Content deleted Content added
Tigrennatenn (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m →United States: HTTP to HTTPS for Cornell University |
||
| (216 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Method of communication}}
An '''anonymous post''' is an entry on a [[bulletin board system]], [[Internet forum]] or message board, [[blog]], or other discussion forum without a [[User (computing)|screen name]] or more commonly by using a non-identifiable [[pseudonym]].▼
Some online forums do not allow such posts, requiring users to be registered. Some may allow anonymous posts, but discourage those known as "anonymous cowards" (a term coined by [[Slashdot]]). Others like [[JuicyCampus]], [[AutoAdmit]], [[2channel]] and other [[Futaba Channel|Futaba]]-based image boards (such as [[4chan]]) thrive on the anonymity. Users of 4chan, in particular, interact in an anonymous and ephemeral environment that facilitates cowardice and rapid generation of new [[memes]].<ref>http://projects.csail.mit.edu/chanthropology/4chan.pdf</ref>▼
[[file:4ch.png|thumb|alt=screenshot of 4chan's interface|an anonymous post on [[4chan]]'s [[/b/]] imageboard]]
Identifying the author of an anonymous post may require a [[Doe subpoena]]. First, the IP address of the poster will be obtained from the hosting website. Through a second request, courts then order an [[ISP]] to identify the subscriber to whom it had assigned said IP address. Requests for such data are almost always fruitful, though providers often will effect a finite term of [[data retention (telecommunications)|data retention]] (in accordance with the [[privacy policy]] of each—local law may specify a minimum and/or maximum term).▼
▲An '''anonymous post''', is an entry on a [[
▲Some online forums such as [[Slashdot]] do not allow such posts, requiring users to be registered
==History of online anonymity==
Online anonymity can be traced to [[Usenet]] [[Usenet newsgroup|newsgroup]]s in the late 1990s where the notion of using invalid emails for posting to newsgroups was introduced. This was primarily used for discussion on newsgroups pertaining to certain sensitive topics. There was also the introduction of [[anonymous remailers]] which were capable of stripping away the sender's address from mail packets before sending them to the receiver. Online services which facilitated anonymous posting sprang up around mid-1992, originating with the [[cypherpunk]] group.<ref>Rigby, Karina, [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall95-papers/rigby-anonymity.html "Anonymity on the Internet Must Be Protected"]</ref>
The precursor to Internet forums like [[2channel]] and [[4chan]] were [[textboard]]s like Ayashii World and Amezou World that provided the ability for anonymous posts in [[Japan]]. These "large-scale anonymous textboards" were inspired by the Usenet culture and were primarily focused on technology, unlike their descendants.<ref>[https://archive.today/20130414101236/http://www.bienvenidoainternet.org/wiki/Ayashii_World "Ayashii World"]</ref>
Today, image boards receive tremendous Internet traffic from all parts of the world. In 2011, on 4chan's most popular board, /b/, there were roughly 35,000 threads and 400,000 posts created per day. At that time, that level of content was on par with [[YouTube]]. Such high traffic suggests a broad demand from Internet users for anonymous content sharing sites.<ref name=":0"/>
==Levels of anonymity==
Anonymity on the Internet can pertain to both the utilization of [[pseudonym]]s or requiring no authentication at all (also called "perfect anonymity") for posting on a website.<ref>Furukawa, Hideki,[http://www.ojr.org/japan/internet/1061505583.php "Q&A With the Founder of Channel 2"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130109111255/http://www.ojr.org/japan/internet/1061505583.php |date=January 9, 2013 }}, ''The Online Journalism Review'', August 22, 2008</ref> Online anonymity is also limited by [[IP address]]es. For example, [[WikiScanner]] associates anonymous [[Wikipedia]] edits with the IP address that made the change and tries to identify the entity that owns the IP address. On other websites, IP addresses may not be publicly available, but they can be obtained from the website administrators only through legal intervention. They might not always be traceable to the poster.<ref>[http://ask-leo.com/just_how_do_websites_track_or_monitor_our_activity.html "Just how do websites track or monitor our activity?"]</ref>
==Techniques==
Utilizing [[pseudonym]]s allow people to post without revealing their real identity. Pseudonyms, however, are still prone to being tracked to the user's [[IP address]].<ref name=atgtab>{{Cite web |url=http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page6042.cfm |title=A Technical Guide to Anonymous Blogging |access-date=2009-03-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090402130911/http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page6042.cfm |archive-date=2009-04-02 |url-status=dead }}</ref> To avoid being tracked to an IP address, it is possible to post via a [[public computer]] where the IP address would usually be under the purview of the public workspace such as a [[Coffeehouse|coffee shop]], and hence cannot be traced to the individual user.<ref name="atgtab"/> [[Adversarial stylometry]] can be employed to resist identification by writing style.
===Memes===
Another way people are posting anonymously online is through the use of [[Internet meme|memes]]. One popular meme is the Confession Bear meme. People use Confession Bear to post everything from funny and embarrassing stories to very troubled thoughts.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = The curious case of Confession Bear: the reappropriation of online macro-image memes|last = Vickery|first = Jacqueline Ryan|date = January 2, 2014|journal = Information, Communication & Society|doi = 10.1080/1369118X.2013.871056|volume=17|issue = 3|pages=301–325| s2cid=146575682 }}<!--|access-date = October 22, 2014--></ref>
===Technology===
There are services described as [[anonymizer]]s which aim to provide users the ability to post anonymously by hiding their identifying information. Anonymizers are essentially [[proxy server]]s which act as an intermediary between the user who wants to post anonymously and the website which logs user information such as IP addresses. The proxy server is the only computer in this network which is aware of the user's information and provides its own information to anonymize the poster.<ref>Confinet Ltd. "[http://www.anonic.org/anonymous-surfing.html Anonymous Surfing]", AnonIC.org, 2004</ref> Examples of such anonymizers include [[Tor (network)|Tor]] and [[I2P]], which employ techniques such as [[onion routing|onion]] and [[garlic routing]] (respectively) to provide enhanced [[encryption]] to messages that travel through multiple proxy servers.<ref name=atgtab />
Applications like [[Pretty Good Privacy|PGP]] utilizing techniques like [[Symmetric-key algorithm|private-key]] and [[Public-key cryptography|public-key]] encryptions are also utilized by users to post content in Usenet groups and other online forums.<ref name=mehtaandplaza>{{cite book |last1=Mehta |first1=Michael |last2=Plaza |first2=Dwaine |editor-last=Keisler |editor-first=Sara |title=Culture of the Internet |publisher=Lawrence Eribaum Associates |date=April 3, 1997 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/cultureofinterne0000kies/page/53 53–69] |chapter=Chapter 3: Pornography in Cyberspace: An Exploration of What's in Usenet |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I2gekEf3i3IC&dq=anonymity%20pornography&pg=PA53 |isbn=0805816364 |name-list-style=amp |url=https://archive.org/details/cultureofinterne0000kies/page/53 }}</ref>
==Legal standards and regulations==
{{main|Doe subpoena}}
The right to speak anonymously online is protected, in the United States, by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]], and various [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act|other laws]]. These laws restrict the ability of the government and civil litigants to obtain the identity of anonymous speakers. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]</ref> This protection has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect the right to speak anonymously offline. In ''McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission'',<ref name=McIntyre>''McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission'', [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html 514 U.S. 334] (1995).</ref> the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio law banning the distribution of anonymous election pamphlets. The Court said, "[a]n author’s decision to remain anonymous . . . is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref name=McIntyre /> The Court found that "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."<ref name=McIntyre /> Various courts have interpreted these offline protections to extend to the online world.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/%28azug0gfogzf1wl55keulbk55%29/Download.aspx?ID=67130 ''Doe v. Cahill'', 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)]; [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/h030767.pdf ''Krinsky v. Doe 6'', 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (2008)].</ref>▼
===China===
The revised draft of the [[China|Chinese]] government's "Internet Information Services"<ref>[http://www.scio.gov.cn/zxbd/zcfg/201206/t1169111.htm "Internet Information Services (revised draft)"], June 7, 2012</ref> proposes that "Internet information service providers, including [[microblog]]s, forums, and blogs, that allow users to post information on the Internet should ensure users are registered with their real identities".<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-internet-idUSBRE8560AM20120607 "China Proposes Strengthening Internet Guidelines"], [[Reuters]], June 7, 2012</ref> Starting October 1, 2017, it will require Internet users to identify themselves with their real names to use comments sections on news and social media websites.<ref>[http://supchina.com/2017/08/25/china-ban-anonymous-online-comments-chinas-latest-society-culture-news/ China to ban anonymous online comments – China’s latest society and culture news] </ref>
Online communities vary with their stances on anonymous postings. [[Wikipedia]] allows anonymous editing in most cases, but does not label users, instead identifying them by their [[IP address]]es, with other editors commonly referring to them with neutral terms such as "anons" or "IPs". Slashdot permits the practice and employs the label.<ref>"What's Online" by Dwight Silverman, ''Houston Chronicle'', July 7, 2000, Technology, page 2.</ref><!-- No URL? -->▼
===The Philippines===
Many online bulletin boards require users to be signed in to write (and in some cases, even to read) posts. [[2channel]] and other [[Futaba Channel|Futaba]]-based image boards take an opposite stance, encouraging the anonymity, and in the case of English Futaba-based websites, calling those who use usernames and [[tripcode]]s "namefags" and "tripfags," respectively.<ref name=namefag>{{cite web|last=Page|first=Lewis|title=Anonymous hackers' Wikileaks 'infowar' LATEST ROUNDUP|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/09/operation_payback_anonymous_wikileaks_infowar_latest/|work=The Register|publisher=The Register|accessdate=20 July 2011}}</ref> ▼
The [[Philippines|Philippine]] government passed the [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|Cybercrime Prevention Act]] on 12 September 2012, which among other things grants the [[Department of Justice (Philippines)|Department of Justice]] the ability to "block access to 'computer data' that is in violation of the Act; in other words, a website hosting criminally [[libel]]ous speech could be shut down without a court order".<ref>Jillian C. York, "[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/dark-day-philippines-government-passes-cybercrime-act/ A Dark Day for the Philippines as Government Passes Cybercrime Act]", ''[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]'', October 3, 2012</ref>
===United Kingdom===
[[Slashdot]] discourages anonymous posting by referring to anonymous posters as "anonymous coward". The mildly derogatory term is meant to chide anonymous contributors into logging in.<ref>[http://news.com.com/Andover.Net+scoops+up+seminal+Slashdot+site/2100-1001_3-227793.html "Andover.Net scoops up seminal Slashdot site"], C|Net News.com article by Stephen Shankland, dated June 29, 1999. (Stating that the term "Anonymous Coward" was popularized by Slashdot.)</ref><ref>"Looking through a Window on Open Source Culture," by Sanjay Gosain. ''Systèmes d'Information et Management'' 2003, volume 8, issue 1 at page 22. (Stating that "Anonymous Coward" was popularized by Slashdot.)</ref>▼
Under the [[Defamation Act 2013]], in an action against a website operator, on a statement posted on the website, it is a defense to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. The defense is defeated if it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement.
===United States===
In the United States, the right to speak anonymously online is protected by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] and various [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act|other laws]]. These laws restrict the ability of the government and civil litigants to obtain the identity of anonymous speakers. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the [[Freedom of the press in the United States|press]]".<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]</ref> This protection has been interpreted by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to protect the right to speak anonymously offline.
▲
▲Identifying the author of an anonymous post may require a [[Doe subpoena]].
On March 21, 2012, the [[New York State Senate]] introduced the bill numbered S.6779 (and A.8668) labeled as the "Internet Protection Act". It proposes the ability of a [[webmaster|website administrator]] of a New York–based website to take down anonymous comments unless the original author of the comment agrees to identify themselves on the post.<ref>New York State Senate [http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Summary=Y&Text=Y Bill no. S.6779], March 21, 2012.</ref>
==In
▲Online communities vary with their stances on anonymous postings. [[Wikipedia]] allows anonymous editing in most cases, but does not label users, instead identifying them by their [[IP address]]es
[[Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada]]▼
▲{{anchor|namefag}}Many online bulletin boards require users to be signed in to
▲[[Slashdot]] discourages anonymous posting by
==Ramifications==
===Effects on users===
The effects of posting online anonymously has been linked to the [[online disinhibition effect]] in users whilst been categorized into either benign or toxic disinhibition.<ref name=Suler>{{cite journal|last=Suler|first=John|title=The Online Disinhibition Effect|journal=CyberPsychology & Behavior |year=2004|volume=7|issue=3|doi=10.1089/1094931041291295|pmid=15257832|pages=321–326|s2cid=8136203 }}</ref> Disinhibition can result in misbehavior but can also improve user relationships. It may also result in greater disclosure among Internet users, allowing more emotional closeness and openness in a safe social context.<ref name=BenZeev>{{cite journal|last=Ben-Ze'e v|first=Aaron|title=Privacy, emotional closeness, and openness in cyberspace|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|date=July 2003|volume=19|issue=4|pages=451–467|doi=10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00078-x}}</ref>
Anonymous computer communication has also been linked to accentuate [[self-stereotyping]].<ref name=Postmes>{{cite journal|last=Postmas|title=Behavior Online: Does Anonymous Computer Communication Reduce Gender Inequality?|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|year=2002|volume=28|issue=8|display-authors=etal|doi=10.1177/01461672022811006|pages=1073–1083|s2cid=145697214 }}</ref> Although it has been linked to notable effects in gender differences, only when the topic bears similarity and fits with the [[Gender role#Gender stereotypes|gender stereotype]].<ref name="Postmes"/>
A 2015 study suggested that anonymous news comment sections are more susceptible to uncivil comments, especially those directed at other users. Anonymous news comment section users are also more likely to be impolite by either being sarcastic and casting aspersions.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Rowe|first1=I.|title=Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion|journal=Information, Communication & Society|date=2015|volume=18|issue=2|pages=121–138|doi=10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365|s2cid=5829176 }}</ref>
With regard to a recent hostile subpoena in California, commentators have asked if there will be a "Layfield & Barrett effect" chilling job review posting free speech.<ref>http://lawandmore.typepad.com/law_and_more/2016/05/anonymous-posting-will-there-be-a-layfield-barrett-effect.html {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225024548/https://lawandmore.typepad.com/law_and_more/2016/05/anonymous-posting-will-there-be-a-layfield-barrett-effect.html |date=2021-02-25 }} Law and More: Deconstructing What Happens In Law, May 17, 2016, Anonymous Posting - Will there be a Layfield & Barrett Effect?</ref><ref>http://speechwriting-ghostwriting.typepad.com/speechwriting_ghostwritin/2016/05/glassdoor-will-layfield-barrett-subpoena-scare-off-employees-from-ranting.html {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160629155032/http://speechwriting-ghostwriting.typepad.com/speechwriting_ghostwritin/2016/05/glassdoor-will-layfield-barrett-subpoena-scare-off-employees-from-ranting.html |date=2016-06-29 }} Jane Genova, Speechwriter-Ghostwriter Blog, May 16, 2016, "Glassdoor - Will Layfield & Barrett Subpoena Scare Off Employees from Ranting?"</ref> On May 2, 2016, through its lawyers, [[Layfield and Barrett]] and partner Phil Layfield issued a subpoena on [[Glassdoor]] seeking the online identities of former employees who posted extremely critical and negative reviews. Glassdoor executives have stated that they will fight the subpoena as they have fought off other efforts to disclose anonymous identities in the recent past.<ref>http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202749188614/Glassdoor-Fights-Subpoena-Seeking-Identity-of-Commenter?slreturn=20160422220341 The Recorder, Feb. 8, 2016, "Glassdoor Fights Subpoena Seeking Identity of Commenter"</ref> Other litigants in California have won their right to anonymously post negative job reviews but the law remains hotly contested.<ref>http://www.dmlp.org/threats/krinsky-v-doe-6 Digital Media Law Project, Krinsky v. Doe, 2008</ref><ref>http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=52db6564-e0f4-42eb-abec-c8f109de42a5 Lexicology.com, March 24, 2016, "Opinions, Everyone's Got One".</ref>
===Effects on online communities===
The conditions for [[deindividuation]], such as "anonymity, reduced [[self-awareness]], and reduced self-regulation," fosters creations of online communities much in the same way that they might be employed offline.<ref name=Myers>{{cite journal|last=Myers|first=David|title="Anonymity is Part of the Magic": Individual Manipulation of Computer-Mediated Communication Contexts|journal=Qualitative Sociology|publisher= Springer|year=1987|doi=10.1007/bf00988989|volume=10|issue=3|pages=251–266|s2cid=144685973 }}</ref> This is evident in proliferation of communities such as [[Reddit]] or [[4chan]] which utilize total anonymity or pseudonymity, or tools such as Informers (which add anonymity to non anonymous social media like [[Facebook]] or [[Twitter]]), to provide its users the ability to post varied content. The effect of [[Online disinhibition effect|disinhibition]] has been seen to be beneficial in "advice and discussion [[Threaded discussion|threads]] by providing a cover for more intimate and open conversations".<ref name=":0"/>Anonymous posting can lower social pressure and self-censorship, allowing users to express honest or controversial opinions more freely. Anonymous posting is used by whistleblowers to share sensitive information without revealing their identity[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283053701_Anonymity_in_Social_Media_Effects_of_Content_Controversiality_and_Social_Endorsement_on_Sharing_Behavior .]
The "ephemerality", or short-lived nature, of posts that exist on some anonymous image boards such as [[4chan]] create a fast-paced environment. As of 2009, threads on 4chan had a median lifespan of 3.9 minutes.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |chapter-url = http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2873/4398|chapter= 4chan and/b: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community |title=Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media |last = Bernstein|first = Michael|date = 2011|access-date = 17 November 2017|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151021064834/http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2873/4398|archive-date = 2015-10-21}}</ref>
There is also research suggesting that content that gets posted in such communities also tends to be more deviant in nature than would be otherwise.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Suler|first=John|title=The Bad Boys of Cyberspace: Deviant Behavior in a Multimedia Chat Community|journal=CyberPsychology & Behavior |year=2009|doi=10.1089/cpb.1998.1.275|volume=1|issue=3|pages=275–294|s2cid=27048434 }}</ref> The ability to post anonymously has also been linked to the proliferation of [[pornography]] in newsgroups and other online forums wherein users utilize sophisticated mechanisms such as mentioned in [[Anonymous post#Technology|technology]].<ref name=mehtaandplaza />
==See also==
▲* ''[[Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada]]'', ([[In re]] Anonymous Online Speakers), 611 F.3d 653 (2010)
* ''[[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission]]'', 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
* [[John Doe]]
==References==
{{
==External links
* [
▲* [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/technology/techspecial2/25privacy.html Privacy for People Who Don’t Show Their Navels]
[[Category:Anonymity]]
[[Category:Internet culture]]
▲[[nn:Anonymous coward]]
| |||