Nick,
On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Nicholas Crown wrote:
> 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.
When I first knew Kaliya Hamlin, I _only_ knew her as "Identity Woman". I read posts by her on her blog, and her emails. I trusted that the person known as "Identity Woman" would write about Internet identity issues. On her eponymous blog, I could see that she is also called "Kaliya Hamlin". I associated those names together, and there seemed little (if any) risk to me making that association. Later I attended one of the first IIW events and met Kaliya in person. She organized the unconference, and talked about unconferences and Internet identity. I think Kaliya has been quite honest with me (even though we barely know each other) about who she is, for that shared aspect where we interact - I feel like I understand her stance on identity issues, and the information I do know about her has been maintained consistently through our interactions in the areas which I know her.
So, where's the problem with her using the name "Identity Woman" instead of "Kaliya Hamlin"?
The obvious issue seems to be that someone else could use "Identity Woman" and impersonate her, right?
Speaking personally, I would probably understand immediately that someone was impersonating her if the impostor were to post something obviously inconsistent with what I have understood to be her views on identity. And if the impostor made a statement about something other than identity, it is likely that I either wouldn't care particularly, or wouldn't trust that statement unless I had additional knowledge of Identity Woman's expertise or involvement in that subject (which in many cases I wouldn't have, and in the cases I did, I would expect her view to be consistent with her previously-expressed views).
Further, what if someone were to impersonate her by using the name "Kaliya Hamlin"? Where would be the difference between impersonation using one name vs. the other?
I also have friends who use pseudonyms in public context (Facebook, Twitter, others) but don't publicly associate those pseudonyms with their "real" names. In those cases, I use my "secret" knowledge of those people to understand that they are who they say they are, and that the nickname is for a person I know - sometimes that context is very personal (ie. the nickname link is known only to me and the other person)
Nicknames are valid in human life. I don't see anyone who uses a nickname as dishonest by definition. And humans are inclined to "trust" people who act in a consistent way, regardless of their name - I think that works even online, and is context-dependent (the amount of trust varies according to the context within which it is needed). Nicknames are sometimes useful in preventing abuse (or easy correlation) of someone in one context because you know them in another context (imagine if Kathy Sierra had used a pseudonym not publicly associated with her "real name" or address - perhaps she might still be writing publicly?)
This is helpful. What Heather said about not forcing one model over the other is one of the challenges that we are left to solve. So, the responsibility is on us as individuals participating in "networked interactions" to evaluate the context and information available at the point of interaction in determining whether or not to engage in an interaction.
What if the system offered via some labeling technique some additional context that indicated whether or not the person on the other end is using a pseudonym? If interacting with someone who has been "verified" (getting back to the assurance level) , their profile looks different. If it's a pseudonym, you would know it and that could aid you in determining whether or not you should engage. Or, is this vetting process best left up to the community as a whole?
Nick
- John
https://twitter.com/frumioj