Washingtonpost.com wants identities of readers who post comments

LOS ANGELES--If Jim Brady had his way, there would be no guaranteed anonymity for those who post comments to Washingtonpost.com.

Brady, executive editor of The Washington Post's online division, said during a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference here that he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards--and if need be--automatically kick them off for good.

Brady has a notable history with this issue and I'll get to that. First, his position must be made clear. In an interview following the panel discussion, Brady said he doesn't want people's personal information for any other reason but to hold them accountable for what they post. He said he's not--as he has been accused by some--an enemy of free speech. He just wants to oversee a site where readers engage in civil discourse and debate without fear of it degenerating into a "back alley environment."

"I think part of the problem is that people aren't held accountable on the Web," Brady said. "People say things online they would never say when disagreeing with someone at the dinner table. I think heated debate is fine, but when there are (flame wars), many people won't take part for fear they will be attacked and bashed over the head with the (Internet-equivalent) of a steel pipe."

Brady knows how intensely many Internet users disagree with him. He made headlines in January 2006 after shutting down the comments area of a blog where outraged readers gathered to rebuke the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell.

Following the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Howell erred when she said that the lobbyist gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. Abramoff gave only to Republicans. The paper's Web site saw more than 1,000 comments, many from people who accused the Post of conspiring with the Republicans.

Things got worse when Howell posted a clarification. When Brady saw that many of those comments violated the paper's policy against the use of profanity or personal attacks, he blocked users' ability to post. The decision was widely criticized. In defense of his decision, Brady wrote that many of the posts weren't comments at all, but the kind of thing "you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall."

I reminded Brady that many people feel strongly about their right to privacy online. He responded that he feels strongly about it too, but there are plenty of sites that take an anything-goes approach and that people who want to drop F-bombs and blast each other should go there. "We don't want our site to be sanitized, but we have the right to create a different kind of community," Brady said.

Brady also lamented that closing user accounts doesn't keep bad eggs off a site. They just come back and create new ones. He said that his site can identify someone's IP address, but it's not an elegant solution because blocking them can be tricky. "You don't want to end up blocking the entire Department of Energy or something like that," he said.

Pluck, a company that provides social-networking software, helps maintain some of the Post's blogs and has implemented a "bozo filter," which can isolate comments that include banned words or phrases, according to Brady.

But this isn't a solution. Brady believes that in the next five years people will be required to identify themselves in some way at many sites. "I don't know whether we do it with a credit card number, a driver's license or passport, but I think making people responsible would raise the level of discourse."

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

[RobertAPierce]

ID to post? Don't think so

Jim Brady is clearly delusional if he thinks anyone is going to be dumb enough to provide (in his words) drivers license or passport information to sites on the internet in order to post comments.

[georgiarat]

ID Online

Legitimate ID to register should be required on any respectable <br />web site. In our company Google and similar searches are done <br />on any new hires. If a prospective or new hire is found to use <br />what are considered radical web sites (Daily Kos, etc) then they <br />are either not hired, fired during probation, or put on notice <br />about the risk of such activities. I fear too many college <br />students do not realize the risk of such activity and it will come <br />back to haunt them in the work world just as pictures on <br />Facebook, and YouTube videos are doing.

[KingIvey]

How much information?

Giving your name - your real name and being traceable isn't out of line. Passport or driver's license - that's a little too much. <br />But let's be honest here - far too many people say really scurrilous things and hide behind a user name. Yelling fire in a theater is not free speech and if we want a civilized society then we have to be responsible and accountable.<br /><br />Pepper Parr

[pjsauter]

Too Bad

It's too bad Brady isn't more concerned with making his newspaper, its reporters, and its ombudsman responsible for what they write.

[Farthing Haypenny]

Do you post crap like this under your real name?

How do you know how much he is concerned about that ? Perhaps you have some inside information, or perhaps you are simply opining in complete ignorance. In any event, it isn't his job to be concerned about reporting standards, nor does he supervise the Ombudsman. So your post is both off topic and barking up the wrong tree. Were you one of the 1000?

[basraw]

bugmenot.com for washingpost.com compulsary logins

bugmenot.com never fails for washingtonpost free online ids.

[tremorfireheart]

Newsroom Kindegarten.

It's sounds almost as if they are too afraid to hear peoples true thoughts on the matter. If you want to actively portray what people truely think then you can only let the good in with the bad. Yes there are alot of idiots out there and sometimes those most vehement on a subject matter are those with an iq there own shoe size. Yes they swing about there words phrazes and colorful coloquialisms in a hateful manner, but those phrases are hardly a lead pipe to anyone but those with the most fragile psyche. I think the WashingtonPost may need to grow out of its pristine classroom, stop putting there hands over their mouths going,"ooh you said a dirty word , i'm going to tell," and realize that to definatively represent the world your going to have a lot more back alleys and hole in the wall bars then distant elitist taj mahals.<br /><br />[e-mail]

[chili_picante]

But, some of us want to have an intelligent discussion...

... of the issues, not a bunch of name calling. This is why I no longer listen to most of the TV and radio talking-head "news" shows.<br />And, I'm a fan of South Park and John Waters, so I doubt that this is caused by my "fragile psyche."

[foofoofoofoofoo]

Journalists use anonymous sources

I agree that the identity of people saying or writing comments should be known. I am so tired of journalists in the Washington Post and most other news sources quoting someone and identifying them only as "a source who wishes to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak on the record" or "because negotiations are still in process" or some other lame excuse. Unattributed sources are not responsible journalism.

[john55440]

Big Brother Brady

I'm not interested in being part of Big Brother Brady's database.

[Louis610]

Anonymous

Why not create value here? Have a comments section in which only indentified writers can post. Give them an identity, a byline, and segratgate all the unidentified/anonymous posts in another comment thread.<br />The unidentified comments will be awash in ranting and $#&#38;@! It will be a chore to read and usually ignored.<br />Regard the 'identified' posts with replies from the WP writer, and, occasionally, publish the postings in the print edition.<br />Now you have created value to the reader and the poster.

[gjl229]

Great Plan!

Applause, Louis! <br /><br />There's certainly a role for the anonymous poster. A separate sandbox is a simple solution. <br /><br />Someone will excitedly point out that it's not a panacea. That's OK. I'd rather have a 95% effective junk filter than none at all. <br /><br />And before someone else gets carried away, the above does not imply that all anonymous postings are junk. This arrangement simply allows readers to define anonymity as junk if they choose. It's not the site's choice in that case; it's the readers' choice.<br /><br />And it makes room for those with multiple persona - RL versus World of Warcraft, Caspar Milquetoast (look it up, kids) versus the Great Dark Troll What's-His-Name. Good guy one day and flamer the next - just in a different forum. <br /><br />Works for me.<br /><br />Disclaimer: I do post anonymously or under a different name on occasion. I'm trying to reduce the chance that a personal opinion will be taken for one held by my employer.

[BZDan]

No Personal Info to Comment

I can understand the desire to have some accountability for what people say in their comments online. But, I don't believe in censorship of any kind and I definitely don't believe in being required to give you my personal information so I can post something. <br /><br />You want people's credit card numbers? Their license or passport?<br /><br />Are you nuts!?!

[Zaunto]

Personal information

Giving out license and credit card numbers is nuts for reasons beyond identification. Identity theft. If the newspaper can identify you, so can crooks. Do we want that? NO, you don't.<br /><br />It gets worse. Let's say there is some foaming at the mouth wack job who doesn't agree with your point of view and he can identify you? What if he's homicidal? Do you want some wack job to be able to identify and find you? No, you don't.<br /><br />Anyone who feels so safe about being accountable for their posts online, post your personal information right here, there, or anywhere you want. Don't be surprised when you become an identity theft victim or a victim of violent crime from some internet wack job who doesn't share your point of view. If a post violates terms of use, ban the poster. If they keep coming back to post the same TOS violating garbage, ban them again. Sooner or later they will get the point and go away and leave the rest of us alone. Meanwhile, until it becomes Federal law, I'm not frequenting any website that requires submittal of credit card or drivers license info. My personal information isn't going to be made available to any website.

[kjam_productions]

Uh, folks it's called "Open ID"

First and foremost, every site has a right to accept comments only from people who choose to identify themselves. Open ID was created for just that reason. It provides a limited amount of information to the site regarding the poster (i.e. email address), without revealing any other details the individual does not wish to convey. Frankly, I don't see this as a free speech issue. The only people upset are the ones that wouldn't have the balls to spew their hate filled garbage in public and then proceed to do so only when they can remain anonymous. Honestly, what site really needs them?

[MSSlayer]

It is called pointless

It is impossible to know whether the "real name" is real or not.

[Leria]

Hey, I talk about a lot of controversial stuff

Like the child pornography laws and repealing them, as well as some other laws regarding sexuality. I do not want to have to worry that some jackass would get my name and address off one of these things, and then try to come after me.<br /><br />Though, to be perfectly honest.... I already put my real name and address on my registrations for sites, because I am not ashamed of the points that I make.<br /><br />I've also been banned and unbanned from many sites when I filed 'freedom of speech' complaints against the people who banned me, and 75% of the time........ I get unbanned the same day.

[Dr_Zinj]

I prefer the opportunity to chose either anon or identified

TWP's rules are pretty basic: Don't use profanity, don't use ad hominim attacks, don't use inappropriate comments or material, be responsible for what you post.<br /><br />When I adhere to the commonly accepted, logical, and socially acceptable types of postings, I don't have a problem with identifying myself. Truths accepted by society have little risk.<br /><br />When I feel I need to post about something that is socially unaccepted, such as abortion, or euthanasia, I use a pseudonym. If I didn't use a pseudonym, I stand a very real chance of being terminated in my job. Legal protections from government censorship do not protect you from resistance to retailiation in the workplace or social environment. Unfortunately, those social environmental mores are often wrong and MUST be opposed. Otherwise, black would still be slaves in the fields, and women would still be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The long version of The Washington Post's rules is at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/delphi/delphirules.htm</a>

[shrimptonmcclams]

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

The answer is pretty simple. Moderators. In fact, given that decline of print news, this should be part of the role of the editorial staff. Well moderated sites end up creating cultures that self-moderate.

[KingIvey]

Transparency

The right to free speech, I think, means being responsible for what you say. O applaud the Washington Post for requiring people to identify themselves.<br /><br />Pepper Parr

[Leria]

What about if you are speaking out?

And there is a very real danger of someone coming after you, like me speaking out against the child pornography, child sexual abuse and statutory rape laws?<br />People should NOT have to identify themselves in order to speak, and really I have seen MUCH TOO HARSH of moderation many times because I speak out on those things, only to get unbanned from sites after I threaten to file a 'freedom of speech' lawsuit against them.<br /><br />As I say: people are free to disagree with me, but just banning me from saying reasonable, logical things that are not politically popular is totally unconstitutional and should not be done.<br /><br />Really though.... I don't even worry. I put my real name and address on EVERY SINGLE site that I register to, because I am not some 'wilting daisy'. Though, I would like to not have to worry about someone coming after me solely for my views, and trying to hurt my family.... oh well, just a risk I and they will have to take for now.

[chambcm]

All for it (I think)

On the one hand, I feel if you're too ashamed or embarrassed to have somebody know you said something, you shouldn't be saying it. Back it up or shut up. On the other hand, I think free speach in general is a joke. The only way I can comment on some topics without fear of being fired is to do so anonomously. I'm not afraid to let people know where I stand from a personal perspective - I'm afraid of losing my job.

[Zaunto]

Freedom of Speech?

I'm not going to put my credit card or drivers license numbers on any website just to make comments in a blog. It's really simple. If someone violates a terms of use policy, ban them. AT&#38;T does it in their forums if you say anything negative about the company. Yes, people can come back and register a new account but it they violate the terms of use policy, ban them again.

[Leria]

There is a freedom of speech issue

In that people are allowed to say anything they want online, without fear of being banned from a site for saying it.<br /><br />I personally have been banned from sites for arguing against the child pornography and 'child sexual abuse' laws, and have gotten on their case about respecting my right to free speech and threatened a lawsuit.<br />Most of the sites put my postings back up when I did that, because they knew they would lose in court.

[tinabudde]

his idea will not work

I had to comment on this one, a member of my support group posted it. It won't work simply because if someone is that determined to post something nasty then they will. They will get a new isp or one of the services that hides your isp and makes a new one when you sign in. I had that service before on a firewall, you could pick where you wanted your fake isp to be from, any country. Even if they don't have that, they can just sign up on a trial of aol or something and have a new one. It's a stupid idea to punish all the users for a few that cause trouble. I suggest using moderation, approve comments before they are posted. I do that on my support group. We don't get any spam or junk because you can delete the comments, or edit them a little. I know it's not exactly free speech but hey some people are rude and can't follow the rules so they have to be under some control. I don't even like the idea of registering on any sites because of the spam and junk that seems to generate from using the site. Sincerely, Tina

[Zaunto]

Moderation

I've been using internet forums for many years and moderation is the most successful approach to insuring compliance with terms of use policy. It's simple- violation of TOS = 1 warning. If it happens again, you're banned. Sign up again and violate TOS and you get banned again. It keeps the garbage out. No need to have anyone's identifying info. Just moderate and the problem is solved. As the above poster commented, comments can be moderated too, so that comments that violate TOS never even show up. Higher more moderators if need be. Moderators are the key to preventing TOS violations, not exposing anyone's personal information to identity theft or worse.

[chili_picante]

Your info would not be made public...

..., but would be used internally by the Post to prevent a person that violates their posting rules from re-registering under a new ID. At least, that's the way that I read the article.

[The_Decider]

Can they guarentee that is won't get disclosed?

NO!<br /><br />Holding someones person info when you do not need it is a bad way to do business. They will have to spend a ton of money to verify and secure it. But it will never be 100% secure.<br /><br />Are they actually going to check the info to make sure it is accurate? That is more expensive than hiring moderators.<br /><br />Are you willing to risk identity theft or worse just to post?

[chili_picante]

Then, don'y post! Noone is forcing you to.

[sroussey]

ID Theft

I suspect Jim Brady's CC and other information would be used by many rogue users to id themselves at sites and then bad mouth everyone. He can then be responsible... But I agree that there is no reason for every site to be a bastion of anything goes writing. The washington post could and perhaps should require CC numbers. On the other hand, I believe that such anon negativity is near or very close to its high water mark. A number of technical and social transitions will stem the tide over the next five years. And having a "Real Name" post will likely be one part of that, even if small.

[NoVista]

Sticks and stones

Maybe some people are just too timid. 'Language' and personal attacks online are just pixels on the screen, one can ignore and resist the urge to respond to a troll.<br /><br />Really, though, perhaps the real issue for the Brady bunch is journalistic integrity, and fact-checking, as in the example. WP dropped the ball and now they want to blame others for being angry.<br /><br />There are plenty of sites where moderation works well -- the best approach leaves the entry but the TOS violating text is removed by a moderator. That makes it obvious the screenname is known to be a problem.<br /><br />As for 'internal use only', ha! Remember all the government laptops lost with millions of database entries of personal information? As well as sites hacked, etc. Like they say, the best secret is one known by a single person.

[The_Decider]

Exactly

As the number of people know a secret the odds that it will no longer be secret increases exponentially.<br /><br />And for what? To post crap on a web site?

[My-Self]

What will my bank think of that comment ?

Ok, so without a minimum of anonymity, if the site where we leave a comment knows our personal information, it can sell it.<br /><br />So, if I comment, then I must understand that my bank will have it (I need to seem serious at all times, show both some greed and my willingness to use credit) , my insurance will have it (Ok, I won't mention doing anything that could be dangerous in any way), all taxation bodies will have it (don't brag about anything, stay low profile, don't talk about politics), my employer will have it (Oh, boy ... nearly anything beyond posting positive comment on their products or services is pretty much off limits), the police will have it (the end of jokes), Rumsfeld will have it (Now, I think this is good, really good as it's normal our every moves are carefully monitored, to make us safer and free and anyone who disagree must have something to hide).

[sandonet]

For whatever its worth...

I don't pretend to know what the answer is. <br /><br />I only know that after reading some very well thought out and persuasive posts here, both for and against, I think perhaps its time for a broader debate on the issue. <br /><br />Greg

[suyts]

I'll pretend for you.

Yes, everyone should be civil. No, not every one is. Does a website have a right to control the content of the website? Absolutely. And it should remain so. The onus is on us, the posters, on any site. If we can't keep it clean, then we know that many will suffer for our actions. That said, there is no obligation to be "nice".

[nguyen thi ngan]

Oh I agree . I think that to know people must read on internet and book <br /> http://nganhangonline.com<br />http://nganhangonline.com/ngan-hang-dong-a-dongabank.html<br />http://nganhangonline.com/ngan-hang-ngoai-thuong-viet-nam-vietcombank-vcb.html<br />http://nganhangonline.com/ngan-hang-cong-thuong-viet-nam-vietinbank.html<br />http://nganhangonline.com/ngan-hang-a-chau-acb.html