pretty much obeying the law, you don't have a lot to worry about. For now. If they get some kind of crazy laws against trolling, any and everyone is going to have to watch everything they say.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I will certainly agree that it's a very fluid area of the law right now. Hard to know just where the line will be from one court to the next or one year to the next. There have been some rather well known and high profile examples of copyright lawsuits filed from posted images as well, and it ran to really hurt some websites given the gotcha nature of how some went about doing it, then immediately filing suit for money. The courts recent put a pretty hard stop to that in precedent, as well as specific example out in Nevada.

I'm following whatever cases cross places like Courthouse News and the last year or two have certainly seen an increase in online libel and/or outright civil liability issues. New law is being born as we watch. Will it be a boy, girl or the devil incarnate?

/

reply to post by theyknowwhoyouare


I believe that online anonymity is important and should be preserved. In this case I don't agree. I did a quick investigation on a search engine. Apparently, according to the site linked below, he was called a "pedophile". The point is that the comment by "fbpdplt" could possibly damage the mans career. Also, his comment is defamation; there is no question about that(unless John Dougherty is a pedophile but that would be hard to prove). If I were a public figure known by the community I would not allow people on the street to call me a pedophile. I'd take appropriate legal action. Is this situation different because he was called a pedophile on the internet? How would you think if Dougherty lost his job due to that comment?

I find this to be a difficult situation for the courts. Sure, being called names on the internet is a common occurrence. Yet this man Dougherty does have a valid grievance. I doubt that judges enjoy presiding over these types of cases. The lines are blurred and there is no clear consensus.

I value the concept of online anonymity. The problem here is that anonymity is a luxury. A luxury that people take for granted and abuse. As with so many things before this common folk are being made to pay for the idiocy of the few. Personally that's what bothers me the most about this issue. Some damned fool can't keep his mouth shut and now one of the luxuries I enjoy is in danger of being taken away.

(www.phillymag.com...

You will always be anonymous if you stop using personaly identifiable details on the internet.

Oh boy, we get to find out which online persons are the NSA, et al, trying to manipulate data. Well, I can dream...

Internet anomimity certainly allows people to get away with making offensive and deframatory comments they would never normally make (or get away with)

Personally, though, the day I have to hide behind a false identity on the internet is the day I cease using it.

I'm me - and anyone can readily find out who I am. And probably where I live.

reply to post by My_Reality


That is how it begins. Find something justifiable in the eyes of most and milk it. I very much doubt a random bit of name calling would ruin someone's career. Next it will be the word "homo" bc that might ruin someone social status and marriage. Then it will be "pussy" bc god forbid people think he is a not macho. Then it will be "that person called me a criminal online" for politicians. Do you not see how these slippery slope laws are used by law makers? They take an inch here a foot there. A few years later people are wondering how far things have come when the only thing you are allowed to do online is shop and talk about the weather.


Play the tape through.

reply to post by Riffrafter


I have a healthy amount of skepticism for things like that. I believe the gov is far ahead of us out here in the real world technologically. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that they made tor and monitor it the most due to the fact that most people think its the safest and therefore use it to hide their activities. They probably have software that can monitor everyone using it and discretely go after those seen as a threat without anyone being the wiser. Remember, there is always more safety in numbers.

AndyMayhew
Internet anomimity certainly allows people to get away with making offensive and deframatory comments they would never normally make (or get away with)

To be honest, I don't think the ability to have a pseudonym online is what allows people to get away with outrageous behavior. You don't get away with outrageous behavior for very long if a lot of people start complaining to your ISP. Your ISP may not tell them who you are but they can and sometimes WILL shut you off if you're violating the TOS and people are complaining loudly enough. I've known it to happen.

What people DO get get away with online is petty insults and minor trolling.

As I said earlier in this thread, there have always been trolls and some of them have always been insane (and a few might have even been really scary) but I didn't start noticing the waves of really obnoxious trolling until free public wifi started becoming widespread.

There certainly probably are some trolls who are tech savvy enough to use their own ISP in their own home and be almost untraceable even to their own ISP. And then there are also probably some who just don't care and use their own ISP for trolling until if/when they get enough complaints and their ISP shuts them down.

But I tend to think the worst trolls are roaming around with laptops or whatever taking advantage of free or unsecured wifi. On a typical forum, for example, the admin can generally block your IP and it can be very difficult to get around that (on a sustained basis) even with something like TOR.

I'm not extremely tech savvy and I haven't tried it myself but I don't see how they could block the same person from going from one WIFI to another and signing up under different names. I highly suspect this is what many of the worst trolls are doing and that's why it's so hard to spot them. There could be one guy with ten names on the same forum and you might not ever know it if he was good at affecting different personalities.

Personally, though, the day I have to hide behind a false identity on the internet is the day I cease using it. I'm me - and anyone can readily find out who I am. And probably where I live.

Well, I just hope you never have to find out the hard way why people at least try to have SOME anonymity even if they aren't trolling. They are indeed hiding and in many cases, hiding is not a bad idea.

theyknowwhoyouare


That is how it begins. Find something justifiable in the eyes of most and milk it.

Absolutely. This is one of the most common techniques they use. They do it all the time. They do it so much that even when you know they do it, unless you're really sharp and constantly on the ball, you kind of get so used to it you have to really strain to notice it every time they do it.

This is how it is with all the control techniques, though. They find something that's very subtle and that works and they essentially build it into the routine to such an extent that even when you're aware of it, you have to pay close attention to every second of a news broadcast (for example) or you'll essentially "fall asleep" (fall prey to it).

Then it will be "that person called me a criminal online" for politicians. Do you not see how these slippery slope laws are used by law makers? They take an inch here a foot there. A few years later people are wondering how far things have come when the only thing you are allowed to do online is shop and talk about the weather.

Yeah. I pretty much never doubted this was a roundabout way of sneaking censorship. On the one hand, it might be really bad if someone's neighbor accused them of a crime just because they didn't like them. On the other, if you can't even imply that a public official might be a criminal, that could pretty much stop any scrutiny of the government in it's tracks.