The debate regarding internet anonymity continues. boingboing reports:
Over on his Google+ account, Kevin Kelly says:
The major impact of the Petraeus affair has nothing to do with the military, sex, or celebrity — it is that there is no such thing as anonymous, and that the US government is able to access internet and credit card records without warrants, just because they ask to. Your digital life is not private from the government, ever; therefore, your life is not private. Read the details in this important reporting by +Andrew Leonard:
“[This] debacle confirms something that some privacy experts have been warning about for years: Government surveillance of ordinary citizens is now cheaper and easier than ever before. Without needing to go before a judge, the government can gather vast amounts of information about us with minimal expenditure of manpower. We used to be able to count on a certain amount of privacy protection simply because invading our privacy was hard work. That is no longer the case. Our always-on, Internet-connected, cellphone-enabled lives are an open door to Big Brother.”
I have nothing to hide; I am just saying anonymous is not anonymous.
There is an argument that the end of anonymity and dawning of a new age of honesty will in fact play against the establishment. Previously, so the theory goes, they have been protected from the reality of their situation by an intoxicating combination of dishonest flatterers and almost superhuman hubris. This heady mix has confused them with the lie that it is they who are in charge of the world; as opposed to the human collective. The logical end point of this line of reasoning is that an end to anonymity will bring a day of reckoning for the establishment which they are wholly unprepared for.
This article has been posted to in order to provoke a vital debate in the comments section.