No more anonymity on the internet

[Sam998]

So as seen in this article we may see that in the future, our posts will show more than our username, but who we actually are.

 

What do you think?

 

I am leaning towards it being a bad idea. Sure it can solve the occasional big problems (big crimes on the internet) but it would be a hassle for the common small problems (starting a clean slate.) Furthermore, I like to keep a lot of me online away from me in the real world.

 

[The-King]

So, I take it you know absolutely nothing about Cracked.

[Sam998]

I do. I'm a frequent reader. The topic is still open for debate though.

 

It's like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, they're funny but they are still informative sometimes.

[sivispacem]

The internet has never been anonymous. Anyone who think it has been is sadly deluded. Everything you see type on these forums can be attributed to a real-life person with a minimal amount of time and effort.

[Matty]

Publicizing the internet would be a very bad idea, period. I enjoy being anonymous on websites such as this one and like you (Sam); I like to keep my internet life and real-life separate--does this make me a bad person? Absolutely not. This is a case where idiots will ultimately ruin the internet for everyone else, in my opinion.

 

The internet has never been anonymous, sure--because I am sure that there are government agencies who watch over what people do online, not to mention ISP providers, too. But to the common person viewing this forum, I would be considered anonymous as I am not using my real name on this forum.

Edited July 3, 2011 by DTUMan

[sivispacem]

Publicizing the internet would be a very bad idea, period. I enjoy being anonymous on websites such as this one and like you (Sam); I like to keep my internet life and real-life separate--does this make me a bad person? Absolutely not. This is a case where idiots will ultimately ruin the internet for everyone else, in my opinion.

 

The internet has never been anonymous, sure--because I am sure that there are government agencies who watch over what people do online, not to mention ISP providers, too. But to the common person viewing this forum, I would be considered anonymous as I am not using my real name on this forum.

It doesn't matter about names or the suchlike. For what it's worth, government agencies have neither the time nor the manpower to spy on their citizens. That said, the fact that every single thing you enter is affiliated with your computer, IP address, ISP and physical address means that it's very easy to trace where and from who comments are coming, given the right equipment. If someone did want to find out the details of an individual, and, say, track their internet usage over a set period of time, it would be incredibly easy to do so given right hardware and software. Doesn't mean anyone's tracking you right now, but means that in theory someone could with little difficulty.

[Sam998]

Sivis you are correct, but not very many people take the time to do that. However if my real name was at the top of all my posts everywhere on the internet or something, than it would remove the need to do that thus making the knowledge more widespread.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Publicizing the internet would be a very bad idea, period. I enjoy being anonymous on websites such as this one and like you (Sam); I like to keep my internet life and real-life separate--does this make me a bad person? Absolutely not. This is a case where idiots will ultimately ruin the internet for everyone else, in my opinion.

 

The internet has never been anonymous, sure--because I am sure that there are government agencies who watch over what people do online, not to mention ISP providers, too. But to the common person viewing this forum, I would be considered anonymous as I am not using my real name on this forum.

It doesn't matter about names or the suchlike. For what it's worth, government agencies have neither the time nor the manpower to spy on their citizens. That said, the fact that every single thing you enter is affiliated with your computer, IP address, ISP and physical address means that it's very easy to trace where and from who comments are coming, given the right equipment. If someone did want to find out the details of an individual, and, say, track their internet usage over a set period of time, it would be incredibly easy to do so given right hardware and software. Doesn't mean anyone's tracking you right now, but means that in theory someone could with little difficulty.

Eh, close but that's wrong. Our government spends alot more time then you'd think scanning through everything everyone does on the internet.

 

An article recently came out how NSA gathers more than the amount of information the Library of Congress holds- Every 6 Hours on what people do on the internet..

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2...ibrary-congress

 

It's rather pathetic to see our own government feel the need to be that intrusive on their own citizens.

 

 

I personally though find facebook as a smooth transition into this whole internet ID thing.

 

Just look at any major website you goto.. "follow us on facebook, like us on facebook.."

 

Alot of websites are now weaving facebook as an account you can use internet-wide. "log into IGN with facebook, log into popsci with facebook even logging into myspace with facebook" ect

 

Before you know it Obamas going to be telling us that we must require all internet users to have an online account 'for our safety and security from terrorists' or some other bullsh*t. It's a joke and people need to realize how useless and how easily abused this can be.

[Vanzant]

I have had the Nick "Vanzant" since 1999. I never used my real first or last name on anything Internet related. My birthday is incorrect as is my location. Not even on Facebook do I use my real name, I use Daniel Vanzant for that and even slapped it on my pre-paid credit card which I use to purchase things online if I want. It seemed silly to most people why I kept this up so long but look at how many dumb ass dipsh*ts get fired from their job because they are so f*cking stupid they add their Boss to their facebook account and get questioned about the content they present.

 

If it came down it being mandatory to provide "evident identification" over the Internet, I'd just stop using it. No sh*t. I'd spend that god damn money I give to my ISP on strippers instead.

[sivispacem]

Eh, close but that's wrong. Our government spends alot more time then you'd think scanning through everything everyone does on the internet.

 

An article recently came out how NSA gathers more than the amount of information the Library of Congress holds- Every 6 Hours on what people do on the internet..

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2...ibrary-congress

...There's a massive difference between gathering information and using intelligence. All intelligence agencies gather a huge quantity more data than they can ever use. If, for instance, you'd actually bothered to read the very article you posted, you would have seen the comments from the director of RAND indicating that the agencies are collecting far more data than they could ever feasibly use- that stands to reason when you compare the size of the NSA as an organisation to the sheer quantity of data that they're collecting. If you're going to use something to support an argument, at least check it supports what your saying before you post it.

 

Plus, the NSA has no powers of operation inside the borders of the US. So they aren't spying on US citizens, they're spying on foreign ones. Yeah, trying to use an article on a US foreign intelligence agency to justify a case about intrusions into the private matters of ones own citizens is utterly illogical. In fact, it's so completely nonsensical I can't even think of an amusing and slightly patronising analogy to relate it to.

[blitz]

I don't trust Cracked, at all.

Anyways, if this did happen, child molesters would be all over the internet and more crimes and stuff would happen, but at the same time we'd be able to track down these child molesters as we have their information.

 

[Sam998]

@Sivispacem, the government collects info, but average people don't. I think that average people always knowing who you are on whatever site you go on would be worse than some random person at some government agency that you will probably never talk to.

[sivispacem]

 

@Sivispacem, the government collects info, but average people don't. I think that average people always knowing who you are on whatever site you go on would be worse than some random person at some government agency that you will probably never talk to.

As usual, you've totally missed the point. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying that the government doesn't collect information about internet usage. The point I'm making is twofold:

 

1) No intelligence agency can analyse much more than 1/50th of what they collect. The collection of data is so easy its absurd- data mining is a huge business but, apart from surveying and trend monitoring, it's basically useless. And despite the figures banded around by Grandmaster Smith seeming incredibly large, by what measure are they comparible? The "library of congress" comparison makes sense if your talking raw text, but that's not hard. I easily type 200, 300 words per post, with on average about 9-10 posts per day on this forum alone. Assuming 50% of the population do the same as me, you've got a truly gargantuan quantity of data, considering the average book is around 100,000 words.

 

2) The post regarding this kind of data mining made by GMS is rendered completely null and void by the fact that it is the NSA who are collecting them. Now, anyone who has even the vaguest understanding of the US intelligence services (rather than basing their knowledge on the ill-informed ramblings of the gutter press and tin-foil-hat nutjobs) knows that the NSA are a foreign intelligence agency, similar in their operation to GCHQ in the UK, and therefore have no mandate to conduct surveillance against US citizens living inside the borders of the US. It is their role to intercept both militay and civil communications from powers considered to be the enemies or at least the rivals of the US. They do not have the mandate nor the capacity to spy on US citizens.

Edited July 4, 2011 by sivispacem

[sJay420]

Those raised in the era of the internet (1990's) and born before the 90's always used nicknames, callsigns, etc - were taught not to use their real information. In this day and age kids get on facebook and put their real names, pictures, and family life out to the public.

 

I find this hilarious, anyone stupid enough to put their real name and picture on a public profile deserves whatever happens to them.

 

As for the actuality of it all, yeah, if 'someone' needs to find you they can traceroute your IP and if they are good enough they can find out your info through your ISP. Now'a'days people don't have to do this because idiots just give out their information to the public.

[Straznicy]

My attitude to anonymity has always been that anyone who truly wants to find you or collect information about will do so regardless of your efforts to stop them doing so; like sivis says, with some investment it's not all that difficult. Therefore, I'm not particularly reluctant to share my details - depending on the site of course. A five minute glance through my Facebook and you could probably pinpoint my exact location and where I will likely be in the near future.

 

However, I don't support any notion of the ilk touched upon in the Cracked article. There's plenty of things I do online that I wouldn't want my friends or family knowing about, not because they're illegal or anything, but I just like having my privacy. Like someone already mentioned, Facebook seems to be coming to serve this function somewhat already, but given the controversy they have already stirred up I doubt we're going to see much further transgression. Hopefully, anyway. Money talks.

 

In all honesty, I am more concerned by the looming threat of internet censorship.

 

 

[leik oh em jeez!]

Those raised in the era of the internet (1990's) and born before the 90's always used nicknames, callsigns, etc - were taught not to use their real information. In this day and age kids get on facebook and put their real names, pictures, and family life out to the public.

 

I find this hilarious, anyone stupid enough to put their real name and picture on a public profile deserves whatever happens to them.

 

As for the actuality of it all, yeah, if 'someone' needs to find you they can traceroute your IP and if they are good enough they can find out your info through your ISP. Now'a'days people don't have to do this because idiots just give out their information to the public.

lol, all it does is show that you exist. It's like a phone book with pictures.

[CheesyJ]

I would much rather remain anonymous when it comes to this sort of thing.

[K^2]

If you post on an open network, you are not anonymous. Period. It's been covered pretty well. And you don't need to have any special access to find somebody. If you know a few things about networking and don't mind doing some leg work, you can get anyone's IP, and then track it to a physical location.

 

On the other hand, if you have some reason to be anonymous, or simply feel better that way, as long as open network exists, you'll be able to do it. Just use a nice, secure onion network. Nothing is perfectly secure, but these things are as close as it gets. Take a look at Tor or I2P for example. Both networks are used in places like China, where staying anonymous is sometimes very important. With that in mind, anything the government does is irrelevant. As long as there is internet, there will be secure, anonymous ways to access it.

[sivispacem]

On the other hand, if you have some reason to be anonymous, or simply feel better that way, as long as open network exists, you'll be able to do it. Just use a nice, secure onion network. Nothing is perfectly secure, but these things are as close as it gets. Take a look at Tor or I2P for example. Both networks are used in places like China, where staying anonymous is sometimes very important. With that in mind, anything the government does is irrelevant. As long as there is internet, there will be secure, anonymous ways to access it.

Can I just ask- even with systems like Tor, are those posting truly anonymous? To me, the idea of true anonymity means that not only are determining features such as their location not available immediately, but they are impossible to discover with any level of accuracy. Is that really every the case?

[K^2]

No system is ever 100% secure. Onion networks can be compromised if large fraction of nodes on the network are controlled by attacker. Short of that, however, both Tor and I2P are sufficiently secure. There are ways of identifying servers, but not regular users.

[sivispacem]

No system is ever 100% secure. Onion networks can be compromised if large fraction of nodes on the network are controlled by attacker. Short of that, however, both Tor and I2P are sufficiently secure. There are ways of identifying servers, but not regular users.

How about through the data they transmit? Even the greatest level of security can be compromised by someone doing something like entering the username and password for an email account that lists their name and address, or to their facebook profile.

 

I guess the point I'm making is that no matter how secure the system people are using, the weak point will be the data they enter into it.

[K^2]

All of the data on an onion network is transmitted encrypted. Each "layer" of the onion represents a public-key encrypted tunnel. So someone sniffing the data won't give them anything useful. On the other hand, if you go to a forum and post that you are John Doe living on 123 Central Street of Some City, yeah, no amount of network security will help you.

 

The idea of an onion network is that communication is kept private. Only you and recipient can read contents, and neither knows where the other is physically located. Some nodes in between might have your IP, but they cannot identify you on the network or read any of your messages. That's all the security you can ask of the network. The rest is up to you to not do anything stupid.

[Otter]

Hmm. Interesting, dds - but I reckon you could use the same arguments to suggest that 'anonymity' as a concept can never truly exist. Because, yes, information always does come from somewhere. Someone. Something. Not just 'anonymity' over the web.

 

I guess the real question is - why should we seek or pursue anonymity in the first place? I think you'll find that, for every case where one would wish to remain anonymous, that is a way to sufficiently do so. Within the realm of success of a condom. And you can always double bag it.

[DannyBee]

The good and bad things about the internet is that people can have free speech and do not have to disclose personal information, if we take those away then it's just another thing lost and it will tuen the web much more personal. Some people use the internet to get away from all that in the first place, to explain how they really feel

[K^2]

I think you'll find that, for every case where one would wish to remain anonymous, that is a way to sufficiently do so. Within the realm of success of a condom. And you can always double bag it.

That's a nice way of putting it. And it applies to any kind of security in general.