Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.

This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor

Father Nemo Needs A Notebook

I was talking to Father Nemo, and I must now pass the ball to you.

Father Nemo needs a notebook. He will use it for exclusive blog use, so that no information about it is saved anywhere in it. Not even the password and name of his blog. Not even the email he used to set the blog up, or the photos he has posted on his blog. Nothing at all that might trace the blog back to him.

Father does, therefore, not need storage. Everything he needs will be on his blog, and a separate USB key will be aplenty for blog backups if he really wants to (he might not want to). What Father wants is something preferably not expensive, practical in use, and allowing him to go on the Internet exclusively for his blog purposes. He will, though, need a VPN service, so that the two questions might be interconnected.

Looking around, Father has found that Internet suitable devices (“suitable” means cheap, but with proper, full-size keyboard) do not come all with Windows. There are also, at the very least, Android devices, and the strange Chromebook ones. There is also Apple, but that’s expensive, sodomitical and utterly Christianophobic, so it doesn’t count.

Father has noticed these strange web-based Chromebooks. They are well cheap, but he still wonders. Will Google start asking information for him? With email verification perhaps? Will he, in other words, be anonymous for Google? How can this be, if apps can only be downloaded through the “store”, like Apple? Is it wise for him to purchase a device and trust to Google a lot on information about him? Father will, of course, not store any document on the little “cloud” at his disposal – this wouldn’t make sense, because if Inunderstand correctly everything he puts there will have his own name on it – but he does not care, as everything would be on the WordPress blog he opened fully anonymously, with an anonymous email – a big difference with other services, who asked for email verification -. If he puts nothing of himself on the cloud, where’s the danger? Well, in his having a cloud account with nothing but his name on it, perhaps? Or in Google knowing – if I understand correctly – every blogging or Catholic app he ever bought for the purpose of blogging?

Chromebooks are, apparently, very fast to be fired up. But is this so important? He would only use the device to post – VPN-protected – posts on his WordPress site, and WordPress do not know, nor do they ask to know, who he is. Why would Google? And do they in the first place? Or is the cloud thingy an optional? But then, what if one wants to buy an app? Does he have to give Google unique identification information, like his mobile phone?

I told Father when I started the blog I chose WordPress over Blogspot because the latter wanted to know who I am (through verification of email). Why on earth? How is it that WordPress, operating in the same legal environment, has no need for it? I find the attitude of Google between somewhat creepy and utterly disturbing. Put all my documents where *you* (or the NSA; or the Gaystapo) can read them? Seriously?

Then there is another Google-dominated system: android. Some cheap devices are available with this system, but it seems to him (Father) that this is no better than Chromebbok. An Android device needs to be registered to download even the most banal application. Is this really anonymous? Not the device, or the user. The use, perhaps. But only if no data on Father is anywhere on the cloud, on his account.

Linux does not come into question. Father has heard this needs some work and technical knowledge he does not want to acquire unless it is strictly necessary for his purposes. He can put time and effort to tweak his blog site, not to learn to do something other OS will do for him. Father is a priest, not a computer geek.

Lastly, there is – unless there are other ways Father doesn’t know – the bad old Windows-based laptop. Costs are now at Chromebook level, that is: very low. It has all the usual problems of Windows, but the availability of everything – from VPN services to meme-creating software – is there, very probably free if he so wishes,mor at a cheap price if he wants the added security and comfort of the “premium” account. The device can be operated in a fully anonymous way. Nowhere would there be his name. The device would be used exclusively for Catholic news to be linked to, images to be put on the blog posts, and the blog posts themselves. Some Catholic apps if practicable (but is it?). That’s it.

Father told me VPN should be dealt with separately; but clearly, how well VPN can be efficiently and anonymously organised will play a role in his decision. This is, though, for another post.

If VPN is viable, then, Father asks what device you would suggests that he buys:

1 Chromebook?

2 Android?

3 Windows?

4 Something else?

Let the game begin. If will be fun and instructive at the same time.

Father thanks in advance. All of them.

M

Meet Father Nemo

 

 

My dear readers, this is an important day in the life of this blog.

Today I introduce you to Father Nemo.

Father Nemo is a fictional, but very real newly ordained priest. He is fed up with the climate of intimidation he sees around him in his diocese after all he had to endure in the Seminary. Father Nemo wants to blog, but he has more than the suspicion that this is not going to end well for his blog – and possibly for him – anytime soon. He is also smart enough to see that the chill wind currently blowing might go on for decades, and every respite in, say, Benedict-style might well be only temporary.

Father Nemo is in a particularly delicate position, but the principles applied to him are valid for everyone else: Blogger Nemo, Anti-Communist Activist Nemo, Whistleblower Nemo, even Bishop Nemo, or Cardinal Nemo! Father Nemo might even be, say, Chinese or from another repressive regime.

Father Nemo is not very Internet savvy, but he is smart and of good will. He will search the Internet to educate himself about how to do things properly, and by that I mean properly. Father Nemo knows that he would never be able to resist investigation from a Western Government set on knowing who he is; but at the same time, he believes his kind of activity does not warrant this kind of eventuality, not in most countries at least. Certainly, Father Nemo (particularly if he lives in Countries like, say, Cuba, or the United States) wants to have as much security as a blogger can have, within reason and a bit of effort. Certainly, he wants to be free from the prying eyes of his bishop, or of some “enterprising” hacking journalist in British style; or employer, or ruling party, or mother-in-law: you name it.  

This blogger hopes that Father Titius, Caius or Sempronius will, one day, land on this blog, and be thankful for the information he finds. It goes without saying that for this, the knowledge of your humble blogger is utterly inadequate. But others will, no doubt, step in to help him, and perhaps they will be kind enough as to ask their internet friends – anonymity on the Net is now, for obvious reasons, a big issue – to help the readers of this little effort.

Brick by brick, a little Vademecum for the Anonymous Blogger will be created, updated and improved constantly.

This is, therefore, the first post of a work in progress. A suitable space will be found on the main page to have this information accessible at all times to everyone.

Every post will deal with only one issue. Interesting other issues will generate further posts, but everything will be kept simple and with a step-by-step (ahem: brick-to-brick) approach. Particular attention will be given to everyday language and easy to follow technical advice. Costs will have to be incurred, but it will be endeavoured to keep them to a minimum; bearing in mind that, within reason, Father Nemo prefers expenses to blog demise, or worse.

The idea is that in time, more and more priests like Titius, Caius and Sempronius (or laymen, anti-communist activists, Bishops, or Cardinals) will land on this blog and, after careful reflection, will say to themselves:

I am Father Nemo.

M

 

Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

Big Brother Is Googling You…

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.
This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor