Should we reveal our identities?

[Rob]

The comment was made that there are potential advantages to doing away with anonymity on this forum, namely that respectful discourse would increase if we weren't hiding behind masks, or, in my case, underneath a lampshade.

To my knowledge, I've said very little that I wouldn't say to that person's face. Whether it would lead to a fist fight or not, I don't care. Whether it would lead to a gun in my face, or jeopardize the safety of my family, I do care. :-s

I would like to hear your opinion.

What say ye?

[Juliette]

Personally, I don't think there is anybody I have had conversations with here, that I would be worried about.
But what about the lurkers? Who are they?

[HeirofNumenor]

My primary concern is government tracking/eventual indefinite detention under NDAA and various other "Patriot" Act type laws...

...not that they won't arrest me for all the anti-war/homeland security stuff I post on my FaceBook wall...

[liberty_belle]

The comment was made that there are potential advantages to doing away with anonymity on this forum, namely that respectful discourse would increase if we weren't hiding behind masks, or, in my case, underneath a lampshade.

To my knowledge, I've said very little that I wouldn't say to that person's face. Whether it would lead to a fist fight or not, I don't care. Whether it would lead to a gun in my face, or jeopardize the safety of my family, I do care. :-s

I would like to hear your opinion.

What say ye?

Rob, I totally agree with you. There is nothing I have said that I would not have said in person. I have been civil, I have never called anyone names, I have never made fun of someone. I have stood on what I believe and have defended it, with civility. (at least I hope I have) The only reason I try to keep anonymity is because I have been stalked before and even someone threated that they would kill me if they knew who I was for my support of SB1070. So, why would I want to give up my identity to a forum that is public?

For those whom I have shared personal pm's I always sign my name if I believed them have been a sincere poster on this site. I have been involved in several controversial topics that when I revealed what those were, would also reveal my identity, which is one big reason I have deleted many of my posts that would have done that. There was nothing I could do with those posts which had been copied, but I did my best.

Knowing someone's name does not cause me to be more respectful to them because I know that behind a username is a real person that has opinions and experiences. I may not agree with someones position or even the way they treat me, but my reason for a username is strictly for safety reasons.

[BroJones]

My primary concern is government tracking/eventual indefinite detention under NDAA and various other "Patriot" Act type laws...

...not that they won't arrest me for all the anti-war/homeland security stuff I post on my FaceBook wall...

The guv-mint can track you even if you use "mickey Mouse" for your username.

I'm in favor of NO MASKS on the forum -- and talking to each other on a name-basis.

[Mark]

It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. Being CIA I know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE here whether you use a bogus name or not. Aussies file needed a new file cabinet it got so large. I've been tracking Brian for 6 years now and finally got a satellite fixed on him at all times. He can run but he can't hide. That goes for the rest of you crazies! :ymdevil:

[liberty_belle]

It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. Being CIA I know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE here whether you use a bogus name or not. Aussies file needed a new file cabinet it got so large. I've been tracking Brian for 6 years now and finally got a satellite fixed on him at all times. He can run but he can't hide. That goes for the rest of you crazies! :ymdevil:

That is so comforting Mark, thanks for letting me know, that you use your position to spy on your brothers and sisters. I sincerely hope you are kidding.

[SmallFarm]

I voted maybe because I don't think it should be mandatory
Personally, I don't think of myself as a threat to anybody, be it government or individual, I try to practice non-violent tolerance and longsuffering, at least nowadays. O:-) I do know that my speaking up for small government does draw attention to me, not to mention a lot of my friends on facebook are in the political extremes :-ss , but I know if someone waned to they could find out who I am rather easily as I am no computer hacker by any means of the imagination. So I gave up my feeling of security in anonymity a long time ago. I've even posted my facebook profile here a couple of times and asked anyone who wanted to, to friend me through facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/jason.farnsworth.33" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mark]

It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. Being CIA I know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE here whether you use a bogus name or not. Aussies file needed a new file cabinet it got so large. I've been tracking Brian for 6 years now and finally got a satellite fixed on him at all times. He can run but he can't hide. That goes for the rest of you crazies! :ymdevil:

That is so comforting Mark, thanks for letting me know, that you use your position to spy on your brothers and sisters. I sincerely hope you are kidding.

I never kid. Just ask Shadow.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMlRpN8ANrU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Juliette]

It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. Being CIA I know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE here whether you use a bogus name or not. Aussies file needed a new file cabinet it got so large. I've been tracking Brian for 6 years now and finally got a satellite fixed on him at all times. He can run but he can't hide. That goes for the rest of you crazies! :ymdevil:

I have an anti-spy scanner Mark! Me thinks you LIE! )

[HeirofNumenor]

My primary concern is government tracking/eventual indefinite detention under NDAA and various other "Patriot" Act type laws...

...not that they won't arrest me for all the anti-war/homeland security stuff I post on my FaceBook wall...

The guv-mint can track you even if you use "mickey Mouse" for your username.

I'm in favor of NO MASKS on the forum -- and talking to each other on a name-basis.

True, but I see no reason to make it easier on them :p

[jonesde]

Maybe the best solution is ostracization. It's tough sometimes to tell who is trying to spark an argument versus who is really truly uninformed or who has a different opinion. For those who are hostile, it's easier to tell.

It's tough to do, and even to decide when to do it, but if certain people were completely ignored it might be effective.

What might be more interesting than trying to require real names or verified identities would be to track down the multiple account folks more, and at least make it clear which accounts are associated (even if no link is made to the actual person). This would reduce a lot of the most egregious stuff as it seems that people are in many cases creating additional accounts just to say things they don't want to have associated with their main account.

This would probably require some volunteer labor, but is quite doable... there are even some easy ways to catch the most common cases (ie those who don't go to the trouble of using single use virtual machines with randomized configurations and such). The frameworks I use for work for clients have been doing this for over a decade in simple ways, and I've worked with some customizations that are quite elaborate to be sufficient to nearly eliminate financial fraud.

As for names... research is not always as easy as it seems. My name is "David Earl Jones" and I have lived for most of my life in Utah. However, if you google "David Earl Jones Utah" you'll get results on the first page alone with two different criminals who are not me (but who have made my life somewhat more difficult because of matching name and physical characteristics), and a doctor and a financial advisor who are not me... plus some people born over a century ago who are not me.

What's really unfortunate is that people aren't very careful about what they believe about others and don't really check if it is in fact the person they are thinking of. Government in general and law enforcement in particular are sometimes not very careful about this, and it really makes some messes.

[Juliette]

Maybe the best solution is ostracization. It's tough sometimes to tell who is trying to spark an argument versus who is really truly uninformed or who has a different opinion. For those who are hostile, it's easier to tell.

It's tough to do, and even to decide when to do it, but if certain people were completely ignored it might be effective.

What might be more interesting than trying to require real names or verified identities would be to track down the multiple account folks more, and at least make it clear which accounts are associated (even if no link is made to the actual person). This would reduce a lot of the most egregious stuff as it seems that people are in many cases creating additional accounts just to say things they don't want to have associated with their main account.

This would probably require some volunteer labor, but is quite doable... there are even some easy ways to catch the most common cases (ie those who don't go to the trouble of using single use virtual machines with randomized configurations and such). The frameworks I use for work for clients have been doing this for over a decade in simple ways, and I've worked with some customizations that are quite elaborate to be sufficient to nearly eliminate financial fraud.

As for names... research is not always as easy as it seems. My name is "David Earl Jones" and I have lived for most of my life in Utah. However, if you google "David Earl Jones Utah" you'll get results on the first page alone with two different criminals who are not me (but who have made my life somewhat more difficult because of matching name and physical characteristics), and a doctor and a financial advisor who are not me... plus some people born over a century ago who are not me.

What's really unfortunate is that people aren't very careful about what they believe about others and don't really check if it is in fact the person they are thinking of. Government in general and law enforcement in particular are sometimes not very careful about this, and it really makes some messes.

Its fine the way it is. Ostracizing is rude. I prefer to have a little fun. My personality can't consume such constant serious talk.
Unless a person is cursing or degrading, let them state their opinion. There will always be some level of hostility when talking politics or religion.

[BeNotDeceived]

I'm so far away that if I left today I'd be there yesterday

[larsenb]

Generally, I think people should post their true identities, however, they shouldn't be required to do so. It may be unwise and potentially dangerous for some, such as single women to identify themselves. But, as mentioned by others here, it does tend to make one more responsible for what you post.

Another consideration is that if you are NOT willing to be identified with your beliefs here, where would you be able to stand up for your beliefs in a public setting, where you couldn't hide behind a mask? Could you have stood up and been counted during the Revolution, could you have been one of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and so on.

In other words, if you aren't willing to be identified in a chat room, when and where would you be willing to do so; especially during crunch time? Identifying yourself on a site like this may be an opportunity to step up and act with a little more courage; to test the waters of bold disclosure in a setting that really won't have that much repercussion toward you.

Think about it.

[durangout]

I' on FB if anyone wants to know who I am.

[SmallFarm]

I' on FB if anyone wants to know who I am.

Aren't we FB friends?

[EmmaLee]

My question is - how would we know if someone was posting under their real name or not? Would we have to provide Brian with a scan of our "papers"? And even that wouldn't be 'proof'. Just because someone says, "_______ is my real name", doesn't mean it is.

[SmallFarm]

My question is - how would we know if someone was posting under their real name or not? Would we have to provide Brian with a scan of our "papers"? And even that wouldn't be 'proof'. Just because someone says, "_______ is my real name", doesn't mean it is.

Good point.

[sadie_Mormon]

To my knowledge, I've said very little that I wouldn't say to that person's face. Whether it would lead to a fist fight or not, I don't care. Whether it would lead to a gun in my face, or jeopardize the safety of my family, I do care. :-s

Exactly what I would say regarding this topic.

Personally I see no need for individuals to disclose their real identity on a forum. If I want to know someone beyond the forum I send them a PM or Email indicating so. It's not that I have concern about those who frequent the board. Where my deep concern lies is with those who lurk on these forums. The online world not only gives us access to much it also can help those who wish to hide behind a false identity do so. Many do it for anonymity which I completely understand, but you have those who do it as a way to retrieve information from unsuspecting persons. This person can use this information against you.

Let me add that I do think it's different for men versus women. Women can be more of a target online for all the wrong reasons as with children who are online. You can't be too trusting in this world.

Anyway, isn't that why we have facebook?! :-\

To sum it up if someone really wants to they can get information on you. I do believe you must be careful on any online forums. Remember you have families that you care and love so you don't want to make the stupid choice that could put you and your loved ones in danger.

Peace

[sadie_Mormon]

[Original_Intent]

This is a good point from both of you.... there actually HAVE been a few members calling each other out on the forum and they had to be warned or banned. Some of them had actually met in person at LDSFF gatherings, so there was a name and face with the threats. @-)

That being said.... I'm not sure how discussion on a forum could ever be important enough to want to hurt someone over it. WOW. To me that says a lot about the character of some people who have been here....

My wife and I had an interesting discussion on this a few days ago.

Usually, somoene else being wrong is not enough to get us angry. In fact, if we know enough that we are SURE they are wrong, we are more than likely to feel sorry for the person rather than angry with them.

Usually when we get angry with someone that we think is wrong, it is because we suspect that they may be right, and their ideas upset our paradigm, which makes us scared, which makes us angry. (Good ol' Yoda)

Of course, we may also get angry if we feel that their ignorance is going to have a negative effect on us. But I think this is far more rare.

[shadow]

It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. Being CIA I know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE here whether you use a bogus name or not. Aussies file needed a new file cabinet it got so large. I've been tracking Brian for 6 years now and finally got a satellite fixed on him at all times. He can run but he can't hide. That goes for the rest of you crazies! :ymdevil:

That is so comforting Mark, thanks for letting me know, that you use your position to spy on your brothers and sisters. I sincerely hope you are kidding.

I never kid. Just ask Shadow.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMlRpN8ANrU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R0NWL0Ff_k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[durangout]

I' on FB if anyone wants to know who I am.

Aren't we FB friends?

Yep.

[jonesde]

That being said.... I'm not sure how discussion on a forum could ever be important enough to want to hurt someone over it. WOW. To me that says a lot about the character of some people who have been here....

Not that it's a good thing, but it is understandable. Some people have a lot of vested interested in the status quo or the continued growth of the very parts of government that are most threatening to freedom. Others have based their self-image and world-image on concepts that are antithetical to freedom, and anything that contradicts those ideas feels like a personal attack.

This is actually one of the most regrettable parts of a system of government that operates under the assumption that anything you can get away with (write a law to support, avoid prosecution over, etc) is okay. Everyone with an agenda (which is everyone... ) wants to grab the proverbial "gun in the room" and use it to support their cause, whether well-meaning or not. That approach to solving problems creates so many problems, and these sorts of threats are in some cases maybe just a symptom of that aspect of our culture.

When I was young my mother taught me that violence is not the way to solve problems. Now that I've grown up a little, it's clear that either very few mothers taught this lesson, or very few children learned it. It is the basis of nearly every aspect of our lives these days: violence is the solution currently in vogue.