Tagged: Anonymity Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Gerrit Eicker 09:57 on 11. September 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , Anonymity, , , , , , , , Civility, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Government ID, ID, ID System, ID Systems, , , , Identity Delivery, Identity Delivery Business, , , , Information Delivery, Information Delivery Business, , , , , , , , NSTIC, , , , , , , , , , , Pseudonymity, , , Real ID, Real ID System, Real ID Systems, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , TOSS, , Trusted Identities, , , , ,   

    #NymWars 

    Google Plusidentity crises led to #PlusGate and escalated to a war for pseudonymity: #NymWars; http://eicker.at/NymWars

    (More …)

     
    • Gerrit Eicker 09:58 on 11. September 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Guardian: “Google Plus forces us to discuss identity – Google’s Real Name policy embodies a theory that states the way to maximise civility is to abolish anonymity. … Google Plus’s controversial identity policy requires all users to use their ‘real names’. … [P]roblems include the absurdity of Google’s demand for scans of government ID to accomplish this task and the fractal implausibility of Google being able to discern real from fake in all forms of government ID. … The first duty of social software is to improve its users’ social experience. Facebook’s longstanding demand that its users should only have one identity is either a toweringly arrogant willingness to harm people’s social experience in service to doctrine; or it is a miniature figleaf covering a huge, throbbing passion for making it easier to sell our identities to advertisers. – Google has adopted the Facebook doctrine… There could be no stupider moment for Google to subscribe to the gospel of Zuckerberg, and there is no better time for Google to show us an alternative.

      Gizmodo: “Google, Facebook and Twitter now all have similar products. But Twitter CEO Dick Costolo (somewhat inadvertently) made it clear yesterday that while all three have social networking features and make money from ads, they are in fundamentally different businesses. – At a very basic level, Google+ and Facebook are in the identity delivery business, and Twitter is in the information delivery business. That’s a powerful distinction. It reflects a fundamentally different conception of what’s more valuable: information or identity. It also gets at who is more valuable, advertisers or users. – Google and Facebook’s social products are committed to a real names policy. Both can serve someone up to a network of peers or advertisers with some degree of certainty about identity. – Twitter takes exactly the opposite route towards building a network. You can be anonymous, or use a pseudonym, or even impersonate someone else (as long as you indicate that it’s a parody). It will still connect you to others on its network, and allow you to both serve and receive data. And that’s working well, for everybody.”

      SEW: “There has been a lot of speculation about why the push for real names on Facebook and now Google, with Google taking a much harder line than even Facebook, not allowing for even the simplest derivation of ‘nyms’ (pseudonyms). … Why is a company like Google taking such a hard line on something as simple as a name – even though there is no verification process for the ‘real name,’ so ultimately this policing is currently meaningless. … Google’s ambitions for Google+ appear to go far beyond social signals, marketing, and their efforts to make a better product. Dig a little further and you’ll find something called the National Strategy For Trusted Identities In Cyberspace‘ (NSTIC). … A way to establish identity was never invented, so one needs to be. The difference is that companies will hold the real IDs, rather than the government – companies with ‘identity services,’ such as Google. … Maybe we have a new wrinkle in the reason behind the real ID movement, not the betterment of services for Google, but the government initiative into a real online ID system. … Real ID systems should be of concern to anyone who believes in the Bill of Rights and our freedom of speech and to not incriminate ourselves – to live a life that isn’t monitored by entities, ‘private’ or not. Is Google part of this? You have to be the judge.

      Boyle: “Thoughts on rel=author, #nymwars, ‘identity service’ – Over the past month or so, the ‘nymwars’ have become the thing Google+ is most known for among my circle of friends. This is a problem of Google’s own making: they are suspending profiles based on naive heuristics about ‘real names’ (actually typical two part western names), and demanding government ID to reinstate them. … This is not an effective defence against trolls as was initially claimed; they’re more concerned with ideas about G+ as an ‘identity service’ and a way to ‘improve our products’ than about the wishes of their users or the fact that they’re perpetuating the exclusion of minorities. … I recommend linking together your profile pages on other sites, rather than only linking everything to your Google profile. … [D]on’t just do what’s on the left here, because all those associations will be lost when your G+ profile is taken down. If you do something more like what’s on the right, other identity services / social networks and other search engines will have a better chance of presenting what you want them to present.”

      Gartner, Blakley: “Google+ Can Be A Social Network Or The Name Police – Not Both – Google is currently trying to enforce a ‘common name’ policy in Google+. The gist of the policy is that ‘your Google+ name must be ‘THE’ name by which you are commonly known’. – This policy is insane. I really mean insane; the policy is simply completely divorced from the reality of how names really work AND the reality of how humans really work, and it’s also completely at odds with what Google is trying to achieve with G+. … A name is not an attribute of a person; it is an identifier of a person, chosen arbitrarily and changeable at will. … Google+’s naming policy isn’t failing because it’s poorly implemented, or because Google’s enforcement team is stupid. It’s failing because what they’re trying to do is (1) impossible, and (2) antisocial. … Google’s intention in moving into social networking is to sell ads, Google+’s common names policy gives them a lock on the North American suburban middle-aged conservative white male demographic. w00t.”

      Botgirl: “Ejecting virtually identified people with active social networks shows that Google sees online relationships as illegitimate. When Google ejects you for using virtual identity it not only disrespects your privacy choice, but also the choices of everyone who circles you. Shunning the pseudonymous makes intolerance a community standard. – Today, most of the privacy we relinquish is volitional. But If we lose the Nymwars we all become permanent residents in a global Big Brother reality house. The expression of identity is multidimensional, aspects emerging and submerging in a fluid dance with the changing environment. … It’s ironic that those calling for authenticity want to make all the world a stage and cast us all as full-time unpaid actors.

      GigaOM: “Can gamification help solve the online anonymity problem? – There’s been a lot written recently about the issue of online anonymity, and in particular how Google believes that a ‘real names’ policy is necessary so that the Google+ network maintains a certain tone and level of trust. … It’s not so much that badges or other rewards – Slashdot, a pioneering geek community, has long used ‘karma points’ as a way of rewarding users and selecting moderators – cure bad behavior, or prevent trolls from coming to a site. What they do instead is make it easier to distinguish between what Slashdot calls ‘anonymous cowards’ and those who have gained the trust of the community. Over time, it becomes obvious (theoretically) who is worth listening to and who isn’t… Instead of simply trying to ban or exclude anyone who doesn’t want to use a real name, as Google is doing with Google+, why not try to design a system that rewards the type of behavior you want to see, and lets the users of that community decide who they wish to pay attention to?

  • Gerrit Eicker 20:39 on 16. July 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , Anonymity, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Diaspora, finally 

    Diaspora, the open source, decentralised social network, is calling; http://eicker.at/DiasporaNews – Thank you, @darianknight

     
    • Gerrit Eicker 20:47 on 16. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I’m at eicker@joindiaspora.com < It's a Web-link.

    • Gerrit Eicker 22:19 on 16. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      The more I’m using Diaspora, the more I feel embarrassed for Google: they copied each and every “aspect” from Diaspora! Not even the UI/UX work of Plus is Google’s innovation: Google should give credit for Diaspora’s work loudly. – It seems to be fair that Diaspora struck back by following Google Plus’ design.

      • Will Burns 05:25 on 17. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Social Media sites are essentially designed the same way. Diaspora was an open initiative in response to Facebook and their privacy issues. Google+ is essentially just a run of the mill social Network that maybe brings a couple of things to the table, but design wise it’s roughly the same. Which brings me to a bigger point – I can get along just fine on Diaspora and not miss access to Google+ or Facebook in the process.

        • Gerrit Eicker 09:22 on 17. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

          Indeed, I really prefer the Diaspora-concept. And not only regarding the privacy-headache: it’s a matter of security and rights as well, e.g. for organisation’s intranets. Diaspora might get partially accessible social networking to places where it’s banned completely. – Right now Diaspora comes with some smaller limitations regarding media-sharing. But all relevant features are well-designed and pretty functional. Personally I won’t miss anything. I could imagine Diaspora as a replacement for this blog at a later date.

    • Gerrit Eicker 11:29 on 17. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Andromeda: “When it comes to Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg once said ‘Privacy is dead’ and when it comes to Google+ they are taking a similar stance in that your profiles must be tied to a real person (wallet name) and they will be insisting on making all profiles public. … Diaspora, on the other hand is the polar opposite to this ‘Privacy is dead’ approach by stating it is specifically designed to facilitate your privacy in a decentralized and agnostic manner which each person is free to control entirely, while also giving users and entities the right to start their own ‘pod’ in the network with the source code. … While Diaspora isn’t as fully featured as Facebook or Google+, you have to hand it to their small team in that they are diligently working on the code and making it better over time. Their greatest concern isn’t whether or not you can play Angry Birds, or beg for CafeWorld items on your stream, but in making the underlying system secure and privacy aware, even with encryption.

    • Gerrit Eicker 08:20 on 9. September 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Diaspora: “There’s been big news in the social networking world recently, and we can’t help but be pleased with the impact our work has had on two of the biggest developments. We’re proud that Google+ imitated one of our core features, aspects, with their circles. And now Facebook is at last moving in the right direction with user control over privacy, a move spurred not just by Google+, but more fundamentally by you and tens of thousands of community members, as well as hundreds of thousands of people who’ve lined up to try Diaspora* – that is, by all of us who’ve stood up to say ‘there has to be a better way.’ We’re making a difference already.

  • Gerrit Eicker 16:43 on 8. July 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , , , Anonymity, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Google Services, , , , , , , , , Pen Name, , , , , , , ,   

    Google Plus Identities 

    Google and the freedom to be who you want to be, at least if it is not on Google Plus; http://eicker.at/GooglePlusIdentities @oobscure

    (More …)

     
    • Gerrit Eicker 16:44 on 8. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Google: “When it comes to Google services, we support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified. And each mode has its own particular user benefits. – Unidentified. Sometimes you want to use the web without having your online activity tied to your identity, or even a pseudonym… – Pseudonymous. Using a pseudonym has been one of the great benefits of the Internet, because it has enabled people to express themselves freely… – Identified. There are many times you want to share information with people and have them know who you really are. … Equally as important as giving users the freedom to be who they want to be is ensuring they know exactly what mode they’re in when using Google’s services. So recently we updated the top navigation bar on many of our Google services to make this even clearer. … We’re also looking at other ways to make this more transparent for users. While some of our products will be better suited to just one or two of those modes, depending on what they’re designed to do, we believe all three modes have a home at Google.”

      Google Community Standards: “Impersonation – Your profile should represent you. We don’t allow impersonation of others or other behavior that is misleading or intended to be misleading. … Display Name – To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your full legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, either of these would be acceptable.”

      Thinq_: “Google may still be throttling sign-ups to its social networking service Google+, but it’s also thinning out the ranks of its current members as it struggles to meet demand. – Businesses were the first to go, and they’ve now been joined by those who value their privacy or have other reasons to use a pseudonym. – Various tech publications have found their corporate accounts unceremoniously booted, with Google claiming that it’s trying to keep the service for individuals at present. While this has been met with stoic understanding by the people involved, the company’s next step in the cull might cause a bigger stir: the advertising giant is focusing on those who prefer to be known by an avatar. – Opensource Obscure, a Second Life user who prefers to be identified by his/her avatar rather than by his/her real-world identity, is one of the first to be have been selected for removal from the service. While the account is still present on Google+, it is listed as ‘suspended’.”

      TN: “Officially as of 24 February, Google’s public policy position (‘The freedom to be who you want to be’) was that pseudonymous use of a number of Google products was fine. Even to go so far as implicitly encouraging it. – Someone at Google clearly didn’t get that memo, or maybe it’s just that Google+ (or anything tied to a Google Profile) is exempt from that policy. – Google profiles are becoming somewhat pervasive, increasingly interconnecting the various Google products, and the pseudonymity that Google supports in some products is inherently undermined if it starts whacking connected profiles based on a suspicion that a name isn’t what people ‘usually call you’. – Pseudonymous usage is apparently just fine, until Google decides it wants you to pony up a photo ID. This isn’t about Opensource Obscure specifically, but his suspension devalues Google+ for me just a little bit.

      Update from Opensource Obscure: “Confirmation from Google Profiles Support Team: ‘Opensource Obscure’ name violates Community Standards.”

    • Gerrit Eicker 21:51 on 13. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      NWW: “For the last couple years, it’s been a mantra in Silicon Valley that ‘Google doesn’t get social.’ The introduction of Google Profiles and its truly impressive Circles feature strongly suggested that the company had made a massive shift in corporate culture to compete with Facebook and other social networking systems. However, the fact that Google hasn’t crafted a coherent Profiles policy that’s more in line with how people actually use their identity in the digital age… well, to me that shows they are still abundantly full of Not Getting Social.

      RWW: “As political activists and dissidents have increasingly turned to social networks in order to build their communities and spread their messages, many have balked at Facebook’s policy that requires people use their real names in their profiles, arguing that doing so puts them and their families at risk. It isn’t just activists, however, who argue that pseudonymity may be necessary. There are lots of reasons why people may opt to utilize other names online: you’re changing your real world name and identity, using your real world name puts you at risk at work or at home, or simply that people know you by your pseudonym, not by your real name. – Some have been surprised and disappointed then to see that Google’s new social network, Google Plus, much like its rival Facebook, will also require real names.Allowing pseudonyms could be a way that Google Plus could distinguish itself from Facebook, particularly since Google contends that Google Plus emphasizes personal control over information and sharing. But as it stands, that control is limited to those who choose to go by real names.”

      NWW: “Google is squandering a vast opportunity that Facebook has ignored: The desire of people whose daily activity centers around online community to easily connect in that context as well.”

    • Gerrit Eicker 09:39 on 16. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      NYT: “Allowing pseudonyms could be a way that Google Plus could distinguish itself from Facebook, particularly since Google contends that Google Plus emphasizes personal control over information and sharing. But as it stands, that control is limited to those who choose to go by real names.

      Weinstein: “It is clearly the case that users need to fully understand what names are or are not acceptable for their use. When other than ‘legal’ names are permitted, users need to know that a logical and fair process is in place to determine which other names will be permitted, how these users can demonstrate that their usage of those names are legitimate, and that when names are rejected, be assured that users are fully informed as to why rejections took place. Additionally, there should be a formal appeals procedure that users may invoke if they feel that a name was unreasonably rejected.

      Vierling: “Google, you’re seriously messing it up. Your own experience with LGBT political causes should be enough to make you know better, but this obvious attack on pseudonymity will result in you shooting yourself in the foot even before Google+ is standing on its own. Here you have an opportunity to stand out, but you’re just doing exactly what “the other guy” is doing.”

      Greene: “Fact is, Google’s ‘no-privacy’ approach to social networking runs the risk of alienating a lot of potential users. And as I’ve said before, you’d be stupid not to think Facebook isn’t going to capitalize on that fact.”

      SEW, Korman: “Facebook’s TOS claims that you are required to use your wallet name in order to use their service.Google+ was, in theory a little different. Their rules state that you should sign up using ‘the name your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you.’ … It seems that Google has a very narrow definition of identity. … I’ve been hearing a lot about how ‘this is how the world is now’, and that ‘if you don’t join up you’ll be forgotten.’, where it comes to Facebook and Google+. I think both statements are patently nonsense, primarily because unless multiplicity of identity is embraced as time goes on, more and more people will reject the single identity model for any number of reasons. All that will remain are, ironically, companies and brand names, selling things to each other, where people who actually want to truly interact will be wherever they are allowed to be their real selves – whatever that might entail.”

      ST: “SL Avatars, Time to Fight for Your Rights at Google+ – A Google engineer named Andrew Bunner (I don’t think he’s with the Ozimal people!) has started an outright witch-hunt, using the power of his office and his visibility on this new, rapidly growing social media platform to call on people to abuse-report fake names. … Google engineers should stick to software production and leave governance to a separate department and not be inciting witch-hunts. It’s unethical. It’s like a police state. … Second Life avatars should be admitted for registration on the principle that it is ‘the name by which people know you’.

    • Gerrit Eicker 10:47 on 25. July 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Scoble: “I talked with Google VP Vic Gundotra tonight (disclaimer, he used to be my boss at Microsoft). He is reading everything we have written about names, and such. Both pro and con. … He says it isn’t about real names. He says he isn’t using his legal name here. He says, instead, it is about having common names and removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters, or who are using obviously fake names, like ‘god’ or worse. – He says they have made some mistakes while doing the first pass at this and they are learning. He also says the team will change how they communicate with people. IE, let them know what they are doing wrong, etc. … He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a while before the team can turn on those features (everyone is working hard on a raft of different things and can’t just react overnight to community needs).”

  • Gerrit Eicker 10:03 on 20. May 2011 Permalink
    Tags: , , Anonymity, , , , Banks, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Marketplace, Bitcoin Miners, Bitcoin Mining, ClearCoin, , CoinPal, , , Cryptocurrency, Cryptography, Currency Exchange, CyberCash, , DigiCash, , , , Distributed Currency, , , Electronic Currency, Electronic Frontier Foundation, , Flattr, Gavin Andresen, , , , , , , , , , , Open Change, , , , , , Private Currency, Satoshi Nakamoto, , , Trade, , Transfers, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Bitcoin 

    P2P virtual currency: Bitcoin transactions offer direct payments, cut out banks, any other middle man; http://eicker.at/Bitcoin

     
  • Gerrit Eicker 13:03 on 5. December 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , Anarchy, Anonymity, , , , , Corruption, , , , , , , , , , , , , Ideology, , , , Informational Self-determination, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Reporters Without Borders, , , RWB, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    WikiLeaks: Pros and Cons 

    The impact of WikiLeaks? Duty to basically reconsider and agree on informational self-determination; http://eicker.at/WikiLeaks

     
    • Gerrit Eicker 13:04 on 5. December 2010 Permalink | Reply

      WikiLeaks: “…is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated volunteers around the globe. … WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves.”

      Wikipedia: “The term informational self-determination was first used in the context of a German constitutional ruling relating to personal information collected during the 1983 census. – In that occasion, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that: ‘[…] in the context of modern data processing, the protection of the individual against unlimited collection, storage, use and disclosure of his/her personal data is encompassed by the general personal rights of the [German Constitution]. This basic right warrants in this respect the capacity of the individual to determine in principle the disclosure and use of his/her personal data. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest.‘ – Informational self-determination is often considered similar to the right to privacy but has unique characteristics that distinguish it from the ‘Right to privacy’ in the United States tradition. Informational self-determination reflects Westin’s description of privacy: ‘The right of the individual to decide what information about himself should be communicated to others and under what circumstances‘ (Westin, 1970). In contrast, the ‘Right to privacy’ in the United States legal tradition is commonly considered to originate in Warren andBrandeis’ article, which focuses on the right to ‘solitude’ (i.e., being ‘left alone’) and in the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects persons and their belongings from warrantless search.”

      Democracy Now: “Goodman: ‘…not all transparency advocates support what WikiLeaks is doing. Today we’ll host a debate. Steven Aftergood is one of the most prominent critics of WikiLeaks and one of the most prominent transparency advocates. … We’re also joined by Glenn Greenwald. He’s a constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com who’s supportive of WikiLeaks.’ … Aftergood: ‘I’m all for the exposure of corruption, including classified corruption. And to the extent that WikiLeaks has done that, I support its actions. The problem is, it has done a lot more than that, much of which is problematic. It has invaded personal privacy. It has published libelous material. It has violated intellectual property rights. And above all, it has launched a sweeping attack not simply on corruption, but on secrecy itself. And I think that’s both a strategic and a tactical error. It’s a strategic error because some secrecy is perfectly legitimate and desirable. It’s a tactical error because it has unleashed a furious response from the U.S. government and other governments that I fear is likely to harm the interests of a lot of other people besides WikiLeaks who are concerned with open government.’ … Greenwald: ‘If you look at the overall record of WikiLeaks – and let me just stipulate right upfront that WikiLeaks is a four-year-old organization, four years old. They’re operating completely unchartered territory. Have they made some mistakes and taken some missteps? Absolutely. They’re an imperfect organization. But on the whole, the amount of corruption and injustice in the world that WikiLeaks is exposing… I criticize them, for instance, for exercising insufficient care in redacting the names of various Afghan citizens who cooperated with the United States military. They accepted responsibility for that, and in subsequent releases, including in the Iraq document disclosures, they were very careful about redacting those names.'”

      Reporters Without Borders: “Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. … But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks. … Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

      Reporters Without Borders: “…condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. The organization is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. … We stress that any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication. – Reporters Without Borders would also like to stress that it has always defended online freedom and the principle of ‘Net neutrality,’ according to which Internet Service Providers and hosting companies should play no role in choosing the content that is placed online.”

      Preston/Guardian: “Be clear, right from the start. Any editor presented with a quarter of a million US State Department documents on a WikiLeaks plate has a duty to sift, check – and publish. Newspapers exist to get news into print, not shilly-shally around as pompous (and, alas, often American) champions of the public’s right not to know too much. And if, thus far, the most unexpected story of the lot is Washington’s inability to keep its diplomatic traffic secret, that’s a public service, too. … At which point – casting aside assorted bits of legislation, editing codes and sheaves of moral guidance – a more basic test applies. Do you, printing the WikiLeaks bumper bundle, feel queasy or certain you’re trying to do the right thing? How would you feel if you didn’t print them? And, equally, would you feel chastened, angry, maybe ashamed, if your telephone hacking exploits were laid out to the full by Private Eye?” (Guardian’s WikiLeaks-coverage)

  • Gerrit Eicker 15:43 on 1. October 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , Anonymity, , , , , , Information Gap, , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Information and Journalism 

    Myers: Information is what people want; they do not care whether it is called journalism; http://j.mp/cBTUI4 (via @heinz)

     
  • Gerrit Eicker 17:50 on 14. September 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , Anonymity, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Jarvis vs. Künast – Publicness vs. Anonymity 

    Künast: Freedom can comprise anonymity. Jarvis: Yes, but freedom also comprises publicness; http://j.mp/cP0bm8

     
    • Ruben Magan Gamala 02:29 on 26. January 2014 Permalink | Reply

      May I request if you could include me in your mailing list or send me an article related to the publicness of volunteering which is my topic for my doctoral dissertation. Thank you very much.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel