171–180 of 329 posts
Cool... this post reminds me of Fravia's "enemy tracking" essay from his pages of reverse engineering: https://www.darkridge.com/~jpr5/mirror/fravia.org/enemy.htm . If you've never browsed this site, prepare to enter the mother lode of rabbit holes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fascinating. How long were you a NOC for? I guess your spouse did not know of it while she was your GF. Did it impact your life negatively, having to maintain secrecy? You must have been for quite a while, I understand a long time passes before agents are fully functional.
Well, I'm allowed to talk about it publicly but I still would like to default to undersharing. It was a little over five years. Long enough. My spouse and I got married very quickly after meeting and yes the impact on one's life is real, but so is the upside and I find few online that talk about it. The upside is real. You see the extremes of humanity and it clarifies the importance of ethics in life.
Cool... this post reminds me of Fravia's "enemy tracking" essay from his pages of reverse engineering: https://www.darkridge.com/~jpr5/mirror/fravia.org/enemy.htm . If you've never browsed this site, prepare to enter the mother lode of rabbit holes...
this is why when you look up my dox or grep for my passwords, its not hard to find my fake social security number, address and password in the usual place.
in the future i want to build this into a server. What kind of server are you? Oh, I'm IIS running ASP (not rlly). send your ops down rabbit holes to nowhere instead of depriving them of the feedback they rely on. i love it.
Ah yes... I'm Skimmington Harborough, Esq., I come from a family that made its fortune in philanthropy generations ago. This seems like a pretty straightforward mechanism for covert operatives, to generate a believable (and memorizable) cover that pulls attention away and maintains coherence. That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some so…
> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona.…
Ah yes... I'm Skimmington Harborough, Esq., I come from a family that made its fortune in philanthropy generations ago. This seems like a pretty straightforward mechanism for covert operatives, to generate a believable (and memorizable) cover that pulls attention away and maintains coherence. That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some so…
> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona.…
Let's substitute some of the bits with variables...
"Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exist in the world and X, the only real option is to Y."
...and see how this holds up...
X="be rich"; Y="kill your neighbor"
Now, you might object "that's absurdly extreme!". True, I have chosen an extreme example, but only because it makes the fallacy conspicuous. Ethical principles don't have loopholes or dispensations. It's not as if big lies are bad because they're big and small lies are okay because they're small. They're both bad because they're both lies. An evil effect of one's actions may be tolerable under specific circumstances, but a means that is inherently evil doesn't cease to be evil because you have no other option to attain the desired good. Ends don't justify means.
In this case, a pseudonym is not a lie when a) the intent is not to deceive but to conceal, and b) there is no normative expectation that the name given is real and thus when you do not owe others your real name. On social media, while we know many might conclude that a pseudonym is real, generally speaking, I would say that error is a tolerable side effect (it depends on the particular social medium; LinkedIn is different than Twitter, for example). However, IMO, things start to become more dicey with active fabrication. There is a fine but definite line between lying and mental reservation. There is a difference between speaking ambiguously or evasively on the one hand and lying on the other. This places rather severe limits on what you can licitly say or express. Constructing a persona means you must actively engage in creating a fictional character that you intend people to believe is real as a means of concealing you identity. This is by definition a lie and different from allowing people to falsely infer a persona based on what is ambiguous information that is intended to conceal truths others have no right to.
"Create and post a back-story to answer (instead of avoid) the frequently asked questions."
The article's author's advice is effectively precisely because it involves lying. Lying works exactly because the default expectation based on the essential function of speech is to communicate the truth.
As a counter example, I have been largely anonymous online and offline for awhile; yes, aware it is nearly impossible to be completely anonymous, that’s fine, largely a “hobby” for me. Very direct about it, and yes, some people completely shut you out once you tell them, but vast majority don’t; while my opinion, those who do aren’t people I am interested in knowing. Very similar prior to me being largely anonymous,…
In what situations do people you don't know ask you what you do where they actually care what you respond? And why not just say that you don't want to say? Among the online friends I have anonymity is the norm.
On the other hand, I used to be in the habit of responding with some kind of bullshit, ideally at least a little suspicious but just barely plausible enough to prevent the other party from calling you on it right away. This always resulted in much more fun conversations than talking about my actual work with strangers.
Simply refusing to answer is just not socially acceptable outside of venues where anonymity is already the norm, e.g. online and IRL hacker cons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you can. But you can justify horrible decisions with any axiom. It’s not like this is a worse approach than others. Is there some rule set you’re aware of that if you follow, horrible decisions cannot be justified?
I tend to just not invent "rules" out of thin air. In absence of this supposed "rule", where "Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options", you'd need to actually consider whether a decision is immoral. The rule shortcuts that and lets you say "well, there's no other option, so I must be in the clear morally here", which would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That said, as someone who prizes ethical behavior, it's not possible to practice this and remain wholly honest without some sort of ethical loophole The primary "ethical loophole" here is that there is no viable ethical alternative. Something can not be immoral if it is the best of a series of bad options, and if you want to exsist in the world and protect your privacy, the only real option is to create a persona.…
> Pure anonymity bars you from the following activities: joining a social group, signing up for some longish term business relationship (hiring a contracter, signing up for a service), engaging in the political process, holding a job, and probably more that I cant think of. Why do you believe that’s your right? You have the right to be left alone, but in all the examples you offer you are explicitly not minding your…
I bet not. They all hide behind personas.