4 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line further against anonymity online. At its best, as here, it is an unholy nuisance. Thanks for posting the correction, John. I'm moderating a panel with Zimmerman later this week, and would have been confused.
>The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line >further against anonymity online. You can't get rid of anonymity such as this without also getting rid of pseudonymity. The first use of a pseudonym is as good as anonymous, because it has no past history. If the user of this pseudonym never again uses the name, then it has no future history. A one-time pseudonym is an anonym. An arbitrary string of letters only become a name if it is presented as a name and if it has persistence. Identity is a persistence through time of a source, be that a source of speech or a source of action. Without persistence there is no identity, but rather only unconnected assertions in a formal (and sterile) symbolic system. Eric
Stewart Brand writes: > The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line > further against anonymity online. At its best, as here, it is an > unholy nuisance. > Thanks for posting the correction, John. I'm moderating a panel > with Zimmerman later this week, and would have been confused. I once read a story in the newspaper about a popular mayor who, it was reported, died in a massage parlor. I didn't realize that it was a prank for some time. I felt sheepish. Should we monitor newspapers? I don't think so. Healthy skepticism of random messages on the net is a better way to solve this problem. Is this really Stewart Brand? Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > The Zimmerman prank---I'm sure not funny for him---hardens my line > further against anonymity online. At its best, as here, it is an > unholy nuisance. Interesting. The recent thread on alt.security re someone who mentioned thoughts of suicide on Usenet and was held for 48 hours' psychiatric evaluation hardens my line in favor of anonymity online. In any event, "street tech" cares little for what you or I think. As I see it, we've got two choices - anonymity or pseudonymity. (To be more accurate, we can have both, or just pseudonymity.) Let's say we choose to ban anonymity online. How shall we do this? What political body will we go to and propose a regulation or legislation mandating Real Names for messages? The United Nations? The net.cabal? How will we stop folks from setting up accounts with names other than their "real names" .. or from stealing others' accounts .. or from forging mail? A $1000 PC can run Linux and SLIP an look to the rest of the net like any other IP-connected site; how will we enforce our rules on those systems? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLZ95dX3YhjZY3fMNAQEjSgQArODShMLu5RyOufwc5RAFVh+T9QflHnu9 C/9tKaEYNm1QIMpBqX9Qq5RvBJUuw2T0dhR4JkZS5Ym/U/HM3h0Oow7n+gwSfkUv SWTTiPXYraEem9mp/rFyIIm4KOx3T4ARvDgueiUc3+hGIZbio6+1ReLIGSiDSnJC GsfCj7Sr7fk= =SWQZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----