in reply to Re^7: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (violation)
in thread Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery?

Yeah, I don't see how this was "an extreme measure". Maybe you could convince me of it, but I'm not even close at this point. I do take anonymity very seriously.

What concerns me is simply the principle of anonymity. Either it is taken very seriously (as you say you take it to be) or it is not. Had this site never offered anonymity that would be fine. There are other forums I participate in that do not offer anonymity, it isn't a big deal.

But if a site does offer anonymity, and takes it seriously, what does "taking it very seriously" mean? I say taking it very seriously means acknowledging that anonymity is the choice of the anonymous party --- anonymity belongs (in the essential sense) to the anonymous party and not to anyone elses good judgement. Taking it seriously means acknowledging that *any* breaking of anonymity (whether you believe it to be harmless or to be in the interest of the anonymous party) merits the term "violation", and should only be considered under extreme circumstances (of which I still cannot think of any in the context of perlmonks that would necessitate such a breach). Anything less is pretense.

In other words, and please don't take this wrong way: if I can't have anonymity from you I don't really have it at all do I? Obviously, in order to do the behind-the-scenes work you and others do around here (I haven't said thanks lately, thanks), you have necessary access to certain private information. But my point is this: Anonymity and privacy aren't discretionary powers to be held by the granting authority, rather, actually granting anonymity and privacy always --- and by nature --- involves a relenquishing of such power (at least in principle, even if only in trust). And this is where we seem to differ in principle at the moment.

You asked:

So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site?

I'll answer a slightly different question, because the question of my participation isn't predicated on a fear of being discovered. If you stated that you understand and agree with my position and consider anonymity to be inviolate except in extreme circumstances, and all the powers that be agreed to abide by such a policy, I would have no problem trusting in that policy (that had essentially been my tacit understanding all along). If, on the other hand, you stated that you still felt that anonymity is something you or other gods are free to breach at your discretion and judgement on a case-by-case basis, then yes, I would regrettably cease participation.

  • Comment on Re: Re^7: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (violation)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re^7: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (violation)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 12, 2004 at 09:12 UTC
    If ... anonymity is something you or other gods are free to breach at your discretion ... I would regrettably cease participation.

    This seems like a rather excessive reaction. Let's say the two ends of the continuum are (1) a site with no anonymity, and (2) a site with perfect anonymity. The biggest possible change can be from (2) to (1). Perhaps tye's actions have caused you to suddenly realize that the anonymity here can be violated (using the word according to your definition), and we move from somewhere near (2) to a spot much closer to (1). According to your opening paragraph, this "isn't a big deal." But your reaction says that it is a big deal; big enough to completely stop participating. This doesn't make sense to me.

[reply]
      This seems like a rather excessive reaction. Let's say the two ends of the continuum are (1) a site with no anonymity, and (2) a site with perfect anonymity. The biggest possible change can be from (2) to (1).

      But the assumption of a continuum from zero anonymity to full anonymity is fundamentally flawed. Anonymity isn't something to be given or measured on a continuous scale. And, anonymity in and of itself isn't the issue here.

      Perhaps tye's actions have caused you to suddenly realize that the anonymity here can be violated (using the word according to your definition),

      No, that anonymity and privacy aren't guaranteed is made clear in This Node, which ultimately suggests it is a matter of trust. But, in my view, the policy "implied" (though admittedly not formally specified) in that post is one I would characterize as: "we really don't want to know, don't care, and won't look except when absolutely necessary" ... "we even use tools and have taken steps so we don't accidentally discover private information". I am a rather trusting person, and my take on policy from that post is that the powers behind perlmonks take privacy as seriously as I do. That does not appear to be the case. Everyone seems to want to measure the 'harm done' in terms of the individual involved (who professes no harm done), and the honest good intentions of tye. Yet it remains true that privacy was breached for very trivial reasons. That's the real issue, and the real harm done.

      But your reaction says that it is a big deal; big enough to completely stop participating. This doesn't make sense to me.

      Because as I mentioned, there isn't a continuum. An illusion that the integrity of private data will be maintained is far worse than no illusion at all. My leaving would have *nothing* to do with anonymity in and of itself.

[reply]
        Because as I mentioned, there isn't a continuum.

        I'd been meaning to reply noting that you appear to have a black-and-white mindset problem on this issue. Much easier when you just admit it. (:

        ...integrity of private data will be maintained...

        And I wanted to steer away from "anonymity" and toward private data, so I'm glad I won't have a fight there either.

        So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site? If so, then I'd appreciate some insight into why that is so strong a concern for you. If not, I'd appreciate some insight into the more extreme problem you are projecting from this incident.

        I note you side-stepped the attempts to get you to be concrete in your concerns.

        If you stated that you understand and agree with my position and consider anonymity to be inviolate except in extreme circumstances, and all the powers that be agreed to abide by such a policy, I would have no problem trusting in that policy (that had essentially been my tacit understanding all along).

        [line break added]

        If, on the other hand, you stated that you still felt that anonymity is something you or other gods are free to breach at your discretion and judgement on a case-by-case basis, then yes, I would regrettably cease participation.

        The only difference between the two proposals is the word "extreme". I'm pretty sure that the gods around here almost never have situations that they would call "extreme". They do try to administer the site even when there isn't currently an "extreme" problem to be fixed. In the course of administering the site, they will run into private data. They may even run into private data because they went looking for it in order to feed it into a further step in the process of administering the site (automating that step is nice, but administrative automation isn't the highest priority from what I've heard).

        So, if you persist in considering this a black-and-white issue and that you won't participate in sites on the 'black' side, then you need to unplug your modem because nearly every web site you might visit is logging your IP address and I doubt any of them have rules that prevent administrators from glancing at your IP address in the log without the excuse of an "extreme" situation. And if private data is either perfectly inviolate ('white') or isn't ('black'), then all of those sites are 'black'.

        - t        

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion