Quad Would Love This....

[Lord Jim]

New York Senate bill seeks to end anonymous internet posting

Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the United States was founded, in part, thanks to Thomas Paine's anonymously written, pro-revolution pamphlet Common Sense. On the other hand, 12-year-olds who post anonymously on the internet can be rather unpleasant and cause real problems by cyberbullying. Whether you think the good outweighs the bad, this news is troubling indeed: A far-reaching bill introduced in the New York State Senate could end the practice of posting online once and for all.

Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara / NY SenateIntroduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address. From the (likely well intentioned) bill (from a senator who clearly does not "get" the internet):

"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."

Critics are quick to point out how dangerous and ineffective the anti-privacy bill would be in the off chance that it somehow passes. After all, IP addresses do nothing to verify a person's identity, and including your home address on a controversial internet post could open you up to real-life threats.

In effect, the bill is an online stalker's dream. Of course, the most likely result of the bill's passage would just be the full-scale elimination of all comment systems everywhere, because the system is an unworkable burden on both the poster and the "web site administrators" who would need to respond to ludicrous take down requests at all times of the day.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology- ... 49128.html

[Joe Guy]

Would that mean quad would have to go by his real name, Captain Dunsel, and admit that he posts from an IRS office in Bumphuck, Pennsylvania?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Next thing you know they will want to know who goes to AA.

[MajGenl.Meade]

BwaaaHaaaahaaaa!

[Andrew D]

Anyone who has not figured out who Quaddriver actually is hasn't bothered to try.

He has posted -- whether here or at one of the places from which so many of us have migrated, I do not recall -- his grandmother's surname. He has posted the county and State in which he lives. He has posted a picture of himself. He has posted the name of at least one restaurant which is near where he lives and which he frequents.

Etc.

In short, he has posted so much of his personal information that even I have had no difficulty discerning exactly who and where he is. And I am not exactly a high-tech hot-shot.

You who claim an inability to discern who and where he is are just lathering on layers of bullshit.

Or maybe I should just be thankful. Maybe there are people out there who really cannot figure out who and where I am.

And are still working on that whole shoe-tying thing ....

[Joe Guy]

Anyone who has not figured out who Quaddriver actually is hasn't bothered to try...

You who claim an inability to discern who and where he is are just lathering on layers of bullshit.

I agree with your reasoning but I don't recall reading posts from anyone here claiming to not be able to figure out who quad is. I don't even remember any people saying that they really cared much about who he was in real life. I think a lot of us just took him as a joke. I thought he was very entertaining and I now miss his dumbass posts.

I certainly didn't care who he was or where he worked - until he made a poor choice in judgement.

[Gob]

I agree with your reasoning but I don't recall reading posts from anyone here claiming to not be able to figure out who quad is.

That puzzled me too, who were you referring to Andrew?

[Lord Jim]

Just to clarify....

The reason I referenced Quad in the subject line of this thread, was because after reading the article I posted in the OP, it struck me that Quad; given his penchant for bragging about how he could find out anything he wanted to about anyone here, (and even claiming he had in some cases done so) was exactly the sort of person who would be very happy to see a law like this put in place.

Not because I thought there was anyone here who would care to know anything in particular about Quad.

[Joe Guy]

The meaning of your post was very clear to me, Jim.

[Andrew D]

I took Lord Jim's thread title as sarcastic -- i.e., that Quaddriver would actually be distressed, rather than pleased, by an attempt to limit his supposed ability to post anonymously. That is evidently not what Lord Jim intended.

Still, I do not understand Lord Jim's reasoning here:

The reason I referenced Quad in the subject line of this thread, was because after reading the article I posted in the OP, it struck me that Quad; given his penchant for bragging about how he could find out anything he wanted to about anyone here, (and even claiming he had in some cases done so) was exactly the sort of person who would be very happy to see a law like this put in place.

It seems to me that if Quaddriver actually has some ability beyond what all (or most) of us possess to find out things about other posters, he would be exactly the sort of person who would be miffed to see a law like this put in place. Such a law would enable all of us to do what Quaddriver (allegedly) claims to be able to do already. That would deprive him of whatever specialness he (allegedly) believes that he possesses. Why would he be happy about that?

-------------------------

More broadly, the illusion of anonymity on a board like this is, for many of us, exactly that: an illusion. Many of us have posted so much personal information about ourselves that anyone with even rudimentary internet skills -- and those skills must be rudimentary, because even I possess them -- can find out who we are.

Even setting aside the postings of my first and last names (the latter apparently not having occurred here but having occurred in other places where more than a few of us have been), I am a good example. Everyone here knows that I am a lawyer in California. I have posted the city where I was born and raised and the city in which I now reside. I have posted the law school from which I earned my degree. I have indicated at least the approximate year in which I earned that degree.

And I have posted much more specific things. I have posted that I played the piano at a reception for then-Justice Brennan when he presided over a moot court at that law school. How many people meet that search criterion?

I have posted that I was a chorister at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. I have posted at least the approximate year in which my career as a chorister ended. I have posted that I was one of the choristers who participated in the making of that choir's first-ever album. I have posted that I was one of ten Grace Cathedral choristers who participated in the installation of the Presiding Bishop during my tenure as a chorister.

Etc., etc., etc.

And I am far from alone.

Just because the example strikes me as dizzyingly obvious, one of us has posted the State in which she presently lives (as well as various States in which she has previously lived). She has also posted the fact that she was a public defender in that State, and the fact that she moved from being a public defender in that State to being a public prosecutor in that State.

The names and business addresses of public defenders and public prosecutors are matters of public record. How many people move directly from being public defenders to being public prosecutors? More pointedly, how many people have done so in a State whose total population is less than that of at least nine US cities? Whose population is not even one-seventh the population of the San Francisco Bay Area?

Anonymity? Please.

-------------------------

I could belabor the point -- I'm pretty good at that -- but I don't see the need. For many of us, anonymity is nothing but a fantasy.

So, more broadly still, why indulge that fantasy? Why pretend that we are anonymous when the truth of the matter is that almost anyone, without resort to hacking or whatever, can find out who many of us are simply by working off of what we have said -- what we have freely chosen to say?

People can find out who we are. So what?

[Joe Guy]

People can find out who we are. So what?

My take on Jim's post was that quad would like it if everyone's identity would be public info on a BBS like this one.

And that's probably because quad has given out much more information about himself than most of us have done and he eventually realized that it wasn't the smartest thing he ever did - so he wants others to be required to expose themselves like he did.

I wouldn't care who quad, Andrew or anyone else here is in real life, unless one of them were to attempt to accuse me of doing something illegal.

I'm guessing most people here know that I have a personal problem with quad. But I will never expose his real name or any other personal information. I'll only joke about how he has attempted to make himself appear to have a much more important job than he actually has - as in when he claims that he works for Timothy Geithner when he is actually a computer tech for the IRS.

His real boss is an IT Supervisor in Pennsylvania.

And who really cares?

[Scooter]

More broadly, the illusion of anonymity on a board like this is, for many of us, exactly that: an illusion. Many of us have posted so much personal information about ourselves that anyone with even rudimentary internet skills -- and those skills must be rudimentary, because even I possess them -- can find out who we are.

One could try that. Or one could take advantage of the faulty privacy settings at the new CSB to capture the real names of as many posters as possible. Which at least one person did.

All of which just leaves to one side the question of what purpose does anyone believe would be served by putting for even a minor effort to discover the identities of their fellow posters. Besides using the knowledge as a tool of intimidation, that is.

[loCAtek]

Ra-thur, intimidation is so passé.

[The Hen]

Ra-thur, intimidation is so passé.

Yup.

[Andrew D]

More broadly, the illusion of anonymity on a board like this is, for many of us, exactly that: an illusion. Many of us have posted so much personal information about ourselves that anyone with even rudimentary internet skills -- and those skills must be rudimentary, because even I possess them -- can find out who we are.

One could try that. Or one could take advantage of the faulty privacy settings at the new CSB to capture the real names of as many posters as possible. Which at least one person did.

Not I.

All of which just leaves to one side the question of what purpose does anyone believe would be served by putting for [sic, forth?] even a minor effort to discover the identities of their fellow posters. Besides using the knowledge as a tool of intimidation, that is.

Or as a means of combatting attempts at intimidation.

Or as a means of refuting personal attacks of various other kinds.

[rubato]

Some people care a lot more about what Quad thinks, or might think, than others ever will.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Personally, I have no desire to find out or look up people who post here or in any other forum I subscribe to. There are a precious few who I communicate with outside of these forums and I would never betray their confidence even if they have posted things about themselves. But, if I found someone trying to get into my computer/life via the internet, I do have a few "tapeworms" that would root them out.