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

I think we should give up our anonymity, within limits.

The BBC should create a strict privacy policy, under which no personal information will ever be sold or distributed except through legal action or ethical responsibility (if someone claims responsibility in one of their posts for a crime, for instance), or because of spitting.

It would immediately impact the sense of personal responsibility for messages posted, and so reduce any tendency to post inflammatory material while hiding behind a sense of "anonymity." And if the BBC collects sufficient information, it would enable them to act responsibly when faced with problematic behavior, possibly to the extent of banning a person from the service for life. The methods they have for responding now are extremely limited by the fact that they don't know who we are with any reliable accuracy. It almost forces them into using "moderation."

Moreover, any sense of "anonymity" that one gets on the internet is likely to be false. It is extremely difficult to hide your trail while using the net in any normal, day-to-day sense. By revealing our identities to the BBC, we really are not losing anything except the illusion of anonymity.

I very much agree with that. As long as we aren't going to be prostituted by giving up our anonymity then I think it's a fine idea. Another thing...I realize the beeb is totally taken by these "villians" that will come and tarnish their reputations. But ::fixes tie:: most of the researchers here, are just fans of the original work of DNA, not axe murderers. (as everyone knows...the few ruin it for the many)


~Imal

One issue with this is proposal is how would the BBC verify whatever identifying info we give them? If they can't verify, there's no point, as any Joe Blow could claim to be me or you.

The sites I've seen that required verification of an identity asked people to either a) submit a credit card number (not to be used, but to be checked) or b) snail mail or fax in a copy of a driver's license. I can see the pragmatic issues here being horrendous, none of these would work for some of our younger researchers, and the security issues would likely bother many current researchers and scare off many new ones.

Does anyone have a better idea of how the site could verify identities in a more reasonable manner?

Mikey

Perhaps by telephone? i remember h2g2 did a volunteer telephone survey a while back...maybe a year and a half ago, where they called up people for reactions to the site and products and such...
As long as some agreement was made not to give the numbers to solicitors...What do you think?

I have no problem with the bbc having my name, address and phone numbers. As long as they are kept internal, and NOT used for marketing.

Hmmm. But is that really the issue? And would this solve the current problem? If the Great B issues a statement/directive to that effect, and promises to 'return things to the way they were', then, yes, maybe relinquishing out anonymity would be

A mighty big if.

Also, pretty big phone bills for some of us.

I think we should focus our efforts on acting responsibly as a community. If the relationship between ourselves and the Great B is to become more, well, intimate, there are going to have to be very strong incentives, and very very very good security.

It's something to consider...

One thought on this.

Do the BBC want to collect such information?

I don't think so.
Under the UK's Data Protection act they are resposible for keeping any such data securely and ensuring it is not abused.
The more personal data you hold on your users the greater the risk that someone is going to abuse it, whether the abuse is by someone inside the BBC or it is stolen by someone breaking into the system.

The easiest answer to this is to only hold information that is essential to providing the service.

I don't see why it should be anything more than: name, user name, and telephone number. Confirmation of our identities by letting them call us. End of story.

:P
~Imal

The Great B must put aside their (its) distrust. They (it?) has to realize that, as a community, H2G2 will act responsibly, and that includes self-policing, self censorship etc.

A relationship is all about give and take, and both parties must gain something from the relationship. We all KNOW what we gain from participation is H2G2, but what does BBC hope to gain? And what do they stand to lose if they don't bend a little?

If they (it??) can be made to see they will gain from relaxing at least some of the current restrictions, (and reinstate the 'Don't Panic' button), perhaps this situation can be satisfactorily resolved.

Soon!

I hope!

I don't think any verification of identifying information is needed.

The BBC could do some simple logical checks, for instance an automated lookup of the postal addresses to see if they actually exist, but doing more than that would be expensive and serve little real purpose.

The idea is to create a sense of personal responsibility by tying peoples actions to their names in some way. If they lie about their names, then the BBC is a victim of fraud. It should take some effort to protect against that, but it should not start with the assumption that this will be so prevalent that they have to check each and every ID.

Simply by asking for someone's name and address, you create a social contract (whether the person giving the information is aware of it or not), making the legalese of the "Terms and Conditions" and the House Rules less necessary.