Invoking a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed Verizon to turn over the name of two of its Internet service subscribers, both alleged file-swappers.

Verizon had filed a motion to quash the subpoena, but on Thursday a U.S. District Court ruled that the company must hand over the name of the suspected pirates.

Verizon announced it would ask a U.S. Appeals Court for a stay of the ruling.

http://bit.ly/fhUK

Louise (Passpack)

I have never been excessively private with my online identity but for years I posted under a nickname as "Ramen Junkie". In the last year or so I've been pushing and switching over to my real name online as Josh Miller.

I find it tends to add more credibility all around and it helps people offline better associate your online with your offline. Perhaps part of the trend toward less anonymity i that more and more "non geeks" are getting online and don't get or want the "coolness" of being someone else with a flashy handle.

I still use my old nickname at time but mostly for online gaming where a slightly less serious tone makes things more fun. Playing team Fortress as "JoshMiller" is actually less credible than playing as "RamenJunkie".

Is it possible that the concept of our public persona, our 'best behaviour' will become a little more forgiving? When we understand that we all get a bit silly from time to time, that we all star in funny or embarrassing photos from time to time, that everyone's been drunk or stoned at least once, that we've all unwillingly been part of a slapstick farce, will our standards change?

Will someone really lose their job if it becomes public knowledge that they've had a wild night here or there? I guess it depends on the job. Maybe you don't want those kinds of jobs anyway...

Maybe this transparency will just make us all a little more human to each other when the illusion of our prim-and-proper 'best foot forward' is backed up with some real-life dirt.

What does "who we really are" mean, anyway? Am I being "who I really am" when I rent a tuxedo for a wedding? Isn't that a fake persona, since I don't wear a tux every day? Aren't I just as much "who I really am" when I'm polished and professional at work as "who I really am" when I'm lounging around at home in my undies?

Keep in mind that most of these services were developed primarily to further commercial purposes, not necessarily to make individuals' lives better. Many users may accept the trade-offs in using cross-site identity services (or may not be savvy enough to make a properly informed decision), but it is clearly a choice whether to use them or not.

minor point, but the Lori Drew case doesn't set any precedent unless it's appealed to the federal level. As it is, the case only sets legal precedent in that jurisdiction. Of course, if you mean precendent in thought vs in law...

Also, anonymity does not equal privacy. We're often not anonymous in the non-digital world, but that doesn't mean we lack privacy. For example, I know WHO you are and a few things about you from RWW, Twitter, etc. But 1) you've chosen to share those things and 2) your privacy in many other areas is still intact. However, I agree with your points about Google, et al. We're giving them vast amount of personal information implicitly and many people don't realize that.

Finally, anonymity isn't an unalloyed good. I'm thinking of the Kathy Sierra case of a couple of years ago where people hid behind handles and said some very vicious, even threatening, things.

Up until recently, people used usernames in their social profiles, avatars in their pictures and privacy was a really big issue. I'm sure facebook had a lot to do with this change, forcing people to register with their real names and canceling accounts that seemed to be using fake names, but flickr, twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and many other services also contributed a lot to this trend - making the web a lot more real and closer to the offline world we're living in.

I believe that this phenomenon won't stop here and we'll see more and more of this in different websites and applications, trying to bridge the online and the offline world with real, live communications. It's not that 3D worlds and fake personas will disappear altogether, but as the younger generation is getting used to everything being public, they'll maybe even feel better in their own skin without the need for masks and publicize themselves even more.

If Web2.0 was all about social, I think Web3.0 will be all about real.

When discussing this, I always remember a scene and a sentence from the Sneakers film that captures exactly this atmosphere and maybe the Internet as a whole. The sentence is - "No More Secrets" and although everyone need their secrets, maybe it's a good thing after all.

The actual crime charged was "unlawful access" based on violation of MySpaces Terms of Service. If MySpaces' TOS had not had the "truthful and accurate" clause, there would have been no crime.

So to say this ruling criminalized the act of creating a fake persona online is, at best, rank sensationalism.

Are you saying I just broke the law with the handle I just used to submit this comment?

Also, there's a big difference between the concepts of public anonymity and unauthenticated access and use.

It's very possible to require authentication of actual identity while still providing for public anonymity through screen names and handles.

Both types of privacy are important (being private to other users and being private to the provider too), but it's important to distinguish between types of privacy and anonymity.

Oh, and to keep with the spirit of the season: how many Santas would be exposed if they weren't allowed to call themselves 'Santa' online? ;-)

Papers:
* A model regime of Privacy
* A Taxonomy of Privacy.

Your post also highlights the importance of supporting greater interaction between the techies building identity technologist and the legal community (academics, policy makers, AG's, practicing attorneys and privacy officers in companies) coming together to talk about how the two interact.

We are working on supporting such gatherings happening in the Winter Spring - http://wiki.idcommons.net/ID-Legal

The vision of much of the folks in the identity community - those building the next generation of open standards for identity on the web is to support multiple and separate persona's for people. (rather then the 100+ logins people have today on sites) getting this down to some reasonably managed number say under 10.

YES the technologies should be there to support us managing different persona's aspects of ourselves in different contexts and if it doesn't do this I don't imagine it will get adoption by regular people.

The Burton Group has proposed a new concept The Limited Liability Persona (http://identityblog.burtongroup.com/bgidps/2006/11/the_limited_lia.html) that could address the legal kinds of issue brought up by the Lori Drew case and the Kathy Sierra incident.

For example, back in the usenet days it was easy to find out which group regular was trying to pose as a fake troll by looking at the message header.

There is also IP addresses. I think that case recently where the kid hacked Palin's email involved an "anonymous proxy" provider who immediately gave up the kids' IP address when questioned.

The point is that depending on who you're trying to be private from, privacy is an illusion online.

yeah, I could post an inflammatory comment on this blog post under a fake name and no one would know but if the need came up ReadWriteWeb could find out who I am very easily.

Forcing everyone to openly identify themselves is a catch 22 when it comes to children or other potential victims online. That just makes predators lives easier. I'd force my kids to drop MySpace if they had to use personal identification.

How would real identification would work any better since there are other people with the same name all over? I mean, how do you know if this post was written by the Matt Rasmussen in CT, UT, VT? I've got an uncommon name so now ask all the David Smiths of the world raise their hand...

that said... don't think that the evolution of the web will necessarily end privacy, I think that is one possible outcome... I write about this frequently, but the best summation is on my blog:

http://drop.io/swl/asset/systems-and-costs-of-privacy

Personally, as an employer, I much rather hire somebody with a good and fun social life. I believe this is healthy and healthier people make better employee. So seeing a prospect candidate on flick drunk with friends in some silly situation is not necessarily a bad thing for him. But more generally, I really don't care.

I think society is changing. The reason more and more peoples don't feel shy to put seemingly embarrassing stuff on the net may be because, more and more, the rest of us simply don't care.

Yihong

I have to agree with handle BarackObama above. At Experience Project, privacy in the public domain of the site (e.g., anything that can be found on a Google search) is a keystone unlocking massive benefit. If you force people to use their "real" information publicly, you also force most of them to self-market, and you lose the opportunity to connect strangers on things that may matter to them most-- many of which would never be appropriate to share next to a picture of their smiling face, their educational and occupational history, and all the friends they've ever had.

I know the focus in the comments thus far has been around the infamous 'drunk photo' coming back to haunt you, but there are more grave concerns of depriving someone of anonymity. For example, no matter how much one might think society is becoming comfortable with sharing personal details online-- and it is true that they are-- very few people with multiple sclerosis or a miscarriage or an STD are going to go post on WebMD with their real name lest their employer, health care provider, or family and friends find out. Most of those fears are unfounded, but the permanent memory of the internet coupled with the damage gossip can do make this a very serious concern that can't simply be waved away without damaging the opportunity of going online, particularly for support.

In short, responsible site operators need to convey to their users, embedded in the very culture of the site, that just because they are using a handle doesn't mean they are unaccountable for their actions. Tools mentioned ad nauseum above ensure that someone can indeed be held responsible if they break the law, and the site must provided quick and decisive action if someone abuses the privilege of posting behind a handle. This means not only site administrators, but also empowering the community itself to remove inappropriate content.

It may be argued from your article above that those very same people will be further exposed in the 'brave new world.' However my sense is they are cunning types that would modify their behavior online to eclipse their sick intentions.

I blogged about Web SSO the other day and it may be useful to post the link here: http://tinyurl.com/6nfkjk

Its not just about privacy either. The criminal law is for people who break the law - the real law, the one everyone agreed to. Not some contract between two parties.

real internet geeks have dozens of "nicknames" and some create a new one on every site they post. i remain anonymous just to keep my name detached from google searches and because my interests are nobody's business but my own. I have nothing to hide, I'm just a private person; both online and in the real world. yet i still sometimes use my real name online as well.

you aren't required to show ID to every person on the street that asks. and there's not a law that makes it a requirement to have ID on you at all times (when not driving). "papers please." I can walk around peacefully where ever I want with nothing on me at all and not say a word to anyone. I can also keep the shades on my house shut 24/7 while remaining a law-abiding productive member of society.

the act of remaining anonymous is not going anywhere. I consider it a human right.

If people stop working at companies that want to judge you not on your level of performance but rather what you do for shits and giggles in your free time than those types of invasive polices will cease to exist with the companies that have no employees.

But the privacy concerns are reaching an uphill point right now. There is a site dedicated to some of the security areas
http://SocialStalking.com

There's no question that these organizations are exerting influence well beyond anything people consider reasonable or welcome levels of engagement. Quite the contrary, these organizations are perceived as threatening, coercive, and unrestrained in their desire to use what they regard as weakness against individuals, and to treat people's basic dignity and freedom as inconsequential economic externalities.

Needless to say, this outlook is not limited to online conduct. The same employer who would fire you for going to a party in drag is just as likely to be petty, dictatorial, and ultimately disloyal in the rest of their transactions with employees. And it's no secret that health insurance companies will look for excuses not to pay claims in the exact life and death situations that people have paid premiums to guard against.

What I find interesting is the way that large numbers of people putting personal details online can actually create a serious challenge to the underlying anti-social patterns into which these types of organizations have fallen. It's only a matter of time before the most abusive agents are identified, along with the previously hidden cost that attended whatever transactions they were party to.

If you think you're anonymous because you didn't use your real name, you're fooling yourself. Your IP Address, who you "friend", what you say, how you say it, what photos you upload, etc can all be used to determine who your fake name really is. Subpoena's are cheap and easy. Your ISP will sell your traffic, your info, and your usage patterns for shockingly little money.

There is a large list of reasons to truly hide your identity. Simple reasons like domestic/child abuse survivors, thinking wildly different than your community, defeating state/business censorship, and avoiding stalkers (especially if you're a female). I don't divulge who am I at all. I don't want to put me or my family at that kind of risk.

The people of the Tor Project will ensure online anonymity continues to exist.

If you've ever lived in a small town, where everyone knows everyone else, you know how oppressive that environment really is.

To protest about this I bought myself a Cloakfish high anonymity account (that's just a few dollar per month) and will be anonymous when I want to be anonymous :)

I suggest everyone to do the same, become truly anonymous !

What is very much alive is the concept of cloaking and alternative identities - aliases in fact, the amount of which very much depends on what your aims are. What is however important is that you cannot pretend to be someone else - you can only have an additional identity - it is still you.

I decided a little while ago to do what I can to make sure that what little privacy I have left is completely in my control. There are ways to protect one's privacy, of course. But is it possible that if we all become "un-privacized," we'll simply be in a different paradigm with new and interesting expectations of privacy? The strange will become the new.

I think this raises a bigger question, does human kind have a right to anonymity? and if so, is the behaviour of the judiciary, the bureaucracy and commercial organizations in exploiting new technology to find out even more about us infringing on that right?

The secret ballet is an essential balance in the mechanism of democracy, and as such there is at least one piece of anonymity that a judiciary must protect. However society must be protected. Some might say that anonymity is a privilege rather than a right and that it is the individuals responsibility to guard their own anonymity. If the individual chooses to engage in a criminal activity such as grooming then they relinquish their rights.

My fear is that state will be slow in its response to technical innovation, there is no point shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted.

Ive also made this post on my glog here