Slashdot Mirror
Privacy vs. Anonymity
Snibor Eoj writes "There's an article at CNet about the desire of some to reduce or eliminate anonymity on the Internet. There is a fine line, so it seems, between respecting privacy, and providing anonymity behind which crimes may be committed without fear of reprisal.
"
First off, it is NOT the goal of ever organism to survive. There are plenty of examples of organisms which put the survival of the species, and sometimes even the BETTERMENT of the species over and above individual survival. (Prarie dogs and Bottlenose Dolphins are two such species. "Experts" have had a hard time understanding them, because it's "not natural to not be a self-centered bigot". Sorry, but self-centered bigotry has a much worse survival rating, over the long term, than caring and working for the whole.)
Secondly, the price of freedom is NOT "having to listen to other's opinions". That's why we've got filters. Freedom to speak is NOT equal to an obligation to hear. If anything, it's the reverse. The more we can filter out the crap, and concentrate on the useful, the more time we have to speak! Without boundaries, there is no freedom, because there is no choice.
Now, back to the topic at hand. Privacy versus anonymity. I don't see that there's a conflict. The only way to be truly private is to restrict access to information. Your identity is information. Therefore, anonymity REQUIRES privacy, to be enforced. Privacy, likewise, REQUIRES that anonymity be an option. If it weren't, then whatever you transmit can be traced to you, and privacy is lost.
People mention law enforcement, as though it was some kind of Holy Grail. Sorry, but if law enforcement officers are so incompetent that they have to rely on the villains handing them the evidence, they've no business enforcing anything. Take a child abuser - the typical sort of target the Law Enforcement agencies are claiming to want to catch. If a person is capable of abusing a child, both they and the child will stand out a mile. It is impossible for abusers to act like other people.
(This is NOT the same as the "profiling" gumph that Pinkerton threw out. It is possible to be different and yet have a strong empathy for other people. It is NOT possible for an abuser, thief, axe-wielding maniac, etc, to have that same empathy. If they had, they couldn't do what they do.)
But, instead of looking for what Scott Peck calls "People of the Lie", the agencies would rather sit on their backsides and get paid for drinking coffee & screwing their secretaries. Maybe they fear that too many of them would show up positive if they implemented such a program. From their attitude, I couldn't disagree with that.
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)
People forget that the US postal system has always allowed anoymous mailing. This has allowed people like the Unibomber to commit some terrible crimes. They do have people that monitor and try to intercept some things (kiddie pron, etc.) but pretty much anyone can send illegal material by snail mail completely anonymously.
The problem is picking up packages anonymously. You could get a PO box, but those can be monitored easily.
At least there is a way to allow anonymous publishing of material.
Gee, I never realized that there were bracketed clauses inserted into the 2nd Amendment. Funny how no one but you has noticed them for over 200 years.
_MY_ copy of the 2nd amendment reads: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Now then. In 18th century English 'well regulated' roughly means 'well maintained' or 'competent.' Thus, a well-regulated militia means one that knows how to use their weapons, and/or where the weapons are in a state of good repair. It has nothing to do with a chain of command.
Militias are composed of any able-bodied person who can serve in them. Virtually everyone in the US is implicitly a member of their state's militia. The National Guard is not a replacement for this. It is more of a supplement on the one hand, but remember we're talking explicitly about STATE militias, and not the Federal military, so in that respect the National Guard doesn't count very much. (While organized by state, that means nothing. Until WW1 most army divisions were raised from states. Which is why in the Civil War you had units like the 12th Pennsylvania Cavalry, or whatnot.)
But here's where you make your biggest blunder. You assume, erroneously, that only militias, or the National Guard, or the Military have the right to bear arms. It very clearly states, 'the right of the people.'
The 2nd Amendment does NOT read: "The right of well-regulated Militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does NOT read: "The right of the Army and Navy to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does NOT read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be regulated."
You seem to find a million hidden meanings in a very simple 2 clause sentence. Perhaps you should work in the field of data compression. I'd like to be able to expand a single bit into the OED without needing to transfer anything else.
Have you considered the ultimate use of the 2nd Amendment? Let's go back to that 'defense of a free state' bit. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not trust their creation. They were human. They were fallible. The government they made was not perfect and they were well aware of it. But they did know that it is more important for people to be free than it is for the United States of America to exist. When these two conflict (and don't be a dope - we all know that we must make a sacrifice of the most miniscule parts of our freedom in order to continue to exercise the others) freedom must trump the government.
The people have arms, without being required to be in the militia, though they can call pretty much any organization they like a militia; without being required to be in the formal military; without having to be in favor with the government. Because just as the founders of this nation rebelled against THEIR government, so may the people one day have to rise up against the US Government.
Freedom is more important than the US. The US is just a name basically.
Now I hope to God that it never does come to this. The government serves the people, derives any claim to legitimacy it has from the consent of the people, and no government anywhere, ever has the right to infringe on the freedoms of the people any more than is absolutely necessary. Tyrants can disguise themselves as members of democracies, republics, monarchies, communes, etc. but their guise does not erase the need for the people under their thumb to be free.
I am 100% unwilling to bet my freedom and the freedom of countless generations after me on the continued good will of the government. This is one of the most important reasons (though not the only one) for which I support the 2nd Amendment. History shows us, sadly, that good governments do not last. Good governments may arise in the place where bad ones once stood, but you would have us foolishly throw away the means by which bad governments are felled to make room for good.
It must be nice to be a Pollyanna. I hope you enjoy it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What do you want us to use? Harsh language?
Guerilla warfare *is* feasable as long as the opposing side can't tell the difference between civilians and guerillas and doesn't want to kill off the civilians.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are rather good examples of successful guerilla war, though there were other forces at work as well (enemies of the would-be conquerer helping the conquered)
An oppressive government is more likely to want to rule the people who live there, rather than have to replace them with people from somewhere else.
Besides, even in 1776 hunting muskets were insufficient to fight the British. The Americans bought, stole and borrowed heavier armaments like cannon whenever they could.
So fortunately (another example of thinking ahead) the US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the President ordered the army to kill everyone in Montana it's debatable what they would do. Most likely, in a situation in which the populace or a significant fraction therof rebelled, the military would be divided in their loyalties. We've already seen this during the Civil War.
So it still makes sense for people to have arms for the purpose of fighting against the government. But there is no explicit reason why people MUST bear arms - simply that if they want to be free they had better be willing to defend themselves, when necessary, from those who wish to infringe upon those freedoms.
To say that the 2nd Amendment is ONLY good in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in the defense of a free state is like saying that the freedom of speech only protects political speech. (which has been argued before) Neither is true.
People have a natural right to defend their freedom. Do you believe that this is not true - that people must always submit to those who want to rule them?
Freedom is dangerous bucko - free speech is objectionable, free religion is heretical, free assembly can lead to violence or conspiracy, privacy from the government can permit crime to occur. I'm willing to take those risks and be free. I'm not excusing criminal behavior, but I'm not going to give away the rights that I derive from my very existance for the 'safety' you would rather have.
Besides, we live in the real world - would you really be safe? No. People who want to kill will still do so. It's sad that accidents happen, but perhaps education would be better; it works for cars. I would have taken Firearms Ed in high school.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The constitution was written at a time when firearms were hand-made and unreliable. The term "well-regulated" referred to the firearms themselves, not to the militia. A well-regulated firearm is one that is kept in good working order, like a "well-regulated clock."
The militia was, at the time, defined as the available pool of adult, male citizens who possessed firearms -- NOT a standing army like the military or the national guard.
The founders abhorred the concept of a standing army. In fact, the constitution does not allow for a standing army. The authors of the constitution had just overthrown their own government -- the British government, and were well aware of the danger of having a standing army. The founders intended that the ordinary citizens possess the power to defend themselves, not only against foreign enemies, but against their own government if necessary.
A modern translation of the amendment would be, "Because it is necessary that the citizens be able to personally defend their freedom, and because it is necessary to ensure that the citizens have working weapons to do so, the government may not interfere with private gun ownership.
Saying that the 2nd amendment provides for gun control completely turns the intent of the amendment on its head.
The reason our society is violent isn't because of the guns. It's mostly because we are living under drug prohibition -- which has progressed farther and destroyed more of our freedom then alcohol prohibition ever did, and because the government is actively waging a civil war -- the drug war -- against its own people. Violence is the natural result of prohibition and the black markets it creates.
Well, the problem here is a very blurred line between privacy and being anonymous.
Some may say you don't have a right to publish information anonymously (ie posting to slashdot as AC). While I don't know why they would want to take away a freedom that we enjoy in meatspace from the cyberspace folks, I can see the reasoning behind this (copyright violations, slander, etc). Plus, this is not really a privacy issue.
Well, along with this comes the ability to not only trace public information postings, but also track online activites (you have to track online activited to catch the 'anonymous' posters). So who's to stop the government from going even further and 'profiling' a person's online habits to determine the possibility this person may be doing something illegal.
At this point we are deeply into privacy issues. Sure it sounds like a jump at first to go from outlawing anonymous speech to online monitoring, but it's not that far fetched if you think about it.
Make no mistake about it, the government would love to be able to listen to every conversation, log every online user, and have access to every letter. Not for some wacko conspiricy theory, just "for our own good" and to "protect the public".
Eliminating anonymous speech would be my first step also.
The government for some reason doesn't understand that power corrupts. Sure all of this monitoring would be used for good and noble purposes (subjectivly speaking), but it's human nature that with that much power, there would be abuses.
Finkployd
Still I think that the Post Anonymously option should be kept for those who are logged in.
Absolutely. To post, you should be logged in, but have the option of hiding your info from the world. If your login ID abuses the system too much (judged by downward moderations), then it should be disabled, or automagically adjusted to -1 for a day or so.
---
---
"Go Metallica. Die RIAA." -- Linus Torvalds
"First, take away the guns from all law abiding people - now they can't hurt each other, or better yet let's use the media to teach the common person how evil guns are."
*Bullshit*
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Note: A _WELL_ _REGULATED_ _MILITIA_, [in its function of] being necessary to the security of a free state, [confers] the right of the people to keep and bear arms...
It is clear that the second amendment was intended, in a time when we had no free standing army, to allow a militia for the defense of the nation, and HENCE the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the extent required for said militia. The right of people to keep and bear arms is ONLY a CONSEQUENCE, and is CONTIGENT UPON, having a militia.
We have no militia. We have a free standing army. Which is well trained and well armed. That it is our God-given right to tote around guns for the sheer pleasure of doing so is a fantasy fabricated by the NRA and gun lobby, so that they can make people feel good, nay, MORAL, in holding up their "responsibility" as citizens.
Unless you are shooting a clay disk or bottle, or hunting some animal (for pure sport itself an activity of questionable ethics) guns ARE evil. Bombs ARE evil. Devices intended to kill people and things in general ARE evil. The media is not the one to confer these values to people, but still, the "common person" SHOULD be aware that these are generally "bad" things.
However, since most Americans believe it is their right to arbitrary own guns, the society for the most part plays along. In fact, of all things that it would seem should be extremely regulated, guns are regulated very little, if at all (despite the fact that the second amendment says "WELL REGULATED"). Toys for children go through intense scrutiny...but the gun they pick up and blow their heads off with goes through none.
"Second, let's make certain that we again use the media to educate the common man and tell them how infinately small and insignificant they are, and tell them they don't have the right to privacy."
Oh please. Stop charging your argument by attempting to link gun control with privacy. Since when has owning a gun lead to a social good? Does owning a gun confer freedom of speech or expression or religion? Having a right to privacy, and the freedoms that spring from it are not comparable with the "right" to own a gun. No freedoms spring from owning a gun, and a gun won't protect your freedoms (yeah, I'm so sure you're going to take on the entire military and police establishment by yourself with your magnum like some lone cowboy).
"Heston on Dateline the other day, he referred to Benjamin Franklin when someone asked "what kind of government have you given us?" - and when he replied "a democracy - if you keep it"."
Hmm...I suppose the gun lobby is actually trying to "keep" the democracy by dumping tons of lobbying money into the government. Sorry I was confused about that. Funny how this special interest has managed to stifle the voice of the vast majority of citizens for so long. Yes, please, let's have democracy. It certainly won't be in the gun lobby's favor.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Sorry, I don't understand why many US citizens are so fascination with weapons (about 20 lines of my rant deleted) but in stark contrast to weapons anonymity has more defensive character, forbidding it is more like forbidding kevlar vests, because with em you might raid a bank without the government being able to shoot you.
The bogus thing about most arguments against anonymity is, that the people who really want it (the big bad mafiaboss planning to soak america in cocaine) will still have it, there are too many ways on the net to become anonymous by redirecting information, if i want to hide the source i redirect the information often enough, if i wnat to hide the recipicient i encrypt it and send it to some newsgroup.
So a government will always have a hard time explaining to citizens who think a little about it why anonymity must be forbidden, the catch is they don't need to do this, since most citizens don't stop to think about it, even most politicians don't, it's much easier to listen to the big industry and reiterate their phrases.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Vernor Vinge, a personal favorite Science Fiction author of mine, predicted the problems with Anonymity vs. Privacy in a networked world in his short story True Names. This short story is collected in the anthology True Names and Other Dangers in 1987, but I think the short story True Names predates that collection by several years.
I really enjoy Vernor Vinge. Being a Comp. Sci. Professor helps him get the tech "right", which I enjoy in Science Fiction.
-Jordan Henderson
> And "stand up to be counted" is sometimes the
> right thing to do, but often is not. For
> example, I believe that drugs should be
> legalized. I am prepared to argue the point in
> forums like Slashdot,
This is a good point.
Throughout history governments and large groups of many differnt kinds have used all sorts of pressures, ranging from threats of violence to social pressures to silence dissenting voices.
Even in the US we are not free of these problems. Whether the power group is a large corperation, a cult, or the government itself, sometimes anonimity is the only way a person can talk about certain subjects without putting themself at risk.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The anonymity and more importantly the privacy of the Internet denies an essential element to the survival of any goverment: the ability to tax its citizens.
The internet enables people to conduct commerce, both internationally and domestically without a nation's government being able to monitor exchanges, and thus determine who can be taxed what.
It is quite ironic though that if national governments do fall due to being unable to tax, then who is left to maintain the same communication networks that bought governments down in the first place?
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
As it is difficult to defeat a knowledgable citizenry without the use of arms, every government bent on maintaining itself as a parasite on its people will try to regulate (and perhaps eventually, eliminate) access to the Internet.
Eliminate it? I don't know. That's going a little far. I'd think that any country that eliminated access to the Internet would have some serious problems with it's citizens... either mass riots and whatnot, or everyone leaving the country and going to one that allows them access.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Yes, it shows that you really believe in what you are saying when you sign it. However, if you are likely to be locked away or killed the first time you do so, your effectiveness at changing things may be greatly reduced. If you can continue to publish your offically unpopular ideas, you may be able to influence enough of the public to bring about change (and allow you to start signing those publications).
Think of the major represive countries in the 20th century, and then tell me that you would be will to publically and non-anonymously criticize them. Then think back to the anti-Vietnam war protests in the USA, and the earlier McCarthy era Red bashing.
Or perhaps you are discussing something that happen to you. You may not want it known that these events happened to you - as a identified person; however you may still feel that telling about them anonymously can help others.
Loose your anomynity and they promise to stop crime.
Try to be anonymous and you're a criminal.
#!/don/carnage
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Actually, having a handle is significantly less anonymous in the context of this forum (than ACs are). Moderation is performed, karma is ascribed, and one's reputation is formed. To some people, their public persona is of the utmost importance. To others, it does not mean squat. That difference is reflected in their posting scores, and their ability to affect moderation on others.
No, you really cannot pin down someone's true identity through the handle. This "anonymity" is proportional to the amount of "damage" that can be done through their speech; it is extremely unlikely that words on Slashdot are going to do more harm than good IMHO.
-L
I can't get to CNET, so I haven't read the article.
But when have we ever really been anonymous on the internet?
Working in the telecommunications field, I can tell you that hardware/software exists that can, should someone want to, track every call from your house to an ISP, and print it out in a neat little list.
Compare that with the server logs at the ISP and we can associate name with IP.
When you've got a name/IP association, you are no longer anonymous.
Now, i have no idea about any laws governing this kind of thing, but regardless of laws... If it's possible to do, someone is doing it.
It becomes even easier when your ISP is your phone company (SWBell, Spring, AT&T) as most of the new broadband technologies seem to be.
Anonymity is a myth.
I will repeat - if it's possible to do, someone is doing it. And once it's been done, no court of law can undo it.
wish
---
$ su
who are you?
$ whoami
whoami: no login associated with uid 1010.
Then you must be PRO kiddie porn.
At least this is how issues like this are turned into law in congress. Worst case scenarios of how anonymity can be abused are invented, portrayed as "this could happen to your kids", and then legislators must then vote on the basis of either being for this or against this. Classic spin tactics. (Like the "million" mom march that wasn't even 10% of that.)
A free person should be able to walk the streets in anonymity. I would like to see the same principle applied to the internet.
Interestingly, the United States, the preachiest of the "free" countries, doesn't seem to respect this principle. After moving there for a few years I was shocked to discover that one is expected to carry ID at all times. I was told that I risked being being treated as a vagrant, etc, by the police if I couldn't produce ID on demand. Hmmm, sounds like an authoritarian police state to me.
I don't know how any one government could force anonymity on the web: it's an international system. I certainly hope that they don't try. The internet isn't fully understood by enough of the population for such decisions to be made: this will effect everybodies lives in the future. Only in the future will the implications of such actions be more fully understood by the populace, by which time it might be too late
Perhaps one ought to stop worrying about the terms "anonymity" and "privacy" and wonder about the role of "identity" instead.
;) and you might find that either it's an organization where more than one 'real live human' knows the secret-key password or it's been compromised...
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
The thing is, the use of a GPG or PGP key does not say "everything signed by this key is written by PigleT"; it says "there is a creature called PigleT who's applied a signature to a document". The nature of this creature is debatable - you have to find some way of pinning it down to the same chap who pays his taxes at a given address (or in criminal cases, doesn't pay...
The thing I'm driving at is that people have multiple identities: there's one of me that types this here, potentially "another me" who you get to know by verifying one signed document, potentially another for another signing key... you have to piece them together like a daisy-chain to prove "identity".
Anonymity is defined as using one identity with no chains off to other identities.
Privacy is limitation of knowlege of a particular set of data to a restricted set of identites. (E.g. PigleT on his own; MyOrganization.co.uk; or "my private key and your private key, babe" or whatever.)
Anonymity is a good thing to be able to use at will. If an idea needs expressed but doesn't want to be traceable for some reason, it should be possible.
Privacy is also essential. I just don't *want* the US or any other government poking its snout in my life - and I don't have anything particular to hide, either.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
There seems to be this assumption that the laws we have today are the right laws to have from now until hell freezes over. If this is what you believe, then of course you want to see all law breakers prosecuted. If not, you will realize that civil disobedience and protest are an essental part of a democratic society and much easier if one can be anonymous.
As more people realize the oppresive nature of intellectual property laws, they are going to want to change them. This scares the hell out of corporations and hence they want to see all such individuals silenced and jailed. This is much easier to do if anominity is non-existant.
When there is inequality in any system, being able to strike bat at the opressors without being caught is important. If I were to describe a place where everything you say or do is monitored- where you have no shield against your oppressors- what comes to mind? Nazi Germany where neighbors were encourages to report their neighbors? Communist Russia where saying the wrong thing could have sent you to a Siberian Gulag? Communist China where reporting the truth could have you put in jail? Anonymity is sometimes our only sheild from tyranny.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
There are prices we pay for freedom.
A price for freedom of speech is having to listen to opinions we do not like.
A price for the ability to protect ourselves from an oppressive government is having to protect ourselves from each other.
A price for a person to be secure in their person and things is the loss of control of what people do with their persons and things. This applies to the current situation. With the right to be secure in my person and things, I can get away with doing almost anything. This creates a fundamental problem in a free society in which corporations want to control what happens with their product AFTER possession is taken of it. (There is another analogy in a certain war the US government has been losing for 30 years, but leave that for now).
Personally, I value the right to privacy more than I value the right of the copyright owners to be secure in the "free" sharing of their copyrights. Invasion of privacy is no solution to the problem.
Let's all live in fear my friends! Because a crime can happen by the few, let's make certain that the many have no methods of privacy, protection, or overall peace. Because we think we can do better, let's force everyone else to do the same.
Rubbish, this flawed logic irritates the hell out of me.
This is how it really is:
First, take away the guns from all law abiding people - now they can't hurt each other, or better yet let's use the media to teach the common person how evil guns are. Second, let's make certain that we again use the media to educate the common man and tell them how infinately small and insignificant they are, and tell them they don't have the right to privacy. You DO know that individual freedoms are always compromised at the expense of the greater good. Third make sure -- well sure that you please them just enough to get re-elected (such as in Washingon State's i695
This is mostly the corrupt government's fault - but I would charge the reason that it exists on the American voter. We don't vote, don't care, or vote for who everyone else votes for. Very few people take the time to think critically that actually *do* vote - most of these people go off of gut feeling, or "moral" beliefs. Disgusting isn't it? As I was listening to C. Heston on Dateline the other day, he referred to Benjamin Franklin when someone asked "what kind of government have you given us?" - and when he replied "a democracy - if you keep it".
If you aren't willing to take responsibility for what you do or say, you shouldn't do or say it.
:-) )
It's not a question of responsibility. It's a question of pressure from the majority and/or a vocal minority. It has long been recognized that anonymous speech is very, very important to a democracy. There are multiple Supreme Court cases where this is said explicitly.
And "stand up to be counted" is sometimes the right thing to do, but often is not. For example, I believe that drugs should be legalized. I am prepared to argue the point in forums like Slashdot, but I will not attempt to convert my co-workers to the idea (they consider me enough weirdo as is
Besides, you cannot really separate privacy and anonymity. Both of them break the link between the actor and the action, it's just that in privacy the actor is known, but the action is not, while in anonymity the action is known, but the actor is not. They are just two sides of the same coin.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
To the chagrin of those who would control us [the government], time and time again the US Supreme Court has upheld the right to publish anonymously. This also includes the right to read anonymously. Much of the "Federalist Papers" were published anonymously for fear of reprisal.
Anonymity [in spite of it's pejorative connotation] is nothing more than a stronger form of privacy. Privacy is the right not to be snooped "at home". Anonymity is basically the right to make snooping impossible "in public". If everybody followed certain confidentiality rules, you might be able have privacy without anonymity. If people don't follow the rules, then the only privacy _is_ in anonymity.
Since rules are always broken, skirted, loopholed or otherwise compromised by interested parties, the only safe privacy is through anonymity.
Hogwash, ladies and gentlemen.
The goal of any organization is, first and foremost, continued survival. Beyond a certain point, organizations take on characteristics of living things: they consume, they repair damage, they grow. They also defend themselves against perceived threats.
Governments (and large corporations, but it's really the same story) everywhere in the industrialized world realize that the Internet is a powerful weapon against them if they choose to deprive their citizens of freedom. The Internet is an excellent medium for dissemination of information and collection of same. As it is difficult to defeat a knowledgable citizenry without the use of arms, every government bent on maintaining itself as a parasite on its people will try to regulate (and perhaps eventually, eliminate) access to the Internet.
The era of thoughtcrime and the Ministry of Love is not far away, if we do not do something about this now. Remember this: your government may not have your best interests at heart. Realize this and act accordingly.
www.alarmist.org