Geocaching and Anonymity

[Mushtang]

 

My brother and I refer to each other by our usernames online, but either one of us would be okay telling anyone our real first names if they asked. I know I wouldn't mind, and I can't imagine Vicki, I mean KBI, would either.

 

 

You have a brother (KBI) named Vicki?

 

El Diablo

It was a JOKE. See, I had just written a post suggesting that using real names in the forums was a bad thing to do.

 

The humor came when I, ironically, turned around and used my brother's "real" name. However, more humor was intended by using a name that was definitely a female's name after identifying him as my brother, which is a term used for males, and therefore couldn't possibly be his name.

 

The humor was sucked out of it when at least two people not only didn't get it but actually asked about it in the thread.

 

I admit, I'm not much of a humorist, which is probably why I work as a mechanical engineer instead of a comedy writer, but I really thought I was being obvious with that one.

 

Oh well, maybe next time.

[+4leafclover]

kind of funny...there are at least 2 logs made today on caches in my general area, where cachers refer to me by my "real" first name.

 

One where they found the cache just after me, but the other referred to a log I made on another cache owned by the same person. It just struck me as funny, after reading this thread, that that would happen.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I get email all the time addressing me by name and it sometimes takes a moment to figure out that I don't know the sender!

 

With an email address of edmanley@bham.rr.com though it isn't hard to figure out that I am Ed Manley using Birmingham RoadRunner cable!

[+DocDiTTo]

My suggestion was that we add the capability for cachers to self-identify. Or just choose to do it.

 

You're given a whole web page on which to divulge any information you wish to. Anyone who wants to put their name there is free to do so. Mine won't be appearing there any time soon, however.

 

I see tremendous gains in credibility both with each other and land managers by being willing to be accountable for our own behavior.

 

When dealing with Land managers or others in any form of official capacity, I use only my real name. I'd feel stupid introducing myself any other way. But as far as log books and online go, I use my handle. Anyone who's met me in person knows my real name -- I don't keep it a secret. But I don't advertise it online for identity thieves to use either.

 

No, I am not in favor of unbridled Internet Police! I just believe that folks (I, at least) wouldn't trade a broken MatchBox car for a Raine geocoin if everyone knew that TheAlabamaRambler was Ed Manley from Irondale Alabama!

 

I don't consider the quality of trade items to be relevant in my decision to keep my real name off of public web sites. My privacy online is much more important than the contents of any cache. You may feel differently, Mr. Manley and that's fine. The day my real name is available as part of this web site is the day DocDiTTo dies and some new anonymous cacher appears that no one's ever heard of. It's not about hiding, it's about protecting privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I don't need my identity to be public unless I choose to make it so. And that is my choice, no one elses.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I tried to ring in on this yesterday but the site was unresponsive for a while.

 

it is true that people of poor character get a little "cocky" when they think they will be anonymous.

 

I really have little new to add, but "dittos" on not needing any new features and forcing revelation of personal data has loads of bad and will do absolutely NO good.

 

It is not my intention to hijack this thread, but If I may use analogy to recent current events, please note that Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone" and the recent mass murderer's name is well known. He broke every law in the book and did NOT try to disguise his identity.

 

Unfortunately when dealing with someone who does not care if he is caught, there is not much short of physical force or barriers that can stop him.

 

In reference to forum posters, there ARE these kind of people and there ARE barriers that can be used to theoretically stop them. BUT...

 

Unless GC decided to hire a private Dick to check out every new account applicant, there would still be plenty of ways a person could (and many WOULD) sign up anonymously. And even the investigator would fail sometimes and let an unsavoury person through (witness the rare but occasional sworn police officer that turns out to be a psycho- even after a VERY extensive background check).

 

edit: missing "NOT"

 

So to me the bottom line is:

 

1. The more information you make easily accessible the more information will be in the wrong hands.

2. If anyone WANTS their name known all they have to do is type it in on their profile page and/or their sig line.

3. People who WANT the appearance and feeling of anonymity to enable their "beer muscles" will find a way to get the feeling of anonymity they need anyway.

4. There is no true anonymity (on the internet or anywhere else) and anyone who thinks there is is tripping.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Confucius' Cat

[+Renegade Knight]

...What have we got to hide?

 

That's often the loaded question asked of a lot of people for a lot of things.

"If you have nothing to hide then you won't mind the Patriot Act to be expanded and Homeland Security to monitor all calls". Actually yes I would.

 

In geocaching it would change things. There would be a lot more ghosts, and a lot less regualar members, and less forum use.

[+Confucius' Cat]

"Those who have nothing to hide have the most to lose."

 

I don't know if anyone else said that, but the point is that the real losers when rights are given up are NOT the ones we are trying to inhibit, but the ones we are trying to "protect."

 

A good case in point is the backlash of random drug testing that used to be all the rage. Many good people lost jobs and had to spend their savings on lawyers and endure trials and sullying of their good names to prove their TRUE innocence. And the last I checked drug abuse was as common as ever.

 

The right of privacy is VERY important to those with nothing to hide. Let's not give it up in a vain attempt to regulate those who SHOULD be hiding.

 

If we need to reveal all, maybe we should all be NudeCachers?

[Clan Riffster]

If we need to reveal all, maybe we should all be NudeCachers?

Trust me when I say, you don't want that to happen. Me in a Speedo is like a baloon with a rubber band around it.

[Nudecacher]

If we need to reveal all, maybe we should all be NudeCachers?

 

Hey, here I am. That would be a lot of fun!

 

I obviously don't have anything to hide. My real name, address, and phone number have been posted. I considered what that meant when I did it and decided to go ahead with it.

 

I used to include the LARCnudists website, where I have been the webmaster, in my profile, but I was asked to remove the link by Groundspeak and not to post the link in my signature line or on the forums after it had been there for three years. LARC is a non-profit social club, but the resort where they reside is not, so the URL was considered to be a commercial reference. There are a few people who object to my existence, and they hound Groundspeak to have as much information about me removed as possible. That makes it some what more difficult for me to be open about who I am.

 

Most of the local cachers and many in the forums know my real name, and I always include it and a real email address when I reply to the world wide fan emails I receive.

 

Gary Young

aka Nudecacher

[+Confucius' Cat]

I clicked your link a while back. it was pretty harmless IMO. But i can understand GC's reluctance to "host" it.

 

What i think is interesting in terms of public nudity, is the "look the other way" attitude of the governmental PTB.

 

Ferinstance, in Florida there is a famous nude beach on Federal property. Florida law is kinda vague but the gist of it is actually nude beaches are illegal.

 

FerMoreInstance, (I know my memory is right on this although i have not been able to find any mention of it in recent times) Right here in Indiana, public nudity is to my understanding basicly illegal, but the official State Highway map thet you could get for free in any rest stop used to have an ad for a nude resort in Indiana.

 

I am not a nudist but I am very open. I really don't care if my body is seen in appropriate venues. God made two designs and I have seen and been seen by both. But still privacy in many aspects is very important to me and there is very little of it left.

 

Being a cacher and posting online has led me to some interesting lessons about just what to share and what not to share. i am not expert at discerning the difference, so I am gravitating toward MORE privacy and LESS disclosure and LESS "paper trail" for all to see.

 

IMO, the bad of revealing things unnecessarily outweigh the good that might come out of greater disclosure.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I am not advocating open identification in all areas.

 

My wife and I belong to a couple of clubs, Gymno-Vita in Alabama and Cypress Cove in Florida, and don't care who knows it.

 

However, both clubs, and most like them, are very camera shy and privacy is required, because simple membership has been known to cost people jobs and even have the government called in to 'protect' their kids!

 

So yes, there are reasons not to advertise one's participation even in things that may be completely above-board and legitimate.

 

I wouldn't have thought geocaching was one of them, but some good arguments are being made here.

Edited April 24, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Confucius' Cat]

However, both clubs, and most like them, are very camera shy and privacy is required, because simple membership has been known to cost people jobs and even have the government called in to 'protect' their kids!

Bold: Florida is notorious for their "protection" of kids. Which often means virtually DESTROYING a normally functional family.

 

It is the "guilty till proven innocent" functions of some such government agencies and other "do gooders" that make it very important these days to limit what information one publicizes.

 

Knowing the FL HRS (varies from county to county) I would not be surprised if some kids don't get taken away for geocaching, since they might get into a thorn bush or a nest of fire ants. All it would take is an anonymous hot line call. i have no recent knowledge of their activities but 20 years ago they were totally out of control.

 

i wonder if geocaching has ever cost anyone their job (Other than for getting caught "goofing off" on company time), Just for the perceived nature of the activity?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

i wonder if geocaching has ever cost anyone their job (Other than for getting caught "goofing off" on company time), Just for the perceived nature of the activity?

I've never heard of such just because of geocaching, but I have often wondered how much time geocachers spend online researching, talking about and logging the game when they are being paid to be working.

 

If someone hasn't been fired for it yet it's only a matter of time!

[+sTeamTraen]

i wonder if geocaching has ever cost anyone their job (Other than for getting caught "goofing off" on company time), Just for the perceived nature of the activity?

I've never heard of such just because of geocaching, but I have often wondered how much time geocachers spend online researching, talking about and logging the game when they are being paid to be working.

 

If someone hasn't been fired for it yet it's only a matter of time!

 

Anyone with 100+ finds is a no-brain hire for me: Firstly, you know they can solve problems, handle adversity, and work with incomplete information. And secondly, you can trade cool stories with them.

[+sbell111]

I have to agree with the general trend of answers so far.

 

As far as rudeness goes, I know plenty of people by their real names and faces who are jerks. The anonymity might allow them to exaggerate their behavior, but it doesn't determine or change their character.

 

I agree. I'm rude, pompous and sometimes downright nasty and I go by my real name (well sort of, Snat is the first half of my last name).

 

As someone that has spent considerable amount of time conversing with you, I know better....

That's not his real name?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+sbell111]

My last name is in my geocaching name and I routinely call myelf by my first. Further, since I started selling geocaching stuff a few years ago, hundreds (thousands?) of geocachers have been provided my home address, phone number, and personal email addy.

 

That being said, I would not support any drive to formalize the disclosure process. I think that it would do more harm than good.

[Luckless]

I've always felt the best way to protect identity online is to give out too much information. I'd love a program that gave information gathering spamware a few thousand bits of info to search through. I suspect they'd stop trying to get my info if they got a ton of false info and garbage.

[+angevine]

I don't hide behind my online persona, I am him (except when it is my wife posting......)

Dang! See? All this time for some reason I thought StarBrand was a she! ooops!

 

Oddly enough, that's a mistake I make fairly often with people's names. And while one doesn't *need* to know the sex of people with whom one is talking, I find it's a little off-putting to make an assumption and find it wrong.

 

Hmm... not a good idea to make assumptions about people ... hmm ... have to remember that one!

 

-- Jeannette

[Luckless]

Went to a CITO event this past weekend. Had to fill out a volunteer release form for the state. They wanted my address and other info which I gave them. Also wanted my social security number. Oh no way- left that line blank. These forms were collected by putting them in a pile on the table where anyone could see them.

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

In our world, I would be hesitant to ask the ladies to post pics or any personal information publicly. No need to make it easy on stalkers or pervs.

 

Darn !!!

[+DudleyGrunt]

I'm for continued anonymity on the site. When dealing with people individually, I don't mind divulging my true name or other info. Just the other day, I left my name and cell number in a note on another cacher's vehicle while out working on the Cache Across Maryland (CAM) - they had an MGS sticker on their bumper. Turns out she wasn't headed the direction I was, but knew that there was a group of 5 just a few minutes behind me headed for the same cache. We got in touch and did the next two together. Afterward, we all went to dinner together. If I hadn't been willing to share my number with another, unknown, cacher, I might have missed out on hanging with some great folks.

 

Online, however, I like to keep some level of privacy.

 

I recently joined a scouting forum and used my real name as my log in, but still wouldn't post my address and phone number on the site. I have begun, though, to wonder if I should have used a somewhat less revealing name there. While I wouldn't post anything out of line or make any personal attacks, I think there some value in being able to talk to other scout leaders (or parents) about issues and problems I've had in my den / pack and get their input and suggestions. I have discussed some issues, without using individuals names, but if another parent in my den or pack were to read them, they could concievably take offense. I'm thinking of letting my current username die and create a new one.

 

Dave

[+wimseyguy]

I have to agree with the general trend of answers so far.

 

As far as rudeness goes, I know plenty of people by their real names and faces who are jerks. The anonymity might allow them to exaggerate their behavior, but it doesn't determine or change their character.

 

I agree. I'm rude, pompous and sometimes downright nasty and I go by my real name (well sort of, Snat is the first half of my last name).

Yea, but you're from NJ. That's the normal expected behavior up there.

[+VeryLost]

I think at least one segment of folks would quit immediately. There are ladies out there that don't put any identifying information on their profile to let others know they are female.

 

Back before everyone had heard about this 'Internet' thing, I used to run a free public access BBS. Female BBS users were fairly rare, but on the occasions when I did have one register, I always gave them the option to change their gender record or identity information to avoid being hassled. Much of the male BBS population was absolutely pathetic in how they reacted to females.

 

Things are better now (well, they seem better to me, but being male I'm not really in a position of certainty) though there's still plenty of room for improvement.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My experience with anonymity was formed long before the Internet as we know it, in the late '60s and '70s with the popularity of CB radio (Citizen Band).

 

The FCC allowed CB radios to be sold at retail. Registration was required at the pont-of-sale, but clerks at K-Mart and truck stops were hardly going to adhere to that. Anyone could buy one, and while a license was required to operate it, so many people ignored that requirement that it was soon unenforceable.

 

Unable to force retail clerks to register CB sales, the FCC went with an honor system - a license application in every CB package that the buyer was expected to fill out and mail in, along with a fee. Yeah, right, that lasted about ten minutes. (The same honor system exists today, by the way, with the FRS/GMRS radios so many geocachers use. There is a license application in every package. How many of you registered and paid for the license, per federal law? I don't know that answer, but am willing to bet that it's less than 5%).

 

Up until that time folks were pretty much identifiable in their communications... spoken or print.

 

Radio communications were controlled by the FCC and station operators were identifiable, regulated, licensed and held responsible for all broadcasts.

 

Ham radio operators have to know both their radio theory and operating regulations, so to this day Hams are required to pass tests to get various levels of license, each level giving them more operating capabilities.

 

CB was supposed to be the same, without the knowledge requirement. It was to be radio for the masses, a tool instead of a science, but came at a time when folks didn't much care for government regulation, and CB became so popular so fast that there was no way for the government to keep up with regulating licenses or broadcasts.

 

CB soon became America's first real chance to communicate anonymously, and man did they ever!

 

Soon wimps in Pintos were insulting burly truck drivers, getting off on the fact that they could upset this guy with impunity... he couldn't find them!

 

That led, quickly and inevitably, to out-of-control profanity and sexual harassment. Porn had always been anonymous and underground, but now nut cases with twisted minds could say anything to any woman (or man!) and not get caught.

 

It is absolutely amazing how many people have severely twisted sexual thoughts and feelings, and CB offered them a chance to pour it all out without being held responsible.

 

It soon got so bad that no woman could key up a mic without perverts pouring out of the airwaves to say the crudest of things to her. Today no self-respecting woman can use CB. Interestingly homosexuality and accusations thereof along with active solicitations are coming from men at an unbelievable rate! It's stunning how twisted American's sexual proclivities are!

 

Race was another hot button. At a time of great racial strife CB offered the racists an avenue to harass anyone with an accent with total impunity. To this day a black man can't talk on CB radio without being threatened and harassed.

 

So, a huge number, maybe even MOST, given anonymity and safety over CB radio, exposed the hidden secret of their collective dysfunctional psyche. Given anonymity they unleash the filth they had been keeping inside.

 

The FCC gave up enforcement and regulation as it was unmanageable, and today CB is a wasteland of violence, sexual dysfunction and racism so extreme that it is for all practical purposes unusable.

 

Amateur (ham) radio took a different course - to broadcast on ham frequencies one had to buy a radio capable of those frequencies, and sales of these radios were pretty tightly controlled. Sellers have to be registered and buyers have to be licensed (well, they're supposed to be anyway... as time goes on the FCC is losing its enforcement grip and we're getting more illegal operators. Still, hams will do their own policing if the FCC can't, so it remains a pretty clean community).

 

The ham operator community developed an ethic of high broadcast standards and of self-policing. Every ham operator has a license issued by the FCC and that license and their true identity is checked and published by the FCC. If I talk on ham radio I have to identify myself at the start of every broadcast, and every ten minutes thereafter, by my licensed call sign, W4AGA (yup, Whiskey For the Alabama Geocachers Association!) and, if I fail to do so, other hams will refuse to talk to me.

 

Should I continue to broadcast illegally or say anything foul or insulting I will be reported to the FCC, and local hams and the FCC enforcement unit will set up triangulation to determine where my radio is, confiscate it and arrest me! And they have extremely low tolerance.

 

Anyone can go to the FCC database or qrz.com and look up any ham operator's full name, home address and telephone number. We are all public and accountable for our communications. While automobile tag registration is mostly private to the government agencies, Amateur radio operators have their call sign on their tag. Anyone who sees my car can identify me with a simple public query to the FCC or qrz,com!

 

So - two paths. One anonymous, the other public. The anonymous path quickly became garbage. The public path remains, if not pristine, at least clean and controlled.

 

Now comes the internet. Conceived to be controlled, every Network Interface Card (NIC) was numbered, as was every Internet connection and Internet Service Provider (ISP). That quickly became unmanageable due to the very architecture of the 'net, so all the sudden folks have access to an anonymous print medium.

 

You may have heard that business and government users built the Internet, and physically they did, but content came from pornography and continues to be the most profitable use of the Internet by far!

 

Anonymous posting of porn was one thing, but the selling of it... now that's big bidness!

 

We all know how that story progresses.

 

Having watched the story of anonymous vs. public behavior develop I have to say that I prefer a public world, where folks are free to post whatever they are willing to be accountable for.

 

In theory that's why sock puppet accounts, fake anonymous memberships, are banned here. Given anonymity people will unleash their silent beast, and Groundspeak has no way to control these frums without identifiable accounts.

 

We may be anonymous to one another, but Groundspeak knows who we are... without that control these forums would go south in a hurry!

Edited April 24, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+egami]

I have mixed feelings. Where I would happily give anyone my real life info here (and have numerous times in private) I also wouldn't want my kids identities to easily accessible. Granted, they don't post here, but they might when they are older...in which case they will be accountable to me.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ah, but therein lies the fallacy!

 

As has been mentioned in this thread, and has been exemplified many times in these forums when sock puppet accounts have been busted, you are not anonymous to someone who has the knowledge of how to hunt you down!

 

I don't know how to do it and don't care to learn, but I do know that every internet user can be found by those who choose to.

 

That means that anyone who uses the internet and thinks they are being anonymous is quite wrong... and that can be far more dangerous than being public!

 

Much like the lock on your front door is designed to keep honest folks out, the smart homeowner realizes that is no protection at all from criminals set on entering your home.

 

If you think you are safe but in fact are not someone's eventually gonna get you!

[+egami]

Ah, but therein lies the fallacy!

 

As has been mentioned in this thread, and has been exemplified many times in these forums when sock puppet accounts have been busted, you are not anonymous to someone who has the knowledge of how to hunt you down!

 

I don't know how to do it and don't care to learn, but I do know that every internet user can be found by those who choose to.

 

That means that anyone who uses the internet and thinks they are being anonymous is quite wrong... and that can be far more dangerous than being public!

 

Much like the lock on your front door is designed to keep honest folks out, the smart homeowner realizes that is no protection at all from criminals set on entering your home.

 

If you think you are safe but in fact are not someone's eventually gonna get you!

 

Working in IT and having worked in the telecom industry for many years I can assure you that if I so desired I could create a virtually untrackable method of posting on this forum by everyone that posts here, including the administration.

 

Now, are there still means in which to find me? Yes, but I guarantee you no one here has the type of access and connections it would take to discover where I live.

 

The point remains...I wouldn't want to hand out that information for my children posting here to the 99.9% here that aren't super top secret covert agent researcher types.

Edited April 24, 2007 by egami

[+VeryLost]

The same honor system exists today, by the way, with the FRS/GMRS radios so many geocachers use. There is a license application in every package. How many of you registered and paid for the license, per federal law? I don't know that answer, but am willing to bet that it's less than 5%.

 

I did, but I expect you're right about the 5% ceiling.

[+Always & Forever 5]

The same honor system exists today, by the way, with the FRS/GMRS radios so many geocachers use. There is a license application in every package. How many of you registered and paid for the license, per federal law? I don't know that answer, but am willing to bet that it's less than 5%.

 

Actually, I believe that FRS radios are license-exempt, and only the upper 8 channels of GMRS radios require a license, unless I'm way off base...

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Working in IT and having worked in the telecom industry for many years I can assure you that if I so desired I could create a virtually untrackable method of posting on this forum by the everyone that posts here including the administration.

 

Now, are there still means in which to find me? Yes, but I guarantee you no one here has the type of access and connections it would take to discover where I live.

 

The point remains...I wouldn't want to hand out that information for my children posting.

 

Yes, I am sure folks can be truly anonymous on the web if they have the knowledge and dedication, but I think they are the rare exceptions to the rule who do that level of obscuring who we are. Most of us are easily found.

 

Privacy and protection of children is often heard as the reason for anonymity, but is it a real threat or media hype?

 

Certainly one occurance is too many, but I think I read somewhere that kids are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be abused by strangers. So yes, the danger is real, but is it likely?

 

If it is highly unlikely does it make sense for it to guide our life?

 

If you really want to protect your child do not ever let them ride in an automobile! That's where the real danger is! Yet we write the high probability of automobile accident off as 'unavoidable risk'. It's not unavoidable... slow down the speed limits and build the cars with NASCAR-style roll cages. Problem solved. But we'd rather focus on the far less dangerous chance of internet predators, because that costs us nothing.

 

I also believe that kids are in far more danger from the people around them than from strangers on the internet, yet stranger-danger is everyone's outcry and reasoning.

 

The TV shows about child predators don't address the fact that the kids get on the internet, give out their address, engage in sex talk and invite the stranger in... instead of placing any responsibility on the child the media wants you to focus on the extremely rare predator who operates without the child's cooperation.

 

We are all scared to death of something that in fact rarely happens, but turn a blind eye to the real danger!

 

Anyhoo, it is obvious from the responses that self-identification in geocaching (I never suggested it be compelled) is not going to happen, as risk is seen as outweighing benefit.

 

Great discussion though!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The same honor system exists today, by the way, with the FRS/GMRS radios so many geocachers use. There is a license application in every package. How many of you registered and paid for the license, per federal law? I don't know that answer, but am willing to bet that it's less than 5%.

 

Actually, I believe that FRS radios are license-exempt, and only the upper 8 channels of GMRS radios require a license, unless I'm way off base...

You are correct - on most FRS/GMRS radios channels 15-23 are GMRS and only use of those channels require the license.

 

Of those who do use these GMRS frequencies it is my belief that few get licenses.

[+egami]

Yes, I am sure folks can be truly anonymous on the web if they have the knowledge and dedication, but I think they are the rare exceptions to the rule who do that level of obscuring who we are. Most of us are easily found.

 

Privacy and protection of children is often heard as the reason for anonymity, but is it a real threat or media hype?

 

Certainly one occurance is too many, but I think I read somewhere that kids are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be abused by strangers. So yes, the danger is real, but is it likely?

 

If it is highly unlikely does it make sense for it to guide our life?

 

If you really want to protect your child do not ever let them ride in an automobile! That's where the real danger is! Yet we write the high probability of automobile accident off as 'unavoidable risk'. It's not unavoidable... slow down the speed limits and build the cars with NASCAR-style roll cages. Problem solved. But we'd rather focus on the far less dangerous chance of internet predators, because that costs us nothing.

 

I also believe that kids are in far more danger from the people around them than from strangers on the internet, yet stranger-danger is everyone's outcry and reasoning.

 

The TV shows about child predators don't address the fact that the kids get on the internet, give out their address, engage in sex talk and invite the stranger in... instead of placing any responsibility on the child the media wants you to focus on the extremely rare predator who operates without the child's cooperation.

 

We are all scared to death of something that in fact rarely happens, but turn a blind eye to the real danger!

 

Anyhoo, it is obvious from the responses that self-identification in geocaching (I never suggested it be compelled) is not going to happen, as risk is seen as outweighing benefit.

 

Great discussion though!

 

Well, you've taken this to a level far beyond where I intended it to go...back to the point at hand, which I interpreted as basically having open profiles for geocachers, I would not be for it accross the boards. All obscure statistics aside I see no need to openly profile my children. To draw an analogy...I'll let them interact on the web just as I will let them ride in a car, but I am not going to give them sensible, logical protection in not advertising their age, sex location as I would not send them out without their carseats and safety belts.

 

I really don't think I was being ridiculous in my expectations for protecting them to warrant the comments about the car and lightnening. I am simply talking about sensible, reasonable privacy...more in line with not taking candy from strangers or talking to suspicious strangers when out and about in the world.

 

And I don't want to detract from your initial post...I agree with you for the most part.

Edited April 24, 2007 by egami

[Clan Riffster]

Should I continue to broadcast illegally or say anything foul or insulting I will be reported to the FCC, and local hams and the FCC enforcement unit will set up triangulation to determine where my radio is, confiscate it and arrest me! And they have extremely low tolerance.

Ed, there's a HAM operator in Chuluota Florida who could use a bit less tolerance. He's bleeding over into his neighbor's TV, stereo and portable telephone every night. I got dragged into this as a deputy, because the complainant got tired of dealing with the FCC. When I told him that I don't have the authority to enforce FCC regulations, he asked if I could contact someone in the FCC regarding the problem. Our dispatchers, (who are usually speed demons when it comes to locating folks by phone), spent over an hour tracking down a human that I could speak with. When I got this guy on the phone, he told me there was no longer a budget for the enforcement arm of the FCC.

"Huh?"

There wasn't even a need for triangulation. I gave the man the offender's full name and address, and he still refused to take action, stating that Florida didn't have anybody staffed for citing violators. He got kinda huffy when I asked him what the point was in having rules without enforcement, and asked him if he happened to work for the U.N.

[Ann_Brush]

Given GPS location of balcony > load into Google Earth > get nearby address > load nearby address into county tax record system > get property parcel number and coords > recheck parcel coords in Google Earth to see if they contain the balcony > back to lacal tax records to get name and complete address of owner > now load name and address into phone records and get phone number. It's REALLY easy folk, plus all this information is avail from numerous sources it's impossible to hide - ever been to court (even if you were a plaintif) there is a court record for all to see and and seeing as court disputes often focus on property they are loaded with addresses etc. There is no real way to hide but I still dont advertise.

[Suscrofa]

Nobody having a GPS is really annymous ! The governement knows were you are and therefore who you are !

[+egami]

Nobody having a GPS is really annymous ! The governement knows were you are and therefore who you are !

 

No they don't...what do think the tinfoil on my head is for?!

[+the hermit crabs]

Granted, I have not chosen a user name that is very concealing, but it shows he had to do a little research on me, and he was making a direct statement to me by using my wifes name in his e-mail. It was rather disheartening. All his communication to me was through anonymous e-mails using the geocache.com e-mail system, so I no nothing about who he is except his username, and actually I really don't care.

When I get email from a stranger through geocaching.com, I generally click on their profile before responding. I see that your profile page lists your wife's name (and yours, and those of your two sons). Maybe the person that you emailed did the same thing that I would have and glanced at your profile, in which case it wouldn't have required any research or digging other than a one-second single click to get her name.

 

(edit: I agree though that it was rather creepy of him to use her name like that!)

Edited April 24, 2007 by the hermit crabs

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... There wasn't even a need for triangulation. I gave the man the offender's full name and address, and he still refused to take action, stating that Florida didn't have anybody staffed for citing violators. He got kinda huffy when I asked him what the point was in having rules without enforcement, and asked him if he happened to work for the U.N.

I can understand your frustration!

 

There is in fact still active enforcement, but only for the most egregious violators due to budget constraints.

 

Unfortunately for citizens, the FCC couldn't do anything if they did have the budget - that agency decided long ago that RFI (radio frequency interference) is the problem of the neighbor, not the station operator!

 

If they took the time to consider the complaint you mention, they would tell the neighbor to get proper filters for their electronics!

 

My radios create a buzz on my living room TV when I transmit on certain frequencies - when my wife complains I tell her the FCC says it's her problem!

 

If the offending operator is generating RFI due to excess transmitting power (7 watts on CB, 1500 watts on amateur bands) then indeed the FCC will step in... but you first have to measure his emissions and prove that he's over the limit!

 

Sux, but there it is!

[+Renegade Knight]

Should I continue to broadcast illegally or say anything foul or insulting I will be reported to the FCC, and local hams and the FCC enforcement unit will set up triangulation to determine where my radio is, confiscate it and arrest me! And they have extremely low tolerance.

Ed, there's a HAM operator in Chuluota Florida who could use a bit less tolerance. He's bleeding over into his neighbor's TV, stereo and portable telephone every night. I got dragged into this as a deputy, because the complainant got tired of dealing with the FCC. When I told him that I don't have the authority to enforce FCC regulations, he asked if I could contact someone in the FCC regarding the problem. Our dispatchers, (who are usually speed demons when it comes to locating folks by phone), spent over an hour tracking down a human that I could speak with. When I got this guy on the phone, he told me there was no longer a budget for the enforcement arm of the FCC.

"Huh?"

There wasn't even a need for triangulation. I gave the man the offender's full name and address, and he still refused to take action, stating that Florida didn't have anybody staffed for citing violators. He got kinda huffy when I asked him what the point was in having rules without enforcement, and asked him if he happened to work for the U.N.

 

The beauty of the law is that it will kick in when the neighbors break in and bust up his equipment with a baseball bat.

 

We have the same problem with cache maggots. The maggot enjoys protection becuase it's not worth the trouble. But if we ever do figure out who it is, and do something, then we get in trouble. Unless we do things to torture the guy that fall under the "worth the bother" net.

 

Laws that won't be enforced should not even be on the books. They just become tools for either harassment or for the rich to use against the poor.

[+Confucius' Cat]

*chimes ring*

So many cool points to respond to!

 

I have discussed some issues, without using individuals names, but if another parent in my den or pack were to read them, they could concievably take offense. I'm thinking of letting my current username die and create a new one.

 

Dave

I have found that people take offence at things that i would not remotely consider offensive.

The unpredictable nature of peoples' offence taking makes perhaps the best case for a "minimalist" approach, both to revealing of information and in post content.

 

raddidio, YES! Being a radio PROFESSIONAL, as well as a ham, it is a subject near and dear.

<snipped long and accurate history>

The FCC gave up enforcement and regulation as it was unmanageable, and today CB is a wasteland of violence, sexual dysfunction and racism so extreme that it is for all practical purposes unusable.

 

Historically i would agree with this statement. However, granted I have not monitored CB much recently, but what i have heard is a far cry from what you describe. At least the truckers are a lot more polite than they used to be.

 

I still consider CB pretty much useless, but that is primarily from a technical standpoint AM sucks basicaly, and HF has too much interference range and not enough reliable coverage range to be practical- the hams gave up the CB band reluctantly, but not entirely without good reason- it is crappy spectrum.

 

<more good history snipped>

 

The ham operator community developed an ethic of high broadcast standards and of self-policing. Every ham operator has a license issued by the FCC and that license and their true identity is checked and published by the FCC. If I talk on ham radio I have to identify myself at the start of every broadcast, and every ten minutes thereafter, by my licensed call sign, W4AGA (yup, Whiskey For the Alabama Geocachers Association!) and, if I fail to do so, other hams will refuse to talk to me.

 

The bold is the KEY.

 

This same technique will work with caching too... if they place them (bad caches) and nobody comes, soon people will quit placing bad ones. A rating system would help hasten the process, but that's another well beaten topic.

 

Should I continue to broadcast illegally or say anything foul or insulting I will be reported to the FCC, and local hams and the FCC enforcement unit will set up triangulation to determine where my radio is, confiscate it and arrest me! And they have extremely low tolerance.

 

The FCC is NOT going to do any enforcement of any kind unless you hand them the case on a silver platter and then only if a broadcast station is being interfered with.

 

I once had pretty good information that an unknown perpetrator was deliberately jamming Melbourne FL Police communications. The cops were pretty sure who it was but did not have the technology to prove it and nail him. Of course the FCC DOES, and they have a field office in Tampa, some 150 miles or so away.

 

No amount of public officials complaining could get the FCC to come out.

 

Then one Friday I turned on a demonstration point-to-point 900Mhz transmitter for the state lottery commission and its antenna was mounted a little too close to the local news-talk AM station's studio-transmitter link (they were donating the tower space to the state). Long story short, the STL died from overload as soon as the state transmitter was turned on (which no one knew happened). The AM station went to wireline back-up and the FCC was on scene in about 4 hours!

 

<more snippity-snip>

 

We may be anonymous to one another, but Groundspeak knows who we are... without that control these forums would go south in a hurry!

 

And I would submit that that control is sufficient and seems to be working well.

 

We are all scared to death of something that in fact rarely happens, but turn a blind eye to the real danger!

That, my friend is the way of the world today! Might I suggest the real attention goes where the money goes? Or is that a little too simplistic?

 

Ed, there's a HAM operator in Chuluota Florida who could use a bit less tolerance. He's bleeding over into his neighbor's TV, stereo and portable telephone every night.

These cases are almost always caused by cheap *** consumer equipment that does not have proper design for the RF environment. Unfortunately it is something that just has to be lived with in most cases.

 

If the "ham" operator is operating illegally, the FCC could act, but probably won't (see above). But chances are, especially if the person truly is a ham and not a CB operator or otherwise operating an illegal transmitter, the ham probably IS operating legally and not doing anything wrong.

 

What surprises me, if indeed the "offending" neighbour is a ham, is that heshe hasn't sat down with the neighbour and attempted to eliminate the interference. This is typically what hams DO in these situations. I would inquire if perhaps there is some kind of neighbourhood feud underlying the incident, unrelated to the alleged interference.

 

Granted, I have not chosen a user name that is very concealing, but it shows he had to do a little research on me, and he was making a direct statement to me by using my wifes name in his e-mail. It was rather disheartening. All his communication to me was through anonymous e-mails using the geocache.com e-mail system, so I no nothing about who he is except his username, and actually I really don't care.

When I get email from a stranger through geocaching.com, I generally click on their profile before responding. I see that your profile page lists your wife's name (and yours, and those of your two sons). Maybe the person that you emailed did the same thing that I would have and glanced at your profile, in which case it wouldn't have required any research or digging other than a one-second single click to get her name.

 

(edit: I agree though that it was rather creepy of him to use her name like that!)

I wear my company badge pretty much all the time. Strangers sometimes call me "Dave" (Now where do I know HIM from?) - DUH! it's right there on my belt!

 

Sometimes we overlook the obvious. (remind me to never rob a bank!)

 

The beauty of the law is that it will kick in when the neighbors break in and bust up his equipment with a baseball bat.

 

Aint that the truth!

 

<snip>

 

Laws that won't be enforced should not even be on the books. They just become tools for either harassment or for the rich to use against the poor.

And finally, AMEN to that! It seems there is no common sense left anymore, especially amongst lawmakers. I would say MOST of the drivel that comes out of Washington these days is either totally unenforceable or so full of loopholes that it has nothing much except undesired effect.

[+El Diablo]

I have to agree with the general trend of answers so far.

 

As far as rudeness goes, I know plenty of people by their real names and faces who are jerks. The anonymity might allow them to exaggerate their behavior, but it doesn't determine or change their character.

 

I agree. I'm rude, pompous and sometimes downright nasty and I go by my real name (well sort of, Snat is the first half of my last name).

 

As someone that has spent considerable amount of time conversing with you, I know better....

That's not his real name?

 

Nope. The rest of the world knows him by another name. Only a few of us know who he really is.

 

El Diablo

Edited April 25, 2007 by El Diablo

[Clan Riffster]

I would inquire if perhaps there is some kind of neighbourhood feud underlying the incident, unrelated to the alleged interference.

We live in a world of infinite possibilities, and I acknowledge myself to be fairly naive, so it's possible. My observations were;

The complainant was an elderly gentleman and his wife. If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere in their seventies. They seemed as nice as can be. They told me they tried speaking to the offender, and were dealt with rudely. When I talked to the offender, I was also dealt with rudely. I can't type verbatim what he told me without suffering the wrath of Ground speak, but it was words to the effect of, "You guys can't do anything to me. Get off my property", followed by a slamming door.

 

The husband passed away shortly after this incident, and the wife moved, so in one sense, the problem was solved.

[+egami]

Given GPS location of balcony > load into Google Earth > get nearby address > load nearby address into county tax record system > get property parcel number and coords > recheck parcel coords in Google Earth to see if they contain the balcony > back to lacal tax records to get name and complete address of owner > now load name and address into phone records and get phone number. It's REALLY easy folk, plus all this information is avail from numerous sources it's impossible to hide - ever been to court (even if you were a plaintif) there is a court record for all to see and and seeing as court disputes often focus on property they are loaded with addresses etc. There is no real way to hide but I still dont advertise.

 

If I didn't give my GPS location and I was masking my internet traffic you wouldn't have a clue where to start.

 

But, yes, with just a key piece of information you can determine more than most people anticipate.

Edited April 25, 2007 by egami

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Not to take this too far afield, but since we've touched on it here is a representative sampling of FCC Enforcement Letters that may give you insight into the kinds of things the FCC gets involved in re the amateur radio service.

 

You can get fined, have your equipment confiscated and even land in jail, but man you have to work at it! Hard. For a long time!

 

The last arrest I know of was a fellow in CA who violated essentially ALL of the rules for years, had his hand slapped several times, and finally interfered with ambulance communications.

 

Still, the laws exist and can be enforced quickly if they so chose. Witness this excerpt from the January '07 letters where they sent an agent to triangulate and locate an illegal operator:

Background

 

The Philadelphia Office received information that you were operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 147.560 MHz and 439.850 MHz. In response, the Philadelphia Office conducted an investigation between August 2006 and October 2006. An agent used direction finding techniques to determine that you apparently operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 439.850 MHz from your residence on September 19, 2006, between 8:45 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. and from your vehicle on October 24, 2006, between 5:30 p.m. and 6:02 p.m. In addition, on September 12, 2006, the agent used direction finding techniques to determine that you apparently operated a repeater station on the frequency 147.560 MHz from One Commerce Square in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 

Back to our regularly scheduled topic.

Edited April 25, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Renegade Knight]

...The husband passed away shortly after this incident, and the wife moved, so in one sense, the problem was solved.

 

That's sad.

 

Too bad Mr. Rude Neighbor didn't really stop and think that he was screwing up one of the few forms of entertainment that the elderly enjoy. Worse the last TV the guy ever got to watch was FUBAR. The neighbors thumb print on this world is clear.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I would inquire if perhaps there is some kind of neighbourhood feud underlying the incident, unrelated to the alleged interference.

We live in a world of infinite possibilities, and I acknowledge myself to be fairly naive, so it's possible. My observations were;

The complainant was an elderly gentleman and his wife. If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere in their seventies. They seemed as nice as can be. They told me they tried speaking to the offender, and were dealt with rudely. When I talked to the offender, I was also dealt with rudely. I can't type verbatim what he told me without suffering the wrath of Ground speak, but it was words to the effect of, "You guys can't do anything to me. Get off my property", followed by a slamming door.

 

The husband passed away shortly after this incident, and the wife moved, so in one sense, the problem was solved.

Only one more question on this off topic topic:

 

Was the offender a licensed amateur radio operator? I find it very difficult to believe a licensed ham would act that way. But like you say,

We live in a world of infinite possibilities

[Clan Riffster]

Was the offender a licensed amateur radio operator?

Honestly, I have no idea. Other than him yelling at me, we didn't converse. I don't know if the FCC guy could've looked him up by name. I didn't think to ask. Ed? You might be the best one to address this. If he had spoken to me, he could've shown me anything, cuz I wouldn't know a real HAM license from Shinola.

[+Confucius' Cat]

<Ref FCC>

You can get fined, have your equipment confiscated and even land in jail, but man you have to work at it! Hard. For a long time!

i think this is quite relevant to our topic.

I remember back in the time you refer when CB was young and people had just begun to break the law on a regular basis after discovering they could have anonymity. This was the time (about 1965) that I first discovered radio (CB).

 

Our neighbour had a CB. He operated strictly legally, using his call sign and strictly observing the allotted talk time limits and a zillion other rules that the FCC actually enforced at that time.

 

He showed me an actual "ticket" he had gotten from the FCC for... get this... talking 5 minutes and 5 seconds! (the limit was 5 minutes)

 

So your statement about "trying really hard to get fined" now is quite correct, but back in the early days, enforcement WAS strict.

 

Enforcement stopped because the FCC got overloaded.

 

Here is the relevance of all that:

 

Originally, there was no anonymity on CB and enforcement was heavy-handed. Contrary to your first "CB" post (and making your point) the conversations were very civil- IN THE BEGINNING.

 

Soon everyone learned that THE WAY YOU GOT CAUGHT WAS BY THE FCC HEARING YOUR CALL SIGN. Therefore, if you simply used your "handle" and NOT your call sign, the FCC could not find you easily. And if they could not find you, well, you could pretty much get away with anything. And then the "Convoy" record came out and EVERYBODY had to have a CB- thus overloading the FCC to the point they just gave up.

 

So it was heavy-handed enforcement that triggered the anonymity, and then the anonymity begat the debasing of the entire band. Then rampant lawlessness overloaded the moderators.

 

I see how our society has changed a lot from "civil disobedience", like the CB thing and the civil rights marches. The civil rights marches and riots also rendered the individual immune from prosecution- because of anonymity and overload.

 

You see, as Americans we love freedom. That is who we are. We can't STAND to be told not to use the "NH" word! We will give up our guns when they pry our cold dead hands from around them. yada yada yada.

 

And we have learned that government can't censor whom they can't identify. Therefore our anonymity is a matter of PRIDE. It is an American thing. To be forced to identify ourselves is, to many Americans, the first step to censorship. It is the beginning of tyranny!

 

The true lesson of CB is that one CAN still be free in spite of Big Brother and free means that you CAN be an arse if you want to. If you CANNOT be an arse, you are NOT free. (I am not saying anyone SHOULD ever be an arse)

 

THAT, my friend is the reason for the resistance to your argument for ID.

 

You could say we really are not anonymous and you'd be right. You could say that we really are not free and you'd be right. But we thrive on the illusion that we are free and that illusion requires the illusion of individual sovereignty.

 

To take away that illusion is to quench the spirit of freedom- to quench the spirit of Americanism.