Let’s say the internet gets so bad that it becomes almost impossible to carry on a civilized conversation on a social network or to avoid a flood of anonymous emails. The people become fed up and can’t take it anymore. A revolution takes place and a miracle happens: every one is required to get a real id that can be traced back an actual person. This id is then required to do anything on the internet.
How many people are going to still post death threats, character assassinations, or make racist or sexist comments. How many people are are going to email you saying they’re a Nigerian prince that wants to give you money. It would sure go a long way to cleaning up some of the cesspools that make up social networking and the garbage pit that is email today.
Knowing who you are cuts both ways. A woman trying to hide from an abusive boyfriend or husband would want to keep her identity unknown. People facing political persecution would like to keep a low profile.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle to setting up ids would be verification. How do you prove someone is who they say they are when documents can be easily forged and fake identities created. You could use finger prints or eye scans, but the effort to set up the infrastructure to do so would be massive.
Then there is the issue of maintaining the information in a safe and secure manner. We couldn’t rely on any countries government. They wouldn’t be able to resist the temptation to use it to track people. It would have to be an independent agency.
Is setting up such a system unfeasible? Even if all the hurdles could be overcome and a real id system could be created, is that something we would want? Are we better off with the way it is today and just live with its ills or relying on mods and spam filters to keep thing somewhat under control.
I’m aware that Web 3.0 is making strides in this area. It remains to be seen if it will be viable.
I was the victim of a cyberstalker about a decade ago. This person was convinced that I was really someone else that she had a beef with. Her reasoning? We both like taking photos. (Apparently, I’m the only one posting photos online. All those pictures you see online? That’s all me. No wonder I have no free time!)
I couldn’t argue with her to let her know that she was mistaken because she had it on “very good authority” that I was lying about who I was. Namely, “God told her.” And I’m not exaggerating here. She literally thought that God talked to her and told her stuff like who was committing crimes.
Oh and I was guilty of those crimes according to “God.” I won’t name those crimes because they’re heinous, but suffice it to say she thought I was doing unspeakable things to kids. She was threatening to call my employer, the police, and everyone who knew me to tell them about what I was doing.
Luckily for me, all she had to go on was “TechyDad.” I blogged at the time, but didn’t post my exact whereabouts or my real name. The guy that she thought I was wasn’t as lucky. She contacted his employer (a school in New Zealand) and everyone with the same last name as him that was on Facebook and near him. All to tell them what he did to kids. (Again, her source was “God.” He didn’t really do anything and he had to have quite a few awkward conversations to clear things up.)
I finally got rid of the stalker by grabbing her IP address (from one of her comments) and modifying my htaccess file to report 404 Page Not Found for only that IP. She crowed on Twitter about how she singlehandedly took me down and then moved on. (I and her other targets would report her to Twitter, but she’d constantly have dozens of other handles ready and waiting and would switch to them the second her main one was banned.)
To my knowledge, she’s still out there stalking people.
Now, how would this have been different had she had my real name? Well, with a little work she would have been able to look up my location. (My name’s pretty common, but she’d find me eventually.) Then, she’d locate my employer, my address, and other information. She could send me packages or mail harassing me. She could contact my local police to swat me or just to report my “crimes.” She could contact my employer to report me and try to get me fired.
Now, I eventually did tie my real name to “TechyDad.” I wrote a book and didn’t want to publish under “TechyDad” so I used my two name. That being said, it was my choice. I definitely wouldn’t want it to be required for me to use my real name everywhere.
There you are!!
I would’ve left that nickname if I were you. You never know how much can be associated if a dedicated smart person chooses to do so.
I’ve used this nickname for years and have grown attached to it. I’m not ditching it just because some crazy cyberstalker targeted me.
That sounds terrifying and exhausting, sorry you went thru that. How long did it go on for before she stopped stalking you for good?
She would harass me for a few months and then move on to other targets before coming back to me. I believe that it took a year or so (going from memory) before I finally “let her win” by fooling her into thinking I took my blog down.
She’s had some high profile targets too. She was convinced that Boy George was really dead and the person claiming to be Boy George was an imposter. She’d tweet at him incessantly to get him to fess up. She also targeted the then-CEO of Firefox.
Oh, and she also thought I was part of some Uber hacker group. Her proof? Anytime she messaged someone about how God told her we did all these horrible things, they blocked her. Obviously, it wasn’t them blocking the crazy. Nope. It was us breaking into those people’s Twitter accounts and forcing a block even though those people actually believed her.
I really didn’t want her to get arrested and just hoped that she’d get help. Sadly, I don’t think she ever did.
How many people are going to still post death threats, character assassinations, or make racist or sexist comments.
Plenty! People like that aren’t ashamed. They’re proud to be in the group of people who actually count as human in their worldview.
is that something we would want?
The only effect would be to stifle everyone else. If everything you say online is tied to your real identity, many people would have to be the most bland, professional, worksona version of themselves to protect (a) their ability to earn income, and (b) their safety. People talking about their experiences with abortion would put themselves at risk of harassment, eviction, prosecution, and violence. Someone seeking support as they discern their gender identity is now outed to family, employers, people with social and/or economic power over them. When anyone from a marginalized group dares to post, it’ll be just like speaking in real life: if someone’s facts and tone are less than perfection, they (and the entire group which they’re assumed to represent) will be dismissed as intellectually inferior or too emotional.
Plenty! People like that aren’t ashamed. They’re proud to be in the group of people who actually count as human in their worldview.
I’m of the Boomer era and remember when people and even politicians would be circumspect in making derogative statements. As you say, these days, people are actually proud of how hateful they can be to people that are not like them. At least we now know who they are.
The first thing that pops into my mind are all the LGBT+ people I know who live in places where they are at risk, and online forums are their safe space. From what I’ve seen on Facebook, a large number of bigots and trolls seem unashamed to act as such even when their identity is known, so I feel like sacrificing privacy and anonymity would cause far more harm than good.
Marginalized people would suffer far, far, far more than the bad actors. ☹️ Many people who have been doxxed already go through this, and it’s still near-impossible to stop an online harasser even if you have proof of who they are. It would become dangerous for us to be online at all if this “miracle” were to come about.
Lack of anonymity hasn’t stopped middle-school and high-school bullies since even before the internet. Some people don’t grow out of that kind of behaviour.
Such a system is conceivable, but it’s not one I would wish for. I’m not the type of person that wants to be like a famous Twitter user. I’ll make my contributions to this platform under my pseudonym, thank you. With some effort you could probably sleuth enough to find, dox or stalk me, but why waste your time to be an annoying wretch of a person to do that? Having real linked IDs would make these issues worse.
Is setting up such a system unfeasible?
yes. not only would such a policy be messy to implement & partially unenforcable on the current internet for various reasons (look at what’s happening with porn site here in the usa, where some states are literally trying to add a real id system & it’s failing) it’d also be a law that hurts us well-meaning people (specifically, marginalized sections of populations that have a reason to take privacy seriously, such as lgbt people in non-gay friendly locations, for example) moreso than trolls. our privacy is already eroded enough imo, so if a real id system were to come out i’d just quit using the internet. & i’m sure a large chunk of the internet would do the same.
you assume that such a system would stop all death threats & racist/sexist comments & make the internet a safe place but… why would it? bad people are shameless. if a real id system catches on, but moderation doesn’t change, it’s more likely that these people will just put up their real names & continue doing what they’re doing. there are a lot of people who are already not ashamed whatsoever of having those comments attached to their identity right now, i mean look at how many <real name>s are on twitter & facebook & all that willingly posting hateful comments with their real name today.
look i get what you’re going for in spirit & why you want this system to be a thing. but the reason so much toxicity is on modern social media in the first place is simply because companies allow it, either by not spending enough on their moderation staff or, in cases like reddit, just by turning a blind eye to it. so, why not just be direct? why not regulate the companies rather than the consumers? imo a law that requires tech companies to take a zero-tolerance policy to hate speech & scams, as well as to actually spend enough on their moderation staff to allow that, would be much cleaner, safer & effective than a real id system
Before writing the post, I thought it could be a good thing. By the time I listed all the drawbacks, I changed my mind. I made the post anyway to see what others thought. Many of you have pointed out even more issues with it. So far, no one has had anything good to say about it. Great feedback.
How would we make sure politicians and enforcement agencies even enforce such policies? Especially with lobbying and all that… ~Strawberry
Pretty much anyone who isn’t white, male, cisgendered, and neurotypical (so considerably more than half of the world’s population) is going to be at risk of being verbally shat upon regardless of whether the people attacking them have to sign their real names or not. The attackers will not be punished. How do we know this? Because that’s what happens in the physical world in front of witnesses. Forcing people to tie their online selves to their real identities benefits only an already-privileged minority.
Fifteen to 20 years ago many people thought that the anonymity of the internet provided a permission structure for people to act incivilly. But if anything, the rise of social media has disproven that. People post the most incredibly toxic shit on Facebook or Twitter, often under their own names, right now. It’s not the relative anonymity, or lack thereof, that dissuades people from toxic behavior. It’s a collective action problem that rewards whatever the community (however defined) doesn’t rise up to stamp out.
Require a real ID (which sounds vaguely Orwellian where it doesn’t sound nebulous) and you’ll still get Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder and your uncle yelling transphobic trash on Twitter and Facebook and elsewhere. Places like Reddit and the fediverse are rapidly becoming outliers.
And as pointed out in OP, requiring all accounts tied to an identifiable person would be a disaster for people in abusive relationships, or who have a stalker, or other endangered persons. (Thinking back to Google Buzz and the ways it enabled online harassment and abuse before Google mercifully cut it showrt.)
The current, semi-anonymous, system is possibly the worst system devised, with the possible exception of all the others. No system is going to solve a collective-action problem. We, the collective, have to step up and fix it ourself.
(My understanding of Web 3.0 is limited to the crypto space, which seems inherently scammy; if there’s more to it than that, and I should be aware of it, I’d love to be educated.)
Fuck no. Who wants to post online with a flawless prestine character projecting you are the sane one. If you deviate even a little from the norm you would be considered an outcast or worse be targeted for stupid things. Real people would show up at your doorsteps for stupid reasons which could be life threatening to many people (this has happend to many people in real life due to doxxing). Your employer could fire you for that comment you made in support of a certain group which didn’t align with their ideology.
Living in a state of constant public surveillance would mean people are forced to act nice not actually be nice.
I suspect a lot of innocent people would get hurt.
Plenty of people are terrible using their real Facebook or Twitter accounts. L
I think this would be difficult in the US. The US doesn’t have a national id except for the passport, which probably a majority of people do not have. There is a strong cultural resistance to a national id, I expect this would translate over to the internet very strongly, so any centralized verification system would be unpopular from the beginning.
Plenty of people are terrible using their real Facebook or Twitter accounts.
THIS. 💯 Remember when Google tried to get into social and started hitting people with the ban-hammer if their name didn’t look like a “real name” by mostly-USA-based standards? And then YouTube integrated with Google+ and the YouTube comments section were still a horrible cesspit? Many people are shockingly unashamed of their abusive behaviour online and don’t mind other people knowing who they are.
Doesn’t every American have a social security number? That’s basically a national ID, just without any security features tho.
It is also still somewhat controversial, among a small subset of people.
It is an identifier but not identification. Nobody will accept it if proof of who you are without other documentation backing it up. A passport or drivers license generally does not have that sort of limitation (the physical card is most often presented for employment to verify legal work status, but not who you are).
American drivers licenses are basically just EU style ID cards. For new licenses you even need biometric data. State IDs and the “Passport Card” are (somewhat obscure) alternatives.
Europeans only need to apply for ID cards at around the age, were the average American gets their driver’s license.
A young American adult is probably almost just as identifiable by their government, as a young European adult would be by theirs.
Seeing regulations like the REAL ID act, I would say that America is headed towards more identification, rather than less.
It is more of a cultural thing than anything practical, even with realid each state maintains their own separate identification database and the data it returns varies, they also have different policies for who can get the information and for what purposes. In general the database for each state (and also Canada) is still accessible from anywhere in the country though.
How many people are going to still post death threats, character assassinations, or make racist or sexist comments.
Have you seen twitter and what named public figures say all the time and the comments from verified named accounts below?
I don’t believe we should have to link our personal info, but I do think we should have somewhat consistent ID that are confirmed linked to a person in order to gain some form of trust.
When you can just spin up random throwaways you can say whatever you want at no cost of time or money to you.
Without an option to be anonymous or pseudonymous, there is no freedom of speech. I would rather deal with the occasional troll or fraud than to live in a world where I couldn’t speak without showing identification.
Everyone knowing your identity? The drawbacks would far outweigh the benefits. However, there may be a path to the benefits of a Real ID sign-up system that mitigates the possible harms.
First of all, let’s get this out of the way - this “minimal harm” approach would only be feasible if the government could either reach some level of technical competency or farm out the task to heavily restricted private corporations that do have that competence. If we presume that’s the case (unlikely), the question becomes whether the people would be willing to accept it. If we presume the majority of citizens also want such a thing (a tall order to be sure, I certainly don’t want it), then the question becomes what sort of system would be able to maximize privacy, and thus safety, while still requiring your real identity to be involved in creating online accounts? What would that system look like?
(Collapsed for your convenience because I wrote way too much about this hypothetical)
We’d absolutely need a level of abstraction. The government knows who you are anyway, but the business entity you’re interfacing with would get a unique token from the government that is not your actual Real ID number but which is a hash generated from the business’s (salted) ID number and your own salted ID number (idk I’m not a cryptographer).
Signing up for an account would resemble using Google or Facebook to create an account; you’d be redirected to some third party Identity Verification System (IVS) which would handle identity verification and redirect you back to the account creation with the extra piece of information provided by the third party. You’d still pick a username, password, etc.; the government database would only be used to generate that unique token.
More specifically, the website or service would only be passed a token from the IVS, uniquely generated based on the company ID and the person’s ID, and the government database would only keep the token, not any of the data used to compute it. (That’s not counting China and other authoritarian states, of course - they’d definitely retain all that information and have a list of all the sites you have accounts with. This wouldn’t solve that problem.) This would make the IVS database virtually useless on its own, as an attacker who compromises the database has no way of knowing which token is associated with which website, and cannot derive it themselves unless they’ve also compromised one or more target websites at the same time. The cryptographic stuff would be rotated once it’s known that a breach has occurred, so such breaches would likely be limited to state actors or black-hat groups that hoard zero-days.
Now, what would all this accomplish? What would it make possible that currently isn’t
outside of China?- Unique website signups - one person, one account, and if it’s banned, that’s it, you don’t get to log in to that site ever again until you’re unbanned. Your only option to get around a ban would be to commit identity fraud, which would be quickly traced back to you if everything really was using this system.
- If you block someone, they can’t just make a new account and keep harassing you; they’d have to start committing crimes, and the pattern of behavior would be easily traced back to their original account, and with it, their original identity.
- No more sock puppets. If you say something on a platform, you only get one account to say it with. Troll farms would have to openly pay thousands of people to support a particular view, which many websites would likely consider a bannable offense. Troll farms are non-viable.
- A website doesn’t need your email address or any personal information from you in order to verify your identity for password resets. If the IVS returns the correct token, that’s good enough.
- If a user has committed a crime, and evidence of this is visible on a website or platform, a government with jurisdiction can, with a warrant, request that user’s token. That gives them a specific identity in the ID database to investigate further.
- If the government is investigating a particular individual over whom they have jurisdiction, they can query websites or businesses over which they also have jurisdiction for information on whether any of the tokens in their database match a user account’s identity token, and request data from the matching account. It would be a much more focused process than queries based on IP addresses which judges keep having to say are not proof of identity.
What would this system not do? What doesn’t change compared to now?
- Companies using this system would still only know for sure who you are if you tell them; at most, they know with certainty what country your identity is associated with, but little more.
- Companies could still coordinate information on data such as which accounts sign in from the same IP addresses, which would tell them more about specific users and potentially let them profile you.
- Companies will still give up any information they have on you to the government if compelled by a warrant, sometimes even without one.
- Websites can be hacked and your data on that website exposed to the world, requiring you to reset your password, etc.
- The government can be hacked and information about your identity exposed
- Accounts can be hacked, and nefarious people can do nefarious things under your name without having to commit identity fraud (though this act could itself be considered a crime under such a system)
- Stalkers can still figure out who you are based on information you post, and go after you in the real world
- The government doesn’t know which websites you visit unless they’re actively spying on you.
- Oppressive governments can and will continue to monitor and log everything they can about you, and attempt to weaponize this against dissenters or those otherwise deemed “undesirable”
Even in the grandest, best-possible-case scenario I can think of, it still comes down to “Can I trust my government to not take more information than they’re allowed to, and can I trust that they will not abuse the information they do obtain?” For many, I suspect the answer to both questions is no.
Absolutely not. I know todays internet is bad, but having to verify id to use the internet is a privacy nightmare. That data would be in the hands of hackers in no time flat.