Is there such a thing as a "private citizen" on the internet?

Hello. I was having a dialogue with some person in another thread, and eventually we started discussing whether 1. there is such a thing as a "private person" on the internet, and 2. whether internet posters have the right to remain anonymous/not have their personal info publicized. (you can see the original thread here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/cnn-are-a-bunch-of-bullies.509025/)

Basically, this poster said that posting on the internet is rather like saying something while standing in the Times Square. People have the right to say what they want but the minute they "do something wrong", then it's fair game to track them down and to publicize their private info.

I am not sure if I agree with this line of reasoning. However, I do feel that posting on the internet IS a bit like saying something out in public. Also, I am ambivalent on whether people should get to keep their anonymity even if they "did something wrong". This, of course, brings up the question of who gets to decide whether people "did something wrong".

What are your thoughts? Is there such a thing as a "private citizen" on the internet? Should internet users get to keep their anonymity at all times?

 

This is something I haven't thought much about except when people are jerks thinking they are anonymous. The so-called anonymity seems to make people think they can be as ignorant as they wish, but when face-to-face with people they generally aren't nearly as bad.

Reality is no one is anonymous on the Internet. The question people must decide is whether it is worthwhile to go after someone, such as breaking a law. It's just like people committing a crime, we don't go whole-hog over a property theft with finger prints or DNA analysis.

In the case of CNN, I would say by the current social media outrage, CNN continues to destroy their OWN reputation by threatening a private individual. That should never happen whether on the Internet or in face-to-face situations. It's just common sense CNN hasn't seemed to have in quite a while. CNN is very likely dead in the near future due to their political shenanigans. So they are scared to death of the people that defy them when in reality, they just don't have a sense of humor as they spiral downward. The only people watching them now are waiting for the train wreck to happen. People love to watch a train wreck.

Steve

 

It all depends on how much about yourself you put out there (i.e. job, state you live in, etc). Even body features one should be weary about releasing about on a random forum, unless its something so commonplace like blue eyes that nobody would be able to track you down. Politically, Republicans have voted against anonymity by voting against net neutrality.

One can strive to be a private citizen on the internet, but I think most of us would be horrified to type our names in Google, and see what pops up.

 

Is the internet a private entity?
I say it's like driving on an interstate. Open to everyone.

 

In essence there are a couple of questions here that I would like to summarize.

1. Is there any legal expectation of "privacy" on the internet given that whatever you post can be seen by anyone else anywhere in the world with an internet connection?

2. What is the definition of "doing something wrong" on the internet? In this instance freedom of expression is the primary criteria since the internet is a medium in which we can express ourselves. The Law of Land specifically excludes "incitement to violence" as protected speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement

3. Anonymity is not a given since even the owners of "private sites" such as this one would still be required under the Law of the Land to hand over whatever details they have that could be used to trace you.

4. Whatever you have posted in the internet can be used to trace you. As another poster mentioned above just type your own name into Google and see what comes up. Do the same thing with your PF member name and see what comes up and you will be surprised how quickly you can tie them together.

5. No corporation is going to withhold your personal information from a legal request. They have no reason to "protect" you and you are only deceiving yourself if you believe that they will.

 

Nowadays if you want to keep your privacy, you have to go off grid. Period.

 

Yup!

And by going off grid you can't have a cell phone or a car or even a residence in your own name. You can't have bank accounts or a dentist or a social security number or a job for that matter.

Because any of those could be used to trace you.

Then there are fingerprints, DNA, voice and facial recognition systems out there.

Let's take an example of a hacker getting into the Amazon database. What would they find out about someone? What are they buying and what is it used for? From that alone you can identify their probable age, sex and interests. Clothing sizes could provide height and weight.

All of this information is available on the internet and there is no privacy law that stops corporations from not only using this information to their own benefit but selling it to other corporations. You looked up cars in Edmunds and suddenly your browser has ads for cars. You were checking out the price of ride on lawnmowers and then you see ads for lawnmowers.

That happens because they are targeting those ads to your IP address. Those corporations don't see you as a "private citizen" but rather as a potential customer. So once you are on the grid your privacy is non existent.

 

I think they’re the wrong questions in this context really. The whole “private citizen” element doesn’t really mean anything regardless and the question of anonymity is moot assuming (as seems to be the case) all the identifying information was willingly put online by the individual. I also don’t see it being on the internet makes any legal or moral differences, though it obviously has significant practical impact. If he was printing his own newsletter under a pseudonym with the same kind of content, the principles would be the same.

Ultimately, if you choose to put any information in the public domain, other people are free to make use of that information (within the scope of general laws relating to personal information and the like). An actual right to anonymity only applies in specific circumstances.

 

There's no such thing as privacy on the internet, nor should anyone expect any.

 

It would be nice to have anonymity, but the truth is that there is really none. I am sure it someone tried, they could figure out (and probably publically out) the real identity of every poster on this forum.

Thus, there is risk involved in posting on a forum like this one. When you say something in public, it is only heard by the people who listen. Here, it is preserved for everyone to look up and google.

Thus, it is important to keep in mind that if you post things that are racist, violent etc., they may be used against you in the future.

 

Everyone retains privacy rights at all times publicly unless they willingly surrender them or law enforcement has cause to invade them. In you example (shouting in Time Square) you are not required to wear a name tag. However some passers-by might know your identity and inform others of it, or the police might ID you (but the police cannot publicly reveal your identity just to suit their own interests). Going on a site on the internet is like boarding an air-plane, the owners of that air plane expect to know who is on board but it would be improper for them to publicly identify you just because they knew someone else on board might not like you. The airline can deny you access, but they cannot identify you just because someone else (unaffiliated with the airline) might be interested (unless they can show good-cause like a court warrant).

Without going through every example of when this is true, it is important to note that the case that inspired you to post this thread was in regards to someone who was sloppy about protecting their identity (For example: if the person shouting in Time Square dropped their wallet). Just like if someone who already knows your identity shares it with another, you have no privacy rights that prevent them from doing so. But if they picked your pocket and shared your identity with the purposeful intent to cause you harm then you have legal grounds to hold them accountable.

 

The internet is public domain. If you post anything that is not copyrighted, people have the right to use it however they wish. However, I do believe many states do have laws that protect IP addresses. A site isn't allowed to publish your IP address. Therefore, yes, there is some right to privacy.

 

A hacker once told me its real easy to hacking into other people's computers over the internet, even with a good firewall. So basically our privacy is not safe anywhere anymore, unless you wanna go completely off the grid

 

While true, most forums (including PF) state in their TOS that a member can be banned for revealing personal information about other members without that other member's consent (i.e. if you posted another person's real name, address, or phone number). Which is exactly what CNN threatened to do, and in threatening to do so CNN would not be a welcome member on this site.

 

You just brought up an interesting point; why aren't their job and dating sites that automatically do just that?

 

At least as much as you have in your own home. Warrants and court orders and such are necessary to get some information.

Which is why I use a VPN which keeps no records of my usage. If a court or someone else tried to track me through my IP, they'd hit a brick wall.

Yes, it is best to avoid posting personal info, or to post misleading info. If someone were to interrogate the gmail account I used to open my PF account they would get just another alias, wrong dob, etc.

You are probably right here. They do have a reason to protect you in order to gain the trust of other users, though.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute

But I agree, you are on shaky ground trusting these corporations.

 

We will see doxxing become much more prevalent in the left's war against dissenting speech.

As they're not opposed to riots, assault and arson to intimidate and shut down opposing ideas, why on earth would anyone believe they'd draw the line at doxxing?

 

CNN is a corporation and not an individual.

CNN is not a member on this site.

This is a privately owned website and as such can make up whatever rules it deems appropriate.

CNN has their own website to publish that information if they continue to be harassed by that individual.

 

A VPN is just another corporation. They will provide the IP address that is using their services just like every other corporation will do.

Taking precautions on the internet is no different to having "street smarts" when you are in a big city.

Accessing the internet at home is no different to sitting on a bench in a public park.

 

But they do not record the IP address they give out. If I were doing something illegal, I would use TOR, of course. But I am just protecting myself from the likes of CNN who would gladly harass me if you knew my identity.

The park bench is probably safer. The IP you get from sitting on a park bench is not connected to your RL address. Again, if I were doing something illegal, I'd pick the park bench.

 

Do you pay for this VPN?

 

Yes.

 

Then you can probably be identified by IP.

 

In the U.S., your post above is copyrighted the moment you posted it. The date/time stamp protects you as well. The question is, is it worthwhile to go after someone that broke copyright law, which is not to be confused with Trade Mark laws.

In either case, the question is still the same and both would have to be defended in civil courts, not criminal courts.

Steve

 

How? Why should paying make any difference?