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 <nick@thecrowns.org> 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 <joni@ieee-isto.org> 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 <phil.hunt@yahoo.com> 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.


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 <Bob.Blakley@gartner.com> 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


From: Nicholas Crown <nick@thecrowns.org>
Reply-To: Nicholas Crown <nick@thecrowns.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:09:30 -0400
To: "community@lists.idcommons.net" <community@lists.idcommons.net>, "community@kantarainitiative.org" <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 <trutkowski@netmagic.com> 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.idcommons.net

For all list information and functions, see:
   http://lists.idcommons.net/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 // skype: heathervescent