Topic: The "invisible man" allegory (Read 2278 times)

I was indeed talking about anonymity here, not pseudonimity.

But it doesn't say "anonymous" over to the left, now does it?
<------------------------------------------------------
It says "myrkul" and has a cute picture of a kitten with a sniper rifle, overlaid by the Shire Society seal.

That's pseudonymity, not anonymity. It allows for our previous interactions to influence this one, and this one to influence future ones. In other words, carrot and stick. If I wanted anonymity briefly, I would need to create a sockpuppet. That sockpuppet account, unless "outed," would not affect the reputation of this account negatively or positively, but would have an entirely different reputation track. Which, and this is kinda important, would start at 0. (Actually more like -1 or -2, due to the skepticism.)

That's one drawback of anonymity, indeed.   But it does not change the fact that it allows you to do stuff without fear of judgment or punishment.    It removes the carrot AND the stick.

Keep in mind that in this environment, a trusted identity has lots of value as an unknown identity is treated with skepticism. If you want to trade of do business, you need at least one identity that has some sort of positive reputation.

Empirical evidence would suggest otherwise...

As I wrote in my post, on internet you can easily get rid of an identity and take an other one, and nobody will be able to know it's the same physical person behind it.

The first box doesn't say "stupid person." It says "normal person." I've had those talented programmers treat me like dirt because I had the temerity to make a suggestion.

That said, pseudonymity (not anonymity) is compatible with moral behavior. The key is that you have a different identity, but it is an identifiable identity (for example, a forum user name).

Well, people who use anonymity on internet are not all stupid people.   Some of them are talented programmers, specialized in cryptography and P2P systems.

I like a bit of privacy because I don't trust other people with the information.

For example, when Facebook showed gay adverts and my homophobic boss started me different. Also the jealous girlfriend of course.

Privacy is power like any other. Depends.

I think for the most part it's morals keeping law and order together. Fear of getting caught just seals the deal. Both of these things aren't completely removed if you're invisible.

Today I watched an interesting documentary series about "prophets of science fiction".

The episode about H.G. Wells and more specifically the part about his "invisible man" novel made me think of something.



I'm not sure I had realized before how this story is more of a moral tale than a science-fiction one.   The main issue of this book is about what would happen if men are given a way to avoid having to face judgment and punishments from other people.  What if people could do whatever they want without having to fear retaliation from others?   In other words:  is anonymity compatible with moral values?

Today we are very far away from creating something like an invisibility cloak or something like that, even with recent developements in metamaterials.  And yet I believe the "invisible man" is still a pertinent story to illustrate some of the issues about information technology.  Because on the internet, you can be invisible.

There is even a popular website who's title pretty much states that,

http://www.howtovanish.com/

and it's no surprise that this site has been bitcoin-friendly very early.

So even if a man can not (yet) be invisible in the physical space, he can indeed be invisible in the cyberspace.

In cyberspace, you can use TOR, a hot-spot access, or some other IP obfuscation method in order to make sure that whatever you do on the internet, nobody will know who you are, either IRL (meaning that noone will know your name and address) or even virtually (meaning that you'll be able to connect later and nobody will be able to link this connection with the previous one and know that it's the same person behind).

On internet, we can have no face whatsoever, if we want so.

Considering how many important things happen on the internet nowadays, it's really a societal issue.   Commerce for instance is not excluded, and so now it is possible to buy anything you want, or at least things that you would not normally by in public, either because it is illegal (downloading copyrighted material, buying drugs on Silk road) or shameful (buying sex-toys, watching porn or trolling people on forums).

The power of invisibility is quite a thrilling idea, even if it's just in cyberspace.  Quoting the main character of Wells' novel:

"To do such a thing would be to transcend magic. And I beheld, unclouded by doubt, a magnificent vision of all that invisibility might mean to a man—the mystery, the power, the freedom. Drawbacks I saw none."


The freedom he's talking about is obviously not the kind of freedom we are supposed to get from law-organised, ordered democratic societies.  No, it's the freedom that happens in anarchy.  The kind of freedom that can scare you.

Anonymity is probably not compatible with law.   Why should I obey the law if I don't agree with it and if I have nothing to fear from a judge or a police officer?