Post by ShadowOn Mon, 1 Apr 2019 08:43:09 +0100, David in Devon
Post by David in DevonPost by ShadowOn Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:34:32 +0100, David in Devon
I cannot in all honesty relate to those 'persona' on Usenet who
cannot/will not provide/display evidence of who they really are.
Usenet was designed to be anonymous. If you can't accept that
pretend you're a moderator and *BAN* yourself..
Only fools "provide/display evidence of who they really are".
If you say so!
*You can’t be anonymous on Usenet*
https://www.ivpn.net/privacy-guides/adversaries-and-anonymity-systems-the-basics
Only if you post using your RL details.
That's simply untrue. <shrug>
Introduction
Living in today’s interconnected world has brought with it significant
advantages. Most apparently, the velocity of communication and
information interchange has opened new avenues for the propagation of
ideas and new businesses in ways that were in the domain of science
fiction only a few generations ago. However, along with the benefits
this new world provides, there are significant new challenges raised.
The same technology that allows families to communicate in realtime
across continents also enables widespread cataloguing of those
conversations’ contents. The same technology that allows online
retailers to customize your shopping experiences in such a way as to
give you exactly what you want from the comfort of your own home also
allows data clearinghouses to form a highly detailed profile of you,
including not only information you have provided but also private facts
about yourself that they can statistically deduce with startling
accuracy based on the massive amounts of consumer data they hold.
Privacy vs Anonymity
This complex system that we find ourselves in demands precision of
thought and language to ensure that we are able to achieve our
individual privacy goals. It is therefore important to analyze and
differentiate between two different, though closely intertwined notions:
privacy vs. anonymity.
Privacy
Privacy lies at the intersection of two fundamental social notions:
control and trust. That is, who has control over information about you,
and do you trust him or her to keep that information secret? When a
student enters university, he knows that the university will be
cataloging his performance in class. That catalogue of performance can
function as a proxy for the student’s intelligence, his work ethic, or
even just his interest (or lack thereof) in a given field of study. This
is intimate data about an individual that a person rightfully would like
to be kept private. Unfortunately for the student, he lacks control of
this data – it exists in his university’s database. However, due to
local laws and contractual obligations, the student knows that the
university would face substantial sanctions and liability were it to
reveal his private data to others without his prior authorization.
Trust
Because of these safeguards, the student has “trust” that his private
information will be protected by the university; their interests are
aligned with his through threat of consequence. The student then can say
that his grades or marks at university are still “private.” The fact of
the matter is that we face situations like this every day. We often are
coerced, either out of convenience, law, or some other force, into
giving up some element of control over our private information. In the
case of our student above, the only way for him to receive some sort of
certification as to his confidence in a given field is to submit to the
system of the university. Usually this is marked with some assurances
that the information will only be used for agreed-upon purposes: we
enter a trust relationship with the entity to whom we give control of
our information. Unfortunately, many of these entities have shown
themselves to be less than trustworthy. Whether it is governments
wiretapping its own citizens without following the legal requirements to
do so, or your ISP selling your browsing history to marketers and
data-collectors, it becomes apparent that an individual cannot trust
those to whom he is coerced into giving control of his private information.
Anonymity
We are now faced with a predicament: how do we maintain our privacy when
we are forced to give up control of our private information and we know
that we cannot trust the entities to whom we give the information? Here
is where the idea of anonymity comes into play. Consider a political
dissident posting blog entries that are critical of the regime currently
in control of his nation. In any nation, it can be assumed that there is
at a subset of the population that does not support the current
leadership, this is not the significant problem. The difficulty comes
into play when the dissident’s ISP provides the government with log data
tying the blog post to his home internet connection. If he could somehow
bifurcate his physical-world identity from his blog entries, then the
fact that he cannot trust his ISP ceases to be relevant. This could be
as simple as using open wifi access points from which to make his posts,
but this can be risky as one tries to avoid patterns of access that cou
ld give clues to one’s identity.
Post by ShadowPost by David in DevonPost by ShadowYou never explained why you have over 20 fake nyms. Multiple
personalities, effects of alcohol (can't remember) or a reluctance to
"provide/display evidence of who you really are" ?
I'm actually quite proud of who I am!
Which nym are you proud of, or can't you remember ?
Probably this one:-
https://community.dynamics.com/members/bdontj
The linkedIn link 'works! :-)
D.