Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday October 24 2016, @04:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the this-took-a-study-to-figure-out? dept.
An Anonymous Coward [not surprising is it?] sent us the following:

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.

Press Release


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @05:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @05:14PM (#418217)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday October 24 2016, @06:08PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 24 2016, @06:08PM (#418229) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @06:46PM (#418240)

      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

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 24 2016, @07:33PM (#418257) Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @08:42PM (#418281)

          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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @06:11PM (#418231)

    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

      by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 25 2016, @11:48PM (#418768) Homepage Journal

      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