h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think there may be a trend in the various threads associated with the proposed banning of Quincy. I'm interested in learning whether or not what I think I'm seeing is really there.

Posters in the UK seem to expect that Quincy should be willing to prove who he's not and generally supportive of the idea that if he's not willing to do so, he should be banned.

Posters in the US seem to expect that the charges against Quincy should be proven, and be generally more offended at the idea that he should be expected to offer some conclusive proof of his identity or suffer the consequences.

Without judging one mindset superior to the other, I'd just like to know if this really is a difference in the two cultures. Or am I just hallucinating?

NBY

Personally, my UK view is that if no conclusive evidence either way is available I think not banning is the best option - even if Quincy is another side of LeKZ, evidence seems likely to acumulate rapidly, and enough people will be watching to ensure that any OTT postings are yikesed and reported quite swiftly.

Maybe something specifically to do with discreetly proving identity to TPTB in the case of disputes could be included in the sign-up conditions, lessening the chance of people feeling their rights were being infringed if similar situations arose in future.?

This raises a question brought up on another thread.

How do you conclusively prove your identity without physically showing up somewhere? Pretty much any method of doing so could be circumvented. Even the placing of telephone calls wouldn't really be conclusive.

You could just ask a friend to pretend to be the account-holder when the call comes in.

Faxing a copy of photo-ID? How many teenagers have fake ID's?

I think that most Americans would find having to offer up proof of identity beyond the level of a telephone call or producing an ID, just to use an internet site, too intrusive to be worth the effort and frankly offensive. I would.

It's not a matter of everyone having to prove identity before using the site, but a mention in sign-up conditions that in the rare case of identity disputes people *may* be requested to give some information couldn't do much harm, even if in some cases there may be no information that could be useful.

And then the person could choose to provide something or not...

Since it's happening anyway, I don't see a problem with stating up front that it could happen.

I AM hoping that a few other people will post here in response to my original question. If I'm way off base, I'd like to know. If I'm on target, Id like to know. If I'm some other cliche, I"d like to know that, too.

My UK view agrees with Potholer's.

My US view (arising from the US upbringing, of course): "innocent until proven guilty". It's a part of our national heritage... Of course, with everything (on a broad scale) involving bin Laden, and (on an h2g2 scale) involving LeKZ, people suspend normal judgements and make hate-figures out of those people.

But in general, I think the US view is that people should not have to prove themselves innocent; the opposition should prove them --beyond doubt-- guilty. It's nearly impossible to prove innocence, but guilt (because of our human nature) is accepted more readily by the population. *shrug*


Shee

As if anyone's going to think this is something other than "raging" and actually considered comment...

It's an interesting point. I'd say it IS an illustration of the different views people in the UK and the US have of interactions on the internet.

People here in the UK seem to treat the site as a service, something a corporation is providing for people to use. They are quite able to accept the fact that because of that, the corporation running the site is in control of it. They are also quite capable of making the distinction between the internet and reality. I can't imagine any UK resident ever comparing being banned from using a website with being executed, for instance. I've seen the comparison made here several times, and it says much about the person doing the comparing, and their grip on reality.

People in the US seem to treat the site as a microcosm of reality, as some sort of small region of the real world where they expect all the rights and privileges their forefathers fought the war of independence for. They seem to have no problem with taking advantage of something they're not paying for. They don't like the concept that anyone should have any control over their ability to manifest here, even if they've "broken the law" to the extent that they've suffered what more than one person (Lentilla, wfg, others) have laughably referred to as "the VR equivalent of capital punishment". (Interesting to note that Americans should object so strongly to "capital punishment" - there's been some debate recently in the UK about the sheer legality of extraditing suspected members of al Qaeda to the US, given that the EU has a strict policy of not extraditing to barbarian countries where suspects may face an actual, rather than virtual death penalty).

There does seem to be a cultural difference. I suspect it has a lot to do with the much greater penetration of Internet use in the US compared with almost everywhere else, and the understandable blurring of the line between the real world and the online world that this produces in that society.

Fascinating point.

H.

Unsubscribing before anyone puts a match to the tinder gathering here.
Waz

'As if anyone's going to think this is something other than "raging" and actually considered comment...'

Perhaps if it actually read like considered comment, your posting might be viewed in that light, Hoovooloo. As it is, it looks to me like a lot of cheap sarcasm and sweeping anti-Americanism. BTW, I abhor capital punishment too - and so do a lot of Americans. Not Banned Yet has raised an interesting question, and it deserves a considered, courteous response. Here's my attempt at one.

I think that possibly we in Britain have become increasingly conditioned to the idea of having to produce identification in order to obtain goods and services, particularly of a financial nature.
Successive UK governments have resisted calls from some quarters for compulsory ID cards to be introduced for all citizens, probably because they suspect that the British public would regard it as an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties. However, for things like opening bank accounts, renting accomodation or obtaining welfare benefits, it increasingly seems that the only forms of identification that are acceptable are passports or driving licences - i.e. photo ID that is relatively difficult to obtain.

Which is, of course, an expensive pain if you don't drive and you're not planning any international travel. But, wearily and reluctantly, I've had to get used to it, and so have most UK residents. I'd be interested to hear how often American citizens are required to prove that they are who they say they are.

In the light of recent information, I must change my point of view.

I now consider that sufficient evidence has emerged offsite to persuade me that Quincy's behaviour is not compatible with remaining a researcher. This has much more to do with my opinion on Quincy's honesty and professional knowledge than any degree of his association with LeKZ.

Any view I may have on the Quincy==LeKZ issue is principally based on the fact that I do not believe Quincy is what he claims to be, and my other views follow on from that fundamental opinion.

I suspect that evidence of a similar nature would have appeared onsite, given time, and ultimately, my view would have been the same is it is now. To a large extent, what I say here doesn't contradict my earlier view, or touch significantly on the issue of identification. I simply feel that without h2g2 needing to provide sufficient rope onsite, Quincy has hung himself elsewhere.

Ormondroyd,

The situations you describe where a person must produce identification are similar to situations in the US where a person must produce identification.

Cashing a check? The person to whom you give the check for whatever it is you're buying will ask for a driver's license and write the license number and expiration date on the fact of the check. This is an accepted practice, and pretty much universal within the US.

Fairly positive identification is required for pretty much any transaction where funds, other than in the form of actual cash, change hands.

A driver's license is also used as the standard proof of age to get into a bar or to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

No non-financial situation not involving the obtaining of itmes prohibited for minors where a person must prove identity comes to mind, though.

For an example of a "non-financial situation not involving the obtaining of items prohibited for minors ", how about "leaving the country".

Last time I checked, children can do that. Last time I checked, I needed a passport.

I expect there are others.

H.

Thanks, NBY. So that isn't really much of a US/UK cultural difference, then.

About the only situation that I can think of that's remotely comparable to this one on h2g2 (proof of ID being asked for in order to obtain access to a public forum) is the way that a lot of newspapers in Britain won't publish letters that arrive by e-mail and don't have a postal address on them. I have had my local paper contact me about an e-mail I sent them, and asking me for my full address before they'd publish my letter.

We're still finding similarities rather than differences, Ormondroyd.

At this point, I'm inclined to believe that my initial speculations were pretty far off target. The question was worth asking, though.

NBY

I don't think it's a UK/US thing. Generally I'm for 'innocent until proven guilty'.

But...maybe Brits have more faith in the BBC than Americans? Maybe they'd be happier giving their details to the BBC because they believe it to be more trustworthy?

I don't know. Personally, I gave my details to staff here and probably wouldn't to a similar American company(if one exists), because I wouldn't know enough about them.

In the States, our Social Security numbers are increasingly being used/demanded as an I.D. number. Stores routinely ask for it to be included as a part of your I.D. when writing a check, and hospitals and insurance companies (a.k.a. "Satan") try to use it as your patient I.D. number. Many people don't realize that you are only required legally - 'though Ashcroft probably has other plans - to provide that number to your employer. Get your hands on someone's SS# and you pretty much have access to their bank accounts, credit information, medical and police files, tax records: whatever you want.



This is called "Identity Theft", and often you wind up having to prove not only you're who you say you are, but that the other guy is *not* you. (Sound familiar?) It's really scary what kind of power rests in the control of that one little bit of info. (A friend of mine had hir federal tax refund stolen because hir SS# got ripped off. Even 'though s/he finally convinced the government that s/he was hirself, the money was long gone...

Anything similar in the UK or projected for the EU?

-7_I'm_Gumby,_dammit_7

Ormondroyd: That was not sarcasm. Every word was meant as it was written. If it sounded sarcastic, I'm sorry.

And I'm sure a lot of Americans abhor the death penalty. The interesting thing is, most opinion polls show that the majority of the public IN THE UK are in favour of the death penalty. Thank Bod for parliamentary democracy. The fact is, the USA has the death penalty, and both the main parties of power are in favour of it.

If any US resident can tell me why the only presidential candidate against the death penalty was Ralph Nader, I'd be interested. If any UK resident can tell me anything *at* *all* that they know about Ralph Nader without looking him up first, I'd also be interested. My admittedly extremely limited understanding of US politics (based on short conversations with the relatively few members of my family who live there) is that opposing the death penalty in the US is electoral suicide. Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong.

H.

I think views may be shifting a little in the US. There seems to be much evidence appearing about false-conviction rates.

Hoovooloo: fair enough.

Here's what this UK resident thinks he knows about Ralph Nader without looking it up. He was the Presidential candidate for the US Green Party at the last election. He is well known in the States as a champion of the consumer. His election rallies were pretty well attended, but he didn't win all that many votes - maybe 3 per cent in his best states. Even so, many Democrats blamed him for Bush's election, saying that he took crucial votes away from Al Gore.

Am I close?