From Google: pseuˇdo ˈso͞odō/ adjective adjective: pseudo
1. not genuine; sham. "we are talking about real journalists and not the pseudo kind" synonyms: bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; More informalpretend, put-on "her 'diamonds' are so pseudo" antonyms: genuine
Origin More late Middle English: independent use of pseudo-.
While I want to agree with your comment completely I can't. Nothing, and I mean nothing, ever unfolds as it is foreseen. It is never quite as good or bad as any given prognosticator describes it.
Why can't we all work fewer hours? Why are some people compelled or forced to work 60+ hours per week while others can not get any work?
The system we are forging will not work without some fundamental changes in how societies function. I am not endorsing handouts and I am not suggesting we "return to the old ways." I am hoping more people will see the dysfunction of the path we are on.
You mean that some bad actors will act badly even if they know their actions are known to all.
Probably true. However I think that number would still be lower than if people feel that they might "get away with it" due to anonymity or their belief that they are anonymous, even if eventual forensics eventually "outs" them and their bad actions.
Don't take this to mean I am willing to throw out my ability to be anonymous. I simply want to "see more of the picture."
It seems to me that anonymity is only bad when it is not evenly distributed. It must be available to *everyone* or no-one. But that isn't what those who would take away our online anonymity want. They want to keep their anonymity and deny us ours. That is one of the primary benefits of a corporation is it not? True a corporation does not provide perfect anonymity for its holders but it does effectively so.
If truly no-one could hide from scrutiny then I think anonymity would not be a "hot-button" issue. Sadly though I don't think the world would be any better a place.
The CFAA does not and should not impose liability on anyone who accesses information publicly available on the Internet. Because the CFAA and Penal Code § 502 imposes both civil and criminal liability, it must be interpreted narrowly. That means information on a publicly accessible website can be accessed by anyone on the Internet without running afoul of criminal computer hacking laws. In the absence of access, as opposed to use, restrictions, Craigslist cannot use these anti-hacking laws to complain when the information it voluntarily broadcasts to the world is accessed, even if it is upset about a competing or complementary business.
What about the recent case where someone got jail time by simply changing the querystring in the URL to find other users' information???!!!
Before I make my point I want to say that I personally feel CraigsList is somewhat short sighted of its own potential and usefulness to the public.
That said, the argument that driving more viewers to a website through aggregation has a "hole" in it. The opinion fails to consider that the website may have specific interests in how its site is viewed. There may be analytics valuable to the site that are tainted or completely ruined by allowing third party methods for finding the data. My analogy is supermarket or "big-box" store marketing. All of the offerings in a store are rarely laid out in logical fashion, items grouped together with similar items. There is a degree of randomness, and pairing of complimentary items. This forces the shopper to spend a little more time seeking things out with the hope that they will find more to buy, things they may have forgotten or better yet impulse purchases. Certainly this is for the vendor's benefit not the consumer's.
And certainly this is a possible explanation for any site's motivation to dis-allow third party "helpers" when they seem to have no interest in providing similar services them selves.