经济学人杂志是一家知名的严肃媒体。但是里面的一篇文章让我有点不解，请教这里的朋友。
文章如下：（希望看中文翻译的请直接拉到下方阅读）
WAY back in the early days of the web, in 1993, the New Yorker ran a cartoon featuring two dogs sitting in front of a computer. The internet-savvy canine is saying to its friend: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” This joke captured the freewheeling anonymity of the early stages of internet adoption, but it doesn’t work now. Today websites often know a great deal about their visitors, including their names and interests. The ability to use the internet anonymously is being eroded on several fronts. Some popular websites, including Facebook, the leading social network, and Quora, a popular question-and-answer site, require users to give their real names, and block people who are suspected of using pseudonyms. Other sites ask that users provide their real names in order to be able to leave comments, in the hope that discussions will be more civil if people have to reveal their identities. In recent months security researchers have shown that if you use your real identity on some sites, you can be identified when you visit others. One way this can happen involves “cookies”, the snippets of data that websites deposit on visitors’ computers, so that returning visitors can be recognised. It sounds creepy, but cookies are generally anonymised. Cookies can reveal things about your browsing habits—they are used to target advertising, for example, based on other sites you have visited—but they do not usually know who you are. In 2010, however, privacy experts twice pointed out that Facebook was sending information about its users to the same advertisers that track browsing using cookies. It is not known what, if anything, the advertisers did with this information. The potential, however, is clear: the Facebook data could have been used to deanonymise the browsing histories associated with the cookies. Facebook plugged this leak of personal information, but only after the problem was given prominent coverage in the Wall Street Journal. When the leak was highlighted by computer scientists in August 2009, nine months earlier, Facebook took no action. Another anonymity-eroding technique was recently flagged by computer scientists. It relies on “history stealing”, in which a security flaw in a user’s web browser allows rogue websites to retrieve fragments of his browsing history. This may not directly reveal his identity, but can be very revealing. For example, if a user has joined three groups on a social network, there is a limited overlap between the groups’ membership lists, and those lists are public, it may simply be a matter of working out who belongs to all three groups. This sounds rather contrived, but it works in practice. Gilbert Wondracek at the Vienna University of Technology in Austria and his colleagues built a history-stealing website aimed at groups on Xing, a business-orientated social network. Mr Wondracek’s analysis of over 6,500 Xing groups, containing a total of more than 1.8m users, suggested that his rogue site would be able to determine the identity of around four in ten visitors. A trial run, in which Mr Wondracek invited colleagues who use Xing to visit his history-stealing site, showed this estimate to be about right. The vulnerability he exploited has since been addressed by the engineers behind several browsers, including Firefox and Safari, but has so far not been fixed in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Meanwhile, Facebook has quietly gained the ability to monitor its users’ wanderings elsewhere on the web. Many sites now include Facebook “Like” buttons. Click one, and your Facebook profile will be updated with a message linking to the page in question. This feature helps people share content with friends, but it also allows Facebook to track its users’ browsing. In fact, merely going to a page containing a “Like” button while logged into Facebook is enough to notify the social network of your visit, whether or not you click the button. Where is all this heading? It is clear that many firms can now track people as they move around the web, and can sometimes link these browsing histories to specific individuals and their personal information. If the days of anonymous browsing are not over yet, some observers think they soon will be. As Julie Cohen, a legal scholar at Georgetown University, put it in a prescient paper published 15 years ago, the internet era is “as much an age of information about readers as it is an age of information for readers”. Speaking at the Techonomy conference last year, Eric Schmidt of Google distinguished between privacy, which he said should be respected, and anonymity. “Absolute anonymity could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our society as a whole,” he said. But anonymity is freeing. It lets people go online and read about fringe political viewpoints, look up words they are embarrassed not to know the meaning of, or search for a new job without being thought extremist, stupid or disloyal. In America some judges have recognised that browsing habits will change if people feel that they are being watched. In rejecting a government demand for book-purchase data from Amazon, an online retailer, a judge wrote that the release of the information would create a chilling effect that would “frost keyboards across America”. Librarians have long understood this, which is why they keep readers’ files confidential. But many of the new custodians of people’s reading records do not seem inclined to do the same.
网上找到的中文翻译： 在 1993年互联网的早期时代，《纽约客》展示了两只卡通狗坐在电脑前。能理解互联网的狗狗对它的同伴说：“在网上，没有人知道我们是狗。”这个笑话俘获了 早期想在互联网上匿名自由浏览者的芳心，只是现在情况不一样了。现在网络知晓浏览者的很多信息，比如他们的姓名和兴趣爱好。 匿名上网在某种程度上受到着侵蚀。一些知名网站，包括社区网站的领跑者Facebook，知名问答网站Quora等都需要用户提供他们真实的姓名，并阻止用户使用假名。另一些网站则要求用户提供真名才能发表评论，目的就是希望用户实名制时讨论更公正文明。 最近几个月安全研究员演示说如果你在某些特定网站实名制后你在浏览其他网站时同样能被确定。之所以会这样是因为“cookies”的存在，数据代码仍存在 用户电脑上，所以用户再次登录仍能被确认。这听起来挺恐怖的，但是cookies一般是匿名的。Cookies能显示用户的浏览习惯，能被用于“目标广 告”，即能根据你浏览过的网站推测你的喜好针对你施放广告，但是其实并不知道你是谁。 但是在2010年隐私安全专家两次指出Facebook将其用户信息泄露给利用cookies追踪用户浏览痕迹的同一广告商。但是广告商利用这些信息做了 什么我们一无所知。最可能的情况显而易见：Facebook 的数据能根据cookies的浏览记录被用于反匿名。Facebook 补上了这个泄露用户个人 信息的漏洞，但是是在华尔街杂志曝光这个问题之后。9个月前的2009年8月这一漏洞已经被电脑专家指出，但是Facebook没有采取任何措施。 另一个反匿名技术是最近被电脑专家发现的。它依赖于“窃取历史数据”，即利用网络漏洞检索用户的浏览历史。这也行仍不能直接确定用户身份，但是已经不远 了。比如说，一个用户在一个社区网站加入了三个社团，三个社团成员名单会有少量重叠，一旦这些名单公开，就很容易确定谁属于这三个社团。 这听起来像天方夜谭，但却实际存在。奥地利维也纳科技大学的Gilbert Wondracek 和他的同事建立了一个针对商业社交网站Xing的窃取网站。Wondracek分析了Xing的6500多个用户组，包含了超过一百八 十万的用户，结果表明他的窃取网站能够分辨出将近十分之四的用户。作为实验，他还邀请了使用Xing的同事浏览他的窃取网站，表明这个推测是正确的。他利 用的这个漏洞存在于很多浏览器上，包括火狐和苹果，但是目前在微软的IE浏览器上还没发现。 同时，Facebook 不知不觉间已经具备监控用户浏览其他网络的能力。现在很多网站都有Facebook的“分享”按钮。点击一下，你的 Facebook 的个人信息就通过一个信息链接被上传到一个询问网页。这个功能能帮助人们和好友分享他们喜欢的内容，但是也让Facebook追踪用户的 浏览痕迹。实际上，仅仅通过一个包含”分享“按钮的页面登入Facebook已经足够让让社区网站定位你的浏览位置，无论你是否按下”分享“键。 我们将何去何从？显然现在当人们浏览网页时很多公司能够追踪到他们的浏览痕迹，而且有时能通过浏览记录确定特殊的个人并获取他们的个人信息。一些观察家认 为，即便现在匿名浏览的时代还未完全结束，但是也时日不多了。15年前乔治城大学的法学家Julie Cohen就在报纸上有先见之明的指出，网络时代“与其说是给予读者信息的时代不如说是关于读者信息的时代”。在去年的科技经济会议上，谷歌的Eric Schmidt就指出匿名和隐私的区别，后者是必须被尊重的。“总的来说，对于我们的政府和社会匿名都会引起一些尖锐的讨论。”他如是说。 匿名显然是自由的。它让人们上网浏览激进的政治观点，查询他们不知道的词汇，或者寻找新工作，完全没有极端、愚蠢或者不忠的意思。美国一些法官承认当人们 意识到自己被监控他们会改变浏览习惯。网络零售公司亚马逊拒绝向政府提供用户购书数据，一位法官认为释放这些数据会造成一个恐怖的结果“在美国美人敢上 网”。图书管理员深刻意识到了这一点，这也是为什么他们极力保护读者隐私。但是许多新的浏览记录保护者并没有意识到这一点，也没有这样做。
我的问题是针对上面加背景颜色的的文字：
一些知名网站，包括社区网站的领跑者Facebook，知名问答网站Quora等都需要用户提供他们真实的姓名，并阻止用户使用假名。
1。facebook 注册一定需要提供真实姓名等个人信息吗？
如果真的如此，我认为这是荒谬的，不可思议的。我看不到这种事情会发生的可能。
使用facebook的网友，你们使用facebook时，一定要用真实姓名吗？不允许用假名？
Facebook 的数据能根据cookies的浏览记录被用于反匿名
2。这个我不大明白，有没有人能解释一下？如何反匿名？
最后顺便说一下，每位用户对浏览器的cookie 有这完全的控制权。你可以设定在关闭浏览器时，同时删除cookie；你也可以设定不接受第三方cookie设定。也就是说，广告公司也无法从你的cookie中的得到任何信息。
www.ddhw.com
| 
哈哈哈哈 O(∩_∩)O哈哈~ 好久不来了，不小心看了一眼自己主页，发现自动关联了自己以往发过的帖，点进这个看了一眼，笑个半死。。。敢情我当初还发过这么搞笑的东西啊，我自己完全不记得了 
雷达卡
发表于 2011-3-21 05:16:26
收藏
分享
支持
反对
置顶卡
千斤顶
楼主