Yes, in most all cases you need to prove who you are to the site owner. Also, in order to keep pedifiles and other unwanted persons searching for children through pages like myspace. They need to sections these areas off, if you are over the age of 18, then you can not have access to anyone younger than that. There are age verification programs out there. Need to come up with sort of plan with this type of scenario embedded in them. Thanks for listening, I hope someone has a better idea. And, yes, you couldjust keep the younger ones off these kind of sites, but that doesn’t give them any freedom, just creates a bubble around them. They need to get involved with discussion boards and posts. They indeed do have a voice, since they are the voice of the future.

While I happen to think that anonymity is needed online, we must also look at the reality of the issue. You can never definitively prove who anyone is online. And I mean never. I run WikiLou.com, and believe me there are times that I would love to know who is editing the site. However, the good comes with the bad. If I made everyone prove who they were, people would be scared to post things like http://wikilou.com/wiki/index.php?title=Abuses_by_St._Louis_Area_Police because they would be scared of the repercussions. So as much as anonymous editors annoy me from time to time, I will accept them for what they are, and for all the good that comes with them.

Jeff, how do you really prove anyone’s age or identity on the internet? What kind of age verification program would possibly work? Should we require scans of a birth certificate? Go look at yours and see how hard it would be to fake. Not very difficult. Should we require facial scans? How many times have you mistaken someone’s age? I doubt a computer could do better.

I think the real responsibility here comes with parents. No, you do not want to shelter your children and keep them in a bubble. However, you don’t want them to take things so seriously that they go hanging themselves. Parenting, people, parenting is the key. Parenting requires healthy freedom with healthy rules, not too much of one or the other.

For starters, It would be diffcult at best to enforce such a mandate. Furthermore…how would you feel if you went out in public and were required to hold a sign with a copy of your drivers liscense on it . What if the next time you went to the grocery store ,the mall, or ANYWHERE for that matter …you were required to annouce your presence and then confirm your identity? Would it be worth it ?…Would you tolerate that? What if the next time you went to the ol mail box …U had to tell uncle sam that you were getting your mail now …then prove your identity? Think about it .

I rather enjoy the anonymity of a crowd ..and I think the Internet is NO different. It is a freedom I enjoy and a freedom I am unwilling to part with. ITS MY RIGHT
I am all for security ..but give me a break. “Those who would sacrifice Freedoms for security …deserve neither”

Mike:

I agree that the anonymity of the internet is part of what makes it unique and inviting whether to share experiences without fear of reprisal or to simply engage in an online “relationship” with a “cyber friend”. However, to simply absolve the internet, and society, of any responsibility for the protection of others, specifically children, under the umbrella of “it’s the parents responsibility” is as naive as to say that authentication requirements would solve all the problems.

In the case of most sites, you can be made to authenticate your identity to those running the site, but then the other users with whom you interact only know as much as you are willing to share. The anonymity you refer to is still present yet a 40 year old man can be prevented from accessing the profiles of 15 year old girls.

In today’s age of cell phones with cameras and internet access, it is truly impossible for parents to have complete and total monitoring ability over what their children engage in online. While certain values and ethics can certainly be instilled by parents, other lines of protection against online abuses need to be in place to help parents. Every child at some point is going to attempt to “rebel” against their parents so no amount of parental oversight will ever be enough.

Society should make every attempt to help protect our youngest citizens from the most harmful of elements if at all possible. Requiring identification authentication, while certainly not fool-proof, is certainly one simple step that could be employed to accomplish this goal.

like u care:

Just for clarification purposes, the internet is not a “right” any more than driving a care is a “right”. There is no constitutional protection covering the use of the internet beyond freedom of speech and, even with identity authentication, that freedom would not necessarily be sacrificed.

The adult could not have pulled off the scam in person or on the telephone. Sexual predators are punished for contacting anyone under 18 and pretending to be someone they are not, so maybe this act points to drawing the line and self-identifying in adult/child conversations.

Parents shouldn’t blame themselves for things like this. Kids get caught up in bad situations all of the time. Children may not have acquired the necessary skills to manage these types of situations.

This is like asking if someone should have to verify who they are before they run an ad in the personals. I tell my daughter that a lot of times, the internet is like TV; it’s not real (even reality tv, for that matter.)
Unless you personally know who you are dealing with, you should treat it the same way as a cartoon.

IF YOU DON’T WANT WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN THEN YES YOU PROVE YOUR IDENTITY.
PRETTY STUPID QUESTION

This is Cathy Dwyer from Pace responding. Very interesting comments. I teach computing, and I want to emphasize you shouldn’t have too much faith in the ability of technology to manage a complex problem such as wide scale authentication. As a for instance, consider the use of the data aggregator ChoicePoint to remove convicted felons from the voter rolls in Florida for the 2000 election (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint). According to congressional testimony, if there was an 80% match for information such as first name, last name, middle initial, etc., then that person would be dropping from the voter rolls. If that standard is not good enough, then what criteria would you use to authenticate someone? Would it involve biometrics (i.e., eye scans, fingerprints, or DNA)? How would you maintain it (births, deaths, immigration)? Who would pay for it?

Another problem is the more you use something for identification, the more it becomes something you need to keep “private” to protect yourself. Only a few years ago, social security numbers were commonly used in all kinds of systems. I used to post student grades by social security number, rather than by name. Now it is treated as something that you need to guard and conceal. If we start scanning our birth certificates for every online interaction, it will dilute its value for proving identity.

Cathy:

I agree that it is impossible to do complete identity verification. However, something as simple as verifying a credit card or government issued photo ID, for example, would be an improvement. Having those verifications associated with specific IP addresses would then help to ensure the identity of the computer user. Those IP addresses could then be prohibited from accessing areas that are not appropriate for that particular user (i.e. adults accessing areas frequented by minors or minors accessing pornographic areas).

In my conceptualization of implementation of this “system”, this would be the responsibility of the individual webmasters for specific websites (i.e. myspace).

As I previously stated and implied, the ultimate responsibility falls on the parents to teach their children simple, yet important, steps that they can take to protect themselves online. Anything reasonable that can be done to help protect children would be an improvement.

Would this system be fool-proof? No. Would it be better than nothing? Yes.

I do not believe you should have to prove who you are and that is horrible what happened but parents should be able to keep an eye on their childs my space or emails. I believe she should be punished along with her daughter too BUT what is the difference in putting it in my space or walking up to someone and saying it verbally, kids and adults can be cruel and that is ashame.

This case will prove interesting. Why?

Does everyone believe that people should not lie about their identity and that the rules should apply fairly to all? Then if you do, the police should not be able to use fake identities to catch pedophiles either. They will have to state in their MySpace ID and on other sites that they are the police acting as a underage girl and trying to catch pedophiles. I want police to catch these pedophiles, but only if the pedophiles do something wrong.

People on these sites lie much of the time. I’ve seen ID’s where a person says they are from a certain location, but they’re from a different country in some cases.

We would now be saying that a person is responsible for their words, when we should be saying a person is responsible for their actions. If someone calls me a name, can I prosecute them for calling me a bad word and win? Is profanity a crime?

Once again, this is similar to the situation in the 80’s where Ozzy Osbourne’s song “Suicide Solution,” was listened to by a kid in school and the kid later committed suicide. Ozzy was prosecuted and he was found not guilty. People’s emotions are played with all the time, but that’s life, so a person has to deal with letdowns throughout their lives.

There is a freedom of speech as the benefits of having it are greater than the detriments of not having it. The only issue I have is when someone messes with me and I never did anything with them.

I’ve been called names on these posts when I never attacked the other person who attacked me in writing, but they don’t think through what I say and attack me anyway without giving any reason. Can I prosecute them as well and win? If I am wrong, please explain why and don’t attack the person, only attack their view.

I find this entire discussion very sad and a tad paranoid.

To protect children from the 1 in 100 jerk, you deny them the ability to communicate with the 99% of the adult population who are law-abiding, and possible resources for knowledge and enrichment of their lives. For the first 7 years I had a website, I’d get email from kids wanting homework help on the topic of the website. That never happens anymore, because parents have decided all websites are run by horrible people with nefarious ulterior motives. (And yes, my real name and street address is on my website.)

All any ID system will ever be able to prove is who owns the computer. They will never be able to prove who is at the keyboard, without intrusive Orwellian measures being incorporated into computers. So what then? You deny the Internet to people unable to afford the newest high tech? If there is a portal into my home, will not government surveillance be close behind?
This kills a pesky fly with an elephant gun.

The problem isn’t who a person is, or who they aren’t. The problem is how one behaves, and that’s where society is falling down. We no longer teach simple courtesy, and respect for each other. If one has courtesy and respect, communication (either anonymous or signed, and on any topic) isn’t a behaviour problem. An analogy: all drivers theoretically know the rules of the road, but how many people break them with impunity? That’s a problem of ego-centeredness and lack of concern for others, not an expression of “freedom.”

Creating an ID system will just create fake IDs. We can’t even keep 100% of the 17 year olds out of bars, and they are there in person. We need to reinstitute netiquette, and teach it in schools, teaching people to be prudent, but not paranoid in communicating with others.

nathan1174, so you think that every time a new user comes to WikiLou.com I should have to run their credit card or driver’s license number? First of all, people are unwilling to give up that info to random site administrators online. Plus, I have a full time job and a life beyond running a not for profit information website for our area. As of today WikiLou.com has 797 registered users. Do you want to work for me for free to verify every one of them after you convince them to give you their sensitive personal data? Feel free to do so.

Would you like to have to give your credit card info, social security number, driver’s license number, or anything else you’re suggesting every time you post a comment on this site right here? I doubt it.

The idea of this is idiotic. It is impossible to do, let alone enforce. Is the government going to fine me for not knowing who 790 of those 797 users I have are? What would they fine me? $1 each? $10 each? WikiLou is not a money-maker. In fact, I’ve put over $500 into it and not gotten a cent back. I hope people with your type of logic and short-sightedness aren’t making the laws, but I know that is a vain hope…

nathan,…So basically what you’re saying is that ANY technological advancement that comes along isnt my right to use,…its a privlidge? ..I dont agree,…By your thinking ..the government has a right to govern my usage of it before I am able to utilize it …hmmm?
That is EXACTLY the type of flawed thinking that will be the downfall of the bill of rights …you know “life liberty , pursuit of happiness stuff.” or is that all just mumbo jumbo to you? In this country I have a RIGHT to do as I please(within reason of course) So long as abide by the law. Now you want me to declare my name and identity before I do ANYTHING?…yeah right.

People seem to think that publishing or communicating under anonymous conditions originated with the Internet. It originated with the invention of writing, and before that,with the first “go-between” when Caveman A told Caveman B to tell Cavewoman C something and not tell her who said it.

You can throw all the high tech in the world at it, and you cannot fix human nature. We can only do that ourselves.