Hi Everyone!
Since I'm jumping into the middle of this discussion from out of nowhere I'd
like apologize right up-front.
I have been negligent in that I have not been disciplined in making the time
to follow, let alone participate, in these discussion threads. That is in no
way a reflection of the importance I place on the subject you are all
addressing. Quite the contrary, this subject is central to what my company
is doing and is of personal importance to me as well.
I have found this particular thread to be very thought provoking with
excellent points being made all around. In particular, for me Heather framed
the "context" objective, and challenge quite nicely - as have others.
I for one believe there are contexts within which anonymity is both valid
and valuable. I don't know if you happened to see Fred Wilson's post today -
some good points on the value of anonymity. Rather than repeat the points
made there, I'll simply post it here for your convenience:
http://bit.ly/o4haHJ
Taking the lead from Fred's post and the insights of others on this thread,
I think there is not only value in anonymity (given the right context), but
in "verified anonymity". By this I simply mean verifying that the individual
claiming to own a "persona" at a given point in time is in fact the true
"owner" of that persona. If someone has built a reputation associated with a
particular persona, (and many have), then there is value in protecting
against someone "e-personating" the owner by hijacking that persona.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: community-bounces@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:community-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of heather
vescent
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:53 AM
To: Nicholas Crown
Cc: community@lists.idcommons.net; Blakley,Bob; Phil Hunt;
community@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [Kantara - Community] [community] Google+ "real" names and
NSTIC
Nick,
It's about paradigms. The worldview you have and are representing in the
conversation is just one worldview. There are others. That doesn't mean one
is necessarily better than another; but the systems should allow for
multiple, potentially conflicting worldview to co-exist. You might be put
off by meeting "Security Man" but other's wouldn't.
Your worldview can easily exist within the current system. The ability to
express and live your worldview is not changed by allowing the ability to
express and live in a different worldview. You can still use your real names
- you're not required to have a handle or other name.
What is critical about this conversation is building the system to allow
these multiple, potentially conflicting worldview/paradigms about using
identity. It's not a discussion about which one is the right or correct
paradigm. It's about building a system that does not exclude the expression
of these paradigms.
Cheers,
-Heather
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Nicholas Crown wrote:
Yes! Context is key.
In the case of Google+ or any social network whose stated or otherwise
implied goal is to foster online relationships, anonymity or falsifying
one's identity to project an alter ego is, in my opinion, counterproductive.
Yes, the service provider also has commercial interest in pursuing this
goal, but I can't blame them for that. After all, that is why they exist.
We are just as much to blame for sharing our data under their TOS, then they
are for exploiting us. It doesn't make it right, but it is our reality
given the current legal and social environment our privileged lives have
afforded us.
In the end, if I were to meet you on the street and we were to strike up a
conversation, during which I introduced myself to you, what name would you
use to reciprocate? If you told me your name was "Security Man", I would
take pause. Now, if you told your name was Bob Smith, but you also go by
the nickname of "Security Man", then all is good. I know this is a simple
example, but it gets at the heart of why this is important to me. I cannot
(or would prefer not to) have a relationship, online or offline, with
someone who is not honest about themselves. As we all know, relationships
require trust. Now, I know you could argue that you can trust someone
without knowing their real name, but for me (call me old fashioned), this is
foundational. Even if you begin a relationship without revealing your
identity (real name is a proxy), if that relationship progresses or
increases in value, eventually you will share your true identity. Or, it
will be revealed indirectly through the fingerprint of your interaction with
the other person.
I guess I'm in the minority on this, and that's OK. All of us are coming to
this topic with varying worldviews that underpin our interpretation of
reality, so no surprise there.
I do appreciate the respectful and thought provoking conversation from this
group. I can't stop thinking about this topic now.
Nick
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Joni Brennan wrote:
"Google acting as the IDP for Google properties is using profiles in a
generic way for many services. So in one service it may be appropriate to
have 'real name' or other sensitive attributes. But in another service, what
is the need? "
I was thinking about this more over lunch and you hit the point I was
thinking of Phil...
The key to it all = context
Some times real names are needed (surely for Levels 3+4) not really for 1
and level 2 is a bit fuzzy re to be real or not to be real. Rather to be
legal or not to be legal?
Funny part is that "Identity Woman" was disabled because those are words and
not thought of as names. Kaliya could have called herself Ramona Peterson
(made up) and google+ would not have blinked at it because it "sounds like"
a real name where "Identity Woman" does not.
Real names, anonymity, privacy... all matter differently based upon the
context they are used.
=Joni
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
I think the case of Google+ demonstrates the need for selective disclosure
capability in multi-property / multi-community services and especially in
federated scenarios.
Google acting as the IDP for Google properties is using profiles in a
generic way for many services. So in one service it may be appropriate to
have 'real name' or other sensitive attributes. But in another service, what
is the need?
The fact that many multi-site service providers don't have selective
disclosure is probably the largest reason many users are violating site
policy and creating avatars/fake names in the first place!
Google is not unique here. This is a broadly adopted anti-pattern.
Phil
phil.hunt@yahoo.com
On 2011-08-02, at 11:15 AM, Nicholas Crown wrote:
And how does an anonymous online profile help the Ugandan facing a death
penalty for homosexuality, or a person facing murder in the US for being
gay? Was it a post on Facebook that tipped the scale for them?
The issue in Ugunda is one of an oppressive government regime. The people
there do need to fight for their freedom, or flee. In the U.S. example,
it's against the law to kill someone for their sexual orientation. Having a
social networking site that supports pseudonym's would not have prevented
the deranged person from taking another's life.
Nick
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Blakley,Bob
wrote:
Nicholas,
Translation of your question:
Why can't people with unpopular views just stand up in public and be killed
for them, or stay in the closet?
It's great to stand up for what you believe in in a nice safe affluent white
suburb where everything is theoretical. It's a lot different to come out of
the closet in Uganda, where the government is trying to impose the death
penalty for homosexuality.
And you don't have to go to Uganda; people are killed for being gay every
year in most states of the USA.
And gay isn't the only thing that can get you killed - ask any Muslim you
happen to meet.
-- bob
BOB BLAKLEY
Vice President & Distinguished Analyst, Gartner ITP Identity & Privacy
bob.blakley@gartner.com | +1 (512) 657-0768
tel:%2B1%20%28512%29%20657-0768
http://www.gartner.com http://www.gartner.com/ |
http://blogs.gartner.com/bob-blakley/
From: Nicholas Crown
Reply-To: Nicholas Crown
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:09:30 -0400
To: "community@lists.idcommons.net" ,
"community@kantarainitiative.org"
Subject: Re: [community] Google+ "real" names and NSTIC
but that is a totally different problem then the one I am raising which is
whether people with medical conditions they want to talk about with others
and get support (share +1s) or a buddhist in Kansas (can share freely with
other buddhists or seekers without their hyper conservative christian
neighbors finding out) or having a feminist persona that is not linked to
your work identity in the tech industry (and if it was you would find work
had to come by in the valley) is free to use google+ not linked to a "real
name".
Why can't people just be who they are and stand in their own shoes for what
they believe in? Trying to be a buddhist behind closed doors in Kansas does
no one any good. If you believe in feminist tenants, than stand up for those
and speak your voice. I understand that persecution could come in any one
of these cases, but that is the beauty of taking a stand on the truth. If
your ideal is not worth sharing with your own ID, then it's not for you.
About the only one that I struggle with is the case where you have some
medical condition you would like to discuss in a private setting. Can that
case not be solved with a private/closed group? If it's too sensitive for
that, then take it offline.
Nick
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Tony Rutkowski
wrote:
"Rights to anonymity." Surely you are joking.
In law, there is no such network based right.
In technology, there is no such capability.
Like Scott McNealy said rather publicly in
1995 - Privacy: get over it.
--tony
On 8/1/2011 5:38 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
(3) If you use crime prevention as the rationale for taking away users'
rights to anonymity, then
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
community-unsubscribe@lists.
mailto:community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.idcommons.net/
http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community lists/info/community
_____
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
person to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify
the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message
and any attachments. Gartner makes no warranty that this e-mail is error or
virus free.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
community@lists.idcommons.net
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
community-unsubscribe@lists.idcommons.net
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.idcommons.net/lists/info/community
--
Heather Schlegel, heathervescent
Practical Futurist, Product Developer & Agent of Cacophony
@heathervescent // www.heathervescent.com http://www.heathervescent.com/
// skype: heathervescent