Internet Secrecy....

I continue to believe that anonymity is one of the chief curses of the internet--and that one of the primary ways to reduce the temptation to sin on the internet is for us to freely acknowledge our full names wherever we comment or write.

Along with this I've come to recognize certain patterns of anonymity in our blog's log files--patterns that often reveal bottom-feeder internet ethics.

I suspect most casual users of the internet aren't aware how many personally revealing facts are databased each time they go to an internet site. For instance, web servers record the IP address and domain name of all guest PCs. Take that adddress here and you will sometimes learn a great deal about who is frequenting your site. At the very least, you'll usually have an idea of the city they live in and the ISP they use to access the internet.

Perhaps the slimiest indicator in the average weblog is the IP address that leads to a university in Stuttgart (or some other former eastern-bloc city). This is the mark of a user cloaking his online activity by employing anonymizer tactics--usually a proxy server disguising the originating IP address. Our experience has been that those who do this tend to engage in internet conduct so slimy that they've learned to cover their tracks. And though the use of an anonymizer is more frequently tied to porn and warez consumption than blog commenting, when someone posts from a cloaked address they almost invariably possess the ethics of a snake. This is a tactic we've seen used by--among others--advocates of the repugnant drivel known as "kinism."

The next most slimy tactic is the false flag attack--commenting under a false name, or sometimes under another's real name. How can we know when names are false? Looking the name up in a phone book or on Google helps at times. So does emailing and finding the provided email address a fake. But quite often, when an attack rolls in that sounds like someone we've heard from before, doing a search for past comments from the same IP address tells the story. It's amazing, for instance, how many uniquely-named individuals writing from the same department of the same ClearChannel radio station have attacked us for a lack of respect for women.

Then there is the legion of cowardly lions who attack anonymously.

Finally, there are those who shoot from the shadows. Whenever we write on certain topics we can be certain our referrer logs will show incoming links from certain private forums and bulletin boards. It's clear from the points of entry what topics they're interested in. It's also clear from the negative comments they leave that the originating link was a negative post. Frankly, when Reformed pastors cloak their discussions in such anonymity it makes one wonder what kind of childishness they're concealing.

There really is no place on the internet for men (and I'm not speaking generically at this point) of God walking about anonymously. Male internet anonymity is almost always tied to some form of sin. This is so even when we say that making our names known might cost us our jobs. Yes, it may, but that's what faith is all about, brothers.   

Comments

[Michael McMillan]

> There really is no place on the internet for men (and I'm not speaking generically at this point) of God walking about anonymously.

Not just anonymously, but androgynously, as we recently observed.

Despite their various shady, behind-the-scenes tactics, the message is always the same -- we are the bad guys, merely for holding traditional biblical opinions and daring to publicly express them.

> It's amazing, for instance, how many... have attacked us for a lack of respect for women.

I guess things like valuing motherhood over abortion and not wanting our wives, daughters and sisters in combat shows a lack of respect for women.

Why don't they just come out and say it: "the Bible shows a lack of respect for women"? (From their skewed point of view.)

--Michael McMillan

[Michael McMillan]

If our detractors are not honest about what the Bible says, it stands to reason they will not be honest about how they go about opposing us. The ends justify the means when it comes to their holy war against what to them is oppression.

--Michael McMillan

[Kamilla]

A corollary is: If you don't want angry dissenters making it look like you are schizophrenic, learn how to erase your footprints when you leave a public computer (library, cybercafe, etc.).

I learned this one the hard way.

Kamilla

[Philipp Gollner]

And the true national identity of eastern bloc Stuttgart remains anonymous, too...

Hint: the local soccer ground is named after Gottlied Daimler, and the country's name starts with "G". And it's not "Georgia".

the eastern bloc will rise again,
Freundschaft, Genossen!

[Scott Tibbs]

What would you say to someone who uses a pseudonym out of a justified fear that someone will go after him in real life? It isn't just about the person posting, but also about his family. I do not agree that taking measures to protect yourself from demon-influenced people is a lack of faith.

Like I said on the other thread, some of my critics have gone after me offline, both personally and professionally, for things I have said online.

Yes, anonymity and sin are closely tied to each other on the Internet, but the presence of one does not mean that the other does not exist.

Yes, David, I understand that you are posting a general principle here. In general, anonymity is a problem because it creates an opportunity for people say and do things that they would normally never do. However, I think your blanket condemnation of anonymity ignores the very real and very legitimate reasons many do not want to use their real names.

Finally, I would point out that two of the nastiest, most vile, most despicable individuals I have ever encountered (online or off) have used their real names online.

[Kamilla]

Perhaps, if your participation requires you to use a pseudonym for your own safety, you ought to re-examine where, how and why you are participating on the internet? You might also want to think again about what is really a justified fear.

It's an easy enough thing to block unwanted emails from your inbox. I've done it recently with a couple of women who took it upon themselves to perform a sort of Matthew 18 accountability with me for my participation here. If I know how to do it, surely you can figure it out. As for real life? I've heard a lot of expressed fears, but seldom, if ever, have I heard of such fears being realized.

Kamilla

[Scott Tibbs]

Kamilla, this is not a hypothetical discussion. People have gone after me personally, offline, for things I have said online. This has gone far beyond a simple nasty e-mail. That is a fact. I have also seen more than one friend threatened in a similar manner.

Just because you have not personally observed something does not mean it does not happen, and you might want to educate yourself on the subject before you post an opinion on it.

I also find it more than a little ironic that the person defending anonymity is using his real first and last name in this thread while the person attacking anonymity is not.

Matthew 7:3-5

[Kamilla]

Scott,

I'm at a loss as to how to respond or, indeed, whether I should respond at all.

To take your last point first, I think you should note that the Scripture passage you quote was intended for self-examination, not as a weapon to indictment others. I hope I have misunderstood your purpose here.

Second, I am hardly swimming around the internet anonymously when I sign my own name. Yes, it is my real, genuine name. I was named after my great, great aunt. One of the benefits of having a somewhat unusual name, I have found, is that I only need leave my first name and everyone knows who is "calling". Sort of like Cher.

Believe me, I know this is not a hypothetical discussion. I used to be a very publicly vocal Egalitarian, as several of the posters here and our hosts well know. If you imagine my public repudiation of that position has been without personal cost to me, you are greatly mistaken. I assure you it has been more than the occasional nasty email.

However, I maintain that if you truly believe anonymity is necessary for your protection, perhaps you ought to rethink where, why and how you are participating in internet forums.

Kamilla

[Donna L. Carlaw]

Kamilla:
It's an easy enough thing to block unwanted emails from your inbox. I've done it recently with a couple of women who took it upon themselves to perform a sort of Matthew 18 accountability with me for my participation here. If I know how to do it, surely you can figure it out. As for real life? I've heard a lot of expressed fears, but seldom, if ever, have I heard of such fears being realized.>>>>>

Hey, Kamilla, that is really a rotten thing for these ¨sisters¨ to have done to you.

I think that I have finally learned after dozens of angry emails and dozens of attacks on my blogs - which I finally closed down, for now anyway until we´re back from South America - that I don´t have to take them seriously, even if they used to call themselves my friends.

Anyway... you helped me with that ...

I enjoy the good discussions, and will just ignore the character assination, hate mail, and intimidating phone calls. They are cyber-spooks, nothing more.

You are right. The fears are unfounded. They are shadows- mere memories of guys like the Boggie Man. It is easy to make them all disappear.

[Kamilla]

sorry, indictment should read "indict" - editing error.

[David Bayly]

Scott,

Since you always use your full name here (and I appreciate your doing so) you're defending a hypothetical anonymity, not an actual.

I think the courage you show is a necessary part of our faithful witness to Christ. But in the case of women, I believe the risk of sexual harassment is significant enough to make anonymity the better course at times.

There are times when casual anonymity is fine--responding to opinion polls, favorite song lists on ITunes, etc. But when the issues are larger I believe anonymity is usually a cover for sin of one sort or another.

Your brother in Christ,

David

[Stephen Baker]

Scott,

Chill out, dude. Kamilla is a friend.

With love,
Stephen

[Scott Tibbs]

Kamilla - when Jesus said "take the beam out of your own eye", He was condemning hypocrisy. I do not see how, given the context of the verse, one could say that it is about self-examination when Jesus Himself used it as criticism. What I see in your posts is that, uncommon first name or not, you are semi-anonymous by only using your first name instead of your full name. Therefore, it seems a little inconsistent for you to be condemning anonymity.

My comment about educating yourself about the topic means this - many times, people face real world consequences for what they say online. I've been attacked in very personal and very evil ways by political opponents simply because they disliked opinions I have expressed on my personal blog. Your flippant remark about deleting the occasional nasty e-mail, after I said that "some of my critics have gone after me off-line for things I have said online" made it seem that you were simply ignoring counter arguments. It also seemed arrogant to me - simply because you have not personally observed something does not mean it does not happen.

David - I am defending anonymity in principle, but the real-world consequences of using my real name have been anything BUT hypothetical. I have friends who use pseudonyms because of fear that our mutual political enemies will go after them the same way they have gone after me. I think your blanket condemnation of anonymity does not take these very real issues into account.

Yes, anonymity and sin are closely tied together.There is a reason that the porn industry has jumped on every single technology - from the VCR to the Internet - that can be used to make use of pornography more anonymous. But the presence of anonymity does not always mean that sin is present.

I have in the past been very harsh with anonymous cowards who hide behind a mask to make despicable personal attacks on people. I have "outed" these people by name on more than one occasion when I have figured out who they are. I have no regret for doing so, and will not hesitate to do so again. But there is a MASSIVE difference between anonymity to "protect" oneself from shame related to sinful actions as opposed to anonymity to protect oneself from evil people who hate dissent and will stop at nothing to stamp it out.

Stephen - I do not see a need to "chill out". I'm not angry with Kamilla. I simply pointed out the lack of knowledge about the subject that her earlier post displayed, as well as the inconsistency present in her posting style, as I explained above.

[Tim Bayly]

Scott, I know of your persecution and am grateful it didn't silence you. In fact, you continue to use your first and last names and to witness to God's Truth. Praise God!

Despite agreeing with what David's written in this post, let's remember that persecution is likely to continue to get worse in this country. Also, that Knox published "The First Blast of the Trumpet..." anonymously.