Behind the mask

Is anonymity all it's cracked up to be? Up until now I've been writing about our community and how it is only with each person's commitment that we can effect change. During all this, there were several side tracks having to do with the pros and cons of using a screen name, nom de plume, or alias. I've been asked to elaborate on why I have a problem with anonymous entries…

Some have stated that they felt that the "mask" they stood behind was a sort of safety device so that they would not be judged too harshly or maybe even unfairly in other things they might be involved with in their lives? Others, like myself, feel that this mask only allows the speaker to embolden him or herself to say a little more than for what they may be willing to be responsible and ultimately makes the deed or statement null and void as it lacks the assurance of one who openly stands behind one's convictions. Even those who like the idea of anonymity want some assurance of making sure others know of their credentials for the discussed topic, albeit they don't want their exact identity known. For example, we've had supposed teachers, students, and former students contribute to this forum, but we could walk by these people on the street and not know that they were those same contributors nor if they really had those credentials as claimed.

Throughout history, individuals have done things behind the mask of secrecy. Some have been ultimately found out. Others have revealed themselves. Other deeds will always be cloaked in mystery. Is this cloaking a good thing or bad? Can it be either depending upon the circumstance? Can the secrecy itself at times over power an intended act of good so that it ends up not achieving its purpose or canceling out the act itself? I'm sure all can recall various examples where it may be a good or a bad thing.

Examples in real life and fiction are many but most I found who are anonymous are judged on their deeds, not by their words. Zorro. The ultimate masked man who worked to rectify the plight of the oppressed was allowed to live his alternative life unmolested. Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk. All are "heroes'' with secret identities. Then there was the "outlaw" Robin hood…His identity was well known and he paid for his "openness" by living a life in hiding because of his "illegal" deeds supporting the overtaxed poor with his spoils. Hmmm. We might say tis better to keep our identity a secret if we want correct a wrong but value self preservation or our way of life?

But then there is real life. The masked KKK organization that started during post Civil War era as a call to arms in an altered old world Scottish clan tradition to those who were against the changes that had recently taken place in the U.S. How comfortable did they make everyone feel when citizens weren't sure they were talking to someone who had burned down a house or helped to hang someone in their yard the night before? Sort of took away that "element of trust" in a community. Did one even dare to help someone in need when that needy person might be the target of a KKK member as that might make you a target as well? Then there were the anonymous tips of police informers and secret witnesses from the mafia's inner sanctions. How credible actually were they and were their identities truly kept secret enough to keep them safe? How about the McCarthy era, where just the rumor that one had communist leanings would be enough to ostracize them, ruin their careers and social status in the community?

More recently within our own Brazil Times about 5-6 years ago if I remember correctly, it was permitted to submit letters to the editor without signing one's name but it turned into a written shouting match between those writing instead of a respectful exchange of opinions among members of the community. Very quickly did the editor intervene and state that all letters had to have verified senders as comments were approaching near libelous at times. That statement is still used in The Times guidelines today.

It seems however that the internet or "cyberspace" is a different world where less rules are still the case. Our only frontier wild west left? Barring outright physical threats it seems that in the courts of California at least, one's anonymity is secure and civility is not an issue. Only legality matters. Insults, foul language, name calling are all permitted in what seems to be a verbal old west brawl of sorts on some sites that are only regulated by the whims of the site manager. On the other hand, outright threats have to also be ignored when they aren't coming from one who is specifically identified. One site [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080206/214912193.shtml] reports that even a threat to kill one's husband cannot be considered a real threat when written anonymously on a web site as it is unknown whether it is in jest or even if the writer is married! There are dozens of other cases as well where in the U.S. internet anonymity is still protected while in other countries it is no longer the case. It brings up several points however. One being that how many husbands might think that it's their wife writing and be overly upset and wondering….or on the opposite end of the spectrum, how many might discount the statement of the writer thinking that it very well could just be some 12 year old at the computer with nothing else to do but yank someone's chain by making off the wall remarks about being a teacher to lend authority to their statements? Then of course there could be a crazy like a fox person who claimed to be a specific person in order to put the suspicion of a transgression onto another individual.

So what has happened to our society since the popularity of the internet? It's become easier to say things without admitting we've said them. Easier to steal another's intellectual property such as recorded songs, articles, and books. Even videos. The ethical line of civility is getting easier and easier to cross as well as the legal one. The lines are becoming blurred. How are we going to recognize the difference? What makes one thing acceptable in cyberspace but not so on the printed page or in real life? Why is it wrong for someone to go into a music store and put a CD in their pocket but they find nothing wrong with illegal downloads and copied material when it too is theft of someone else's hard work? Computers have opened up a whole new frontier for many of us and given us opportunities we never had before but it comes with a price of removing some of that human element from the equation. I think it's a greater loss of civility and human interaction than we realize. Is the computer a "bad" thing. No, it's tool, but like a gun, we have to be extremely careful how we use it and rules need to be in place in order to carefully balance the individual's rights with the rights of others in the community…and we need to remember that the community extends beyond the computer to the real people at the keyboard. It's not necessarily only about what is legal, but about making a choice of doing what is ethically right in one's own conscience or it may ultimately lead to new laws that will both protect and limit the use of this tool. Regulate ourselves or someone bigger will come do it for us when we step on his toes. Look at the issue with gun control. I'll not even state my opinion on it but just say the regulations are there because SOME abused gun usage by stepping over the legal line of their use so additional rules were put into place that also affected those who weren't guilty of abuse. Then the NRA "gang" banded together so they could be BIGGER voice in gun control, and then Homeland Security "gang" came onto the scene with even more clout. Both use fear and power tactics in order for people to polarize to one side or the other. And there the gun sits. Harmless in itself but destructive just the same when in the hands of certain human beings. Same as computer and internet. I predict as time goes on, more rules will be put on computer use as they have been for the printed page. Right or wrong. Enforceable or not. The human element of their use will always be there and those who are unaware or uncaring of individuals they can hurt on the other end will cause more regulations for all of us who use it.

This is why I use only my true name when posting. I was involved with a list years ago that did not do this but found it insincere and ineffectual and eventually all on the list "came out" and found more solidarity and community within the group. Even though I might not agree with whom I'm "talking", I want to treat them the same as if I were facing them directly so they know my true stance and my honest opinion. I look upon it as a show of respect towards them as a way of stating that I would not tell them one thing to their face but another behind their backs. It's what I would do if writing on the printed page. Does it bother me that some do not see this as important. Sure it does, but I cannot control how others perceive things. I can only do what I feel is the correct thing to do and let things fall as they will, knowing that I have done what I could by bringing the matter to the forefront. My own inaction would bother me a whole lot more than what others decide to do. Maybe it will change the actions of one or two people over time. That's all an individual can hope to accomplish but again if each of us attempts to change something and accomplishes a little as well, much will be accomplished. I'm in no way judging those who feel the need to continue to remain anonymous. I just want them to understand that doing so is not a perfect solution either and can have the potential for unforeseen problems as well. Each needs to weigh the pros and cons knowing all the possible outcomes. Others who read this will certainly be able to bring up more examples on each side to ponder as well.

As is the purpose of all of my writings to date, we each have the power to change things. Maybe not as much as we would like but we are ignoring an important resource if we don't empower ourselves to initiate changes we feel are important to ourselves and more importantly to our world. Have a good day.