So let's say there this new law and the NSA comes out of the dark and admits they have the computing power to enforce it.... any time you use an internet-connected device, your full identity is available to everyone with a click of the mouse. Comment on a cnn.com article? Everyone knows it is you. Headshot someone in Team Fortress 2? Anyone can go to your game profile and see your Facebook page. Use Facebook? Fake names are now illegal.
Would it change your habits?
As for me, I'd say yes... there are waaaaay too many crazies out there who will want to SWAT you or get you fired because they don't like your stance on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.... but then again, maybe after 3 months the problem would work itself out. If you can't be anonymous, then you get thrown in jail after you illegally SWAT someone. And maybe you are hesitant to call someones employer when they can turn around and call yours if they think you're a dick for trying to get someone fired.
Would a named society be a more polite society? Is anonymity fucking everything up?
Online Anonymity
Is anonymity fucking everything up?
Absolutely. Just like it did with voting.
But seriously, no. It wouldn't be any more or less polite. People would be able to stop splitting their time between wondering about you and being pissed at you and do the latter full time.
Some societies where everybody knows your name.
Edited By Malcolm on 1425359146
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Meh. I'd still be somewhat anonymous. There are a lot of James Jones in the world, and my physical address isn't on any of my main documents. I'm sure I could be found, but it would still take some effort.
Even with no anonymity at all, though, I still wouldn't change really. If some crazy person comes to my house to confront me that's just one less crazy person in the world.
Even with no anonymity at all, though, I still wouldn't change really. If some crazy person comes to my house to confront me that's just one less crazy person in the world.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Anonymous voting fixed the problems of people having their votes bought and/or coerced.Malcolm wrote:Absolutely. Just like it did with voting.Is anonymity fucking everything up?
Anonymous posting allows you to be the biggest dick in the world without consequences, and makes you a target to have your house burned down if you think the dress is white and gold.
I think the world would be more polite and reserved, but I also don't think I would participate until things settle down and the crazies get shaken out of the trees.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
In the BI (before internet) days, if you were around people outside of work it was likely to be at the local watering hole. If you were there and had a couple too many and started mouthing off that Eugene V Debs was a goddam hero for the working class, someone at the end of the bar would just yell at you, "Put a sock in it, Harry." And that would be the end of it, Harry would STFU, stew in silence, the bartender bought Harry a free one and everybody knew to keep it light and polite. Harry then goes home and smacks his wife and kids around, in private.
The internet is currently an echo chamber for anonymous crazies and when people find out there's 10 other people that share their crazy views, all of a sudden they found a pack and the views get crazier and louder and they feed off each other. This would be fine if they were confined to their cul-de-sacs of crazy, and not allowed out. But they are, and they are among us.
I dunno. I don't think being anonymous is doing much for a lot of peoples' mental health. We evolved verbal filters for a reason.
The internet is currently an echo chamber for anonymous crazies and when people find out there's 10 other people that share their crazy views, all of a sudden they found a pack and the views get crazier and louder and they feed off each other. This would be fine if they were confined to their cul-de-sacs of crazy, and not allowed out. But they are, and they are among us.
I dunno. I don't think being anonymous is doing much for a lot of peoples' mental health. We evolved verbal filters for a reason.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Anonymous voting fixed the problems of people having their votes bought and/or coerced.
Did it?
I'm surprised how many people already use Facebook to make crazy statements on Facebook or commenting on other sites.
I have three uncles who are basically trying to start a revolution against Obama. They're fucking insane. They are crazy right wingers and often get into arguments with one another about religion (one's an atheist, another has found Jesus). They post all the crazy right wing stuff from crazy right wing websites that have less credibility than the Weekly World News, and they post it as gospel. They'll even take it a step further and post crazy racist shit like a picture of two monkeys and then a picture of the Obamas.
I can't unfriend them though because it's so entertaining. Ditto for the left wing friends I have who are hilarious about what portions of the news they preach about and what parts they completely ignore and pretend didn't happen.
As for the question at hand, I think you just need to look at the news to see who speaks up and who doesn't. I agree with Gordo in that I'd lay low for a bit to watch the crazies off each other, then contribute.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
someone at the end of the bar would just yell at you, "Put a sock in it, Harry." And that would be the end of it, Harry would STFU, stew in silence, the bartender bought Harry a free one and everybody knew to keep it light and polite.
That's not always the way it goes down. In an ideal bar where everyone's doing their job and no one's overly wasted, sure.
all of a sudden they found a pack and the views get crazier and louder and they feed off each other. This would be fine if they were confined to their cul-de-sacs of crazy, and not allowed out. But they are, and they are among us.
1) Everyone's crazy.
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Crazy is relative once you filter out those who are 100% of the time crazy, wrapped in straight jackets, and doing finger painting with their own shit.
2) I question your isolation theory.
I think the key would be for the youths (does that make me old?), who are in that stage of life where they're more impulsive and stupid.
Stupidity knows no age bounds nowadays. We have been fighting to keep the stupids alive long past when natural selection gives up. We haven't run out of resources to waste yet.
I've thought a bit. If the gov't really tries this, I'm going black hat and underground. Even if they have the equipment, they don't have the talent. Their line of work and interview process drives away the best. It's like Microsoft coming out and saying their next gen console hardware is going to blow the fuck out of Sony's. Hardware's nice, but the humans using it are dumb.
Edited By Malcolm on 1425424617
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones wrote:Besides, if the US tries to make the internet too hard to use, then the internet will just leave the US. There's a whole world out there to do business in. And I don't think the NSA has broken TOR yet, have they?
Eh, that's all relative to the encryption algorithm. There've been some white papers about ID'ing certain paths or IP addies, but that's assuming you've got no covering traffic to drown out the real transfers. If you take away the low-latency aspect of Tor, it's a lot harder to attack. If you watch your protocols, it's even harder.
Edited By Malcolm on 1425426446
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
They didn't have to break it, they just secretly took over a bunch of physical nodes.TPRJones wrote:Besides, if the US tries to make the internet too hard to use, then the internet will just leave the US. There's a whole world out there to do business in. And I don't think the NSA has broken TOR yet, have they?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
This guy internet detectived some trolls and called them out.
http://www.philly.com/philly....ls.html
http://www.philly.com/philly....ls.html
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Unless they had every single hop a packet took from beginning to end, a proper protocol should ensure no IPs are compromised. Again, assuming low-latency is out of the question.GORDON wrote:They didn't have to break it, they just secretly took over a bunch of physical nodes.TPRJones wrote:Besides, if the US tries to make the internet too hard to use, then the internet will just leave the US. There's a whole world out there to do business in. And I don't think the NSA has broken TOR yet, have they?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
For tor, if you have the first and last nodes in a chain, you can break the decryption. I would guess that's a flaw in tor.Malcolm wrote:Unless they had every single hop a packet took from beginning to end, a proper protocol should ensure no IPs are compromised. Again, assuming low-latency is out of the question.GORDON wrote:They didn't have to break it, they just secretly took over a bunch of physical nodes.TPRJones wrote:Besides, if the US tries to make the internet too hard to use, then the internet will just leave the US. There's a whole world out there to do business in. And I don't think the NSA has broken TOR yet, have they?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Goddamnit, now I might actually have to refresh my brain. I could swear they had a way to strengthen that.TheCatt wrote:For tor, if you have the first and last nodes in a chain, you can break the decryption. I would guess that's a flaw in tor.Malcolm wrote:Unless they had every single hop a packet took from beginning to end, a proper protocol should ensure no IPs are compromised. Again, assuming low-latency is out of the question.GORDON wrote: They didn't have to break it, they just secretly took over a bunch of physical nodes.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Experts can probably use Tor safely, hiding from the NSA -- assuming they control a smaller number of nodes, and that their 1024-bit key factoring ability is small. It would require a lot of opsec, putting apps on a different [virtual] machine than the proxy, and practicing good opsec to make sure egress connections are encrypted.
So, it works if you use it intelligently and keep up to date.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."