anonmity ramblings
i was looking through some earlier entries (horror!) and
found myself often not really to be saying what i was truly
thinking. and sounding pretty dumb, which is ok i guess as
i shouldn't be trying to *impress* anybody. i think this
diary thing is for me not really the public anyway...
nonetheless, i think i might need to start taking a little
bit more time in writing these things as to not be
carelessly flinging out gross miscommunications for those
interested in accurate information to digest. for
instance, i stated that anonymity was the most important
right that we have !?! wth? s/anonymity/freespeech. just
wanted to clarify that in case anybody thought i was that
wacked out and needed professional help. however, privacy
is still an important right that i believe to be implicity
granted to us in our constitution... end rambling on that
subject, onto another
i'm actually quite surprised at the huge amount of interest
that people have shown in projects (like freent) that are
primarly devoted to the purpose of anonymity. do we really
have all that much to hide??? i think that i'm that all for
anonymity from the information consumers side of things.
companies do *not* have the intrinsic right to know
everything about me and the end of this road has mostly bad
endings like advertising maniuplation, blackmail, etc...
but 'm not so sold on the idea of the information producers
right to anonymity. turn off the lights and its amazing
what happens when people like us all (== unfortunetly evil
quite a bit imo) are involved. i'm very familiar with the
arguments of ian clarke et al. stating simply that "sticks
and stones can break my bones but information will never
hurt me/us". hmmm. i have to really think about this.
because information isn't traditional information anymore.
we're not in kansas anymore. we're no longer speaking of a
supposed heretic idea that everyone should have the right to
use their god given brain to evaluate. we're not talking
about knowledge. we're talking about fregin anything that
can be represented symbolically. images/video of rape,
child pornography, and other things that thrive in the dark
and that sickenly often appeal to our (as a bent society)
darkest corners. anonymity for producers of information
would foster (not expose as the the idealists arguments go)
in-the-dark behavior that hurts everyone. its just that
mechanisms already exist to provide anonymity on a small
scale which is all that is really needed maybe. but freenet
provides a vast opportunity for vast 'badness' as its one to
many not one to one. i'm not so
worried about abuses to intellectual property as business
models sans ip do exist to finance the creation of digital
works. its just a change. but i can't overemphasize my
fear that freenet will provide opportunity for lots of
damage to our society. hope that i am now fully 'in' the
stereotype of "fundamental christian, religious right
censorship bigot". whatever. i don't want to 'judge' what
is wrong and right. i'm not the absolute authority. but i
don't want to tolerate crap that will hurt my 5 year old
daughter. i don't want our society to drenched in sexual
deviance increasing the risk of my daughter and your
daughters stumbling across dangerous individual that needs
another sexual thrill. let me know if my concern is
misplaced. i don't think it is. :)
the issue of anonymity provides us tough issues that have no
easy answer imo. i'm not going to follow the herd here and
make the snap judgement of western world
"compartmentilization". its way too hazy for that.
however, i don't think that freenet et al can be
stopped. it should be pretty easy to provide freenet
services in stealth even. but as i stated early on, i'm not
yet sure if this is a good or bad thing. :)
i probably should have posted to the article a few weeks
back discussing the pros/cons of freent. oh well. i
remember some of the points made though...
graydon (whose words of wisdom in computing
i deeply respect btw) stated that information in freenet is
equivalent to bathroom stall writings == of little/no
importance. i disagree of his assessment of the 'non
importance' of freenet information:
- there is the issue of pseudo anonymity, in which
someone guarantees their identity mathmatically w/ a digital
signature or something along those lines and the validity of
their (notice its not anonymous, just disassoicated from the
real world author) information can be based on track record
or something like that.
- this doesn't address the dangers of drastically
increasing production/consumption of objects such as child
pornography, etc that damage our society greatly - all the
dismissals of freenet information doesn't really address
untraditional "information" which i see as dominating the
freenet network
maybe someone will read this (only if they have lots of time
i'm sure) and email me or something. because i want some
closure to this issue. i want to know what i think and i
need more information to come to anything resembling a
conclusion. :)
well that rant was fun. :)