This reminds me of the "online harassment" talk John Oliver had on his show. We all love our internet anonymity because at least it keeps the illusion of protection, but it's really the law that should protect us against acts like these.
I don't support what I'm about to say, but I feel like it's worth discussing: If people were forced to identify themselves whenever they access anything online, and get charged accordingly for any felony they commit, would this sort of stuff still happen?
I think it would still happen, because of the problem of jurisdictions. Short of having a worldwide internet police, how would one deal with a hacker from India breaking into American Facebook accounts? Sounds like a heck of a lot of bureaucracy to me...
What I had in mind as a "law" was the idea of countries signing open agreements to investigate fraud / felonies on each other's territories - which does sound like a worldwide internet police. And I don't even know how I'd feel about that, with surveillance and all that still being a touchy matter.
The main reason why I'd accept it is because the US feels like it's already abusing the privilege and assuming control, as seen in Kim Dotcom's Megaupload affair, when FBI seized his offshore goods.
However, different countries have far different rules about the internet in their own countries. It's one thing to have the US and NZ working to seize Kim Dotcom's goods - those are both western, developed countries. I think it would be far more difficult to get every country on the same page. China and its Great Firewall is one example that springs to mind, but many other countries in Asia and the Middle East also have moratoriums on content that the US and other western countries wouldn't bat an eye at. Not to mention the issues that deep web, VPN use, Tor, etc. would cause.
Never mind that governments use hacking and malware to disrupt the inner workings of nations with whom they don't see eye-to-eye. It just seems like a big can of worms.
I haven't seen that John Oliver talk you mentioned, so keep that in mind.
That being said, in response to your hypothetical situation, if people were forced to identify themselves, I don't think we'd see nearly as many incidents of 'hacking' and so on (but perhaps more issues with stolen identities?). However, it's sort of the "nuke everything" method of criminal deterrence in my mind. For example, if the government were to put cameras into every room of every home, I imagine there would be a LOT less crime in general, but I think the quality of life would be so much lower that any benefits in crime levels would be quickly negated.
Besides, it's very rare to be truly anonymous on the internet - just look at the efforts people make with TOR and VPNs, and how even those methods aren't perfectly anonymous.
This reminds me of the "online harassment" talk John Oliver had on his show. We all love our internet anonymity because at least it keeps the illusion of protection, but it's really the law that should protect us against acts like these.
I don't support what I'm about to say, but I feel like it's worth discussing: If people were forced to identify themselves whenever they access anything online, and get charged accordingly for any felony they commit, would this sort of stuff still happen?
I think it would still happen, because of the problem of jurisdictions. Short of having a worldwide internet police, how would one deal with a hacker from India breaking into American Facebook accounts? Sounds like a heck of a lot of bureaucracy to me...
Definitely would be a big issue.
What I had in mind as a "law" was the idea of countries signing open agreements to investigate fraud / felonies on each other's territories - which does sound like a worldwide internet police. And I don't even know how I'd feel about that, with surveillance and all that still being a touchy matter.
The main reason why I'd accept it is because the US feels like it's already abusing the privilege and assuming control, as seen in Kim Dotcom's Megaupload affair, when FBI seized his offshore goods.
However, different countries have far different rules about the internet in their own countries. It's one thing to have the US and NZ working to seize Kim Dotcom's goods - those are both western, developed countries. I think it would be far more difficult to get every country on the same page. China and its Great Firewall is one example that springs to mind, but many other countries in Asia and the Middle East also have moratoriums on content that the US and other western countries wouldn't bat an eye at. Not to mention the issues that deep web, VPN use, Tor, etc. would cause.
Never mind that governments use hacking and malware to disrupt the inner workings of nations with whom they don't see eye-to-eye. It just seems like a big can of worms.
You'll have to also keep in mind the right to be forgotten thing that's been going on in France.
I haven't seen that John Oliver talk you mentioned, so keep that in mind.
That being said, in response to your hypothetical situation, if people were forced to identify themselves, I don't think we'd see nearly as many incidents of 'hacking' and so on (but perhaps more issues with stolen identities?). However, it's sort of the "nuke everything" method of criminal deterrence in my mind. For example, if the government were to put cameras into every room of every home, I imagine there would be a LOT less crime in general, but I think the quality of life would be so much lower that any benefits in crime levels would be quickly negated.
Besides, it's very rare to be truly anonymous on the internet - just look at the efforts people make with TOR and VPNs, and how even those methods aren't perfectly anonymous.