pseudonyms, anonymity, and protecting your personal identity

[deja]

One big plus point for Robert, in my book, for which I forgive a lot, is that he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym.

The above quote from John came from another thread - http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=47790#p47790 - and I thought it was important enough to comment on. I disagree with John's position against using pseudonyms and offer the following select reasons why some folks find it necessary to use them.

As we all know, a person's online presence/profile is something not to be taken lightly. Many have made the argument that if you have nothing to hide you also have nothing to worry about, i.e., if you behave like a responsible adult on the internet, you should have no worries whatsoever in making your 'true" identity known online. That, of course, is patently false.

1) In my case, my family (immediate and extended) has been dealing with an individual who is harassing and stalking family members, both online and offline, and using the internet as his point of departure. The internet, and Facebook in particular, is a stalker's paradise. As a result, we've been working very hard getting family members' online presence removed. It's unpleasant and expensive.

2) It is now regular practice among employers to find out as much online information about a potential candidate as they can, all as part of their hiring process. In some sectors it's not even necessary to find anything salacious about a candidate to pass them over. The fact that a candidate may have an active, personal online presence is more than enough to put them at the bottom of the list. Companies don't want employees who may become a liability down the road.

3) Online profiling is one of the dirty little secrets among hiring committees in the academy. They want to know if candidates A, B, and C share their political views, are outspoken on certain issues, or have any online skeletons in their closets. Such explicit searches are illegal of course but they're done nonetheless by individual committee members and sometimes as a committee effort (hush, hush). I've witnessed this firsthand and it's disgusting. In the academy, hiring new assistant professors often involves political jostling between warring faculty members.

4) Finally, some people have been fired, sacked, denied promotion, etc., for their online presence. Yes, the vast majority of those incidents were likely due to pure stupidity of the employees, but that's not always the case. By stupid, I mean allowing such content to find its way onto the internet and obviously you don't always have that control – I think Facebook is the worst idea of all time.

In short, unless you have no prospects of ever being stalked (I never thought so – surprise!) or have little to no worries regarding your employment and/or chosen career path, it's foolish for you to use your real name within such casual online contexts like L19 or any other online forum. Your professional online profile is obviously different. Online profiles are something everyone should actively manage, making sure only appropriate content - stuff that you want seen - is accessible. The alternative is not participating in any kind of online social interaction. Using a pseudonym gives me the freedom to participate.

[gaius]

This is interesting: I was about to make the exact same topic based on the exact same quote, but you beat me to it!

I do believe the subject is interesting. I don't like anonymity, but I do hide my full name for the exact reasons you mentioned. My pseudonym, however, is the same one that I use basically everywhere, so I think a few people on here knew already who I am. Just in case though, I decided to change my signature to show my real first name. EGD will find me, but Google will not. Who will join?

[Monadology]

If I need to be accountable to someone in real life, then they will be in a position to know my real name. Otherwise, a consistently used name to which my messages are attached is all the accountability that is meaningful in the context of a forum like this. Whether my name is "John Smith" or "Monadology" isn't going to make a lick of difference.

That's how I view it.

[RobertJasiek]

Open personal identity is essential in discussion forums because trusting an open identity is easier, a person has greater responsibility for what he says and social interaction becomes easier and more motivated.

deja states some interesting objections and under-developed experience and responsibility of children can be another objection. However, all those objections are caused by insufficient or inappropriate international or national laws or their enforcement.

[freegame]

2) It is now regular practice among employers to find out as much online information about a potential candidate as they can, all as part of their hiring process. In some sectors it's not even necessary to find anything salacious about a candidate to pass them over. The fact that a candidate may have an active, personal online presence is more than enough to put them at the bottom of the list. Companies don't want employees who may become a liability down the road.

I would think that if nothing can be found of a potential candidate that this might also have a negative impact on his or her chances of being hired.
if there is nothing to be found, it will still provide information. they can conclude the person is probably secretive, introvert, or whatever.)
You do need to be careful what personal information finds it's way to the internet.
I don't think any Go post will reflect negatively on you, and if some company does find it a problem i probably don't want to work there anyway...

[tj86430]

all those objections are caused by insufficient or inappropriate international or national laws or their enforcement.

Let's assume this is a fact. What should an individual forum user do about it?

[RobertJasiek]

- Post reasonably so that he can live with what he has posted also many years later.
- Vote for such political parties that set reasonable law soon.
- Defend his own rights in court, if necessary and reasonable.

[DrStraw]

I don't think any Go post will reflect negatively on you, and if some company does find it a problem i probably don't want to work there anyway...

No, but 10,000 posts on various forums would probably indicate you spend too much work time on the computer.

[Kirby]

I believe that well-known users establish a sort of credibility or reputation for what they write. Sometimes people use this as a basis for evaluating what someone has to say. However, I also believe that taking what someone has to say - without considering their reputation or previous "post history" - is of key importance if one wishes to be objective. Because of this, I do not have a real problem with anonymous or multiple accounts of posters here.

I feel that I can compare this idea to that of online go ranks. On KGS, for example, one's game history has a lingering effect on one's rank. If I lose a few games to someone ranked X-dan, then my rank starts to converge on Y-dan, for some value of Y. It's reasonable for the system to make this kind of convergence, but sometimes I like to make a new account. That's because it is sometimes faster to make a new account having no game history to get a higher rank.

I guess I am thinking that this is similar to the topic at hand because someone's posts can be thought of as their games. And as people read one's posts, they start to formulate and establish an opinion of your credibility. If you make a new anonymous account, it's like starting off fresh on KGS with a new [?] account.

If somebody wants to make a point about something, without allowing the audience to take into account their previous "game history", I think that it can be useful for them to make an anonymous account.

It works on KGS for your rank - why can't it work on forums for the posts that you make?

[John Fairbairn]

However, I also believe that taking what someone has to say - without considering their reputation or previous "post history" - is of key importance if one wishes to be objective.

Try applying it next time you need to visit a doctor, or make a major purchase like a house. And remember, reputations can be bad as well as good. True objectivity means taking ALL available information into account.

[Kirby]

However, I also believe that taking what someone has to say - without considering their reputation or previous "post history" - is of key importance if one wishes to be objective.

Try applying it next time you need to visit a doctor, or make a major purchase like a house. And remember, reputations can be bad as well as good. True objectivity means taking ALL available information into account.

I guess all that I'm trying to say is that, if something is true, it's true no matter who says it. If something is false, it's false no matter who says it.

[daal]

However, I also believe that taking what someone has to say - without considering their reputation or previous "post history" - is of key importance if one wishes to be objective.

Try applying it next time you need to visit a doctor, or make a major purchase like a house. And remember, reputations can be bad as well as good. True objectivity means taking ALL available information into account.

By making such a comparison, it becomes clear that this forum has a different significance to you as an established go author as it does to those of us with no such prominence. Your expressed opinion is part of your professional identity, and it makes sense for you to use your real name. For many others, using a real name just lets the world know how we waste, ahem, spend our time.

On the other hand, the more we know about a source of information, the better we can judge it's quality, and being able to link the information with a real person is part of that, particularly when it comes to people making statements of fact that others might rely on.

[kirkmc]

Personally, I think one needs to make a distinction among the various types of venues where anonymity may or may not be helpful. If you're posting in a forum about, say, a health condition, you may not want to make your name publicly accessible.

However, if you're posting in a go forum, unless you're going to be hostile or arrogant, I see no reason to hide behind a pseudonym. (While my "name" here is an abbreviation, I include a link to my website my full name is available. If the forum's profile page had a field for full name, I would include it there.)

[deja]

There are data-mining techniques that can generate fairly accurate profiles about you by connecting the dots from a mass of data that would otherwise represent noise. They're currently being used on the interwebs for generating behavioral patterns both generally and individually. It's thus possible (already being done) to take information from identifiable sources and make connections with information from unidentifiable sources and eureka! Look what we can know about you now. This is basically what data-mining is all about - identifying patterns from seemingly unrelated, random information.

The insurance industry is just one of many industries taking advantage of these rapidly evolving techniques. A recent article from The Wall Street Journal, "Insurers Test Data Profiles to Identify Risky Clients" - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html - details some of what they're "providing" for clients as a result. Of course they assure us that their use of this data is entirely benign and perhaps even benevolent. Here's a reassuring snippet from the end of the article:

Deloitte isn't the only firm pushing data-mining for insurers. Celent, an insurance consulting arm of Marsh & McLennan Cos., recently published a study suggesting insurers could use social-networking data to help price policies and aid in fraud detection.

A life insurer might want to scrutinize an applicant who reports no family history of cancer, but indicates online an affinity with a cancer-research group, says Mike Fitzgerald, a Celent senior analyst.

"Whether people actually realize it or not, they are significantly increasing their personal transparency," he says. "It's all public, and it's electronically mineable."

As Joseph Heller aptly put it - "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."

[psk31]

If you're really the semi-paranoid type take a look at the Wall Street Journal's series under the Tech section called "What They Know", almost enough to keep a person off the net.

My other hobby is amateur (ham) radio. As such, my full name and address is listed with my FCC assigned call sign on the FCC web accessible data base of licensed radio operators. Public record, nothing I can do about it. On the major ham radio forums it is generally understood (some require it) you're user name is going to be your call sign.

In the case of John Fairbairn, being a published author has already gotten his name into the public domain so to speak. I would hope that any AGA staff members whose name and email addresses are available on the usgo.org website would use their real names here. I think in an "industry" setting, real name use is a responsible action.






For the non-US readers, the FCC is the Federal Communications Commission, the US regulatory body for telecommunications, broadcasting, etc.