2007/03/28

beyond belief...

What happened to Kathy is just plain unacceptable.

I've been very vocal for many years now on the subject of anonymous posting. To me, anyone using anonimity in the name of "freedom of speech" is just trying to fool themselves.

Democratic freedoms come with responsibilities. One's right to voice an opinion should not EVER preempt one's responsibility to the rest of the social structure that maintains that right in the first place.

I've said it again and again: anyone wanting to live outside of the structures of society is more than welcome to go live in the bush, for all I care. But while that someone is living in the same society I live in, then behave according to the rules of that society! And one of those rules is that neither I - nor Kathy nor anyone else - have to be subjected to this sort of thing!

Anonimity fosters this type of idiotic behaviour. And encourages it. For no great advantage as a trade-in: given the appropriate settings, an IP address is as good as any street address.

Of course: there is such a thing as anonymous re-mailers and such. I've long been against them in their current guise, they serve no purpose whatsoever in this day and age.

Yeah sure, someone in China or North Korea might be disadvantaged by not being able to mail a free speech message. And if you believe that argument, I've got a bridge to sell you as well. Cheap, too!...

No, this sort of thing is just not on. I hope the police find this idiot and give him/her a good serving: that's what they deserve.

8 Comments:

Blogger Fahd Mirza said...

Yes its extremely shocking and I was baffled to read her post. It would be a huge loss to blogosphere if she quits blogging.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:44:00 pm  
Blogger Noons said...

Indeed!

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:19:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not agree and feel that being able to interact anonymously has advantages IMHO.

It's certainly a shame about Kathy though and there are hopefully pending repercussions either legal or criminal for the responsible parties.

Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:20:00 am  
Blogger Noons said...

My feeling is that there is no such thing as "interacting anonimously".


The problem with anonimity is precisely that: there is no such thing as interaction. All there is is someone blurting something and expecting everyone else to listen.


But in real life people don't interact that way. Folks who do that are usually found sleeping under bridges. I know that is not the case with you! But that's the feeling I get from anonymous posts.


They remind me of a derelict blaring away at the world: no consequence whatsoever. Mostly because the folks involved don't want to assume the responsibility of their own words.


And that is the problem. Usually, I ignore them, jut like I do ignore a madman barking at the world. However, in this case you made your point in a civil way and that I can respect. I just agree to disagree.


As for Kathy's, yes without a doubt there should be some consequences to whoever did that. This is regardless of anonimity.

It's just basic social structure in question there, isn't it? I mean, if we allow this sort of character assassination to go unchecked, what next? Oracle's support chasing up those who disagree with their crazy policies? Narh, never! :-)

Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:52:00 am  
Blogger Joel Garry said...

Some people have been proposing strong non-repudiation down to the hardware level, for a long time. Usually it's in the context of commercial transactions, but perhaps all the whoop-de-do about social interaction (child molesters! terrorists!) is where the emotional push would come from to actually implement such a thing - yes, it would take a long time.

Of course, this would be the basic infrastructure to implement Big Brother (from the book, not the monitoring software :-) and I think the answer to that would be two or more internets: a strongly typed, shall we say, for the interests of online society and commerce, and wild-west or private nets for those who would want such things.

You can't (completely) legislate behavior, especially that which deals with basic drives like fear, sex, hunger, etc. But you can hide it away and maybe tax and regulate it.

Geez, I go offline a few days and the net falls apart! :-)

Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:32:00 pm  
Blogger Noons said...

well, the milnet is still very much around: so various nets is not such a far fetched idea. I suppose tunneling would allow such without major upheaval.

Good points, Jgar. And no, you can't go offline, dude: we need you around! :-)

Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:15:00 pm  
Blogger Joel Garry said...

And now I can't sign in to my flickr account because of yahoo... siiiiigggggghhhhh.

Sunday, April 01, 2007 3:21:00 am  
Anonymous drShop said...

WooW =)

Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:27:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home