Pointless Blather
03. Sep, 2009 
6 Comments
Not really, but I like the redundancy…
gary farber says that SF should not be capped (sf, science fiction, sci-fi); I think it is a proper noun and therefore justifies caps.
On the other hand: “SF Giants” vs “sf giants”. No being a fan of the team, nor a resident of the west coast, either of those would make me think of folks like asimov, clarke, but I do recognize that folks who are other-contextualized might view them otherwise.
Big debate going on about privacy on a private list (lol).
I tremendously enjoyed the video clips of the Worldcon Business Meeting. INCLUDING getting to see the FACES of some folks who post online anonymously: Words to the wise (though considering my publicly displayed and acknowledged gender they might not be considered wise) IF you are in the habit of engaging in political activism online and elsewhere and IF you do so in an anonymous manner, it is NOT a good idea to state, in your anonymously authored blog, WHERE you were seated during an event that you were informed – on multiple occasions – would be taped and the tape made available for public consumption.
There’s nothing wrong, so far as I’m concerned, in wanting to maintain an anonymous online identity. There is nothing wrong with political activism either (unless of course I happen to disagree with your position, in which case you are wrong, misguided, a pain and have all of your facts wrong. Grudgingly I will admit that it is possible for you to feel the same way about me, but of course – you’re wrong). There is nothing wrong with attending events that will be publicly broadcast.
There may be something wrong in failing to keep in mind the manner(s) in which all of the above can come together in unexpected ways.
If you are going to try and maintain online anonymity, you must develop a truly paranoid frame of mind. In this day and age of ubiquitous cameras, cell phones & etc., casual paranoia will no longer cut it.
I’ll give a personal example: I stopped using my debit card at the supermarket once I realized that the coupons they were handing me were uncannily matched to the items I purchased on a regular basis. I am in seriously deep trouble if the powers that be determine that purchasing Charmin in large quantities is an indicator of terrorist activities.
I knew that ‘data mining’ was going on, but had not twigged to the fact that it was already in use on the commercial level.
All those tiny bits of data – innocent individually – CAN add up to revealing a tremendous amount about someone. True paranoia: you may not be doing anything wrong today, but no one has any idea what is going to be wrong tomorrow. The data hasn’t changed – the interpretation may.
Back to the Worldcon BM taping. Look – we all know I’m a bit off, so watching and enjoying stuff like that should not be a big surprise. In fact, I’d like to see more. I figure that an added benefit of being a Supporting member of a Worldcon might be a website that had clips of various panels and such. It would also provide a solution for Attending members with scheduling conflicts and – perhaps most importantly of all – could become a very powerful promotional tool for Worldcon.
I suggested the above (in much less detail) and there has been quite a lot of talk about it – smart, intelligent (mostly) raising of issues that I hadn’t considered, other solutions and etc.
The main objection seems related to a desire to control one’s level of public exposure. I sympathize with the reasonable reasons for wanting to do so (job requires it, stalking, etc) but question whether the goal can be achieved.
Worldcon is a MEMBERSHIP REQUIRED event. No tickee, no washee. However, the event itself is held in PUBLIC spaces. The only way to really protect your privacy in true paranoiac fashion is to not attend physically. (I say paranoic not in reference to the individual(s) desiring privacy, but to the mindset required in order to maintain it.)
Hotels have video cameras – which may or may not broadcast publicly. Same for convention halls. People working in such places – or otherwise in those spaces for legitimate reasons – have cameras and cell phones. The convention could institute ‘no recording’ rules – but they don’t apply to the Union maintenance guy working the convention hall – and even if they do on paper, try enforcing it.
(One other aspect of anonymity I haven’t mentioned yet is that attempting to maintain it more often than not encourages curiosity on the part of otherwise disinterested parties who may put some effort into breaking the anonymity.)
Even if you do maintain a paranoiac mindset, making it work outside your hidden cave is next to impossible. You can probably find out who anyone is for about the cost of a Worldcon membership.
I’d be happy with: only approved individuals – members of the con – were allowed to tape. (You have to sign up for this in advance.) They do the scut work and turn the memory stick or disc over to the convention afterwards (in exchange for a copy later). Only members of the con can view the materials online (using the PIN members get with their registration packet to gain access). Rooms are divided into tape/no tape seating and anyone can register themselves to be redacted in the final mix. If facilities permit, raw footage can be viewed at the con (since they could have been in the panel room themselves anyway) and an approved ‘mix’ tape, carefully edited, can be used for public distribution.
Still won’t stop the individuals unless there is a blanket ‘no-record’ rule in effect for everything (leave the cell phones at the door, leave the laptops at the door, etc., etc.)
Or you hire a professional crew (muy expensivo) to tape selected bits – and you still need to have the no-record rule in effect.
ADDED: You could of course prohibit any kind of recording for any purpose. Which would make some folks very happy, but would also have the effect of continuing to erase Worldcon’s footprint out in the world – and would reinforce ’secret society’ suspicions.
I feel for and understand the objections of those who have what any reasonable person would consider a legitimate reason for not wanting to appear in a recording. The cases laid out for such roughly congregate into a few kinds: concerns about stalking/abuse, conflict with professional career, changed/assumed identity.
Those in the public sphere who have stalking issues are usually well-equipped to deal effectively with it – and arrangements can be made to insure greater personal security at a convention. Private individuals are no more or less subject to the same conditions at a convention that they are anywhere else they may go in public. Those who’s professional careers will not tolerate association with fandom – or who seek to bend the rules of their employment by attending, or who feel that their free speech might be stifled by exposure have an issue with their job/employer – not taping at the convention. Personal choices should not be used as an argument in this case. Those who have changed their identity or are in a protection program are pretty much in the same boat: you’ve made some personal choices (willingly or unwillingly) and the degree of risk you are willing to entertain is a personal matter. (Try applying these concerns to a similar environment, such as attending Disney World. Ticket required, all kinds of taping/surveillance going on – by people you don’t know and have no control over. If you go – you give up some protection and privacy. No one would suggest closing the park or turning off the cameras because of personal concerns. Your choice/control begins and ends at the door.)
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO MY FEED
“I think it is a proper noun and therefore justifies caps.”
I’m going to cap you.
“in your anonymously authored blog”
You’re confusing “anonymous” with “pseudonymous.” This is a frequent confusion over a crucial and gigantic distinction.
No one who uses a consistent pseudonymn (and all names are ultimately “chosen” names; names do not come to us from a Platonic realm) is being, or trying to be, “anonymous.”
“No tickee, no washee.”
Um, do you have any Chinese-American friends?
“Still won’t stop the individuals unless there is a blanket ‘no-record’ rule in effect for everything (leave the cell phones at the door, leave the laptops at the door, etc., etc.)”
Oh, that would be such fun for the convention staff to try to enforce. It would be no problem at all.
gary – guilty: they use pseudonyms to maintain anonymity…
I was laughing about the situation the whole time…
yes to Chinese and other Asian-American friends. It’s been in common parlance for so long I assume it has been robbed of its effect; if not, apologies.
Gary – your idea of fun is very strange…
Anonymous:
None of these things are done when using a pseudonym.
Which I also point out is an ancient custom in fandom since the Forties: Morojo (Myrtle Douglas). LeeH )Lee Hoffman). Wombat (Jan Howard Finder). Scratch Bacharach. Ted Johnstone (David McDaniel). Fassbinder (T. Bruce Yerke). FTL. 4E. 4SJ. Grendel Briarton. John Bristol (Jack Speer). Vodoso. JoeD (Joe Siclair). Just off the top of my head.
Plus some people whose other name I know but can’t say, and other people whose other name I don’t know.
Anonymity and pseudonymity are entirely different things. Pseudonymity is merely a case where people are more aware that a name is a choice, whereas if someone choses a “normal” sounding name — which is quite an ethnic and cultural assumption in most cases — then they’d never have a clue that anyone has ever used another name.
And people change their names all the time. There’s no register in the U.S. of One True Legal name, and neither are you, contrary to frequent believe, required to go to a court to start using a different name for legal purposes; it’s merely helps your recognition.
Encouraging the notion that there’s some sort of Platonic Real Name that people have, and that people who use a name other than, say, on their birth certificate, is somehow wrong, or somehow an attetmpt to be anonymous, is simply completely wrong. There are endlessly more legitimate reasons to use a handle than there are illegitimate reasons, and the presumption and ethic of the internet is that, unless proven otherwise that people are either sock-puppeting or using a handle to hide beyond for abusive purposes, people have a perfectly legitimate reason.
Outing, on the other hand, is a serious violation of privacy absent a very good reason.
This is likely a digression from any discussion of camera use, be they still or video (people with concerns definitely shouldn’t visit the United Kingdom), but it’s one you bring up by confusing anonymity and pseudonymity.
Gary – come on. Really.
The desire for anonymity – as in – I am using this fake name because I do not want anyone to know who I really am – has been stated by some of the individuals concerned with the overall general topic – and is the reason commonly given in the mainstream press for “anonymous bloggers” and “whistle blowers” who may or may not have a “good reason” for keeping their identity secret.
“The desire for anonymity”
You’re not anonymous. You use a consistent name online. You really are who you are here. When you consistently post under the same name, that’s your name.
If you randomly posted to different blogs or websites with a new name each time, you’d be anonymous. That’s not what you do. That’s not what anyone who consistently uses the same name does.
That’s the difference between anonymnity and pseudonymity.
Words do have meaning, and “pseudonymous” means something entirely different than “anonymous.”
“Whistleblowers” do not, in fact, make themselves known for years or decades with a consistent body of written work in public under one name.
“…has been stated by some of the individuals concerned with the overall general topic…”
I have no idea what individuals you’re talking about where, but this is not a topic that suddenly sprang up yesterday, or last year, or five years ago, or ten years ago. It is not any more a new topic than is “what is science fiction,” even if it’s a new topic to you, or to others.
I understand that you’re relatively new to internet history and culture, which has a long and rich depth of its own — and to some small extent partially comes from sf fandom — but this is a discussion, ironically, no different than someone being ignorant of sf and fanhistory and based on having started going to sf cons in the last year insisting that their choice of terminology is just as valid as anyone else’s.
And even if that were not the case, you can’t simply insist that pseudonymity and anonymity are the same things, because they mean completely different things. Words have meaning. You can look them up. You’re not Humpty Dumpty.
But for fun, offer a definition of what a “real” name is that can’t be shredded to pieces.
I’m also curious if you accept “the mainstream press” as an authority on the usage of “sci-fi” and if not, why you would believe that many in the mainstream press are any less ignorant about online culture than they are about sf fan culture.
When someone in the press confuses a pseudonymous blogger with an “anonymous” blogger or commenter, here’s what’s happening: they’re wrong.
Yeah, someone who has a great big fuss over “outing” someone (in this context, linking their blog ID with their real name) shouldn’t be mounting a high-profile activism campaign under their blog ID when the main action happens in realname-space.
I have a blogging ID which is not my real name, though this is more due to cultural norms than any real attempt to “protect my identity”. I don’t think it even fools a good web search, let alone someone with a some brains.
But hey, I remember the days when people would include their home address and phone number in their email .sigfiles.