Many of us have multiple email addresses. Many of us, especially those on AOL, us e pseudonymous screen names or handles for chat rooms or discussion groups. Predi ctably, most of us behave differently whether we’re online as JohnSmith@ibm.com or “Little Lolita” on IRC.
The punch line of a cartoon that appeared in “The New Yorker” in 1995, “On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog,” says it best. That 18-year-old giving you her phone number could really be a 45-year-old married guy while the person claiming to be a 70s rock star is probably an 18-year-old kid.
Various regulations are being implemented to ensure the legitimacy of identity on the Web, some more intrusive than others. The current model for Internet discussion groups is the Well, which insists that its members identify themselves and ta ke responsibility for their own words. “YOYOW,” an acronym for You Own Your Own Words, graces the entry to many Well discussion groups. You write it, you accept the consequences for it.
Yet despite the reasonable expectation that Web users take responsibility for the ir postings, there are some groups (incest survivors, battered spouses, etc.) in which a guarantee of anonymity is often the only way information can be exchanged . The ongoing flood of anonymous email and news postings that makes the Net an in trusive place results from the same idea that gave posters to the now-defunct ano n.penet.fi-a Finnish remailer service that insured the confidentially of users’ identities-the opportunity to discuss sensitive issues without shame or outing. The current argument forwarded in Internet, legal and political circles that anon ymous postings should be forbidden has more to do with outrage over unsolicited X -rated email stinking up inboxes than a true opposition to anonymity. Anyone can have anonymity over the telephone, through snail mail and many other means of com munication. Why is anonymity over the Net such a frightening notion?
Alarmists claim that the difference lies in information access-no one can erase y our hard disk over the telephone. (At least, not yet.) If any online activity pos es a threat of danger, the argument goes, the activity should be outlawed. Unfort unately, that’s like saying people shouldn’t read books or see movies because som e books and movies are pornographic. I’m confident that software will appear shor tly that will make it easy to deflect spam and other unwanted email. The technolo gy already exists and could be deployed easily. Draconian solutions-like AOL forb idding use of the word breast in its chat rooms that inadvertently doomed the ser vice’s breast cancer support group-will never work.Until a technical solution ex ists, the extra few minutes I spend each week scouring my inbox for junk is a sma ll annoyance compared to the possibility of curtailed communications.
How much does spam and the like annoy you?
