Want anonymity? Make a persona not a mystery
sive.rs
sive.rs
This seems like a pretty straightforward mechanism for covert operatives, to generate a believable (and memorizable) cover that pulls attention away and maintains coherence.
That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole like "character work for entertainment only". A persona requires misrepresentation, which is not the same as de facto anonymity.
So, while I love the write-up, I don't think it's saying what they think it's saying.
But it's even worse than that.
A persona won't even confer anonymity these days. So now you're dishonest and attributable.
Similarly, very few people are unaware that XFinity is the pseudonym for Comcast.
Comcast changed the name of its Internet service to "Comcast Xfinity" for a few years, then silently dropped the "Comcast" at one point.
Spectrum is also Charter, and Altria is Phillip Morris. It's crappy that it actually works most of the time, so I like to point it out to try to counteract that.
Pretexting as a social engineering method is basically same thing:
made its fortune in philanthropy
It's possible in the short run, but you're leaking a lot of data doing it. My MO when I really didn't want to end up Googleable was to just give my real first name and leave it at that even if people pressed.
Edit: The reason is simple. If someone gives a false name and you know their real one then you're much more certain that they're trying to conceal their identity. So the downside is real, even if it is practical in some circumstances.
My spouse and I got married very quickly after meeting and yes the impact on one's life is real, but so is the upside and I find few online that talk about it. The upside is real. You see the extremes of humanity and it clarifies the importance of ethics in life.
That said, I think others should consider working in this field. The impact is real and I think many HNers would make good agents and officers. So I'm starting to talk about it online and I'm reworking my website and other things. Think of it as continued public service. We (Nato and friends) need good people doing this work.
One thing I should have mentioned is that I'm still working in this area, just not directly for the Canadian government any longer.
National occupation classification? Network operations centre?
Much less glamourous than James Bond, but I believe it's an.. interesting job.
The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona.
There is literally no other option that I have been able to find that both protects your privacy and also does not require you to sequester yourself from humanity entirely.
Pure anonymity bars you from the following activities: joining a social group, signing up for some longish term business relationship (hiring a contracter, signing up for a service), engaging in the political process, holding a job, and probably more that I cant think of. You simply wont be able to do any of those things if you tried to give your name as "chaboud" or "rt4mn".
The best option if you care about your privacy, in those scenarios, is to use a nickname/alias/persona, and be honest and say "no its not" in the vanishingly rare case where you are asked directly whether or not that's the same name you have your birth certificate.
Why do you believe that’s your right? You have the right to be left alone, but in all the examples you offer you are explicitly not minding your own business.
Rather there should be an expectation of reciprocity with respect to identity.
I bet not. They all hide behind personas.
You’re presenting this as if it’s a fact, but it doesn’t seem like it is. If for no other reason that it relies on a shared understanding of what’s “best” and what makes options “bad”.
You could justify some pretty horrible decisions if you’re holding that as an axiom.
Is there some rule set you’re aware of that if you follow, horrible decisions cannot be justified?
In absence of this supposed "rule", where "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options", you'd need to actually consider whether a decision is immoral. The rule shortcuts that and lets you say "well, there's no other option, so I must be in the clear morally here", which would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.
The rule given above is "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options". In the context of the thread, it's being used to justify creating a fake persona and providing false details about yourself as part of a strategy of maintaining anonymity. And already the cracks start to show: the other option, "just don't respond" is classified as bad, and thus doesn't count as a viable option. So what you're left with is "lie about yourself", which the rule holds up as being definitely moral because it's the "best" option. But "just don't respond" is only described as bad because it doesn't give you maximum anonymity.
If I'm broke, and I need some money for lunch, "steal from my richest friend" could be reasonably argued to be the "best" of "bad options". I need to eat, it'll hurt them the least, so lets crack open their wallet. Because I get to arbitrate the option pool and the definition of "bad" and "best", I've got a neat package that lets me absolve myself of all tricky moral quandries.
I’m not sure what you think someone should do rather than make the best decision given all options.
There are many ways to absolve yourself of tricky moral quandaries. But I don’t think using a fake name on a web form is a mora quandary.
If we’re in a world where the only options are that one can’t lie about themself online or not participate then that’s a bad world.
I think it depends on the intent of the lie in that lying to get out of advertising seems ok, but lying to trick someone into a date seems bad.
Of course it’s hard to truly know, so people have to fall back do what they think is best and rely on the guidance of trusted friends.
This is how morality in general works, I think. And we just have societal morals that are widely accepted. I think advertising is immoral and unethical, but that’s not a belief commonly held by enough to make it into culture and laws.
There are simple ethical alternatives, just not disclose that information, or just avoid that questions. Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable.
It is also a signalling issue. There is a universal social contract not to lie. If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy, because there is no reason to assume they would not lie or hold other social contracts in more serious cases when it does not suit them.
Your best friend? I would hope you feel comfortable enough sharing your RL identity or deeper secrets.
A random company you interact with? Why would it matter, let alone be one of the most important things?
A best friend, by definition, is one of the people you choose to trust the most. If you want to replace it with someone else significant in your life, by all means, it doesn’t change the point in any way shape or form.
A random company is the other end of the extreme, it’s an example of a very limited relationship.
The point is that the bigger your relationship, the more you’d entrust them with secrets. Secrets like your real identity. It’s a pretty basic and obvious concept.
What’s the backing for this? If a stranger asks me what my favorite color is, I don’t feel any particular obligation to give them a truthful answer. But at least in my experience, that hasn’t manifested as a willingness to lie or deceive in cases where it matters. I think it’s possible that your personal social contract is not as universal as you think.
I guess that for truthful people, lying is something that they do not even consider as an option. They could be pressed to it if situation is dire. But if someone consider lying as an option in a banal case, then they could consider it in any case. There are obviously other reasons why not to lie or deceive in particular issues, so 'totally untrustworthy' is likely too strong.
> If a stranger asks me what my favorite color is, I don’t feel any particular obligation to give them a truthful answer.
I do not feel particular obligation to give them answer altogether, but if i decide to do, i would feel obligation it to be truthful.
To pick a mundane example: if somebody asks me "how's it going", I'm almost certainly going to say "good", even if it's not.
And many consider them bad and cowardly.
> To pick a mundane example: if somebody asks me "how's it going", I'm almost certainly going to say "good"
That is not really white lie, more a phrase / exchange with established meaning, both sided knows the protocol.
You're welcome to find lying reprehensible in all cases. But "there is a universal social contract not to lie" seems clearly false.
You do realize you can just adjust your original absolutist position on lying = indicator of future trustworthiness by just recognizing the nuance of human communication, correct?
Situation 1: Daughter of 5 years was drawing a house and a dog. Looks terrible. Asks me how I find it. It reply "good job! what a nice house and dog!" It's a blatent lie. But obviously she'd been crushed had I replied otherwise and never drawn anything else.
Situation 2: Random acquaintance got a new hair cut. Looks terrible, asks how she looks. I reply "fits your face!" Not true, but any real criticism would have been inappropriate. We are not that close.
Situation 3: Colleague asks me casually in a team lunch setting about my favorite color. It's brown, but I don't want to say since 10 min ago the topic of nazis came up, turns out they are jewish and lost all their grandparents in concentration camps. So I reply "depends on the day". Clear lie about "something as mundane as their favourite color".
Which of these situations was an unacceptable lie and which was a "phrase / exchange with established meaning, both sided knows the protocol."
Just because something is prevalent, it doesn’t make it good, or necessary.
Have you never told a lie? Should I trust the answer if it is “no?”
The entire concept of “white lies” existing would indicate that it’s not nearly that universal.
It is true that it most cases it's not favorable, but the way you're putting it is the stuff of repression.
Self defense, it's good to misinform bad actors, Santa Claus, surprise parties,etc.
That implication does not hold. Even if i accept 'universal social contract not to lie' for voluntary conversations, then i am not expected tell the truth, just not to lie, therefore there is no implicit obligation to answer such questions. One could avoid the question, reject the question explicitly, or leave the conversation.
That's not always possible.
> Lying in this case is clearly unacceptable.
In what case?
If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by an ex who is a cop required to be honest about their identities? Are reporters investigating sex trafficking required to be honest about their identities?
In a more broad sense, there are many corporations and governments out there who follow no ethical rules whatsoever and are sucking up as much information on everyone as they can. These people don't have any sort of right to that information, and don't have a right to my honesty. If anything, I think the moral thing to do, if any, is to hamper these people's efforts by feeding them as much incorrect information as much as possible.
> It is also a signalling issue.
Everything is a signaling issue. Your post, for example, signals you as a person who has not-very-nuanced opinions about nuanced topics, and therefore can't be trusted in nuanced situations. If you wouldn't lie to the police to protect a pot smoker, or lie to an advertiser to protect my privacy, you aren't an ethical person by my standards. I do believe you have good intentions, but intentions that don't translate into the correct actions don't mean much.
> There is a universal social contract not to lie.
This is what I mean about not-very-nuanced opinions.
> If someone is willing to lie in such minor issues, then such person is totally untrustworthy, because there is no reason to assume they would not lie or hold other social contracts in more serious cases when it does not suit them.
1. What issues are you considering minor? You seem extraordinarily willing to generalize some specific-but-not-described situation you're imagining to all of reality.
2. There are lots of reasons to assume that someone who lies to cops won't lie to me, for example.
In most cases it is. And the article suggested preemptive approach, which implies lying in all cases while being in persona.
> In what case?
In situations described in the discussed article: "If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity". I.e. to lie just to avoid awkward social interactions instead of explicitly or implicitly refuse. People being too agreeable in their social interactions so that they would rather lie than cause discomfort. This kind of casual lying.
> Everything is a signaling issue. Your post, for example, signals you as a person who has not-very-nuanced opinions about nuanced topics
Or perhaps you just ignore the context of the article to strawman my position.
> What issues are you considering minor?
Where the cost of not telling a lie is just some social cost unrelated to personal security, employment or other similarly important needs.
If you protect your anonymity in 999,999 cases out of 1,000,000, your anonymity is blown. "Most cases" isn't enough.
> And the article suggested preemptive approach, which implies lying in all cases while being in persona.
Yes. Because lying ex-post-facto after people have already started trying to figure out who you are doesn't work.
> In situations described in the discussed article: "If you defiantly refuse to say who you are, it can make people angry that you’re upsetting social reciprocity". I.e. to lie just to avoid awkward social interactions instead of explicitly or implicitly refuse. People being too agreeable in their social interactions so that they would rather lie than cause discomfort. This kind of casual lying.
The article doesn't say anything about it being "to avoid awkward social interactions". On the contrary, the reason given for doing so is as a further protection of one's anonymity.
And to be clear, there are many cases where any reasonable person would agree it's ethical to lie to protect one's anonymity, some of which I've described in my previous post.
> In what case?
> If you're really taking the stance that anonymity is never ethically more important than honesty, that's a pretty extreme stance. Are women being stalked by [...]
You are building a strawman argument right in front of our eyes. GP literally writes _in this case_ and you insinuate they argue for _always_ and then you are going on and on why that's extreme. Of course it is, but that's not what they wrote nor what this topic is about.
I'm quite enjoying the good faith portions of this discussion tree as I'm intruiged by the ethical dilemma of what can be considered lying in such cases.
But when strawmen are built then that's arguing in bad faith. Then the goal is not to reach new insights and understanding, but only to be right. That's pretty sad.
Please don't do this, it makes the discussion less interesting for everybody.
I'm insinuating that they argue for _always_ because they are being extremely vague about what "this case" is. If they aren't arguing for _always_, they can answer the question.
Notably, they responded to my post with an explanation of what they think "this case" is, and it's... a straw man that the original article wasn't talking about.
> I'm quite enjoying the good faith portions of this discussion tree as I'm intruiged by the ethical dilemma of what can be considered lying in such cases.
I'd be happy to have such a discussion with you if you can illuminate what "such cases" are.
To be clear, the original article wasn't discussing lying "just to avoid awkward social interactions". That's a straw man.
> But when strawmen are built then that's arguing in bad faith. Then the goal is not to reach new insights and understanding, but only to be right. That's pretty sad.
Agreed!
Yes, I have a Blind account. In that context, I have a handle, but I resolutely refuse to knowingly say anything untrue. It's just too much work to be bothered.
In business dealings it's acceptable to lie about the price you are willing to pay (or receive) for a service. It is however completely unacceptable to lie about business finances when communicating with investors or the tax office.
Even in personal matters, if someone told you information to keep in confidence, and then someone else asked if you know anything about it, it is acceptable (even honorable) to lie to maintain the trust with the first person. However, there are also situations where revealing the information to the second person is the more honorable action.
Woo, big claim. You're basically saying "best" can be determined entirely in terms of utility with no consideration for morality. A utilitarian world view, which not everybody shares.
you make it sound like it's not a complete or consistent system, but it's just a worldview where only some people have the attribute of being in the right, unfortunately an attribute not everybody shares.
For example, I think it’s moral to portray a false persona to avoid invasion of privacy.
Not to mention that most people project some level of falseness just in day to day operations. For example replying “I’m fine, how are you?” Whenever asked.
Let's substitute some of the bits with variables...
"Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exist in the world and X, the only real option is to Y."
...and see how this holds up...
X="be rich"; Y="kill your neighbor"
Now, you might object "that's absurdly extreme!". True, I have chosen an extreme example, but only because it makes the fallacy conspicuous. Ethical principles don't have loopholes or dispensations. It's not as if big lies are bad because they're big and small lies are okay because they're small. They're both bad because they're both lies. An evil effect of one's actions may be tolerable under specific circumstances, but a means that is inherently evil doesn't cease to be evil because you have no other option to attain the desired good. Ends don't justify means.
In this case, a pseudonym is not a lie when a) the intent is not to deceive but to conceal, and b) there is no normative expectation that the name given is real and thus when you do not owe others your real name. On social media, while we know many might conclude that a pseudonym is real, generally speaking, I would say that error is a tolerable side effect (it depends on the particular social medium; LinkedIn is different than Twitter, for example). However, IMO, things start to become more dicey with active fabrication. There is a fine but definite line between lying and mental reservation. There is a difference between speaking ambiguously or evasively on the one hand and lying on the other. This places rather severe limits on what you can licitly say or express. Constructing a persona means you must actively engage in creating a fictional character that you intend people to believe is real as a means of concealing you identity. This is by definition a lie and different from allowing people to falsely infer a persona based on what is ambiguous information that is intended to conceal truths others have no right to.
"Create and post a back-story to answer (instead of avoid) the frequently asked questions."
The article's author's advice is effectively precisely because it involves lying. Lying works exactly because the default expectation based on the essential function of speech is to communicate the truth.
These are all situations where the desire for anonymity is outweighed by the requirement for accountability.
You're aware that 'hiring a contractor' requires entering into a contract right? And so does being employed.
Entering into a contract without establishing your identity implies a desire not to be bound by the terms of that contract. Is that your intent?
As for 'engaging in the political process', I have never heard anyone argue that the problem with politics is that people are too honest and open. Do we need more anonymous political party donors?
My name is Matt Chaboud. My username is my last name, and I'm easy to find. I try to behave online in a way that doesn't rely on anonymity (though I recognize that that carries some risk).
But I think your point is understood. However, a handle, to me, by virtue of convention, leaves little room for confusion as to whether it is a real or artificial/partial identity (generally).
I don't think I did a good enough job in my initial reply emphasizing that from my perspective a nickname that you only used in certian social contexts is functionally a persona. If your wife calls you Jason but all your drinking buddies call you Jack because of a hilarious collage hijink (or something), a random passer by at the bar would have no clue that the name on your birth certificate (the one that can be used to impersonate you) is actually Jason.
Thats really what I am talking about. As long as you dont lie about the fact that "Jack" is a nickname when asked, your not being unethical, in my view.
No, that's not how ethics works. Sometimes you're just in a no win situation and there is nothing moral other than self sacrifice.
I don't think the persona needs to be completely falsified. Rather, you consider which topics you engage in on a given account. For example I consider "tsumnia" to be unofficial/official "professional" username - while I don't explicitly say my name, it'd take you looking at my profile to know exactly who I am.
On the other hand, I have my hobby/nerdy username on Reddit for when I want to talk about the latest Last of Us episodes. Same person, but different aspects of my personality are on display. Its not that the other one is a troll or anything, just one name to talk about deliberate practice in CS education in one thread and then another to make jokes about video games.
It's ok if you don't. I'm just wondering if it's even worth trying. The persona strategy could be worthwhile for simple tracking purposes, but for somebody actually trying, it shouldn't be hard to link all your personas, given enough data. Or maybe one should avoid posting with real name altogether, anywhere. That includes though carreer-building blog posts or public documentation, even written in a professional setting where it could be hard to avoid.
I think part of the persona creates different writing styles - my other account(s) have never been rated close to each other. For Reddit, my other account is just my default. I only switch over to tsumnia for /r/professors, or other coding-related subreddits these days. Reddit Enhancement Suite helps out nicely for that. My other account(s) never really write enough to generate enough substance for comparison I think and never interact with each other (not replying to myself or something silly like that). Sure its possible, its just... not something I've had to worry about. tsumnia writes long winded responses and my other accounts... don't. If anything I'd be impressed and nerd out on the math if someone could connect the accounts.
> it shouldn't be hard to link all your personas, given enough data
I'm not some big name that I'd really need to worry about that. Even if I became one, like I mentioned I'm not trolling, flaming, or being obscene in the other accounts, just writing about my hobbies. Things I openly admit to in real life, just don't write about. It may be harder if an account is some super personal stuff like sexual orientation / gender identity, but I don't do any of that. Even if they did impact me, those fall into things I just don't bring up on the internet. Likewise, I imagine it may be harder for women that are dealing with online stalkers, but again, that hasn't been something I've had to deal with.
Plus, any organization that REALLY wanted to find me can simply reverse lookup the account IP addresses anyway. If I think an account that I want to remain private has gonna a bit too personal, I simply retire the account name. It can be annoying if account karma/points/whatever is "important", but... eh... I made plenty of DnD characters over the years, I can start using another character's name or something with a pun. Internet points only limit what I can and can't do on a site, nothing else.
> maybe one should avoid posting with real name altogether, anywhere.
That's always an option. Since I used tsumnia for so long, I sort of just DECIDED to let it be public. I had more or less doxxed myself (or narrowed down who tsumnia could be) before I openly said it was me. No different than a YouTuber doing a face reveal, except I don't have millions of fans. Instead of retiring tsumnia, I acknowledged it and created a new one that doesn't connect to me. I imagine that's how lots of usernames start - being anonymous but occasionally they drop a nugget of personal information. Those accrue over time and boom, its an alias. I'm a little more cautious to drop personal information on the other accounts, but I think its because I can always use tsumnia for those situations.
I'd be curious to probe a framework that thinks it is, while not holding that axiomatically. As someone who leans heavily into consequentialism, I can think of plenty of times lying can lead to a net positive for everyone. Likewise, there are harmful truths that should be suppressed.
That suggests to me that lying is, in-of-itself, amoral. The effect of the lie (or the intent, if you swing that way) determines whether it's ethical or not. Who is harmed by your assuming a fabricated identity? For the vast majority of people, who exactly you are matter little. So it's hard to suggest they are harmed by having an incorrect model of you. It may be manipulative to those trying to piece together your identity, but being doxxed can and often does lead to harm befalling your person, so your lies against them can be plainly justified under self-defense.
The virtue ethicist believes it is bad to be in a habit to lie because being predisposed to lying is opposed to the virtue of the truth. We've all known people who lie by habit and they are unpleasant and vicious to be around. I don't know if most virtue ethicists (who don't also fall into the natural lawyer camp, below) would say it is per se bad to lie, but most would say it is vicious.
The natural lawyer believes that speech has as its natural end telling the truth and therefore it is contra naturam to lie. See the almost-impossibly-extended discussion here, for that: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
For all of these groups, there has variously been admitted something like an "equivocal statement"---a statement which has some interpretation that is technically true, but not the interpretation that the speaker knows will be taken by the listener as a falsehood. For example, my friend invites me out on Friday and rather than saying I'd rather be at home, I say, "I have something going on that night." He takes it to mean that I have other plans, but I don't. But technically, breathing is "something going on" so I haven't lied. (Whether your social relationships will stand your doing this is another matter ;))
I'm personally fall in something like the virtue ethicist camp, but I do believe sometimes, in justice, a lie must be said, and not all of those situations can be covered by an equivocation.
This is true. But I don’t think anyone makes the point that someone should lie all the time. Especially not that everyone should lie all the time.
I think that there’s an ethical argument for lieing for some greater purpose (eg, a spy working for the Underground Railroad).
It goes deeper than you might expect. There are good reasons to think that it might indeed be unethical to lie, even when the consequences are bad. I don't necessarily agree with the premises involved, but it's worth researching rather than dismissing out of hand. Especially since consequentialism has problems of its own, and it's a way to get an alternative take on the criticisms of consequentialism.
Personally, I'd like to see deontologists accept that lying isn't such a great example, and instead take up a different one. There can be good deontological approaches that accept that consequences can be part of rules.
I think the official term is "legend" for this one. This occasionally comes up in spy movies and I also get some search results for it.
It's unusual—I might even say unethical, if moral realism were coherent—to insist on real names as a matter of honesty given that real names disproportionately benefit the powerful. The powerless cannot use their real names on the Internet because often there are real world consequences.
In many cases the law even protects the right for artists to use a pseudonym under artist's moral rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
I'd say, to quote a bad movie[0] that "the only winning move is not to play."
Giving those entities even a fake persona will negatively impact your privacy over the medium to long term. The better solution is for folks to vote with their feet and refuse to use such entities.
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be a popular choice, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right one.
As a person who prizes the idea that what we say and do are more important than who we are, I disagree that honesty and ethics always align. If some dishonesty maximizes peoples' actual wellbeing, then that dishonestly is probably actually more ethical than the honesty that compromises and hurts people for no gain other than ideological purity.
You can be honest or dishonest and it will be encrypted and decrypted all the same.
Your second argument to me doesn’t follow. You are saying what you say and do is more important than what you value, I think, but you are also saying that what you say and do are not important so you can be dishonest.
My conclusion is that you prize winning over being ethical.
Just think of all the other cases where honesty and ethics have been put on the back burner on the basis that you think your thing is more important; a lot of them legal.
I do not prize winning. I'm not sure who is "winning" or "losing" when I decide to not publish my name. I'll note that I use my real name and attach my real identity to lots of things. I just don't agree that people who choose to mask their identity through a plausible persona are somehow walking an ethical tightrope. They are entitled to use a fake name.
I am not sure I follow - what we say and do is who we are, how could it be otherwise?
I don't this this is correct, as a persona can accurately represent you, its just a persona. If you want to continue to be anonymous with a persona that represents you, I think differential privacy could help in this situation.
In a play, actors make untrue[1] statements, but the audience is in on it, so there is no intent to deceive, and indeed no one ends up deceived.
Some professions like police officers, firefighters, doctors, military officers, etc might wear uniforms/special clothing and act in a certain way too. No one actually believes that you change into a different person when you put on a uniform, so again no deception takes place.
Back in the 90's it was simply assumed everyone used a pseudonymous persona [2], so again no intent and no deception. Many people still use pseudonymous personas to this day!
The Author of this article DOES take things a bit far. I'd definitely want to be a bit careful recommending their approach. If you want your persona to interact with the real world, then all the aspects relevant to the interaction do need to be true. For example: depending on context, it may or may not be fine to have a persona who claims to be university professor, but if you start falsely using that credential for real world gain, you may have crossed a line. [3]
So in the end I think it's ethically ok to use personas, provided there is no intent to deceive.
--
[1] Arguably: untrue in this world, but perhaps true in the world of the play?
[2] "on the internet, no one knows if you're a dog"
The whole point of pseudonyms has been that a) your work should stand for itself and not be impacted by your identity and b) to protect individuals.
Can someone use pseudonyms to perform unethical or fraudulent activity, of course. But the pseudonym itself is not unethical.
Yes, I get it. When I go for job interviews, they ask me what my weaknesses are, I say that I fuck off every once in a while, that I will sometimes badmouth the company and my boss after I leave the company. That sometimes I go to the company bathroom and masterbate to relieve stress. That I don't really like my mother because she is a meth addict all her life even when she was pregnant with me so when I was in her womb, I was basically on meth, too, and it really fucked up my mental capacities and so sometimes I go off in an irrational manner and maybe will start yelling at people. I belch and fart a lot, too and that usually upsets co-workers.
I go on and on like this for about 20 minutes on all my weaknesses, because I want to make sure that I completely answer their question in an ethical manner, because I don't lie by ommission. They didn't ask me what my "strengths disguesed as a weakness" were, or how to "spin it by giving the best picture of myself" and "market myself" to them.
It's the same with women when they ask about me. I say that I fart and burp a lot as mentioned above. They are not regular farts but real stench bombs. I also pick my nose a lot in public and then eat it but not when people can see.
So far, I can't get a job for the last 15 years despite my interviewing 80-100 interviews per year. And no girlfriend.
But at least I can be internally happy because I'm ethical and honest and never lie, and give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Very direct about it, and yes, some people completely shut you out once you tell them, but vast majority don’t; while my opinion, those who do aren’t people I am interested in knowing. Very similar prior to me being largely anonymous, people would ask me what I did, I would respond saying I did nothing, which at the time was true and did not feel the need to make something up. Oddly, discovered their response almost immediately told me a lot about who they are as a person; they might think I am: cool, on-the-run, lying, nomad, spy, wealthy, homeless, etc.
As for making personas, long ago I tried that, though now it to me feels like lying, especially in context of establishing long term relationships. That said, with personas I created, other than generic names, I would keep them true to myself, though never complete representations of myself. In doing so discovered that the variety of personas rarely played a factor in people engaging me, but it did appear to make a difference if I just happened to contact them randomly in close proximity to them having free time.
All and all, being anonymous really is not that hard. Not even something at this point I spend lot of time thinking about.
But if they expanded their dataset to other sites like reddit I would be concerned.
Moreover - since Nadya is my "primary" pseudonym, I deliberately make it easy for people to find me across social platforms: https://nadyanay.me/identities
Based on this list you can assume I am Nyu, Nadya, NadyaNayme, or Yuno in a number of places. Three of those names are common and so are commonly already taken by the time I create an account somewhere - so it isn't an exact science. For example - the account "yuno" also exists on HN but isn't me. If it were I'd have capitalized the "Y" and this account wouldn't exist.
As far as I have been made aware - nobody has ever identified any of my other personas as belonging to me.
On the other hand, I used to be in the habit of responding with some kind of bullshit, ideally at least a little suspicious but just barely plausible enough to prevent the other party from calling you on it right away. This always resulted in much more fun conversations than talking about my actual work with strangers.
Simply refusing to answer is just not socially acceptable outside of venues where anonymity is already the norm, e.g. online and IRL hacker cons.
It clearly limits options I have, for example, I don’t drive, but for whatever reason it’s hobby I enjoy, one of the few I have kept up with. One of reason currently I continue to remain anonymous is it is an easy way to engage people on a topic that I sincerely believe is important, that being the right to privacy.
Unlike most people that lie in a one off situation knowing it wouldn’t come up again, if you’re lying about who you are, it lives on forever. All those little things add up and if you’re living out multiple identities, it’s hard to keep them compartmentalized.
Even worse, much like actors that go too far with method acting, there is always risk you will buy into the lies and believe that’s really who you are.
When it comes to believing your own lies, one way to prevent that is to take persona creation seriously as if you are really preparing for a role or writing this character. Method actors have a bunch of external factors encouraging them to stop that persona, but for the rest of us we really don't so we have to create those factors. Whether this is a dedicated device with dedicated software, or physical cues to remind us who we're being.
Youtubers are a great digital example of persona creation not being taken seriously. So many "jerk" characters wind up being really abusive people who just used that character as an excuse. Unfortunately, they're also a good example of how being haphazard with persona creation can wind up leading people to desperately link pieces of yourself to find the "real you" and reveal all that private information.
With AI generation, it wouldn't be impossible maintain fake networks then insert someone new in. It just has to seem plausible enough.
1. Writing style change
2. Degree of extra/reduced fluff
3. Degree of typos
4. Typing style change (e.g. using semicolons a lot, misusing commas consistently, conventions like S.O.S vs. SOS)
Another interesting concept to explore is platform style. Have you ever noticed that everyone on Reddit sort of sounds the same? People on HN sort of sound the same. I think there's an emergent platform-based profile that top comments hover around, because adhering to this style is more likely to get upvotes. The hive mind is real!
I have done a startup related to anonymity and identity protection, and at least at the time, it was amazingly hard sell, rapidly killed it off. Generally speaking, people simply don’t care about anonymity, privacy, etc.
As for same style topic for cultural fit, yes, thought it would be funny to communicate with YC using same style as PG; one of the partners now even oddly talks very similar to him, but didn’t in the past.
Picking a new identity might be a good branding decision (especially if you can get NewName dot com!), but I'm also the kind of guy who looks at the message, not the messenger, so whether I focus on what you're saying or not has nothing to do with the online persona you've created for yourself.
Citation needed.
This entire post/idea seems to be based on "you can't just make up an obviously anonymous avatar/username anymore (like BakedPotato138)" and I frankly don't see why not. It's been working fine for decades. The only people who are upset over this are authorities and corporations. And in those cases, making up a fake person is quite possibly criminal fraud.
> If you don’t want any attention, just pick a very common name like Mary Kim or Adam Johnson.
> Use an AI face generator to create a completely believable face to match your new name. Download it once and use it everywhere. Run it through face aging software to use this same persona for the rest of your life.
> Pick a city and say it’s your location, to avoid that question too.
> For email, Mailbox.org is great, and doesn’t care who you are.
> Create social media profiles with your new name, email, city, and face.
> Nobody will wonder who you are if you answer that question. Instead of block and battle, deflect and settle. That’s better anonymity.
There is nothing novel about making up an avatar. The point of the article is "trick people by making it a believable one so they'll think that's you, and not just an avatar." Ie. there's an incredibly important social signal in having a name that's obviously not your actual name.
It’s just tapping into the natural human curiosity, and you want to avoid that kind of attention to maximize your chance of staying anonymous.
> Citation needed.
Look around. In this thread there are people who are upset.
> This entire post/idea seems to be based on "you can't just make up an obviously anonymous avatar/username anymore (like BakedPotato138)" and I frankly don't see why not. It's been working fine for decades.
I have had a few obviously anonymous avatars/usernames over the years (this isn't one of them--it's actually my real last name). There have been a few attempts to doxx me during that time.
> The only people who are upset over this are authorities and corporations.
Authorities and corporations aren't people (which is important because people have rights). But that's an aside really.
The bigger point is that authorities and corporations are made up of people, and those people, are often acting on behalf of their authority/corporation. In the worst case, they're true believers that what their authority/corporation is doing is right (i.e., all the people who defend invasions of privacy by corporations on hacker news).
> And in those cases, making up a fake person is quite possibly criminal fraud.
Not always. For example, with Facebook's shadow profiles, they won't even admit they exist most of the time, so they certainly aren't going to prove they exist by attempting to prosecute someone who feeds them fake data.
Depends on the jurisdiction; for example, in the US, see “How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into People” for a brief explanation:
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/14th-amendment-corporate-p...
I do understand that it's worth knowing the law because authorities have the power to enforce it. But I think it's important to be clear that corporations and governments are not people and do not have rights, no matter what the law says.
In context, this conversation is about ethics, and corporate personhood is a prime example of where laws and ethics diverge drastically.
It almost makes it seem like it's wrong to keep the social boundaries I have and that I'm doing harm to myself by withholding new human relationships just because of my discomfort. But I know that if those people are generally going to carry those standards then I can't change them, and it's my choice to disagree.
There’s 8 billion people on Earth, wouldn’t worry about it, at least I don’t, but clearly limits population of people that are interested in having meaningful relationships.
Many others have tried and failed (though they often broke the law, so that might be the main distinguishing factor)
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Robert_Del_Naja
Out of curiosity, why do you believe it's not Robin Gunningham?
That seems to be what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy suggests, and the reasoning seems sound.
They just have to meet with Banksy's agent.
Knowing who Banksy is puts them at real risk of demystifying him/them and lowering their profit.
personas are good enough information, it satisfies the curiosity well enough to not dig deeper
Daft Punk
Deadmau5
Members of KISS (for a while)
Blue Man Group
But if you're following the advice in this article...nobody should ever know that you're not actually a real person. So you might "know" lots of folks online who are not who they say they are.
I think if it weren't for some stupid comments by a League developer (?), no normal people would know who he is. Now, if you try hard enough, you can find his identity leaked in an old blog/forum post (?) and have it proven/corroborated in other areas online I think.
It’s like the group “Anonymous” that conveniently only shows up when the CIA has an objective and then disappears again.
Essentially a marketplace where you can buy and sell prebuilt identities - complete with associated, aged, and populated social media accounts, email accounts, pictures, websites, etc.
I just like the idea of being different people online.
Then you just need to fill the pipeline with persona ideas, and get nice account packages after a couple months.
Put another way, if your crypto isn't used by child molesters and terrorists, it's probably not very good crypto.
Not really a problem. A friend of mine used my address (with permission) when they were doing a lot of international travel. Mail (and packages) were never an issue.
These days you'd probably be advised to have some sort of burner phone.
In general, the closer you get to the physical world, the harder it is to maintain anonymity.
All the better! I don't know why this would be a problem.
This approach will need a plan for dealing with Zoom. It has normalized, in a very short time, the video component of what used to be strictly audio - the phone call. If you don't display your face, people get mad.
Examples? A dozen years ago Facebook went on a purging mission to get rid of fake accounts. I had to prove to the people behind the algorithm that I was real, and had an online presence dating back to the turn of the century. The same thing happened with Google+ (remember that?): to overcome their objections I had to supply links to real-life documents that cited my name. It was annoying at the time, but I can smile about it now.
Same thing happens in real life. I've had people ask me if I changed my name by deed poll (answer: no). Some people have told me that when they heard my name they thought I must be some sort of wannabe rockstar (answer: no, but I do write poems). Sadly, a few people have confessed that they thought I was Black before they met me - I cannot even begin to understand the thought processes they used to reach that conclusion!
I don't believe my name has been a barrier to my advancement in life. It does offer me some anonymity (evidence: I'm not famous) while at the same time making it very easy for people to find me via Google.
[1] - Rik Roots[2]
[2] - Okay, it's Richard Roots[3], but I shortened it when I was at school because people kept shortening it for me to 'Rick' and then asking me if I spelt my name with a silent 'P'
[3] - Turns out that the Roots surname has a pedigree dating back to the Norman conquest of England[4]. The origins of the name come from the Old English word 'rot', which meant 'glad' or 'pleased'
[4] - See https://www.houseofnames.com/roots-family-crest - and yes, I was born in Kent.
PS for Australians: please don't tell me the Wombat Joke. I've heard it many times.
But if I start writing things that catch the attention of the FBI? They'll figure things out quick enough.
e.g. https://www.twilio.com/docs/lookup/v2-api/line-type-intellig...
Preventing a random internet person from tying a particular nym to you is easy. Fooling a bunch of people is harder, but doable. Being a top-tier youtuber would probably be effectively impossible.
And if your concern is nation states, well... good luck with anything.
My case is different. When I've run my own companies, I'd post stuff online related to that. But even then, it's under a persona -- I feel it's even more important then, actually (I also use personas in real life in that circumstance. It's very useful to be able to identify as the secretary, the sales guy, whoever, in order to dodge time-wasters such as salesmen.)
But if I'm working for someone else, I'm not posting anything directly related to my work.
Obviously depends on the company and role. I was hired in part because I had a pretty big online presence on tech topics. (In part, I was writing for CNET at the time when they still had some enterprise computing coverage.)
I think that's true, but vibe I got from this was more about wanting anonymity and to avoid certain social frictions (and maybe not incur a trust penalty). An obvious pseudonym comes with certain costs.
The key thing is -- who do you want to be anonymous with?
It's like wearing a ski mask in a store. Your profile(s) are more noticeable even if you're not immediately identifiable.
But if I introduce myself to someone with an alias or claim false traits, they will not immediately just know it’s fake unless they have additional contradicting information.
Most people do not casually wear ski masks, but they tend to not lie when asked for a name.
Deviations from the norm make you stand out, even if it's lying.
I think the whole subthread is more mixed in terms of fingerprinting and social interactions. But if you only consider the the former then yes, one would probably only care about what I called "resourceful actors" to which you would end up standing out.
I was more referring to the social aspect, were if you give someone a name they will (usually) not immediately assume it is false. Thus giving a false name does not make you "stand out" unless there is already other information in play. But I'm just clarifying what I meant, considering your point was meant for a different context.
We live in such an insane, reactionary world these days and I find it very refreshing to hear from people who've clearly thought hard about what they're about to say/write.
Sometimes, I even wish HN worked this way. I wish the front page was about 10x as slow, and that we could discuss things for a week or two instead of a day or two. It'd be messier, but I think the fruits, separated from the weeds, would be juicier.
I used to go by Satoshi Nakamoto and be in the group Anonymous. I put out a few of those videos, but people kept challenging whether I was the "real" Anonymous.
Interesting thing, I was in Barcelona last week, and just out of the blue I meet Bill Murray and he buys me ice cream. He said "no one will ever believe you!" Before he left, I told him my name was Satoshi Nakamoto.
I'm just carrying on the work of my grandfather, Nicolas Bourbaki. Just like David Belle was doing what his father, Raymond Belle, began in Viet Nam.
But, I think as even he has admitted, his online presence is a well-crafted persona.
And, aren't we all doing that?
For example, if you see someone at dawn on the docks with a tackle box, a fishing pole, and dressed for fishing, you don’t think “spy come to take photos of ships.”
Providing a plausible identity is a good practice for hiding your identity.
I wouldn’t suggest the AI face though. Firstly, it makes the face picture unique in that you can’t (currently) get other pictures of the same “person.” If you have a single picture of yourself it looks weird. Facebook without any pictures? Instagram with nothing? No other pictures of yourself, ever? Definitely weird. Better to just avoid it and use the plausible identity as a layer behind your online handle. Then use an avatar, but don’t hide your name. George Howell, aka “17forty” ‘from college, when I used to drink a lot of 40s, 17 was my personal best lol. Just dumb stuff.’
He chose this to be boring but plausible and move the conversation on.
To me it seems like if you dodge the topic of employment some people will get curious and dig in. If you say what you do, they might be curious and nothing is more boring to me than talking about my job to “normies.”
I think there’s a concept of digitally hiding through being normal. Evading Google leaves a black hole around your activity. Making a digital “Bob” who just does boring, normal stuff creates an ad profile that no one cares about.
As someone who owns a popular website, I often receive guest writing inquiries (probably for links and SEO).
Most of the time it's either Indians or Eastern European guys. But for some reason they always use fake personas and names to sound/look more "western".
When I asked why do they do that, the answer was "it increases the conversion rates" among "western" publishers. Who also happen to be the most valuable prospects.
So, basically they exploit the conscious or subconscious xenophobic biases in people of western cultures towards people from other "foreign" cultures by creating fake personas. And it works! People are more likely to accept guest articles from someone who looks like them.
PS. You would be surprised to know how many contributors at Forbes, Inc, Entrepreneur, Tech Crunch, Mashable, etc are completely fake personas.
As the advertising and tracking arms race escalates, I wonder if there’s a burgeoning industry for personal persona management. So you can isolate your private life from your public life/lives.
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7C...
Well due to how easy it is to create a fake identity on social media, knowing who someone /really/ is, is the real quest. I've experimented with creating completely false identities on social media, and populated the profiles with plausible information.
I went the extra mile and created fake domain names, under my alias, fake AI created profile pictures, fake family members, even fake boyfriends. I avoided anything that could be unraveled like saying I work at such and such a company, when there is no employee records under my name at that company (Fake LinkedIN profiles are a hard problem).
This may not matter for inconsequential things like the pen name for your SubStack or something. However, it definitely matters if you plan to engage in anything serious or do any business under that persona.
If you run into situations where you're forced to switch to your real identity (e.g. employment relationship, legal matters, or even an accidental leak) then you could lose a lot of credibility. People will naturally wonder if you were trying to hide something from them, regardless of your initial intentions.
"Oh, uh, ... that's my middle name."
While it’s been awhile, whenever I ran into that situation earlier on I first attempted to avoid them being aware I was nearby and would immediately leave the area. Once thought had no option, but to politely ask if we might talk for second and let them know not to say anything, which they were happy to do. Soon after for unrelated reasons ended up moving and have not run into issue again.
All and all, while whole informant, undercover agent, spy, witness protection, etc - type things are tiny bit similar, having know real people in all those situations and read about others, it’s not comparable to what I am doing. Since those situations might not only end in you being killed, but anyone close to you. For example, once met a fellow who went under cover in well known gang as a journalists, they found out and he was lucky to end up in hospital for months instead of dead.
For me, worst case is I lose being anonymous as a hobby.
"Hi, (shakes hands), I'm ascii-frogface. (forceful stare)"
They'll either get the point or be oblivious enough to be gaslit into thinking you're someone else. :P
Yes it's human nature to want things but, socially, one might learn to go without something if it's at odds with what someone else wants. If someone doesn't let me keep private things which I would prefer to keep private, unfortunately I will simply learn to avoid that person.
That's to say, "make a persona" is being offered as a panacea to when those around me don't allow for privacy but it is a panacea I would not choose.
this is why when you look up my dox or grep for my passwords, its not hard to find my fake social security number, address and password in the usual place.
in the future i want to build this into a server. What kind of server are you? Oh, I'm IIS running ASP (not rlly). send your ops down rabbit holes to nowhere instead of depriving them of the feedback they rely on. i love it.
It's now possible to:
- Create a believable phony organization "Meet the leadership team" page using deep fake images and ChatGPT bios.
In the near future, it will be possible to:
- Generate significant history social media trail with random posts and shares of fake content of all kinds, joining groups, and participation to build up legends to be sold to customers in the future.
If the original poster wants to chime in how he found this writer that would be of interest to me. Thanks for this post. Posts like this make the world a better place to live in.
Most people don't know who Kayodé Lycaon is. I'm quite literally a (painted) dog on the internet.
I do: A good boy uwu
That made for a couple interesting phone calls over the years.
There're communities that create/change their personas to match how they perceive themselves, encourage their members to experiment with presented identities, and expect the society to respect and accept presented personas without questioning. I'm totally OK with that. How is this different from presenting oneself as an alter-ego though?
https://www.facebook.com/a.m.Jain.meenambakam/posts/for-othe...
Or these guys to get elected:
https://www.ranker.com/list/funny-politician-names/nathandav...
I personally have leaned into the latter framework.
You're projecting.
>That’s a problem if you really want to be anonymous.
Large emphasis on really.
Stop conflating secrecy with privacy. The former is another pair of shoes entirely.
But I really don't get the point of being anonymous on social media.
This is also a lot harder than it seems, once you start lying it's easy to slip up or provide details that are aren't self consistent. As long as you rely on people just accepting the answer and being immediately satisfied with that it'll work.
Inb4 "oh hey I'm also from <town suburb name you lied being from>, remember that one thing?".
But, assuming I wanted a fake background that would pass casual scrutiny, I'd make something up that was close enough to the truth but not close enough that anyone would think anything was off if we got to casual chatting. I'd probably say I was from and/or lived in some city I knew extremely well but had never actually lived in. Maybe say I got an undergrad degree from somewhere I got a grad degree. Etc.
Random opinion today that’s normal completely socially acceptable thing to say, might tomorrow be proof you’re criminal; for example, a country that’s had significant power shift and outlawed a something that before was legal.
Or you’re living in a country that’s you object to actions that have been taken, for example, invasion of another country, and publicly stating objections is a crime.
I love that appraoch!
Anyone who wishes me harm, can figure out who I am, fairly easily. I own a home, and I'm not sure if people know how much that exposes folks.
I want people to know who I am. I don't think that I have much bad about me (although a number of folks think I'm a stuffy old boomer -they're probably right).
It also helps me to behave better. I was not always a stuffy old boomer, and I behaved ... not like an adult ... on the Internet.
I'm big on Responsibility and Accountability. I'd like to see more of it in others (but am frequently disappointed). I find that it's best for me to act like I'd like others to act; whether or not they do, is not my business.
I was told "We teach people how to treat us."
OT but even more maddeningly, only those of us not rich enough to own our homes outright are subject to this stupidity. If you don't need a mortgage, you can just buy your home under an LLC or other entity. If you do, this becomes difficult or maybe impossible.
> difficult or maybe impossible.
For now. There's a lot of movement to expose the Principals of LLCs. Too many bad actors hiding behind them.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Some folks conflate them, but while they are related, they are not the same thing.
Sites like HN provide privacy through pseudonymity (which is, essentially, the "solution" prescribed by the author of the blog post), allowing those I interact with here to know that "I" am "Nobody9999".
Unsurprisingly, that's not the name on my passport. But on HN, you can be relatively sure (assuming I'm not also operating sock-puppet accounts as well) that my thoughts, ideas and expression are from the same person.
I preserve my privacy by not using my "legal" name here. The combination allows me to freely express myself without being tracked down, doxxed or otherwise abused by those who might disagree with me.
As for other places on the internet, I generally don't utilize sites that require verification of my personal details (an excellent example is ChatGPT, which requires not only an account, phone number verification as well), not because I'm engaged in evil/illegal/nasty behaviors, but because my business is my business and no one else's.
That's at least an attempt at preserving some semblance of privacy, but doesn't really provide anonymity.
While (as others have mentioned), my electricity provider, my landlord, my ISP, my mobile device service provider and my doctor all know who I am, where I live and an astonishing amount of information about my life, for the most part that's necessary to participating economically in society.
As such, especially given the lengths to which ISPs and mobile service providers go to to collect information about my activities, my privacy is significantly curtailed. That generally pisses me off, not because I really have anything to hide, but because (and I'll say it again), my business is my business and no one else's.
while I do understand the blog author's point of view, rather than creating an alternative persona online, I'm just me and mostly share my thoughts pseudonymously without trying to create an alternative backstory for those pseudonymous identities.
However, those who choose to use online resources that require verification of their identity, may need to take additional steps to preserve their privacy/pseudonymity. I choose not to engage in those forums and, as such, my privacy is improved a little.
Is that sufficient for me? No. Unfortunately, there's a limit to what I can do while still living "on the grid." And since I have no interest in squatting in a lean-to deep in the woods, I do have to give up some privacy.
I'd love to live in a world where collection of PII was the exception rather than the rule, but those my countrymen (with a very few exceptions) elect to legislate and execute such laws as are legislated don't seem to give a rat's ass about privacy, unless theirs is impacted.
And more's the pity.
Edit: Fixed typo.