Online anonymity

[Robin Orton]

I'm always going on about this, I know, but it looks as if the tide of opinion is moving in my direction. This from today's Independent:

Facebook's marketing director and sister of founder Mark Zuckerberg has called for an end to online anonymity to help stop cyber-bullying. Randi Zuckerberg said internet users would "behave a lot better" if people were forced to use their real names when communicating on the online. "I think anonymity on the internet has to go away," she said during a panel discussion on social media hosted by Marie Claire magazine."I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors." Ms Zuckerberg added that the end of online anonymity could reduce harassment and "trolling" on the web. [...]

The proposals put forward by Ms Zuckerberg echo similar statements by the former head of Google, Eric Schmidt. Mr Schmidt has called online anonymity "dangerous" and predicted governments will eventually demand that people use their names for all online activity [...]

I think this applies even more to a local forum like this one, when we are all neighbours and may well meet each other - or indeed want to do so - in a non-online setting. What possible reason can there be for anonymity in this context?

So, Admin, go with the flow, be an early adopter, become a living legend amongst your peers, register your bid for the Gold Medal of the Chartered Society of Local Internet Forum Administrators. Introduce a 'real names only' policy forthwith.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Why Robin?

I don't like the idea tbh.

I don't need to know who anyone is, it adds to the mystery.

I think a social network is different than a forum and real names works but some people wish to remain anonymous and for good reason.

There's a lot of weirdo's around and any number of nut job stalkers.

I can see how it would work on an open social network because it would help to protect the children.

Not on here though as there aren't really any children posting on here, although one could argue that point.

[admin]

I've added a poll. BTW Robin - how am I to know it is your real name? Will users have to produce passport and/or driving licence? Do I ban if you have neither? Must I ban myself?

And names are not unique - as for the FB chappy - bit ripe from someone who won't let me use my real email address.

Admin

[Robin Orton]

Obviously, as Admin points out, a 'real names' only policy could not be enforced on this sort of forum. Perhaps however, on the 'nudge' principle, it could nevertheless be strongly encouraged, by a suitable notice by Admin at the appropriate stage in the registration procedure. This is a neighbourhood forum and we aspire to trust our neighbours, so we encourage people to use their real names unless they've got special reasons for not wanting to to do so, that sort of thing.

[Eagle]

I agree with Robin that real names a good idea ( although would have to change ).
Trouble is ypu could put anyname. I could say my name was Angus and admin would presumably accept it.

What would Big Bad Wolf do ?

[kingfisher]

.

[Tim Lund]

On Facebook, I'm currently engaged in a discussion with one of our local councillors on this very matter

Maybe insisting on real names would be an answer for localisation ...? It would match what we expect of people in f2f meetings.

The problem with this is that some people's jobs make it difficult to use real names. For instance, STF has police officers and professional planners who share their experience, and would not if they had to say who they were. OTOH, users should realise that what they write will carry more weight if they can use real names.

Some people's jobs... like, err, politicians? There is a more general problem of provenance here, in that either some people (who?) on a forum 'know' (how?) that "PC99" is genuinely a particular real serving Police officer; or that nobody does.

You find out by PM'ing them, getting to know them that way. It's just how it works - and it does. Maybe not as well as well as we might imagine things working in a freer, more open society, where no one feels inhibited about saying what they think, but this is the real world.

My point is, some people's jobs (or other real-world roles) make it more complicated/consequential to use real names; or to try and disguise their real identities online (and eventually, inevitably, be outed at some point).

I do understand, and a councillor probably has to be more careful than most. But they can post using their real name - e.g. Cllr James Barber in East Dulwich - in a Forum such as STF where others can post with aliases - to the benefit not just of themselves, politically, but citizens in general. Just you won't be able to get away with much humour, or even self mockery, such as deliberately OTT references to obscure writers, which some readers will just take as pretentious. The main point is that you should not deny others the right to use aliases.

Good point from Eagle about how you establish that names are of real people - not everyone has access to the entire electoral roll, but political parties do, so requirements that people should be real and local would hand them an information advantage.

[JohnPaschoud]

I'm "Local councillor" in the above quoted fb discussion.

Well, I claim to be. In my registration I've chosen to use an email address that it should be possible for the STF admin to check the provenance of, so some of you can seek his assurance if you wish. There are some peer-reviewed standards, adopted by more than one national government, for what we call Level of [Identity] Assurance ("LoA") in the registration process - and this fails to meet most of them. I also have an academic/professional interest in Access & Identity Management (and possibly some degree of expertise in it). My experience is mainly with the technical, organisational, governance and policy side of things; so I Am Not A Lawyer - but I often mix with some of the best (lawyers) in this field. So if you intend to quote this post anywhere, you'd be well advised to first gather sound evidence of who really wrote it, to avoid the risk that the real Councillor John Paschoud might sue you for falsely attributing it to him!

Someone else above makes the distinction between a "forum" and a "social network" (and that anonymity is appropriate for a forum but there may be 'child protection' reasons for real world identity to be clear in a social network. I think the lines between the two are unclear, and also that there's a difference between a geographically local forum/network, and one to which geography is irrelevant. I've participated and moderated both sorts for a number of years (well, since before they let 'civilians' play on the Internet in large numbers ;->).

We could compare & contrast STF, SE23, LovePerryVale and others that have clear apparent ties to local geography. The stated aim of LPV from its' start was to parallel the Council-facilitated Local Assembly, and to restrict membership on the same basis - to those who "Live, Work, Learn or Play in Perry Vale". It has a stated minimum participation age of 13, although we are thinking of extending that to 11 (to match the current voting age in the Lewisham Young Mayor elections). The "work, learn and play" categories are obviously difficult to assure, but actually most users claim to live here. As a ward councillor I have access to the full version of the electoral register, and therefore (as an admin of LPV) the means to check whether the name someone chooses to register bears some resemblance to a name on the electoral register at the same postcode.

If fora/networks like LPV are to develop in parallel with other more traditional ways of extending participation in local democracy and decision-making (and I believe they should), they need to use parallel ways of giving authority and attaching responsibility to what people say. Some people are uncomfortable about identifying themselves when speaking at Local Assembly meetings; and (for example) when making objections to Planning applications. But we usually insist that they cannot do so anonymously. Why?

If you agree with any of the answers you can think of to that, then why have things different online?

In some circumstances we have allowed/expected some anonymity for Council officers and others who give advice in a professional capacity to inform decisions - but increasingly they (and even Police officers) are expected to be individually identifiable and therefore personally responsible for their words and actions.

I'm intending to consult existing LPV members on whether we should insist that screen names are real world names; and impose that (more firmly than at present) on new members. I'm not aware of awards for forum/network admins, but it might establish a higher level of authority for contributions - than on fora where anonymity is allowed or encouraged.

We will still only have a low LoA; but we don't require f2f participants to prove their claimed identity with "government-issued photo ID". Come to think of it, we don't even check that councillors really are who they claim to be, before they vote in Council meetings!

[Ann Shantoak]

As a woman, I'd rather stay anonymous. I don't want my photo displayed, my birthday known, or anything personal. It's interesting that all these decisions are being made by men.

In a perfect world, we would all be honest and stand up for what we believe. There wouldn't be spammers and internet/forum bullies. But there are and if you're proposing that everyone show their faces, then this forum would be used by much less of us.

If this does happen, then why not remove the ability to send PMs? If you wish to contact anyone, then organise more social events or arrange to meet up on other social networks. That way everything's out in the open for everyone to see.

I stopped using LPV when I just kept getting spam and nobody was posting on it.

[Voyageur]

Very much with you on this Ann - I don't think that these forums would thrive if actual identities were insisted upon. Anonymity is needed for personal safety reasons IMO, added to which the organisation I work for (very) firmly discourages staff from disclosing any personal details on local forums or social networks - and I happen to want to hang on to my job!

Having said that, on the local forum I frequent, I have found that people often volunteer their first names when exchanging PMs. I also organise the forum socials, which is a good way of meeting the actual people behind the forum names. In both cases it is a calculated risk under the control of the individual, rather than exposing personal details to anyone and everyone.

[Robin Orton]

I don't want my photo displayed, my birthday known, or anything personal

.
I don't think anyone's suggesting this, Ann, are they?

Anonymity is needed for personal safety reasons IMO,

In what way am I endangering myself by posting under my own name, Voyageur?

[Voyageur]

In what way am I endangering myself by posting under my own name, Voyageur?

You may well not be Robin. Women may well have a different view - I do.

[Tim Lund]

Good to hear from you here, John.

Has LB Lewisham yet adopted any LoA registration standards? If so, what are they? When you write that the registration process here fails to meet most such standards, can you specify which, and in what ways? When you write 'peer-reviewed', who are the peers who do the reviewing? If it is a group of academics, it begs the question why their views should be relevant to what happens here - here, I would have thought, the standards are to be set by a combination of the law of the land, and what works in practice as evidenced by the quality of discussion and number of responses.

When you write

The stated aim of LPV from its start was to parallel the Council-facilitated Local Assembly

, I wonder what you mean by "to parallel". "To complement" I could understand, but you seem to interpret "parallel" to mean requiring the same formal standards of identification. I'm reminded of the 19th century struggle for the secret ballot, whose opponents thought it unmanly and un-English that electors should sneakily not be prepared to reveal who they were voting for. Thankfully, we got over that, with the help of a process whereby ballot-papers are marked in a way that, if there's any dispute, it's possible to detect cheating, but in general anonymity is maintained - so not exactly paralleling previously expected democratic standards. And realistically speaking, that's how it's going to be here.

There are a whole range of ways electors and elected can communicate:

• Properly conducted elections
• One on one face to face meetings such as surgeries
• Many to many face to face meetings such as local Assemblies
• Independent local forums - such as this
• Independent local press - such as the South London Press
• Council funded publications - such as Lewisham Life
• Local councillor moderated on-line forums, such as LPV
• Local councill officer moderated forums - such as recently started on http://www.lewisham.gov.uk
• Formal submissions on planning applications
• Informal discussions with independently constituted groups representing various local interests
• and doubtless many more

Apart from proper elections - which for me must remain the most important, and formal legally defined processes such as planning - I don't think there's a general rule as to which is most important. I think they could all complement each other, although I think it's not likely that more than one Forum will thrive in a given area.

[Rachael]

I'm not sure why a woman should fear more from being identified online than a man. Many women have an open online presence - I, for example, have a blog in my own name because it relates to what I do for a living. Women express their views in all sorts of media without hiding their identity. Are they any more or less in danger than a woman who reveals her name on a local forum?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Voyageur]

I'm not sure why a woman should fear more from being identified online than a man. Many women have an open online presence - I, for example, have a blog in my own name because it relates to what I do for a living. Women express their views in all sorts of media without hiding their identity. Are they any more or less in danger than a woman who reveals her name on a local forum?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Maybe its a different mindset.

I can speak from experience though, having been cyber stalked to a mild degree (unpleasant enough though) on a forum in the past. Although I hadn't provided my actual name, I had made the mistake of providing snippets of personal information that the member in question subsequently used to make my life uncomfortable for a while. Better to be safe than sorry IMO - I am not expecting anyone to agree.

I would almost certainly not partake in forums like these if I had to provide my actual name to other members.

[Rachael]

I agree about being safe and sensible, but surely a man is as likely to attract a cyber stalker as a woman? That was my main point.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Voyageur]

I agree about being safe and sensible, but surely a man is as likely to attract a cyber stalker as a woman? That was my main point.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I am happy for the precaution to apply to men as much as women

[admin]

Voyageur - there is a PM for you.

Admin

[Ann Shantoak]

I don't want my photo displayed, my birthday known, or anything personal

.
I don't think anyone's suggesting this, Ann, are they?

It's only a small step closer to Google someone or check on Facebook if your full name is known. It just takes one Facebook friend with low security settings to find out more about you. This leaves us all vulnerable.

[JohnPaschoud]

There's further interesting discussion of the Google+ stance on online identity (which prompted my fb post, to which Tim Lund reacted and then partly reported here) on an info-security forum I read regularly: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/07 ... -openness/.

Lewisham Council, like other public bodies, is subject to the FoI Act (I am not), so if Tim or other STF members are desperately interested in their policies covering LoA or other aspects of IAM, they will know how to obtain them. I'd be interested to have a discussion with Stuart sometime about personal privacy and terms-of-service used by STF, and what I might learn from his experience to help me fine-tune those for LovePerryVale.