On 2/08/2011 4:57 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
The reality is that a very large number of miscreants use communications networks for exponentially increasing crime, infrastructure attacks, and all kinds of behavior that significantly harms others. They far outnumber the Buddhists in Kansas.
That might be literally true, but I'm pretty sure that Kaliya was speaking abstractly and generally about minority groups with a legitimate need to engage anonymously. So ... (1) What evidence do you have Tony that there are more miscreants than innocents? (2) As an engineer, are you comfortable making up requirements for identity management (in particular deeming that users need not be given anonymity options) or would it better, as with all IT, for requirements to be handed over from some authority for implementation? When technologists make up requirements -- let alone public policy -- IT goes off the rails. (3) If you use crime prevention as the rationale for taking away users' rights to anonymity, then you're not so much on a slippery slope, so much as already at rock bottom. There would be no inhibition left, no separation of powers, nothing to stop us allowing interception of all communciation contents, in the name of law enforcement.
Most rational societies will opt for protecting themselves, and those folks in Kansas will have to deal with their neighbors.
If there is a new social contract in the making, one where we all agree to protect ourselves by ceding a degree of privacy, then let's negotiate the new parameters in our conventional law making fora: the parliaments and the courts. I have no absolute attachment to privacy; I agree that the reality of terrorism and the like probably does demand a rethink of conventional freedoms. But for pity's sake, let's not let the informopolies of the world be the arbiters. Can anyone seriously believe that Facebook and Google demand "real names" for other than commercial reasons? If they were remotely interested in crime prevention, they would lifted a finger against pedophiles by now. They conventionally disclaim responsibility for bad acts on their platforms by claiming their networks are simply communications platforms, but now they feign security interest and insist on changing the fundamental ways in which people manage their own identities. The hypocricy is breathtaking, but what's really surprising is that so many technocrats don't see through it. Cheers, @Steve_lockstep Stephen Wilson Managing Director Lockstep Group Phone +61 (0)414 488 851 http://lockstep.com.au <http://www.lockstep.com.au> Lockstep Consulting provides independent specialist advice and analysis on digital identity and privacy.Lockstep Technologies develops unique new smart ID solutions that enhance privacy and prevent identity theft.