Google CEO: Internet Anonymity is dangerous - Polidicks

Doomsday in 2012 is looking pretty nice right now.

Is anyone actually denying that internet anonymity is dangerous? Internet anonymity has spawned leaks (for instance, Wikileaks [if it's a good thing or not is another matter]), grouped together people who vandalise / trash / talk dirt over the internet (for instance /b/), cyberbullying, stalking... etc. Or is everyone upset that the Google CEO thinks you shouldn't be able to be an asshole under the name JEEAS23 anymore.

[quote]If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.[/quote] Because this type of thinking worked so well with H.U.A.C.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23978880]Internet anonymity is worth dying for? Get your preferences straight son.[/QUOTE] It's a joke, don't get you panties in a bunch, boy.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23978880]Is anyone actually denying that internet anonymity is dangerous? Internet anonymity has spawned leaks (for instance, Wikileaks [if it's a good thing or not is another matter]), grouped together people who vandalise / trash / talk dirt over the internet (for instance /b/), cyberbullying, stalking... etc. Or is everyone upset that the Google CEO thinks you shouldn't be able to be an asshole under the name JEEAS23 anymore.[/QUOTE] I think we're upset because it's a blatant excuse to invade privacy.

I think that in certain situations, having no anonymity wouldn't matter. However, this is a very idealist standpoint as governments would fuck it up. The difference between what they are doing and what China is doing is that China fucks people up seeking the truth, and has a harsh totalitarian hand the bitch slaps their poor people. I suppose Google wants some sort of accountability or something. But you're right, as that Ben Franklin quote says about giving up liberty for security deserves/gets neither. I don't think it would work out.

What the fuck is this google? Get your shit together I told these guys you were cool don't make me look like a prick.

back to yahoo I guess

[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;23978904]It's a joke, don't get you panties in a bunch, boy.[/QUOTE] No shit sherlock. Just because a post is sarcastic, doesn't mean you're not trying to make a point. Obviously you're not. [editline]02:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;23978906]I think we're upset because it's a blatant excuse to invade privacy.[/QUOTE] Why do you deserve that privacy? In any other medium, phone calls, radio, text, tv, you put your name (and face) to it, but the internet you can get away with it. Why should that be allowed?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23978923]No shit sherlock. Just because a post is sarcastic, doesn't mean you're not trying to make a point. Obviouylu you're not.[/QUOTE] That's usually the point of a joke.

Only time Information gathered from a user of the internet is if the person/household is doing something illegal with it. Other than that, Information collected about a user should be minimal and not shared unless there is a GOOD reason like I said above. I have no problem with them keeping extra information on people who google "How to make a pipe bomb" in google search.

[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;23978942]That's usually the point of a joke.[/QUOTE] whatebs

When he posts his entire browsing history and list of recent transactions, I will stop thinking of him as a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;23978960]When he posts his entire browsing history and list of recent transactions, I will stop thinking of him as a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] That's not what internet anonymity necessarily means. It's not browsing history, it's comments and actions over the internet that he is suggesting shouldn't be anonymous.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;23978566]This. Even behind a thin veil of anonymity, people can do unbelievable asshole things, i.e cyberbullying, things /b/ does, stalking and other things.[/QUOTE] I prefer being able to have an outlet than letting shit out in real life. If I want to talk shit about my boss anonymously, I should have the right.

switching to [url=http://blekko.com]blekko[/url] a lot cooler anyway google is just pissing me off now. i worry about what google does with gmail emails now...

[QUOTE=Kidd;23978944]Only time Information gathered from a user of the internet is if the person/household is doing something illegal with it. Other than that, Information collected about a user should be minimal and not shared unless there is a GOOD reason like I said above. I have no problem with them keeping extra information on people who google "How to make a pipe bomb" in google search.[/QUOTE] Thus pranksters start googling those terms en masse, which makes the whole thing useless. Doesn't work.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;23979004]If I want to talk shit about my boss anonymously, I should have the right.[/QUOTE] Why? Why should you legally be allowed to defame your boss?

[QUOTE=Kidd;23978944]Only time Information gathered from a user of the internet is if the person/household is doing something illegal with it. Other than that, Information collected about a user should be minimal and not shared unless there is a GOOD reason like I said above. I have no problem with them keeping extra information on people who google "How to make a pipe bomb" in google search.[/QUOTE] This is more of what I was getting at. If you have complete anonymity, people could get away with major illegal crimes on the internet. I think that for minor stuff (unrelated to terrorism, murder etc) should be ignored. This is why I thought it's a bit touchy though, as a government might define was is serious or a crime. [QUOTE=DogGunn;23979030]Why? Why should you legally be allowed to defame your boss?[/QUOTE] On this note, it's illegal to slander on real life, it's illegal on T.V, I'm not sure why there'd be a difference on a more interactive media.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;23979028]Thus pranksters start googling those terms en masse, which makes the whole thing useless. Doesn't work.[/QUOTE] lol... you serious? It was the point that was made, not the keywords...

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23979030]Why? Why should you legally be allowed to defame your boss?[/QUOTE] Because it's actually legal.

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;23979060]This is why I thought it's a bit touchy though, as a government might define was is serious or a crime.[/QUOTE] There are definitions of serious / less-serious crimes in Law. In the US you got infractions, misdemeanor and felonies (in order from less serious to serious), and in more sane countries, you got Summary and Indictable offences. Most cyber crimes are felonies / summary offences already. Nothing would be any different. [editline]02:51PM[/editline] [QUOTE=AlexDeviant;23979101]Because it's actually legal.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? Defamation is not legal. What you smoking son?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23979030]Why? Why should you legally be allowed to defame your boss?[/QUOTE] Because of the freedom of speech. Sure, it sounds cliche and over-used, but it's a right that should be defended. It's a main founding principle of many modern democracies and it's being ignored more and more often. It doesn't matter if people are assholes with that freedom, it's the point that they are given that freedom and that the government cannot judge on it as wrong. Hell, it should be legal to "defame your boss" on television and other media too, but the freedom of those forms has been cut short. The internet is the final frontier of free speech. Yes, I understand that this would also apply to racists being allowed to spread their words. But technically, that should be allowed. Whether or not the person being heckled by words is insulted by it is another story. [QUOTE=DoctorSalt;23979194]Defaming, slander, libel or whatever can have action taken against if you prove it caused some sort of harm. Ex. some asshole told everyone you have rats in your sandwich shop, and your employees don't wash their hands. If you can prove your sales went down, that's a basis for a case.[/QUOTE] In a case like this, I would agree with legal action, because it causes harm in more than just feelings. Edit:Herp derp I'm a hypocrite, just read the last part, but in any defamation case.

*blows brains out*

Defaming, slander, libel or whatever can have action taken against if you prove it caused some sort of harm. Ex. some asshole told everyone you have rats in your sandwich shop, and your employees don't wash their hands. If you can prove your sales went down, that's a basis for a case. EDIT: Lazerdoom was mistaken in his wording. Keep this in mind and don't be as critical as I. [QUOTE=LaserOfDoom;23979167]Because of the freedom of speech. Sure, it sounds cliche and over-used, but it's a right that should be defended. It's a main founding principle of many modern democracies and it's being ignored more and more often. It doesn't matter if people are assholes with that freedom, it's the point that they are given that freedom and that the government cannot judge on it as wrong. Hell, it should be legal to "defame your boss" on television and other media too, but the freedom of those forms has been cut short. The internet is the final frontier of free speech. Yes, I understand that this would also apply to racists being allowed to spread their words. But technically, that should be allowed. Whether or not the person being heckled by words is insulted by it is another story.[/QUOTE] Well, that's something I haven't quite made my mind up for. I suppose that if you want with completely pure, idealist freedom of speech, then it could be severely abused. What if someone harassed the shit of your daughter and she killed her self? Would that be included? One might see this as a way to legally "kill" someone.

I remember when people used to think Google's growth as a good thing. If only we knew... :sigh:

Anonymity is pretty important, I can see why he wants it essentially abolished, but that's pretty dumb.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;23979218]I remember when people used to think Google's growth as a good thing. If only we knew... :sigh:[/QUOTE] And how we used to laugh at open source programs... goddamned Linux nerds.

[QUOTE=LaserOfDoom;23979167]Hell, it should be legal to "defame your boss" on television and other media too, but the freedom of those forms has been cut short. The internet is the final frontier of free speech. Yes, I understand that this would also apply to racists being allowed to spread their words. But technically, that should be allowed. Whether or not the person being heckled by words is insulted by it is another story.[/QUOTE] seriously, wow, when I didn't think someone could go any lower. It's okay to defame people everyone...

[QUOTE=LaserOfDoom;23979167]Because of the freedom of speech. Sure, it sounds cliche and over-used, but it's a right that should be defended. It's a main founding principle of many modern democracies and it's being ignored more and more often. It doesn't matter if people are assholes with that freedom, it's the point that they are given that freedom and that the government cannot judge on it as wrong. Hell, it should be legal to "defame your boss" on television and other media too, but the freedom of those forms has been cut short. The internet is the final frontier of free speech. Yes, I understand that this would also apply to racists being allowed to spread their words. But technically, that should be allowed. Whether or not the person being heckled by words is insulted by it is another story. In a case like this, I would agree with legal action, because it causes harm in more than just feelings.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to hurt somebody else, especially if it's based on things that aren't true.