Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Frowns on Anonymity
Andy Social writes,
"Just saw a
Wired article
that tells more of the current administration's approach to online privacy. A DOJ commission that President Clinton requested a few months ago seems ready to publish their report and recommends that the U.S. find ways to trace all Internet access..."
Another interesting article from Declan McCullagh. Personally, I became a believer in online anonymity while talking to a friend who used to maintain the
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery FAQ. Some things are important. Update: 03/06 12:55 by J : Here's
the report itself.
They forgot, or didn't mention, about what would happen if the Government mandated it for real-time tracking. Oops. Thanks guys.
Given that some from Cisco have publically stated that they will implement backdoors in their routers to help out the Feds, and that some key security people at Sun have called Phil Zimmerman and other key crypto people "jerks", anonymity will disappear unless those who want privacy fight for it.
And with IPv6 coming down the pike, now we will have to continually fight for it; or more likely, beg for it.
That's no joke, either. There are a LOT of very, very sick "professionals" out there. Just because they have a certificate hanging off the wall does not mean they are safe, or to be trusted.
Then, there are those who want to talk about their own recovery, and want to encourage others to reach beyond their shame, self-loathing, and self-destruction. You can't do that by talking about anecdotal stories. You encourage others by talking about yourself.
"So what?" you might say. So, there are a lot of very, very sick people out there, who would be more than happy to feed off victims. Emotional "vampires" are prevalent across the Internet, and form the bulk of trolls.
Then, there are vengence-freaks. People locked up for sex crimes (or any other crimes) who would dearly love a bit of sadistic revenge. A quick visit to Deja.com'll get all the past postings. A few phone calls later, and (without privacy) they could have the phone number and street address of whoever they hold responsible.
As things stand, it is frighteningly easy to locate anyone, at any time. As technology for surveillence and anti-privacy increases, it will become easier and easier for abusers to reconnect with prior victims.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Just look at the board Clinton put together. Every last one of them has a lot to gain from Big Brother, from the FBI Director ("weeding out" of "undesirables") to the Secretary of Commerce ("consumer tracking.")
The rights of the law-abiding to live without undue interference from governmental organizations outweigh the rights of law enforcement to snoop around. And yes, there will be a few crimes that could have been prevented by a police state. To that, I can only say tough luck. I know it sounds heartless, and I know it's unfair, but it's the way the universe has worked for untold billions of years, and one organization in one country on one planet isn't going to change that.
It's a sad fact that you cannot eliminate all suffering. You can certainly try, and you can certainly get it to a minimum. Those are admirable goals. But the only things which could absolutely end the suffering of the few will cause billions more to suffer even worse. The best a person can do is to live life, try to help others in need, and try not to cause any more unnecessary suffering.
Yes, it means there will always be crime. Yes, some innocents will suffer and even die, when that could have been stopped by a police state. And no, that isn't fair in the least. But if there's one thing I've learned about the universe, it's this: it's not fair. I give you the choice: a random group of people (possibly -but not definitely- including yourself; you don't get to pick) will suffer and die every year at the hands of criminals, or those people will all live but the whole world will live in virtual slavery to a comparatively tiny group of people who can and do abuse their power for personal gain. It pains me that it has to be this way, but the plain truth is, it does. Give the government an inch, it'll take two miles.
Why do I say all this? Because as much as I disagree with Clinton, Freeh, and the rest of them, I do think they have good intentions. But they're trying to do what can't be done (and, for that matter, they're trying to do things that it's not their job to do). They aren't evil people, just deluded. The real problem is that they're too far gone to see the reality of the situation. They think that they actually will eliminate suffering by eliminating privacy. It's like the idea of the "transparent society"; it makes its points while conveniently forgetting that by its own admission (particularly the but about "using light as a weapon"), the Transparent Society is nothing more than a society ruled by blackmail.
You'd be surprised. I know several people who have had real problems with professional counsellors, but have found what help they need from online support groups (including a.s.a.r.). Sure, it's not for everyone, but don't deprive those who need it just because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Agreed. As long as governments hold many exclusive powers over the people, there will be new ways invented to erode rights through that power. Without available anonymity freedom of speech will remain uncertain.
With the vast number of vague laws in place, almost anyone could be charged with something. The only refuge from that massive arbitrary power is anonymity -- and the only right that Internet anonymity ensures is speech.
That is what Clinton and friends would restrict.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
I work for a major Tier 1 ISP and I can tell you that this is not at all technically feasible to be implemented by ISPs at this time. We do not currently have the resources to monitor whether or not our customer's lines are up or not, let alone monitor their activity. The only way to do this sort of thing would be a sort of WAN packet sniffer, and the data that that sort of device would produce would be unreasonably huge. There would be no way for a large organization to handle that sort of monitoring. The basic topology of the internet would have to change, both physically and logically, for this goal to become a reality, and that sort of change must come slowly. So this is a concern, but it isn't going to happen any time soon.
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
I thought after his problems with Monica that he would be a staunch advocate of anonymity.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
The number of whistle-blowers who have had their good deeds punished is legion. We need a way for them to be able to blow those whistles safely, so that those in power, whether governmental or corperate, have to fear that their actions may come to light. Certainly there will be abuses of this anonymity, but it is worth these abuses to get the benefits.
The cake is a pie
What we need on the internet scale is something more explicit. We need to move to a protocol where address spoofing is not possible. We then should layer on top of that some sort of explicit "anonymous" packet support. We should then build on top of that explicit anonymity support in applications like e-mail packages and browsers. In other words, as a user, I should be able to simply check "mail anonymously" or "browse anonymously". On the other hand, as a mail recipient or site author, I should be able to check "refuse anonymous mail" or "refuse anonymous browsers". Make sure this support goes all the way down to the protocol level.
This would both allow anonymity and remove the biggest problems with anonymity.
The cake is a pie
Hasn't the US Supreme Court defended anonymity as an important element of free speech? Without anonymity, there is always fear of retribution.
Yes, in McIntyr e v. Ohio Elections Commission, the US Supreme Court did state that anonimity is a right protected under the free speech rights as outlined in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
Anonymity, while it protects the speaker from retribution, does reduce the impact of the speech (in my opinion).
Techies will want to keep in mind what it will mean if the government intends to establish mechanisms for tracing internet traffic.
First off, it will probably mean that they'll shift support toward proprietary solutions - those which they can have changed to suit their needs, and which can be deployed in a way which prevents tampering. In other words, compatibility barrier, binary distribution, security (of the protocol) through obscurity.
Second, they're gonna need cooperation. This means either a substantial chunk of the internet within the US becomes government sanctioned and controlled (with those servers being good and proper and volunteering whatever information the NSA, CIA, or whatever else wants this week) or (US) internet backbone sites will have to run the US-sanctioned software.
As governments get more involved in controlling localities of the internet, I think it'll become more fragmented and less free (speech/beer). Personally, I think that if terrorism and such can't be prevented without sweeping searches, indiscriminate monitoring of communications, and export restrictions on crypto, maybe it's not worth it.
Bow-ties are cool.
No! No!No! No!No! No!No! No!
This is the last thing we need. If your interested in helping curb this late term legacy building crap aimed at removing more of our already damaged privacy, write your representatives!
Grass roots efforts that come from constituents have enormous impact on capitol hill. This isn't cast in stone yet, it is merely a proposal that will go before the house and be turned in to a bill. If you write your senators, congressmen, local and regional delegates you could have some impact on stopping this.
Bitchin' and moanin' on Slashdot doesn't really change the fact that a bill will be introduced to the house as a result of this. Try to get in front of your representatives, face to face. It's not really tough to do, just give 'em a call or write a letter. E-Mails ok, but not very effective.
Couple of things to remember,
Be NICE. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications. The bottom line is don't JUST bitch about big brother taking more of your privacy away, do something about it.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
We've just posted an archive of related articles (and we welcome any contributions you have) on our Law Enforcement Online page.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Anyone remember the early days of the Web when everyone had to be recognizable and traceable to exactly who they were? Remember when the first anonymizer services came online, where one could enter as your given identity and leave and post as someone else? Remember how there was virtually zero sex on the Web until those first anonymizer servies freed up users? Does anyone want to go back to those bad old days, especially considering that it was sex stuff that helped drive early Net usage through different roofs? It's one thing for webfolk to have the OPTION of using digital authenticating certificates or Fortezza cards or whatever, it's another thing to try to turn the clock back and remove all privacy shields from normal usage...just ask the stupid Intel marketing and eng. dept.s about the "harmless" tracking features built in to the '3 chip if they now accept the fact that most people want to keep what little privacy is actually left in RL let alone on the Web...