Is the loss of being anonymous online really that big of loss?
In the epilogue Garfinkel states that:
"Today, many people live in two worlds: the online world and that of "real life." But this duality is quickly eroding."
I do not think this is that big of a loss. Mostly because if people need to have the duality, they usually have something to hide. I think that the online life, should just be as secure as the "real world. " I have one example to support why I think the online world should match that of real life.
From my time working at FDLE, I got to deal a good bit with the missing children's unit and while there I heard of many cases that the reason the child went missing is because they were solicited from online chat rooms, or instant messenger. If there were a way, not to have everyone registered as like "Andrew Elekes @ the world wide web" but to track them back to a computer serial number that I think would provide great protection to all on the internet.
I don't really have more of a solution to a problem like this, but wanted to put out a differing opinion to that of Garfinkel.
I think in the book he has skated the line between privacy and anonymity. Privacy to me means that I live at 112 Main Street and what I do behind close doors is my business. Anonymity means I can be who ever I want at 112 Main Street or any other address.
I feel the need to make the distinction because some of his plans to have consumers fight back by creating fake ids, and aliases will just hurt his cause for privacy. I think though he is right on track with the legal and public opinion approaches.
There is nothing that is going to stop the USA from becoming a database nation but hopefully it will be a secure one with individual rights.
5 comments:
My book didn't have an epilogue.
Lucky me.
Today I pretty much live in “real life.” However, soon the “online world” will be “real life.” I realize that and I am trying to have more of an open mind to the virtual workplace. Although, the workplace is about as far as I will go with the virtual world. I could really care less to talk with people on the computer with my personal time. I would rather go out and play golf and hone my social skills. Because, after all, true social skills can only be learned face to face. No matter how “online” our world is someday, there will always be face to face interactions. Talking online and talking face to face is completely different. You can be whoever you want online. It is not truly real. When you interact face to face with people that is truly real. Your thoughts on anonymity and privacy were definitely interesting. I never really though t about it that way.
The epilogue was a good part to tie some key points of the book together. The actual numbers given and addresses were a useful tool that we should all try and take advantage of.
Unfortunately, there is no quick fix to this problem we face. Privacy will continue to be a major issue and hopefully some new laws and regulations will be put into place.
The online world is already the "real world". Just look at second life. People "live", chat, and buy things in an alternate world. I personally find it to be bizarre but others do not and that is there thing. I will give them PRIVACY doing so. Like you said, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do behind closed doors at their house. There is no reason that the government should take that away. The constitution gives us the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and I feel that that means that I will not be interfered with in my personal life.
I do not like that the online world is the real world. I like the old, pretend world much better. I am like Travis in that I prefer to socialize face to face and do not like to use my free time to interact via the web. I understand that it can be more convenient, but is also less personal and a place that anti-social crazies can rule the world-virtual world, though now- the real world.
Post a Comment