Jeff Jarvis must have forgotten to lock the door to the blogosphere a couple of nights ago, because some counterrevolutionary appears to have snuck in and now he’s posting appallingly level-headed stuff like this: “The world is a much better place when vendors and customers can engage in quick, reliable, secure, semi-anonymous transactions.”
Thanks for the nicely wrapped link. It jives with a dawning notion of my own: web users might want less ownership, not more.
There’s no such thing as “semi-anonymous.”
There’s no such thing as “semi-anonymous.”
Who are you to say such a thing? ;-)
I’m completely anonymous, but it took ten years and many layers of obfuscation to get there. I had to get a credit card, a bank account, a phone number and a mailing address that are not tied to my name. Many people don’t realize, but getting a post office box without a federally recognized form of ID has become legally impossible. I had to rent a studio to get a mailing address. Bank accounts are so locked down now that I’m not sure I could have opened one after 9/11 under any legal pretense. Luckily, I already a few anonymous ones before the Homeland Gestapo took over.
For fun, I’ve attempted to find out who accesses my records, for what reasons, and what conclusions they’ve drawn. Many people give up after getting the run around for a few months, but I persisted to the end. I can tell you that it is not difficult to find these answers; it is impossible.
One who posts any information about themselves or allows their real IP address to be seen will never know which of their enemies have accessed their records, how deep they dug or how that information was used against them. They might notice, for instance, that their building permits are not approved, their loans do not go through despite high credit ratings or they get frequent extra rubbings at the airport. Mentioning any correlation would seem paranoid, so they keep their mouths shut and dream of the day when their country was the land of the free and the home of the brave.
“semi-anonymous” was meant to indicate knowing enough about the customer so that the transaction can occur, e.g. you need to know that the customer’s credit is good, but not that he’s the guy who watches only three Netflix DVDs per year. Cash really helps with anonymity, but not completely.
And thank you for the acknowledgment, Mr. Carr.
Nick,
Given your views on both the cluetrain and wikipedia, the entry there may amuse.
I quote
http://www.cluetrain.com/ – The Cluetrain website was declared a “Read-Only Landmark” and is currently off-line
This has to be the most non-cluetrain piece of cluetrainness ever penned.
This “landmark” has been down for ages. So much for all that conversation and instant gratification.