SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the this-took-a-study-to-figure-out? dept.
Not everyone who strives to navigate the internet without being tracked is up to no good. This is the underlying premise of a qualitative study led by a trio of Drexel University researchers, who set out to gather the stories of people working on collaborative projects online — like editing Wikipedia — and are concerned about their privacy and taking steps to protect it.
The study, entitled "Privacy, Anonymity, and Perceived Risk in Open Collaboration: A Study of Tor Users and Wikipedians," which was published in advance of its presentation at the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing in February, offers a rare look into why some people turn to IP obfuscation tools, such as the onion router, to keep a low profile and how they experience the internet as a result.
The study's central finding is that perceived threats from other individuals, groups of people and governments are substantial enough to force users below the radar in order to protect their reputation, themselves, and their families.
"Wikipedia editors are volunteers who are trying to build a comprehensive free information resource for everyone on the planet. Tor users are often not seen in those positive ways. But these two organizations are actually committed to the same things — a free global exchange of information with everyone able to participate," said Andrea Forte, PhD , an associate professor in Drexel's College of Computing & Informatics and lead author of the study.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 24 2016, @04:28PM
Fucking duh? Anonymity can be a powerful tool for doing the right thing: anonymous whistle-blowers, anonymous ballots, or anonymous donations.
But, like any powerful tool, it is often used by tools. And it inherently robs trust.
If a close, lifelong friend of yours wanted to know your bank account number to help take care of a complex transaction, you might consider doing it if you knew them to be responsible.
If any stranger wanted to do the same, your first reaction would be immediate, massive suspicion(either that or you're fucking insane).
If you saw your cousin loading a firearm behind his house, you wouldn't immediately assume they were trying to kill someone(unless it was that cousin, you know which one I mean)
If you saw a stranger doing the same, you might decide to GTFO.
Anonymity breeds distrust. Period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @04:57PM
Are you saying anons could be dirty trolls, cybercriminals, and pedophiles? How dare you!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @05:08PM
It goes both ways, maybe someone you know quite well had their account hacked and they ask for your address and phone # cause they "lost it". Is it really your friend? Now you just got your identity stolen...
Anonymity is important, and allowing any argument against is along the same lines as restricting the freedom of speech just because some asshole preaches hate. We either take our communications into our own hands, or we will see them increasingly used against us. Mass surveillance and control of information is how you really control a population (for a while). You can predict patterns based on social media posts, who likes who, etc.
Once people get fed up we will start seeing domestic attacks increase by leaps and bounds. Why do you think the middle east has such a problem? Hmmm, let's look at their recent record of human rights abuses and see if there is some correlation.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @05:14PM
Yes, anonymity breeds distrust. And non-anonymity breeds repression.
What was your point?
Removing one brings the other, openly or in underhanded ways. Neither is desirable in pure form. You do *not* get a choice between "good" and "bad". It's not about choosing one or the other, you'd be(come) an extremist any way. It's about keeping the balance.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday October 24 2016, @06:08PM
My point is that it's impossible to fix the distrust of tor users given that many people will use tor with the express intent of vandalizing wikipedia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @06:46PM
And the opposite of your point is that anonymity is a vital component of a free society. If Wikipedia doesn't want to deal with vandals, then it has to change its policy and require accounts in order to edit. Harder for mass abuse that way. But see, its up to each organization how to handle anon users instead of some government mandate that will breed oppression, as others have stated in this thread.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday October 24 2016, @07:33PM
That's not the opposite of my point, and my original point suggested that there is value to anonymity as a tool to society. So... are we actually disagreeing about something or are you just being disagreeable?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @08:42PM
You original point included reference to "positive" uses of anonymity, but the general gist seemed to be anti-anonymity. In your mind re-frame your initial post with the concept of free speech and someone publishing a document anonymously.
If you saw a stranger doing the same, you might decide to GTFO.
Anonymity breeds distrust. Period.
That sounds very final, with a negative outlook on anonymity. Being the net we are left only with some text, and motives / opinions beyond that are done by inference. Personally it sounded like "this thing is great, buuuut" and my point is that there is no "but". The scare-mongering is similar to the societal change in the US (and elsewhere I'm sure) where people are terrified of every little thing because the media blows fear out of proportion. There is no need to fear anonymity, just learn the basic precautions of interacting on the net. No need to fear free speech, just learn to think critically.
If you do view both sides equally and don't prefer one over the other, you shouldn't have used the absolute "anonymity breeds distrust. Period." It actually can breed trust when someone requires their anonymity to remain intact. A whistleblower is less likely to uncover problems if their identity is easily discovered by the employer, etc. They could talk to many people who claim to be journalists and they have no way of guaranteeing that to be true, but chances are one will likely be real.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @06:11PM
And non-anonymity breeds repression.
This is what people do not understand. It 100% breeds it. One of my family members is a lawyer. They can in under 15-20 mins of work dig up a scary amount of data on you. With a few warrants they can get even more.
With a bit of a search engine you can find a decent amount on most people. My 'public' personal is rather tame. I like to keep my job.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:48PM
How is this scary amount of information that some lawyer digs up repression? If I was convicted of a violent crime, and I can't get a concealed permit is that repression? No. So how would this scay data (shit in public records) be considered repression? I don't understand where you are coming from. Please elaborate.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:04PM
Anonymity breeds distrust. Period.
As is often the case with pure statements such as this one, they can be falsified by abundant counterexamples. Here is one: last year I visited a workshop in a remote village in Germany. The place is a library with some conference rooms and some bungalows for accommodation. Mathematician, statisticians, and engineers were present. I stayed for almost a week and most people were completely unknown to me and I had no dealings with them (parallel workshops) save talking to some at meals. I stayed in a bungalow the front door of which was safeguarded by a numeric code which could be inquired at the reception. I could not lock my room when leaving. Alcoholic drinks were abundantly available at self-service with an open payment box. The library was accessible 24/7 with no cameras or other safeguards. I left my electronic devices unattended. This experience in anonymity bred trust.