Anonymous Online Publication - Fad or Trend?

An anonymous reader asks: "Across the web, stories abound regarding censorship and persecution of those who publish content online that may be offensive or conflicting toward certain governments or ideals. It almost seems that you can't attach your name to anything without being heavily scrutinized for the opinions you express. Lately though, I've begun to see several communities that promote an atmosphere of anonymity to protect their users and facilitate open communication on tough subjects. PostSecret is one of the most popular of these sites, allowing a one-way publication medium for visitors to vent their frustrations, similar to Group Hug. However, both of these sites are one-way mediums, and do not provide for anonymous interaction of users. Is anonymous blogging and publication a brief fad, or a serious, growing trend?"

"One rare example I've found that allows a truly open anonymous mode of communication (dissimilar to Slashdot's own automatic demotion of 'Anonymous Cowards'), is the Teen Angst Central, or Tangst. Operated by a group of high schoolers and hosted by Google's Blogger service, its editors publish posts made anonymously by visitors, with comments and discussion made to the site sprouting from a community bonded by anonymity. I think this concept can easily be applied to other aspects of online society, though I have yet to see many examples beyond the simple angst-driven outpouring of feelings."

Anonimity also for S/W Development

[CaptSolo]

There were comments in the /. post "On Software Patent Lawsuits Against OSS" that suggested a possibility of an underground (anonymous) OSS development model emerging if patent lawsuits made (a lot of) OSS illegal. While responses to that comment claimed it is highly unlikely to happen (lots of OSS development done by big companies or just people unwilling to do it if they migh be sued) it is an interesting idea of a trend, which has some similarities with anonymous publishing mentioned here.

Anonymous speech thriving

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

Most Americans will think of other countries where anonymous speech is required to prevent retaliation by the government - countries like Iran, for instance, where anonymous speech IS thriving.

However, there are plenty of countries in the West - including America - where unpopular minorities require anonymous speech to avoid government retribution.

A friend of mine in Indiana called a conservative radio host (Rick Roberts) in California in April 2005, in order to give a contradicting opinion - and the next day state agents showed up at his house and took away his 2 year old son, causing his son a great deal of anxiety and eventually destroying my friend's marriage. He's still going through the system, trying to recover his son, over a year later.

There are also the death threats, of which I've received a few myself - from so-called Christians, Hippies, and everything in between. Damn straight it's nice to have some anonymity!

And we will continue to need that anonymity as long as a corrupt media continues to perpetuate the lie that anyone who is attracted to children must be a predator, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

In any case, in our community proxies and/or TOR are the norm. We know for a fact that our government IS spying on us and seeking to do us harm.

Secure and Historied

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Pseudonymity is no fad, and IMO the practice hasn't seen even a fraction of the popularity it will eventually garner.

This is a no-brainer; governments rarely become less restrictive with the passage of time, since governments are expected to, you know, "do things" and "solve problems." Regardless what political philosophy they adhere to, governments just aren't prone to seeing their duty as one of removing interference from citizens' lives. So all else being equal, a nation's code of justice will tend to become more complex and intrusive with time, increasing its citizens' need to ensure their own privacy.

Pure Anonymity doesn't fulfill many of the criteria that people seek in online interaction & transactions, and Pseudonymity is hard to distinguish from anonymity if it isn't secure and historied. Facilitating private, secure transactions between unique, historied pseudonymous personnae is the task in front of us; after all, technology is fundamentally capable of securing those human rights that governments wrongly cease to recognize.

* -- (resisting the urge to post as AC just for the hell of it)

Re:Anonimity also for S/W Development

[Anonymous Coward]

There are anonymous Freenet developers. It's been done. It's being done.

anonymity is a must sometimes....

[splungent]

One of the websites I operate is an unofficial website for an organization that is run by control freaks, They do not tolerate any kind of discourse or criticism. If this website did not operate anonymously there would literally be zero discourse or discussion for the members of this organization. This has been proved by the few times members were outed by there often comments or by telling the wrong person there screen name. Any member outed has always suffered some form of consequences. The consequences have run the gambit from harassing phone calls, mysterious visitors appearing at there work area who are intimidating and actually messing with there finances by with holding work. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to post things anonymously but in the real world many organizations stifle criticism in any manner available. Free speech is usually not free. Having said this I realize there is always a danger of people using this service when they have an ax to grind with someone or some organization. These people can be balanced with commentary by the offended parties. In the end I would rather err on the side of an open discussion.

Anonymity is important

[Pig Hogger]

I hang on the USENET news.admin.net-abuse.email newsgroup, where we deal with spammers.

The most effective spam fighting effort [spews.org] is totally anonymous; they have to be, because that's the only way they can avoid being sued into oblivion by deep-pocketed croporations (it's outright ironic that in order to protect their freedom of speech - saying that so-and-so is a spammer, they have to register their domain in Siberia [dnsstuff.com], of all places!!!)

Spammers are outright criminals and will stop at nothing to damage antispammers.

Plenty of people had a load of trouble from a spectacularly inept spammer [google.ca].

For example, the author of this page [216.137.100.175] (a page denouncing the spammer) had the spammer complain to the police which launched a criminal investigation that found nothing. After this failed, he barrages everyone who mirrors the page with complaints to their ISPs (this page [chickenboner.com] get 5 DMCA takedown notices PER DAY).

When the police complaints did lead nowhere, he simply harassed various police departments [216.137.100.175].

Finally, seeing that the takedown notice make the mirrorers rotating the hosting of the relevant parts complained about, thus rendering it totally ineffective, he started to try to DDOs the sites hosting the pages.

Many of the mirrorers would never had been able to denounce that particular spammer if they had been doing so under their real identities; anonymity is particularly vital when dealing with criminals, or lawsuit-happy individuals.

Another example is this well-known spammer, threatening legal action against antispam fighters [google.ca]. If you follow the thread, you will find a frothing lunatic that demands the identity of several spamfighters who have to work anonymously in order to avoid the hassle of lawsuits from spammers.

In 2003, the same antispam outfit was sued by spammers [google.ca]. Even though the lawsuit was thrown out of court, it was not without considerable annoyance and expense to the antispammers involved.

Only absolutely positive anonymity can help protect antispammers against the spammers.

Re:Proof of the need for Anonymous Speech

[Achromatic1978]

Under your belief in Freedom of Association, it is okay for someone to join Al Quida as long as you don't do anything subversive.

Points for using an organisation no-one is likely to admit to wanting to join. What about NAACP? Any other organisation - please, for the benefit of us unwashed masses, tell us what is fundamentally wrong with supporting a cause without 'being subversive' (Ooh, we can't have that! I mean, look what happened when all the blacks decided America's white power way of life was a way of life they were not going to stand for!)

Am I being inflammatory? Hell yes... because you're using incorrectly exaggerated examples to smack someone down as being dangerous and 'subversive', when the reality is you're advocating the censorship of views you disagree with. This is the same reason why freedom of speech protects organisations such as the KKK, militia groups, and NAMBLA, regardless of how heinous their ideas or beliefs may be.

Your polygamy example is another fatuous and inflamed 'example' - the LDS church hasn't "advocated" polygamy in a century.

Re:Proof of the need for Anonymous Speech

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

First off, NAMBLA is an entirely legal organization. It advocates changing the law, but does not advocate breaking the law as it stands. Above all it advocates tolerance. Likewise, Kevin never advocated anything criminal - he simply tried to promote tolerance.

As for your assertion that "losing one's child, wife, and job" due to government reprisal is not "a violation" of the Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Association - what in hell are you smoking?

You say that Free Speech is not regulated when it comes to political matters - I'm thinking you're pointing out that free political speech is the most important type, and that this is what the framers of the Constitution were most concerned with. Which brings me to my point: which part of advocating for tolerance and for changing the law is NOT political?

You also seem to have an unhealthy interest in persecuting religious minorities and polygamists. While I do have a problem with the way some religious communities and some polygamists conduct their business, we should concentrate on making sure no one is forced into behavior they don't want to take part in, rather than promoting a blanket ban of polygamy or unconventional relationships. The Federal Government's repression of the Mormon Church is one of many sad episodes in American history, and is the cause of many of the problems associated with polygamy today. That is, the secrecy causes much of the problems, because no one will report minor abuse if it means the forced breakup of their family and community.

In any case, you have proven once again that anonymous speech is necessary as long as bigotry endures.