« .org: Thick, but fat-reduced. | Main | A photo blog. »

Esther Dyson on The Accountable Net.

Writes Esther Dyson in the New York Times (link credit: Bret Fausett): What I'm proposing is not a rule-free society, but one in which rules come from the bottom up: generally enforced by peers, with governments in the background. ... The basic rule is transparency: You need to know whom you are dealing with, or be able to take proper measures to protect yourself.

Unfortunately, the article essentially sets up anonymity and accountability online as contradictions. They need not be: The kind of accountability Esther describes is not so much about knowing who someone is in real life, but rather about recognizing a party you are dealing with (or knowing that you don't recognize a party seeking to communicate with you, and taking appropriate action). It's, often, not so much about linking on-line activity to real lilfe, but more often about linking current on-line activity to past on-line activity -- and, by symmetry, linking future on-line activity to current on-line activity.

This is so because for many activities online, stakes are actually quite low: To decide who's messages to read on mailing lists, or blogs, or slashdot -- or, in the past, Usenet --, for instance, it may quite well be enough to know that source's reputation among peers, or to have read earlier messages from that source. If something goes wrong, only littlel damage is done. All one needs to know to make this kind of choice is a regularly-used online pseudonym (most often, that's the e-mail address these days). If the same person uses a different pseudonym elsewhere, that's their business.

(Where the stakes are higher, reliable links to a person's online existence are, of course, useful.)

Accountability online is not a binary choice between total anonymity on the one hand, and total transparency with links to real life on the other: There is a broad spectrum between these, and often, the level of transparency and accountability that's needed will lie somewhere in between.

As a side note, all the accountability you can get won't fix viruses and similar security intrusions, unlike what Esther suggests: Just like the ordinary flu, successful online viruses often travel along the links in social networks.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://log.does-not-exist.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/40

Comments (2)

Accountability cannot be tied to identity as long as identifiers are so easily created. If I trash the integrity behind one email address, I can simply switch to a new one, be it at yahoo.com or hxr.us.
Accountability can be tied to an identity. Its just that you happen to not like the ephemeral nature of the identifiers that a certain class of user decides to use. Being able to know that a certain identity has little to no reputation is extremely useful becuase I know that, unless its a child, it should have a fairly robust reputation about itself, regardless of whether or not its tied to a meat space entity.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 6, 2004 11:42 PM.

The previous post in this blog was .org: Thick, but fat-reduced..

The next post in this blog is A photo blog..

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.35