Wendy's Comments on David's Suggestions

>>I think the doc is good. My comments are much smaller scale than >>Wendy's. (Thank you for the larger scale, Wendy.) >> >>My main concern is that my own particular hobbyhorse has not been >>sufficiently ridden. Yeehaw! I personally would like to see some >>mention of the social effect of anonymity in addition to the effect >>on "democratic discourse, consumer protection, and >>anti-corruption." How does anonymity affect the way in which folks >>play with their selves (yes, I know it's an unfortunate turn of >>phrase) on line? How integral has it been in how discourse and >>social relations form at myspace, secondlife, slashdot, usenet, etc.?

Yes. It would be useful to make one goal the enumeration of realms in which anonymity is valued (personal, social, cultural, political, economic, religious, etc.), and give examples of how it serves in those instances.

For example, during a recent Wikipedia browsing on Jehovah's Witnesses (curious about their concentration in Brooklyn Heights), I was reminded of their religious conviction that authorship and other expressive activity should be anonymous because only God should be named. That's why they've been plaintiffs in major anonymity cases.

>>I like the discussion of the danger of concentration in practice >>despite decentralization in theory. Along the same lines, I worry >>about whether the widespread availability of ID in the >>infrastructure will lead merchants et al. to demand ID where >>previously they did not, so the practical situation will be that >>you can remain anonymous...if you're willing to be a cultural hermit.

Absolutely. This reminds me more and more of connections to trusted computing, where it won't be mandatory to run a "trusted" operating system, but those who don't won't get access to any of the books and movies released exclusively online (when that hypothetical world comes). Social and market pressures, and the collective action problems making it difficult for the public to protest with one voice, give the corporate and government actors a stronger say.

Economically, anonymity can be a way to fight price discrimination; but without widespread anonymity, the anonymous user might always end up paying the highest price, while the one who fits the lowest price profile will tend to give up more information than he/she wants.

Yet anonymity is useful to businesses to hide their research from competitors. Some use Tor to avoid leaving online research trails that could tip off competitors or market analysts, as well as to browse competitors' websites without getting misleadingly customized versions. "It looks as though you're visiting Amazon from BN, would you like to buy 'How Businesses Fail?'"

>>The doc might also make more of the that pseudonymity may provide a >>practical alternative to ID in many instances. You mention it, but >>I actually think the anonymity <-> ID continuum isn't a >>continuum...it's a triangle, with pseudonymity as a vertex. Not >>only is pseudonymity not a point on the line between anon and ID, >>it's of equal weight. IMO. So, I'd like to see it built up a bit in the doc.

The recent Pew study found 55% of bloggers using pseudonyms, which might or might not have been linkable to offline identities.

--Wendy

>>The "scope" section is the most problematic one, imo. Two issues: >> >>1. Focusing on gov and business could skew the results. E.g., >>imagine that there are strong governmental reasons to end anonymity >>totally. Without considering the effect on online culture, we can't >>decide if those reasons should carry the day. So, I'd like to see >>the context broadened. And, for that reason, I'd like to see some >>sociology mentioned. >> >>2. In addition, the scope section is the only one that reads as if >>it knows ahead of time what the results will be. I know (confidence >>level: 1.0) that's not what you intend. But it could be read that way. >> >>Finally, my most important and searing comment: Generally, when >>using proportionally-spaced type, one uses only one space after a period.