Anonymity brings out the worst in people and although I believe in freed of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.
If you make a statement be prepared to assume responsibility for that statement.
Ok, first off you talk about anonymity as if it is wrong, but yet unless your actual name is tagyro, you are hiding under that same anonymity that you are complaining about.
That said, the idea of the internet was that it was supposed to be anonymous. That you could be anyone, share your ideas freely without public persecution. I know some of you feel differently, and that is your right. However, if you feel that strongly about it; change your username to your actual name.
I have my name on here because I chose to be public about it. My stances and my beliefs I am public about, and I have no problems with people knowing that I think Macs are better, Windows PCs are pieces of shit, and that Open Source is usually the way to go.
Anonymity brings out the worst in people and although I believe in freed of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously
He wrote, using a pseudonym...
Please post your real full name, address & telephone #.
Writing implements were not purposely built for the purpose of creating anonymous communications. And if it used as such there are ways to attempt to track where a piece of written information comes from since it will be part of a physical object in the physical world. Handwriting recognition, fingerprints and DNA on the paper, investigating how it came to appear wherever it appeared.
Ok, first off you talk about anonymity as if it is wrong, but yet unless your actual name is tagyro, you are hiding under that same anonymity that you are complaining about.
So? The world is the way it is. Disadvantaging yourself on principle for a cause that has little traction or likelihood of changing at any time in the near future is silly, and certainly not as a result of your choosing to surrender your anonymity on an Apple Insider message board while conversing with people who haven't chosen to surrender theirs.
To take a silly example, if a soccer manager was of the opinion that soccer games should be played with only 7 players, would there be any point in him fielding a team of 7 against a team of 11? Nobility, maybe, but point, no; complain about it to the relevant people, but you're not achieving anything by going it alone.
Besides, s/he's not really anonymous because their IP will have been tracked, and s/he's not posting anything which would make anonymity a matter of importance.
What does that mean? If Brazil makes a law then it applies to everyone in Brazil. It doesn't affect anyone outside of Brazil. If you don't want to abide by that law then don't enter Brazil. Who are the "others" you are referring to?
Preventing what actions? Genuinely not following you here. US constitutional amendments don't apply to people in Brazil.
Sad to say, the usual benighted US citizen still thinks that his country's laws automatically apply to the rest of the world.
Apple, Google and Microsoft WILL shut up and comply with that Brazilian judge's order without further comments - it's just a matter of excluding that app from the BR stores, which require a billing address in Brazil just like anywhere else. Similar exclusions have happened all over the world for all kinds of infringement, so this will just be another one of them.
I am Brazilian and I fully concur with that order, particularly since freedom of expression, as a fundamental right, requires that the person exercising it be identifiable in order to curb abuse/libel or similar criminal offenses. In other words, you are free to say WHATEVER you want; but you are also liable for any excesses post facto.
The only stance where freedom of expression IS coupled with a right to anonymity concerns established media vehicles and journalists, for which the protection of legitimate sources is equally enshrined in the Constitution.
Laws and rulings are to be obeyed; so there is no need to discuss it any further, just like Mr Griesa gave his stupid ruling against Argentina a while ago...anyone complaining about it in the US?
Or maybe, 'Because you lost 7-1 you have been banned from using Secrets.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
Good luck Brazil.
Instead, Apple will probably contact the developer and have them comply with the laws of Brazil, giving them an option to due something like "Because you're in Brazil, enter your personal information here, your posts will not be secret". Either that or have the app disable access if you're detected to be located in Brazil.
Or better yet, a big old "Are you Brazilian?" question in the introduction. Either way.
Calling someone an idiot? Shouldn't run afoul of defamation law, tho it runs afoul of AI forum rules. Claiming someone is a paid poster or works for some particular company in an effort to discredit them? The target [B]might[/B] have a libel case so it's not very smart to do it.
I share the concern over a governing authority trying to control communications channels because it's possible people may someday need them to resist corrupt and oppressive regimes, but I also understand what the Judge in Brazil is trying to accomplish here: shutting down avenues that chickenshit bullies and generally anti-social maladroits use to make life unpleasant for good people. The cause is noble.
Right because forcing people to adhere to one specific ideal is noble. Further, what happens when the day comes when you need anonomous expression, but have no avenues to conduct it?
Bell, fer crissakes read what I wrote. Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said? My point, which apparently went over your head, is that your view is too simplistic and ignores the real, present, actually-EXISTING social ills associated with this issue and only considers one aspect of a "what if?" scenario.
But let's go with your interpretation that this order unfairly persecutes Apple and its users. You are, in essence, arguing that international app sales should trump the constitution of a sovereign nation. If someone said their app should be allowed to ignore the laws of the United States you'd bust your pancreas! Why should it be different for any other country?
Ok, first off you talk about anonymity as if it is wrong, but yet unless your actual name is tagyro, you are hiding under that same anonymity that you are complaining about.
So? The world is the way it is. Disadvantaging yourself on principle for a cause that has little traction or likelihood of changing at any time in the near future is silly, and certainly not as a result of your choosing to surrender your anonymity on an Apple Insider message board while conversing with people who haven't chosen to surrender theirs.
To take a silly example, if a soccer manager was of the opinion that soccer games should be played with only 7 players, would there be any point in him fielding a team of 7 against a team of 11? Nobility, maybe, but point, no; complain about it to the relevant people, but you're not achieving anything by going it alone.
Besides, s/he's not really anonymous because their IP will have been tracked, and s/he's not posting anything which would make anonymity a matter of importance.
Actually, while the IP address can be tracked, that doesn't mean that it can be tracked to you. They could be in a public place, using a VPN, wardriving, using a mobile device, etc. All of that are items that can definitively hide your presence as far as IP address is going.
That said, all I was saying is that they was claiming that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about not being anonymous. My stance is that the web was designed to be anonymous, even though I am choosing not to be. Also, if they felt that strongly about it, then they should use their real name.
I am not disadvantaging myself at all. I accidentally used my real name on this board when I signed up. Then I was just too lazy to change it. Now, I actually don't mind if people know who I am and what I stand for. Surrender suggests I was forced to use my real name, reality is I just chose to do that.
Bad people do bad things with anonymity. Bad people might also benefit from their anonymity when other not-bad people surrender their anonymity. Therefore, while anonymity is an option, it makes perfect sense for the not-bad people to utilise anonymity to protect themselves from bad people, and it is less a hypocrisy and more good sense for not-bad people to argue for anonymity to be removed, while maintaining their own anonymity so as not to surrender advantage.
Which doesn't massively apply to the AppleInsider forum, I'll admit that - there's only so much a "bad person" could grok from knowing your real identity on here, but given the modern issue of identity theft I'm not giving up anything I don't have to until the law says I have to.
When it does, and it applies to everyone equally, I'll be happy to comply.
You feel differently, by accident or by intent? Fine, that's your choice.
P.S. I'm not sure surrender necessarily implies the application of force, and I didn't intend to imply that it did. No real point in arguing the semantics, just clarifying my position here.
Comments
I have a different view on this.
Anonymity brings out the worst in people and although I believe in freed of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.
If you make a statement be prepared to assume responsibility for that statement.
Ok, first off you talk about anonymity as if it is wrong, but yet unless your actual name is tagyro, you are hiding under that same anonymity that you are complaining about.
That said, the idea of the internet was that it was supposed to be anonymous. That you could be anyone, share your ideas freely without public persecution. I know some of you feel differently, and that is your right. However, if you feel that strongly about it; change your username to your actual name.
I have my name on here because I chose to be public about it. My stances and my beliefs I am public about, and I have no problems with people knowing that I think Macs are better, Windows PCs are pieces of shit, and that Open Source is usually the way to go.
That, and the Arizona Cardinals kick ass.... ????
Please post your real full name, address & telephone #.
Is Brazil also confiscating writing implements?
Writing implements were not purposely built for the purpose of creating anonymous communications. And if it used as such there are ways to attempt to track where a piece of written information comes from since it will be part of a physical object in the physical world. Handwriting recognition, fingerprints and DNA on the paper, investigating how it came to appear wherever it appeared.
Ok, first off you talk about anonymity as if it is wrong, but yet unless your actual name is tagyro, you are hiding under that same anonymity that you are complaining about.
So? The world is the way it is. Disadvantaging yourself on principle for a cause that has little traction or likelihood of changing at any time in the near future is silly, and certainly not as a result of your choosing to surrender your anonymity on an Apple Insider message board while conversing with people who haven't chosen to surrender theirs.
To take a silly example, if a soccer manager was of the opinion that soccer games should be played with only 7 players, would there be any point in him fielding a team of 7 against a team of 11? Nobility, maybe, but point, no; complain about it to the relevant people, but you're not achieving anything by going it alone.
Besides, s/he's not really anonymous because their IP will have been tracked, and s/he's not posting anything which would make anonymity a matter of importance.
What does that mean? If Brazil makes a law then it applies to everyone in Brazil. It doesn't affect anyone outside of Brazil. If you don't want to abide by that law then don't enter Brazil. Who are the "others" you are referring to?
Preventing what actions? Genuinely not following you here. US constitutional amendments don't apply to people in Brazil.
Sad to say, the usual benighted US citizen still thinks that his country's laws automatically apply to the rest of the world.
Apple, Google and Microsoft WILL shut up and comply with that Brazilian judge's order without further comments - it's just a matter of excluding that app from the BR stores, which require a billing address in Brazil just like anywhere else. Similar exclusions have happened all over the world for all kinds of infringement, so this will just be another one of them.
I am Brazilian and I fully concur with that order, particularly since freedom of expression, as a fundamental right, requires that the person exercising it be identifiable in order to curb abuse/libel or similar criminal offenses. In other words, you are free to say WHATEVER you want; but you are also liable for any excesses post facto.
The only stance where freedom of expression IS coupled with a right to anonymity concerns established media vehicles and journalists, for which the protection of legitimate sources is equally enshrined in the Constitution.
Laws and rulings are to be obeyed; so there is no need to discuss it any further, just like Mr Griesa gave his stupid ruling against Argentina a while ago...anyone complaining about it in the US?
Or maybe, 'Because you lost 7-1 you have been banned from using Secrets.'
Quote:
Good luck Brazil.
Instead, Apple will probably contact the developer and have them comply with the laws of Brazil, giving them an option to due something like "Because you're in Brazil, enter your personal information here, your posts will not be secret". Either that or have the app disable access if you're detected to be located in Brazil.
Or better yet, a big old "Are you Brazilian?" question in the introduction. Either way.
Also, even in America, threatening people or otherwise breaking the law via internet speech is not legal here either.
Calling someone an idiot? Shouldn't run afoul of defamation law, tho it runs afoul of AI forum rules. Claiming someone is a paid poster or works for some particular company in an effort to discredit them? The target [B]might[/B] have a libel case so it's not very smart to do it.
[snip]
I share the concern over a governing authority trying to control communications channels because it's possible people may someday need them to resist corrupt and oppressive regimes, but I also understand what the Judge in Brazil is trying to accomplish here: shutting down avenues that chickenshit bullies and generally anti-social maladroits use to make life unpleasant for good people. The cause is noble.
Right because forcing people to adhere to one specific ideal is noble. Further, what happens when the day comes when you need anonomous expression, but have no avenues to conduct it?
Bell, fer crissakes read what I wrote. Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said? My point, which apparently went over your head, is that your view is too simplistic and ignores the real, present, actually-EXISTING social ills associated with this issue and only considers one aspect of a "what if?" scenario.
But let's go with your interpretation that this order unfairly persecutes Apple and its users. You are, in essence, arguing that international app sales should trump the constitution of a sovereign nation. If someone said their app should be allowed to ignore the laws of the United States you'd bust your pancreas! Why should it be different for any other country?
Originally Posted by Crowley
Ok, first off you talk about anonymity as if it is wrong, but yet unless your actual name is tagyro, you are hiding under that same anonymity that you are complaining about.
So? The world is the way it is. Disadvantaging yourself on principle for a cause that has little traction or likelihood of changing at any time in the near future is silly, and certainly not as a result of your choosing to surrender your anonymity on an Apple Insider message board while conversing with people who haven't chosen to surrender theirs.
To take a silly example, if a soccer manager was of the opinion that soccer games should be played with only 7 players, would there be any point in him fielding a team of 7 against a team of 11? Nobility, maybe, but point, no; complain about it to the relevant people, but you're not achieving anything by going it alone.
Besides, s/he's not really anonymous because their IP will have been tracked, and s/he's not posting anything which would make anonymity a matter of importance.
Actually, while the IP address can be tracked, that doesn't mean that it can be tracked to you. They could be in a public place, using a VPN, wardriving, using a mobile device, etc. All of that are items that can definitively hide your presence as far as IP address is going.
That said, all I was saying is that they was claiming that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about not being anonymous. My stance is that the web was designed to be anonymous, even though I am choosing not to be. Also, if they felt that strongly about it, then they should use their real name.
I am not disadvantaging myself at all. I accidentally used my real name on this board when I signed up. Then I was just too lazy to change it. Now, I actually don't mind if people know who I am and what I stand for. Surrender suggests I was forced to use my real name, reality is I just chose to do that.
Let me try again.
Bad people do bad things with anonymity. Bad people might also benefit from their anonymity when other not-bad people surrender their anonymity. Therefore, while anonymity is an option, it makes perfect sense for the not-bad people to utilise anonymity to protect themselves from bad people, and it is less a hypocrisy and more good sense for not-bad people to argue for anonymity to be removed, while maintaining their own anonymity so as not to surrender advantage.
Which doesn't massively apply to the AppleInsider forum, I'll admit that - there's only so much a "bad person" could grok from knowing your real identity on here, but given the modern issue of identity theft I'm not giving up anything I don't have to until the law says I have to.
When it does, and it applies to everyone equally, I'll be happy to comply.
You feel differently, by accident or by intent? Fine, that's your choice.
P.S. I'm not sure surrender necessarily implies the application of force, and I didn't intend to imply that it did. No real point in arguing the semantics, just clarifying my position here.