Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:02:37 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 10:55:36, Michael Cummings wrote: >On July 01, 2000 at 10:01:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 01, 2000 at 08:01:36, Michael Cummings wrote: >> >>>On June 30, 2000 at 21:38:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 30, 2000 at 05:36:22, Michael Cummings wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 29, 2000 at 23:13:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In another 5 years there won't be any 'anonymous internet users'. The public >>>>>>simply won't stand for it much longer. >>>>> >>>>>I do not agree with this. Privacy laws in Australia are at least looking at >>>>>defending our rights not to be known all over the place. >>>>> >>>>>We have a huge problem at the moment with big companies taking over medical >>>>>practices and then saying they have the right too send our medical record to >>>>>places that can then use that information to sell us stuff. Well we are knocking >>>>>that on the head. >>>>> >>>>>The public will stand for privacy for a very long time to come, or simply they >>>>>will not join nor use it. >>>> >>>> >>>>"privacy" and "anonymous" are _not_ the same thing. Not by a long shot. >>> >>>In computer terms, I think it is pretty much the same thing. If you are not >>>anonymous, then your details are not private. If you want your details to remain >>>private you either do not give them, or do things in a way in which you remain >>>anonymous, thus your details remain private. >>> >>>So in regard to the internet and many other things, they are connected >> >> >>Connected, but not the same thing. Privacy law in the US dictates what can and >>can not be released about private individuals. But the "identity" of someone >>is not part of the data that is protected. The type of privacy that some seem >>to want is the ability to put on a completely new face, and be able to go out in >>public and do anything they want, from robbing a bank to shooting someone. Then >>by removing that phony face, they have no fear of facing the consequences of >>their actions. >> >>I don't call that privacy. I call it lunacy. > >What is wrong with having a false name on here, as long as it is not really >stupid. We have moderators to check and remove any offending posts. Thats what >they are here for. And I would say a large majority of people being booted or >banned now are people with normal sounding names, or people that use there real >names and are just pains in the ass. Let me make my position clearer, then. No, I don't believe that _all_ anonymous posters are bad. In fact, most are probably perfectly acceptable people that write perfectly acceptable posts. But a _few_ don't. And that few is enough (IMHO) to make the concept of 'anonymous members' a bad idea. Yes a few bad apples can spoil the barrel. Unfortunately. And with a couple of thousand apples, we know that a few are bad at any given time. Another good case in point would be "How would CCC work if _everybody_ was anonymous?" Who would you listen to? How would you know you are getting answers from the author of a particular program you are interested in, rather than from some nut-case that doesn't even own the program? IMHO that would also be totally unworkable. Fully anonymous is no good. Partial anonymous causes problems. What's left? That is where I am coming from. I am _good_ at solving a problem. My solution may, on occasion, have repercussions beyond the original problem. But I _can_ solve specific problems when they crop up. My suggested solution here is simply "everybody knows everybody." > >Its not such a big deal. You are acting like anonymous people are just plain bad >and trouble makers, that the impression you seem to have for people who want >this. See above. This _is_ true for a small sub-set of anonymous posters. But to get rid of that sub-set, I am willing to get rid of the entire bunch and let folks either stand up and say who they are, or else disappear into the sunset. > >Most just want to be ableto do things and to keep there private details, >private. We all hear the stories of wackos on the net and people hacking. Its >just a way to reamin safe. It works both ways. You want to protect yourself from 'wackos'. I want to protect _myself_ from wackos. I could disappear and come back as "jughead" or some other anonymous user, but then I would have to be very careful what I said. I couldn't answer many questions about Crafty. I couldn't say a word about what I am currently working on. Seems like a bad idea overall...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.