Anonymity on the Internet

Enoch Root was the first to submit a new briefing paper on internet anonymity, published by the libertarian Cato Institute and written by Jonathan Wallace. Wallace cites Supreme Court cases and important historical precedents in favor of anonymity - "Given the importance of anonymity as a component of free speech, the cost of banning anonymous Internet speech would be enormous."

Comments

Acrobat

[Glytch]

I suppose that it's too much to ask for an HTML version of something that's published on the web.

I'm curious who this document is aimed at. If it's to try to convince politicians of the importance of how free speech and anonymity are linked, then I applaud it. Maybe it's just my background, but I found myself saying "Well, duh" quite a few times when I was reading it. What are your thoughts, folks?

Re:Acrobat

[Enoch Root]

Pretty sure it's aimed at politicians. After all, we're all sold to the concept of electronic anonymity, and if we were the target audience, it'd be preaching to the converted.

I see it as a sort of HOWTO to anonymity advocacy. We all know the various merits of privacy, but often, we're unable to word it for a political or business crowd. Luckily, there's people like Wallace out there who can help.

Re:Acrobat

[Phule77]

Agreed. Could somebody work up a link of it converted to html so that those of us who don't have acrobat could take a look at it? Puh-lease?

Todd

if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't post at all ...

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I would.

-cow

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[Anonymous Coward]

<META>
Troll? Some moderators are feeling cranky today. Go to bed earlier! Get more sleep!
</META>

[If it weren't for Anonymous Coward] I wouldn't post at all...

Same here. Maybe I'm just neurotic, but when someone disagrees angrily with a post I made, I feel like I've been attacked personally. I also feel a little uncomfortable with that feature in "User Info" which displays that last 20 to 50 posts you've made. There's nothing wrong with it, but I don't want people who disagree with my views starting some kind of vendetta against me, especially if they get moderator access. Look at Signal11. A lot of people are jealous because of the amount of karma he has accumulated. I'll bet they're thinking, "When I get moderator access, I'll moderate him down! And, if possible, I'll mark his posts as off-topic, redundant, or troll!" For evidence, look here.

The Slashdot admins can probably tell which Anonymous Coward posts are mine and which aren't-- you can't convince me Slashdot doesn't log IP addresses-- but the average user just knows I'm "anonymous." I feel a little more secure that way.

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course /. is logging the IP addresses.

I feel the same way about being attacked personally. I used to have several /. user ids... but I feel better posting as an AC.

Someone around here (forget who) has a sig that basically says if someone can't bother to get a userid and thus post at level 1, he can't be bothered to read it. I agree, but in reverse: those aren't the kind of people I want to bother to communicate with anyway.

/. used to be a very lively place... now it's just a very useful and interesting place with the life driven underground to dwell, apparently, with teenaged petrified girls. :-)

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[Anonymous Coward]

/. used to be a very lively place... now it's just a very useful and interesting place with the life driven underground to dwell, apparently, with teenaged petrified girls. :-)

...and hot grits down our pants. :-)

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[ufdraco]

Someone around here (forget who) has a sig that basically says if someone can't bother to get a userid and thus post at level 1, he can't be bothered to read it. I agree, but in reverse: those aren't the kind of people I want to bother to communicate with anyway.

I've seen that sig (I presume we are referring to the same one), but I interpreted it differently. As I see it, the poster wasn't discouraging people from posting anonymously, but rather encouraging useful and quality posting (as opposed to the bung we seem to have on this page).

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[Skid]

The flip side of AC posting is while it allows one to speak your mind, neither is there any accountibility, for good or ill. I have a userid because I'm a vain SOB who wants to take credit for everything I say, frex.

Similarly, if someone claims I do some unspeakably vile act as an AC, it's kind of hard to do anything about it. Of course, in /. there's a happy-sappy moderation system to compensate for that - stupid shit gets moderated down... and anyone I give a damn about is smart enough to disregard anonymous comments without verification.

(What vile acts, do you ask? Can't tell you - they're UNSPEAKABLY vile!)

Re:if it weren't for Anonymous Coward ...

[techwatcher]

I absolutely agree that everyone ought to be anonymous -- even have two or three (or unlimited numbers of) anonymous identities... But I might like to get some sense of a specific poster by reviewing other posts. A relative newbie to this community, I hadn't realized I could use the user info feature this way, but will explore it now.

I trust Slashdot (shouldn't I?) to keep my privacy, but always post under my nick here. If I could as easily be anonymous in print -- if I could trust publishers, I mean -- there are several books (fiction and non-) I've written, or partly written, which I would have probably published by now. For me, the privacy issue is most important. I have a thick skin (that is, I care little what others -- especially strangers -- think of me), but in our culture, I believe becoming a celebrity (however minor) is toxic for writers. It tends to twist their view of the world, as evidenced by what typically happens between first and third novels, esp. regarding what is treated as an important issue, increasingly "conservative" political views, etc....

Can't happen...

[um... Lucas]

Anonymity and the net just can't work... It's too much effort for the user, and the websites have much more to gain by actually knowing who they are dealing with... Because of issues like libel, etc... you're hard pressed to have a page hosted anonymously as well. I think it all comes down to accountablility... Everyone needs to be accountable for what they say. Just like how we all hate anonymous cowards around here :)

I can't seem to find an email service (a la hotmail, netscape mail, etc...) that will let you get a mail box without supplying a valid email address. I also can't be using Anonymizer while filling out the forms required... So I guess for me to do it would be to pay anonymizer for an email box and then sign up with that email as my address... Of course, they'ed know what IP i used to log in, and i suspect that most ISP's track IP usage if only for long enough to be sure that no complaints are being generated by that user...

Sorry for the ramble... it's that time of the day where i begin to shut down.... probably took to long in writing this to qualify for first post status too....

Re:Can't happen...

[Relic of the Future]

"I can't seem to find an email service (a la hotmail, netscape mail, etc...) that will let you get a mail box without supplying a valid email address."

MyPad doesn't require one. It's also 100% spam free. Supports pop3 but not smtp, and they've had some reliability trouble lately, but for the price (free) it's great!

"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein

Re:Can't happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey Enoch, I have a root for you.

Re:Can't happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop it, you're starting to sound like Signal 11.

Re:Can't happen...

[MDX-F1]

I think it all comes down to accountablility... Everyone needs to be accountable for what they say.

The question is, who's doing the accounting?

Anonymity can certainly be abused, but it is a necessary evil. Accountability may be an appealing concept, but let's remember that not all people in this world live in open, democratic societies. There always have been, and likely always will be people/governments who attempt to restrain free speech, and anonymity is an important final safeguard.

Re:Can't happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I recently signed up for Hotmail without having to supply a valid email address. They do ask for my real name and other info, but I didn't give it to them. You can call this unethical, but since I have no idea what they use this info for, why should I supply it? As for everyone needing to be accountable for what they say, that is not free speech. Deciding what is appropriate to say and what is not is entirely subjective; it is just a reflection of the current values of a culture and social climate. Depending on what the values of the masses are at the time, limiting speech and expression could be disastrous, and the founders of America knew this.

Re:Can't happen...

[um... Lucas]

If they're worried about remaining anonymous, they really shouldn't be using the internet... Everything is trackable... Is it being tracked, probably not, but could it? yes.... Just the way it works, with IP's, DNS, pop, smtp... everything needs authentication lest it be abused... I'm sure there would be some people that could benefit from an open SMTP server somewhere out there, but spammers will kill it's benefit, the server will be blackholed, and so much for that outlet of free anonymous speech

Re:Can't happen...

[named]

Excite mail doesn't check the email address you supply then. I just opened an account there with the email address of i.dont@think.so and all worked fine.

Of course, they reserve the right to kill that account if they find that I've given them bogus information, but so what? It's just a throwaway account.

Re:Can't happen...

[thenerd]

They do ask for my real name and other info, but I didn't give it to them. You can call this unethical, but since I have no idea what they use this info for, why should I supply it?

I read this and thought 'it would be the stupidest thing in the world for, of all people, Hotmail, not to have a privacy statement'. So, I checked Hotmail. And, fair enough, it does have a privacy statement here. It might be controversial to give TRUSTe any benefit of the doubt, but I've looked into TRUSTe certification for personal projects and one of the things you have to do is tell people what you are going to use the data for.

Obviously, if you are not a member of TRUSTe you don't have to do anything like this, and you can gather anything you want without telling anybody.

thenerd (hoping the link won't break).
The camels are coming.

Re:Can't happen...

[mcrandello]

<Um_Lucas>I can't seem to find an email service (a la hotmail, netscape mail, etc...) that will let you get a mail box without supplying a valid email address. </Um_Lucas>

Prontomail lets you do this. Use that from a corporate or school firewall to create a xoom.com account and you have pretty decent anonyminity (sp???). The NSA might still know who you are but most folks wanting to harass or bother you won't.


mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.

Re:Can't happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

>I also can't be using Anonymizer while filling out the forms required..

If this is a cookie issue, Anonymizer does have a beta version that can deal with cookies. You've got to have a paid account, though.
As for valid email addresses, my netscape/hotmail/whatever accounts are generally registered with addresses like foo@bar.org and it works fine. I pity, though, the poor fool who might actually own such an account...

Re:Can't happen...

[Iudico]

I would have to disagree with you in about Anonymity. The fact is you can make yourself anonymous if you want too. Its a very simple matter. That wont cost you a cent. The fact is most people dont take the time to look into it. Now, Given to make a true "Avatar" is hard but you can hide yourself well enough that the time and effort for someone to find you would be very hard indeed. I would like to point you all to a very good site were this is talked about in great detail. http://208.233.94.170/fravia/fravia.org/noanon.htm This part of Fravia's web site deal wholely with anon on the net. How and why one should do it. There are alot of good reads here. ANd If you fall in love with this page like I have you may learn more than you ever wanted too about hte subject and many others. Warm regards.

Re:Can't happen...

[Iudico]

Hey just wanted to point one thing out too all of you. About hotmail. They dont bill themselves as being private. Take their header info. They stamp all out going emails your your IP. Just a thought. Regards.

Great article! My new sig!

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Just the other day I got into a discussion of why anonymity on the net is good. This article says it better than I ever could.

Looks like I found my new sig.

ewww Cato....

[Absynthe]

It's good to see Cato striking out for personal liberties again. In the last few years it seems that a coalition of more right than the right wing nazi's and brainwashed ayn randroids have taken over.
I'm all for privacy and it looks like the libertarians and I are in agreement here, but I hate giving the Cato Institute any kind of props. I used to be a libertarian, I found out I just didn't hate poor people enough or have the necessary self-centered righteous greed.

Re:ewww Cato....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that was a useful comment. Some negative slams at an organization aiming to protect liberty, justified some stereotypes and insults, and capped off by a pair of untrue statements about the nature of libertarianism.

But isn't it great that we're all allowed to express our opinions?

Finally

[krh]

I read the paper about 30 minutes before it made Slashdot - it's definitely worth a read. It definitely brings up a few interesting things. Be sure to read it if you haven't already.

What Gives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enoch Root was the first to submit a new briefing paper on internet anonymity, published by the libertarian Cato Institute and written by Jonathan Wallace.

Isn't Enoch Root the guy that was trolling like crazy the past few days? And now he's submitting stories?

Re:What Gives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Enoch Root." was. This was submitted by Enoch Root, without a comma.

Free Speech

[An0nymousC0ward]

They protect stupid "Business" speak so why not anonymous speak.

Mirror

[freakho]

It'll inevitably be /.'ed, it is a .org, after all. SO:
Here's a mirror.

Re:Mirror

[vectro]

Domain suffixes don't mean anything anymore. It could be hosted on a dedicated server in Exodus' colo center, and be entirely immune to the slashdot effect.

For that matter, Slashdot itself is a .org and is entirely immune.

Color Copier ID?

[dfay]

It sounds like his argument could apply to the earlier article about color copies as well. If I ever decide to hand out pamphlets that could be considered "subversive" by anyone in the gov't, I'll be sure to make them black and white. :)

Seriously, though, this seems to be completely the opposite view of the police and FBI. They use every means at their disposal to track down someone whom they consider to be a suspect. They will even do things that they know are illegal and would not stand up in court (i.e. wiretapping without a warrant) to gather information on the suspect so they can find out how to get legal evidence so that they can get a warrant/make an arrest.

These two viewpoints, while each has obvious merit and obvious failings when taken to extremes, need to be met with some kind of compromise. As it stands now, the only compromise is that the technically savvy can have anonymity and the technically ignorant masses get to have their privacy violated.

Re:Color Copier ID?

[EAVY]

These two viewpoints, while each has obvious merit and obvious failings when taken to extremes, need to be met with some kind of compromise. As it stands now, the only compromise is that the technically savvy can have anonymity and the technically ignorant masses get to have their privacy violated.

Extremes are always too extreme, justice lies within balance, so a compromise is necessary. On the other hand, we could argue if privacy should be compromised for security, which might be a false feeling of safety. After all, we'll never be really secure as long as there are things out of our control, everything that isn't under our control makes us feel unsafe if we think it could be damaging to us. That's exactly why governments try to get the net in their control, to keep us under control, for nation (i.e. authorities') security.

So what compromise could we get? Anonymous in front of each other, tracable for the authorities, is that a proper balance? Or is the current situation more balanced?

Savvy people are anonymous since they know how to prevent being traced, ignorant people can be traced and caught. Actually that's the way it is all the time. The skilled will get their way, the majority of unskilled will be caught and punished. That's what our justice system is based on, we can't catch everyone, so we try to catch most. Never mind that the few we won't catch do worse things than all the others together. Law enforcement isn't there to protect all citizens, it's there to protect a general order of society, to keep it running well. That's why it makes no sense to say abolishing anonymity and establishing permanent surveillance would help anyone. All it does is make it easier to keep this system running, it's all about the whole, individuals don't matter in that scheme. Hopefully that attitude will change within the next millennium...

Re:Color Copier ID?

[technos]

The police and FBI are extremely wary of bringing a case against a defendant when some of the evidence was tainted by trickery such as this.
A long standing US legal principle has been the 'Fruit of the Poison Tree' doctrine, which dictates that any evidence secured as a result of information obtained in a illegal search is inadmissable in court.
Say FBI Agent Smith taps your phone without a warrant. He hears you're about to go pick up a couple of joints for recreational use. He drives out to your home, catches you pulling into the driveway and sees the pot in your hand. What does he do next? Nothing. The information regarding your possesion of a controlled substance was obtained illegally, and even if his superiors let him get away with it no court will. Even in cases where the 'poisoned' evidence was allowed, the Appeals courts have not been kind to those who violate the 'Fruit of the Poison Tree' rule, even going so far as to suggest civil suit for violation of civil rights.

Re:Color Copier ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, the FBI, and other law enforcement, don't want THE suspect, they want A suspect... they want someone that is defenseless enough that they can nail to the wall. Richard Jewel, anyone?

Re:Color Copier ID?

[elric11]

While a specific cop might obtain information through an illegal wire tap, and not be able to use that information, he could "mention" or "suggest" that another cop should "pay attention" to that person, without mentioning why or where the suspicion arouse.

This was the case in NY recently, where units were tipped off to suspected drug dealers by other officers participating in illegal wire taps. With this scenerio, it is hard to prove the "Poison Tree" because no one is aware of the wire tapping except the officer who dropped the hint.

When, and if the defendant learns of the wire tap, they have to prove that all the evidence that has been gathered legally by the tipped-off officer was a result of a wire tap the other officer made.

As you can imagine, this is a difficult thing to prove in court, especially since the officer who is participating in the illegal wire tapping is smart enough not to write down is suggestion on paper.

Re:Color Copier ID?

[periscope]

please see my previous post which details why even black and white copiers aren't "safe": IDs in color copies

Re:Color Copier ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

*ring* *ring*

Corrupt Cop 1: "Hello?"

Corrupt Cop 2: "Hi Fred, can you do me a favor?"

CC1: "Sure, what?"

CC2: "Call that anonymous tip phone line, and give them this info: Mr. Ura Scumbag, 123 Main St., Thisheretown, will be buying drugs at 2:00 today and taking them back to his house, at that address."

CC1: "You got it." *click*

CC2: "That takes care of the paperwork. We'll get him with the drugs in his house -- that'll let us search the whole place, and take his house away too. Excellent."


If you don't think this type of thing happens every single bloody day in the U.S., then you're the type of person the public schools were designed to create.

Re:Color Copier ID?

[quonsar]

If you don't think this type of thing happens every single bloody day in the U.S., then you're the type of person the public schools were designed to create.

Well said. The combination of public "schooling", immersion in the fantasy world view of television, and the unending barrage of marketing and disinformation from the media has produced a large number of technically ignorant people who are little more than 'consumerbots', who seem to believe that thier sole purpose in life is to earn, desire, and spend.

======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

Re:Color Copier ID?

[technos]

Actually, I'm a little idealistic. Having a CRJ/CF/PA means I know what 'law enforcement' was taught as well as any. But I have no 'practical experience. I didn't go into law enforcement, nor criminal forensics; Four years had left a bitter taste in my mouth. I used the degree as a door opener into my current field.

Possible /. ramifications

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose this means we all should post as AC now...

Libertarian? Cato Institute?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cato? Cato?

Yeah, it's easy to be a libertarian when you're living in O.J. Simpson's pool house.

Re:Libertarian? Cato Institute?

[Anonymous Coward]

And even easier than that, when you're Bruce Lee!

glad to see it

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, am glad to see sdomething from CATO here on /. Too often, I think, /. gets a reputation for being a haven for the ultra-liberal/socalist set. Godd to see a well-written piece showing thje other side. Thanks guys

Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Score Whore]

I understand a many of the issues relating to anonymity online. But, I don't think the current state of affairs is acceptable in the long run. The net is a great tool for communication, but it's not the only tool. If you have a valid issue that does require protection, you always have the recourse of walking down the street to a payphone. Do we really need a situation where it is possible to say anything you want, even false comments that are damaging to others' way of life and livelyhood, without having any real possibility of having to be responsible for your actions?

-sw

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Mendax Veritas]

Do we really need a situation where it is possible to say anything you want, even false comments that are damaging to others' way of life and livelyhood, without having any real possibility of having to be responsible for your actions?

Well, you can decide for yourself how much stock to put in the assertions of someone who is not willing to sign their real name to their words. I don't suggest that you blindly believe anything you might read on the net, but anything posted anonymously has to be read with some suspicion.

There are a few degrees/varieties of anonymity, though, and, in my mind, corresponding degrees of credibility:

1. "Anonymous Coward" clearly says that you aren't willing to identify yourself. I don't know who you are, and I don't even know what other postings might be yours. AC postings have low credibility, in my view.
2. A pseudonym that isn't obviously a pseudonym (e.g. posting as "Phil Jones" when that isn't your name) implies a real identity that isn't there. It may be a fictitious identity, or it may be someone else's stolen identity. Either way, the implicit deception leads me to question the credibility of such a person.
3. An obviously pseudonymous account establishes an identity (the Mendax Veritas who posted this is presumably the same person or group who posted previous Mendax Veritas messages), but does not provide you with a link back to the real person. (One can be obtained by court order or corporate espionage, but the average citizen can't get it, which is good enough for most purposes.) Credibility can be determined by the poster's history; if I've made sense before, maybe I'm making sense now. This strikes me as more honest than a seemingly-real identity.

With this in mind, my answer is, yes, people should be able to say things without being too easily held accountable for them. Sometimes it just isn't safe to let your identity be known; the death squads, the political police, or your employer may not approve. Or you may find yourself getting sued not because your claims are false, but as an attempt to silence you.

As the Cato article observes, auctorial anonymity has a long and distinguished history. It would be a shame to effectively lose it simply because public discourse moves from the print domain to the internet.

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[re-geeked]

If you make it legal to restrict anonymity in any medium (internet), you open the door to restrictions in other media (pay phone).

"False comments damaging someone's livelihood" involves a response to those comments by law enforcement, vigilantes, crusaders, paranoiacs, or the like. Such responses can only be carried so far if speech, due process, and liberty are well-protected. Cite me an example of any speech causing harm, and I can probably explain it away as indicative of loss of liberty or breakdown in the rule of law.

Limiting free speech, and the ability to get the truth out, makes lies by those who have the power to speak more dangerous.

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

...you always have the recourse of walking down the street to a payphone.

And the nice new security cameras will record your face as you walk up to the phone and make the call. The recognition software will be matching your face in realtime as you talk, while another process traces the phone call via the system the phone companies were forced by law to include in their systems. Oh, two years ago the local police had a warrant to tap that pay phone because a drug dealer used it once... and they "forgot" to tell the phone company to turn the tap off once that case was over.

Before your conversation is done, they know who you are, who you called, and the conversation who had is digitally stored for later review.

Anonymity on the net may soon be the only anonymity that exists.

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

An obvious psuedonym establishes an identity?

Don't look now, but I think I just saw the Cheshire cat grin.

Seriously, though... you're kidding, right?

I could sign up for a nick here and be Hobbit or Gandalf or one of your silly "handles" but that just seens soo goofy to me.

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Mendax Veritas]

An obvious pseudonym establishes that there is someone (or a specific group) using a specific name (as opposed to Anonymous Coward, which represents a large class of people). It doesn't tell you who s/he is, but it does create a link between different postings made using that name. That is the sense in which it establishes an identity. Also, the fact that it is an obvious pseudonym ("Mendax Veritas", for example) makes it clear that there is no intent to deceive; it's a fictitious identity, but an identity nevertheless, and I'm being honest about the fact that it's fictitious.

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Score Whore]

Put a bag over your head. You're anonymous again. As far as the police, or whoever, knowing who you called, or what you talked about, it's irrelevant to this discussion. That's a privacy issue, not an anonymity issue.

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Score Whore]

"False comments damaging someone's livelihood" involves a response to those comments by law enforcement, vigilantes, crusaders, paranoiacs, or the like. ... Cite me an example of any speech causing harm, and I can probably explain it away as indicative of loss of liberty or breakdown in the rule of law.

There are many examples of anonymous speech harming one's livelihood that have nothing to do with the rule of law or loss of liberty. How about watching your company's stock totally deflate based upon anonymous comments in discussion groups. Or being investigated by an EEOC officer and watching your carreer go down the tubes. Harm to reputation can has as damaging an effect on your life as receiving grevious bodily injury.

-sw

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[Score Whore]

If you have worries about political police or death squads, you definitely have more to worry about than free speech. As far as your employer not approving, well that's another issue altogether. I think it's not out of line for an employer to want his employees to believe in his company and the company's products and services. Beyond putting the finger to dangerous or faulty products, or stopping harrassment, I don't think it's beyond reason for a company to know what sorts of things it's employees are saying about it.

-sw

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[bluespower]

The difference in credibility between your examples [#1-#3] is only in the perception. Assuming that you have no background information on the person, how does the presence of "real" name--whatever that means-- increase your confidence?

You argue that a pseudonym only establishes a persistent notion of identity; eg that all postings made by "Foobar" are correlated to the same author. In what way is this different from the use of an actual name? If you have never heard of a person named "Aaron Kostrawitzki" what is the rational basis for attributing more credibility to a posting under that name?

The fact that pseudonyms could be co-opted unintentionally or fraudulently? Sure but in the absence of authentication protocols you could not verify whether a given was indeed made by the person whose name is purportedly associated with that comment.

BluesPower

Re:Right to free speech or irresponsibility?

[mcrandello]

Exactly. And what's to stop someone from going onto the Usenet as Bluespower or Mcrandello, making all sorts of slanderous comments and then leave a pointer back to slashdot in their .sig, effectively ruining our credibility.


mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.

meepty Meepty MEEPT!!!

[MEEPT!!!!!!]

MEEPT!!!

The ever-humble Meept has an anouncement:

• Follow
• The
• Bouncing
• Meept!

MEEPT!!!

Meept has been instructed by his facist leader to rally the proletariat into a Mighty Meepty Army of trolls and capture slapdash in the name of insanity!

So

Rally

Meept doesn't have all day.

MEEPT!!!

[ A poem ]

meept got gnulix warts

from butt sex with linus

they make my init itch

MEEPT!!!

Re:meepty Meepty MEEPT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Microsoft Employee:

Let go of your bitterness and hatred. Abandon the Dark Side. Abandon your Microsoft stock, before it sinks beneath the waves like the Titanic it is. Repent for your sins (I know this will take you all night, but we will wait). Come embrace open source, and languages and protocols which don't suck.

Love,

The Penguin

Re:meepty Meepty MEEPT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Abandon your Microsoft stock, before it sinks ...yeah, take the Penguin's advice and buy some solid stocks like VA or RedHat. Better buy them soon while they are still a bargain at 500x earnings.

What is anonymity?

[pen]

Is there a difference between being anonymous and using a fake name? Many services require you to enter your name, but, obviously, cannot confirm that name. Is it illegal to supply these services with a pseudonym? What charges would they use against me if I did?

--

Re:What is anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Falsification. 20 years minimum of nightly ass raping.

Re:What is anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that it's only illegal to tell false name to authtorities, of course you can (and should) use fake name when registering in the various online-services.

Re:What is anonymity?

[DrSkwid]

Here in the UK we have a kind of anonymous citizenship.
We can choose whatever name we like and it's valid on any form etc. so long as it is "the name by which you a known" and you can "prove" that you are known by it. Legally I could now use my email address (or any one of them) as my name if I was arrested.

Re:What is anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually they have a clause in their terms of service where they reserve the right to kick you off for giving a fake name/address. Does it ever happen? Yeah, if you send spam, maybe, otherwise no. I've signed up with some places giving really obviously bullshit info - No one would honestly believe that my address is "1234 Main Street" but nobody ever checks.

Re:What is anonymity?

[peter303]

True anonymity is rare. The access logs on both
ends record IP addresses. From that a determined
investigator can find you. Police and crackers
do this all the time. Never write anything
you ever want attached to your name.

...

[Signal 11]

Hi Enoch! :)

Anonymity *can* work. Check out Freedom for one example. Proxying is the way to go - non-logging proxies, that is. Does this impede law enforcement? Yes, but only if they're very stupid and don't know what a packet sniffer is.

Another thing about anonymity - I can run off 100 copies of a position I hold against our Governor, which in this case is Ventura (I live in MN) and post it up across the twin cities - anonymously. To do this on the internet, I can use a service like Freedom. There are plenty of alternatives with equal functionality (so don't think I'm plugging /just/ this product), however.

Anonymity isn't dead... the problem is that modern media has the collective intelligence of a lobotomized flatworm... *sigh* it's very easy to cover your tracks... if it wasn't so-called "hacking" (it's cracking, ppl!) would be impossible.

Re:...

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at the web page, and unfortunately it's for Windows 95/98 only.

It's interesting, though....

Re:...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can run off 100 copies of a position I hold against our Governor, which in this case is Ventura (I live in MN) and post it up across the twin cities- anonymously.

Actually, no, you can't. It's illegal to distribute leaflets or posters that don't have an identifying organisation or individual clearly identified on them.

Even here in Minnesota. I used to hand out hundreds of leaflets on the U of M campus, right out in front of Coffman Hall. Even called the Board of Regents "Motherfuckers" on a bullhorn in my reckless youthful days (back in about 1979). I was standing in the stairwell on the second floor of Morill Hall when I did that one.

The Anonymous Coward issue

[m.o]

This article was a very valuable contribution to the ongoing Slashdot debate about prohibiting Anonymous Posting. Just several quotes from the doc (well, slightly modified):

Throughout the history of this website Anonymous Cowards have made a rich contribution to political discource

Anonymous Posting on Slashdot forms a part of the rich tradition of such speech in prior media, including print, and is entitled to the same First Amendment protections

How deep!

Re:The Anonymous Coward issue

[Kris_J]

Throughout the history of this website Anonymous Cowards have made a rich contribution to political discource

Meanwhile we have posts about grit being poured down people's pants and girls being turned to stone. There's a difference between being completely anonymous to everyone including the forum administrators/moderators and just being anonymous to the mob. The lack of trust and the distance the /. team place between themselves and the posters results in an awful lot of noise at the score=0 level. Even when I've got moderator points I don't bother going below score=1 any more...

Freedom from Zero Knowledge

[Jim McCoy]

Get it at http://www.freedom.net and start surfing with anonymity. It is a pretty good product done by some rather sharp cryptographers and security people (like Ian Goldberg and Adam Shostack) and it works transparently with your clients.

No, there is not a Linux version yet, but it is a hell of a lot easier to write the linux version so I expect it along quite quickly. Check out the white papers available on the site for a good description of how this system works.

Anonymity is essential to free speech.

[Jabberwok]

And it *is* real on the internet. For instance, while Slashdot knows my IP when I post this, they aren't publishing it with my post.

If I wanted to say bad things about the FBI or other powers that be, they could pressure Slashdot to give up my info, but what if I'm using an anonymyzer like the one here, and you can chain these together, folks.. to make their chase quite lengthy. Not truly anonymous, in the end, but for all practical purposes, yes.

I think it is necessary to retain this for first amendment freedom.

Great Article

[vivekb]

Thanks for that article. I feel stupid to say it, but I never made the connection between anonymity and free speech. I guess I was always a latent "if you're not doing anything wrong..."-type.

I think there is a difference between anoynmous material online and in print. There is a barrier to creating a printed pamphlet, and that lends it a certain amount (however small) of credibility. A post to a newsgroup, or even a web site, is cheap enough to produce that anyone with the time can put something up. For that reason, most people devalue anonymous submissions (how many of us set our threshold to 1?) I'm not sure if the difference merits any separate legislation, but I think it is significant.

Anonymous?

[Pyrrus]

Why didn't an AC submit this? A logged in anonyminity-lover?

Re:Anonymous?

[Pascal Q. Porcupine]

You can be anonymous without being an AC. You (most likely) still don't know what this person's real name is, what his home address or phonenumber are, or any of the other things associated with identity.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.

Anonymous Coward

[BadERA]

I think the above posts argue the stand against ACs quite well.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Glytch]

So browse at score 0. No big deal. That's what moderation is for, after all.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, moderation is not working. That last "BUNG" post has been moderated down by at least 5 people, and it still hasn't gone 0.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Relforn]

I think the above posts argue the stand against ACs quite well.

Except that anybody who is trying to get A.C. posting on this site eliminated should be producing such kinds of comments here, to turn up the heat. I suspect as much every time I see someone "abusing" the A.C. feature.

Re: Freedom

[Enoch Root]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents about Freedom. It's made by Zero-Knowledge Technologies, the same guys who proved a while ago that you could enable the PIII ID through the Internet even if it was turned off in the BIOS. They're mondo cool, and they're from my home city, too! Once I get a few years as a Security Analyst under my belt, my resume is going straight to them.

What Freedom basically does is provide you with different IDs to navigate the Internet. It also keeps your cookies in different profiles, and basically allows you to forge a complete "identity", or multiple ones, to surf. It's anonymity without the need for a proxy or any such crap.

It's too bad it's a proprietary project, though... I would figure that these guys would dig Open Source. I'd sure love to take a peek at their code and algorithms.

Cause right now, the price tag is a bit stiff.

(Hey Sig. :) )

meepty MEEPT!!!

[MEEPT!!!!!!]

MEEPT!!!

The modest and self-effacing MEEPT has a few questions:

does freedom include freedom from Gnulix warts?

do sniffers smell the slapdash editorial stink?

MEEPT!!!

[ A poem ]

slapdash students

still

think

cracking is different from hacking

Meept thinks you shouldn't talk about lobotomized flatworms like you do.

MEEPT!!!

Re:meepty MEEPT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey man, where do you get your drugs?

Re:meepty MEEPT!!!

[Karma Whore!]

This Meept's user ID is: 124467. See Meept User Info.

Did the real Meept have an account? Anyone remember? Meept's origianl account ID would be before 11,000, if Meept used an account. This was way back in the day though. Before we had Karma Whore's like me.

Just to stay on topic, I will provide you with a neat Benjamin Franklin qoute about freedom:
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor saftey"

We seem to be on a freedom thread today, with the sotry on camera's that predict thieves, don't we?

Litigate for your Anonymous Coward rights.

[jelwell]

It would seem to me like lawsuits could be brought upon web forums that allow anyone view but require login to post. By allowing anyone to view the statements they are making their forum public, which - apparently - the Supreme Court has stated that anonymous input should be allowed.

It's a good thing that Slashdot still has Anonymous posting. But what of other sites, like Mozillazine - an advocate of an "Open Community" forcing logins and registration in order to communicate on their forums. This kind of backwardness makes me wonder what sort of legal rights anonymous users should have.
Joseph Elwell.

Re:Litigate for your Anonymous Coward rights.

[rlkoppenhaver]

You're failing to make the distinction between the government and a private organization. Just because the government can't force you to disclose your identity, doesn't mean that a business or other private entity has to let you use their medium to speak anonymously.

Re:Litigate for your Anonymous Coward rights.

[jareds]

• It would seem to me like lawsuits could be brought upon web forums that allow anyone view but require login to post. By allowing anyone to view the statements they are making their forum public, which - apparently - the Supreme Court has stated that anonymous input should be allowed.

Now there's a non sequitir if I've ever seen one. If anyone can read it, it's a public forum? WTF? Maybe I should sue every webzine in existence for not posting my articles. After all, if anyone can read it, it's a public forum.

Regardless, these things are private organizations, not organs of the government. It amazes me how many people think they have some Constitutional right to have their writings hosted on other people's servers for free.

Re:#RIT

[Anonymous Coward]

d00d.

You are a h4x0r.

Please don't h4x0r me.

BTW, first reply to first post.

-cow

your a fake MEEPT

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been a while since I've seen any MEEPT posers. For those of you that don't know, MEEPT was this kind of crazy guy that was borderline disruptive, but was funny and at times witty.

Setting limits on anonymity

[Sargent1]

I almost feel as if my reply should be attributed to Anonymous Coward....

These two viewpoints, while each has obvious merit and obvious failings when taken to extremes, need to be met with some kind of compromise. As it stands now, the only compromise is that the technically savvy can have anonymity and the technically ignorant masses get to have their privacy violated.

However, this position paper seems to rule out the idea of compromise where anonymity is concerned, claiming that most any limit you could place would abridge free speech.

I think this claim is on somewhat shaky grounds. Social dampers have been placed on free speech before; you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, to borrow a cliche.

The fact is that speed of transmission and ease of duplication do have bearing on how speech is regulated. The greater the potential impact of my words, and the more they can affect things for good or ill, the more responsibility I must bear -- why else have laws for libel and slander? And the impact I can have increases the faster I can spread the word and the larger my audience. At some point, anonymity cannot hold.

The question is, where do we strike the balance? The paper makes a strong case for anonymity as an important part of free speech. There's a tug-of-war between the two extremes of total anonymity and total accountability.

It's an issue we need to pay attention to. As the net becomes more commercialized, companies will continue to push to have us tracked. The less we can be anonymous, the more data about us can be amassed and correlated. The old adage to follow the money holds here, and if we turn a blind eye to what's going on, we run the risk of having no such protections later on.

Sargent

Re:Setting limits on anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to guard free speech quite fanatically these days. Groups like the RIAA would be happy to take that away in the name of bigger profits. The 'Net scares the existing Powers that Be, as its many-to-many communication, and they want one-to-many communication like TV, radio, et al, and they are spending billions on trying to make the Net to their liking.

You have to guard anonymity -- there are a lot of people (insurance companies, imgis.com, et al) who want to know everything about you to sell to the highest bidder.

Re:Setting limits on anonymity

[JeffBellegarde]

The fact is that speed of transmission and ease of duplication do have bearing on how speech is regulated. The greater the potential impact of my words, and the more they can affect things for good or ill, the more responsibility I must bear -- why else have laws for libel and slander? And the impact I can have increases the faster I can spread the word and the larger my audience. At some point, anonymity cannot hold.

It's already a self-regulating system. The damages awarded in libel and slander cases is proportionate to the damge caused. If someone's words cause more damage because they were able to spread faster, then the reward to the victim would be greater as well.

There is no reason to loose anonymous speech just because the audience is larger.

Re:Setting limits on anonymity

[Sargent1]

It's already a self-regulating system. The damages awarded in libel and slander cases is proportionate to the damge caused. If someone's words cause more damage because they were able to spread faster, then the reward to the victim would be greater as well.

There is no reason to loose anonymous speech just because the audience is larger.

Ah, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that some of the issues that this paper brushes aside aren't so easily ignored. Yes, libel and slander laws are to some extent self-regulating, but there are different standards for libel than for slander because of the differences of the mediums that are used. I'm saying that the same should hold true for the Internet.

There's a lot of distance between saying "There should be reasonable limits to anonymity" and "There should be no anonymous speech." If I believed the latter, I wouldn't be on /.

Sargent

No HTML, but I have .gifs

[freakho]

..of the individual pages at http://freakho.home.mindspring.com/pd fgif.htm.

Fair warning: they're pretty bug downloads.

History...

[GoNINzo]

For a bit of reflective history, you can look at the past attempts at getting an anonymous email address on the internet. For a long time, there were anonymous remailers, located in odd places. And these were one by one shutdown. Most were free and maintained by individuals

Now we have companies such as yahoo and altavista that allow free anonymous email address. And these are sponsored by companies, which could defend the attacks of critics of anonymous mail. What I find funny is that no cares if you have 10 anonymous email accounts on yahoo.

And if you've ever had any sort of semi-legal situation with a yahoo mail account, you'd understand that it's very difficult to get information on the person!

Anyway, it's funny how large corporations can get away with ideas, and even make them the norm, while individuals are hounded and have their sites shutdown for the exact same ideals... *sigh*

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the history of AOL giving out customer details their agreement said would be kept confidential except under warrant teaches a different lesson, no?

(posting as AC to avoid de-moderating today)

Re:History...

[YoJ]

I would like to see a system like you describe, with posts bouncing between many nodes totally anonymously before being sent to the final destination. It would be nice if there were a network run by many people, and a message sent to any one address would bounce through as many links as possible. If one site got shut down, it wouldn't matter. It would also be hard to press legal action against any one site, because only one site would know the message origination, and one different site would know the message destination.

If the network was designed correctly, it would be impossible for any one site to know where the traffic is coming from or going. Someone trying to break the anonymity through legal means would have to subpoena all the sites. Messages could be limited to 10K each, and only 1 message every 10 minutes per IP address (or something to prevent spam).

-Nathan Whitehead

cuts both ways

[trance9]

I was working on building a good anonymous remailer system a few years ago. The idea would be to distribute the anonymizing effect over as many systems as possible, while denying each system in the chain the ability to work out where the message was coming from or where it was going to. There are several variations on this theme, and a couple of implementations of things close to it.

I stopped working on it when it occurred to me that there were people in the world who would probably put up $50k or more to help me build such a system: terrorist organizations, people plotting to kill someone, street gangs, Hells Angels, etc.

I decided I would stop work on it until I figured out whether or not it was a good idea. I still haven't figured it out.

Re:cuts both ways

[Tim C]

You forgot a few groups: people working to overthrow an unjust/oppresive government, consumer rights organistations wanting to help whistle blowers do so without fear of recrimination, charities wanting to set up anonymous help-lines on the net for battered women/run away children, etc.

It's a difficult problem; I guarantee that for every example of a way that such a system could be misused that you could come up with, someone could come up with another, perfectly justifiable or desirable use.

It's just a matter of weighing up the potential for good against the potential for evil, and deciding which outweighs the other.

As far as anonymity on the net in general goes, however, I'd hate to have to reveal my identity to every website that I passed through, or requested data/text/images from. You think spam is bad now, wait until every banner ad provider gets to know who you are because you requested their image. And, of course, there's all the false positive search engine matches, that turn out to lead to porn sites :o)

Tim

Re:cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I'm sure a government will pay you many many times that to set up just such a system -- but allow THEM to tap in and read any message they want to. Sort of a "false front" operation.... you know, pretending to really be a privacy protecting system, but really tracing everyone and everything for the cops.

It's a real test of your moral strength, ain't it?

Re:cuts both ways

[fishbowl]

The point is that you are the one making that decision. No law enforcement authority has decided for you whether you can make an anonymous remailer.

Re:cuts both ways

[bluespower]

Keiter and Rubin did some interesting work in this direction. Their idea is that instead of using specific remailer, users join a network called "crowd" and each client in effect becomes a mailer. When a message is received the user tosses a coin to decide between forwarding to another link or mailing out to the ultimate destination.

Based on the number of hosts colluding, the system offers varying degrees of anonymity. (Its all worked out mathematically, eg the probability that so-and-so is the originator of the message given the observed traffic.) You can find the paper here:

Crowds: anonymity for Web transactions

BluesPower

Kudos to Cato!

[Xanthippe]

As a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with caring about the poor, promoting social welfare, being generous in spirit as well as materially and in supporting libertarian policies. Most libertarians believe what they do on the basis of sound economic theories supported by empirical studies, sound logic, and critical examination. More importantly, most libertarians support those ideas based upon responsible moral convictions. If I didn't firmly believe that the best way to support the poor was to eliminate welfare, I would never in good conscience advocate such a policy. If you want to know why libertarians support the ideas that they do - look at the arguments, don't just presume that we're all just a bunch of selfish, greedy, heartless (insert your favorite insult here). If you insist on pronouncing judgements, at least do it in an intellectually responsible manner and not simply dismiss the ideas without at least hearing them out.
www.cato.org
www.fee.org
www.perc.org
www.cei.org
www.lp.org
www.free-market.net
www.reason.org

Re:Kudos to Cato!

[Absynthe]

ok, ok, yeah, that was puerile. The libertarian party is my spurned lover, I used to write for the local libertarian paper. I lash out sometimes at my fallen ideals.
I've heard the arguments, I used to write the arguments, but they deny some important facts. Through the last 30 years the US has deregulated and "opened" markets. In the time since 1980 to present the average amount of hours worked has grown an incredible amount where in every other developed country the amount has dropped. At the same time standard of living hasn't raised to meet these long hours, it's actually dropped.
Markets that would be considered "free" in a Adam Smith sence grow at a rate of 2.2% vs 2.1% for "protectionist" markets. I'll point out that the .1% gain in growth is statistically invalid. Probably the closest you could find to a truely free market in this century was the US in 1929 directly proceeding the great depression.
Are those enough points to dislike the Cato Institute?

Re:Kudos to Cato!

[Xanthippe]

I'd be very interested in knowing where you've gotten your stats. There are certainly a number of studies that would say just the opposite, i.e. there has been an enormous increase in wealth and a corresponding increase in leisure time. Simply looking at the CPI changes (check out any Federal Reserve site) would seem to indicate that living standards have changed dramatically, particularly when adjusted for inflation.
I would also recommend taking a look at the Index of Economic Freedom for a more global perspective on economic prosperity. Also, I suggest Robert Higgs' _Crisis in Leviathan_ and other economic historical studies for information about the economic problems occurring prior to and during the Great Depression. It was by no means the free-market ideal and many of the crises' that occurred were due to poor fiscal and monetary policies (the Austrian theory of the trade cycle provides a very good analysis of these problems).

Protection

[eldurbarn]

Most of the examples in the paper seem to be "influencing other people by persuation" vs. "influencing the influencers by coercion".

Anonymity is a refuge, but it will always be necessary so long as there are people (organizations, governments) who will respond to ideas with coercion.

(Personal observation: I was quite amused to note the many examples of anonymous writings by the "Fathers of the American Revolution". I suppose that's why the US Gummint knows how effective anonymous communication is at toppling governments... )

Who's it aimed at?

[RobSweeney]

I'm a Cato sponsor. Depending on one's sponsorship level (read: donations), we receive these. Cato publishes these sorts of briefings all the time. Typically they try to cover issues of the day from a libertarian/free-market perspective. The Internet is a hotbed of both libertarian and statist/regulatory action. Recent relevant briefings cover important policy issues like the need for strong cryptography, non-American encryption products, and the negative effect of corporate welfare on Silicon Valley.

There's an awful lot in the world of regulation that has nothing to do with tech. Cato is at the forefront of exploring free-market alternatives to social security, term limits, welfare reform, and lots and lots of other important topics. As a person closely involved with technology, I'm not always up on these other issues. Cato briefings provide some intellectual ammunition when these non-tech things come up. Lots of people with a libertarian bent come at it from other perspectives - like, say, a pro-laissez-faire-business or a free trade focus. They might not have thought privacy and anonymity issues through. I'm not influential, but maybe some of the people I talk to are. At worst, Cato papers tend to be well thought out and researched; suitable for distribution to and consumption by people who need an alternate viewpoint. Like my congressman.Who really needs one.

I assume Cato sends these to relevant policymakers too; I don't know. Cato staffmembers show up all the time on the political talk show circuit, op-ed columns, etc.

Re:Who's it aimed at?

[Xanthippe]

Thanks for explaining the role of Cato for /. Most people have never heard of Cato or the myriad of other great think tanks out there which are doing similar work. Cato is definitely at the forefront of the free-market policy movement and its nice to know that their work isn't being passed by or unnoticed. Their work on policy is based on economic theory, in-depth empirical studies, and plain old common sense. They don't pretend to be experts on tech issues, nor do they need to be. One of the major reasons why libertarians support limited government is precisely because its impossible for the government (or any other body of officials) to be so well-informed about the information necessary to any particular market that they couldn't possibly run-it much less regulate it well if they tried. (see F.H. Hayek, L. von Mises "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", Thomas Sowell, etc..) Sufficed to say, Cato has great ideas and sound arguments - even if most of the people who work have little contact with tech issues.
I work for a similar organization that does not cover the breadth of research that Cato does, but nonetheless, we try to stay informed. I'm living proof that there are policy people out there who are actually trying to understand the issues not only from a theoretical perspective, but also by being a part of the everyday nuts-and-bolts side of technology issues. And, from what I've found, the arguments don't lose strength when the details of technical specs are thrown in, they are, if anything, made all the stronger.

Re: Freedom

[Signal 11]

these guys and those guys both offer free proxying. The lucent boys also had a free service, but it's since exitted beta. Of course, running nmap and searching for port 8000 for awhile will also yield some "free" services... although *cough* you'd get more than you pay for if you hit the wrong one. :\

OPEN SOURCE SHINING

[opensourceman]

RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A RETSOP SUOMYNONA NA NAM ECRUOS NEPO EKAM OFNI RESU ON DNA TNUOCCA LIAME KNUJ A .ouy knaht

Re:OPEN SOURCE SHINING

[mystik]

Just curious... What encoding is this?

Cato raises another strawman

[vlax]

I am unaware of any current law or proposed law forbidding anonymity on the Internet. Their case seems largely built on an obviously unconstitutional (and technologically illiterate) law in Georgia which was immediately struck down by courts, an article in Communication Daily about some cops' wish list for the 'Net and by a quote, taken heavily out of context, from a justice department official.

(BTW, here is the quote in it's entirety. I found it in the endnotes:

"I think we are perilously close to a lose-lose situation in which citizens have lost their privacy to commercial interests and criminals have easy access to absolute anonymity." -- Justice Dept prosecutor Phillip Reitinger

This is hardly the statist plea to end anonymity that the author makes it out to be - the concern is legitimate. Reitinger is lamenting the loss of anonymity as much as deploring its drawbacks.)

I have difficulty seeing what kind of law could ban anonymity. As the author points out, "Laws requiring the disclosure of identity in cyberspace would require far-reaching changes in Internet technology." The current political climate makes that unlikely, nor are the courts in the US likely to put up with it.

Conceivably, a law could ban IP spoofing (probably not a bad idea) and anonymous remailers (probably a bad idea, but not the end of the world.) The people who would most suffer would not be those with controvertial ideas to disseminate.

Yes, police tend to be paranoid about anything they can't control and some cops have stupid ideas about how the 'Net ought to work, but that doesn't mean the government is about to come swoop down and take away your /. handle. Most cops also want the Miranda decision overturned, and probably would mind some weaker protections regarding the rights of prisoners, probationers and juveniles - that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

This is like the constant rumours that the FCC wants to regulate the Internet - juicy right-wing government conspiracy theories.

ISP's don't let you sign up anonymously for accounts - not if they want to get paid - and if police trace you back to your ISP they will bend over backwards to tell the cops who you are. ISP's have an interest in rooting out spam, and often try to trace anonymous messages back to their source. If you have lost your anonymity on the 'Net these days, it's not the government that did it to you.

I would think the Cato Institute would fight to the death for companies' freedom to deprive you of anonymity. Perhaps the Cato Institute is taking the distinctly anti-libertarian stance that ISP's should be required to provide you with anonymity, or perhaps they are trying to defend the right of spammers to use communication lines without permission of the owners.

Don';t let this strawman argument get you riled up against a problem that doesn't really exist.

Re:Cato raises another strawman

[jkf]

...if police trace you back to your ISP they will bend over backwards to tell the cops who you are.
...If you have lost your anonymity on the 'Net these days, it's not the government that did it to you

Most users of the internet enjoy the mostly unknown priviledge of having an ever chaning IP address. Each time you log in, you get a different IP. Because of this fact, websites don't know who you are unless you explicitly tell them who you are, or they use permanent cookies to keep track. Cookies can be turned off though, for those of use who are truly paranoid and don't want to leak a single bit of information to anyone.

Then there are those who have a static IP address. If the website took the time to analyze their logs, they could determine your viewing habits on their website, and link those habits to your IP address. Then if you ever happen to supply them with information, even one time, about who you are, then now have personal information to apply to those habits. Since your IP has been the same, they can apply all of your past habits with your info too.

Personally this doesn't bother me, but I know there are plenty of people out there that this would bother.

Re:Cato raises another strawman

[badzilla]

"ISP's don't let you sign up anonymously for accounts - not if they want to get paid"

They do here! (UK) See www.pobox.co.uk How about that, an ISP which actively solicits anonymous users.

Re:Cato raises another strawman

[My_Favorite_Anonymou]

Bogus info works well with netzero.net, you just have to put up the ads :) They may have your phone number, but you can pay phone company to erase it. (I know that can over ride too, but still)

cy

Re: Freedom

[Enoch Root]

Anonymizer is crap. They ask you to pay a good sum of money to use their service, AND they ask for your email address and other coordinates. They're riding the anonymity bandwagon and understand it's hot, but have no clue what the hell it is.

[OT] The scoop on Meept!!:

[Dast]

When Meept!! originated, he did not have a user account, but it didn't take him too terribly long to get one. This was long ago, before even I registered, when I was still lurking as an anonymous coward.

The original Meept!! was:
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=MEEPT!!

Notice the id of 4102.

Since then there have been several other Meepts!!

meept (73445)
MEEPT!!!! (62711)
MEEPT!!!!! MEEPT!!!!! @ MEEPT!!!!! . com (61607)
MEEPT!!! (19213)
The Glorious Meept!! (17395)
The GloriousMeept!! (14479)
Glorious Meept!!! (124300)
MEEPT!!!!!! TheGloriousMeept@netscape.net (124467)

The last of which [who is the Meept!! in question] seems to hold more true to the original Meept!!, at least in terms of user info and posting style. The other Meepts!! were usually easy to spot, as they were not nearly as crazy or funny.

Over the past month, there have been increasing amounts of Anonymous Meepts!!.

[FYI, I am preparing a paper on the Meept!! phenomonon--the start of the mass spamming of slashdot. It will be here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=meept!!!]

Re:[OT] The scoop on Meept!!:

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, I have yet to see GritsBoy and The Glorious MEEPT!! on the same article. Could it be a Batman/Bruce Wayne kind of thing?

out of the woodwork.

[GoNINzo]

It's always kind of annoying that when the Anonymous Coward stories start to pop up that they really get annoying. I run with a -1 threshold, so I see the page and a half of 'BUNG'.

I can almost imagine this scenerio:

So-and-so said outlawing guns would be a first step towards safer schools.

• Guns protect our liberties!
• I collect guns as a hobby!
• I'm going to kill my classmates today
• *blam* *blam* *blam* *blam*
• Quake in real life is fun!

Yeah, I just don't get people sometimes.

Re:out of the woodwork.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything can be abused -- including logic. Doesn't mean it should necessarily be banned. It's pretty easy to see that the abusive posts are deliberate provocations in an attempt to get anonymous posting banned. Go ahead. Play into their hands.

yeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to have you back, Meept.

Willard Scott, naked and petrified! Or something.

Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I signed up for a yahoo email account and listed my address as being in a ficticious city from one of my favorite RPGs... That was a year ago, and they haven't kicked me off yet.

Re: Freedom

[Signal 11]

Well, I can't rate anything but lpwa - I used it and it was great. I wish I had mod points to put that one up - if anonymizer is that bad I'd feel kinda guilty throwing the link on /.

haey, hu

[Dast]

revetahw dna tpeem dna dekan deifirtep dna tsop tsrif

Anonymousness

[Inkey$]

The anonymousness of the Internet is one of the defining factors.If you take it away,it would destroy one of the major foundations of the net.Sure,there may be some annoyances (as in the case of BungNut up there), but all in all,it is a necessary thing. 'All that is gold does not glitter,Not all who wander are lost' - J.R.R. Tolkien

And to think I've blown all my hard work recently

[Anonymous Coward]

For years I've maintained a ridiculously low profile on the internet. None of my accounts could have been traced back to myself. (All the way down to using phreaked lines at all cost) In the last few years I've almost completely given up. No.. I don't buy stuff on-line... I still don't give correct information... but I have a static dsl that's registered to myself and I don't even take the time to telnet around before hitting sites anymore.... (sigh) I'm now as traceable as an MX launch in the middle of the night. Oh well... maybe I'll just move and start all over again.... kinda a bummer.

Like shooting steamy hot jiz up my left nostril

[Anonymous Coward]

Please... no more bung.

Re:Like shooting steamy hot jiz up my left nostril

[spiralx]

It's because you've got the long comment bonus on. Go to your user settings and set the amount of lines to 9999999 and they'll all go down to -1.

Gol-durn it!

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML got me... I meant to say it still hasn't gone < 0 on the score.

Re: BUNG

[Anonymous Coward]

BUNG is cool... they make some really nifty Nintendo 64 accessories. Especially good when used with websites like avenue64 :)

http://www.bung.com.hk

Anonymity is like a cup of tea...

[jd]

...how many flavours there are depends on what counts.

Take any public web service, for example. How anonymous are you? Really?

Answer: Depends on what you call anonymous. If you mean "will another casual reader be able to see where I am", the answer is probably no, so in that sense, I suppose you are anonymous.

On the other hand, the web logs are available to the web master, along with any person who knows what vulnerabilities exist and how to exploit them.

Then, of course, there are packet sniffers, that can monitor everything that passes through a given segment of the Internet.

Many language labs have software for analysing text, to look for similarities in style. In the hands of a wannabe-PI, these could be used to track all the boards you write on, your views and the times you typically write. This can give someone a VERY good profile of you, and a likely line of longitude.

Anonymous remailers get busted weekly, so those don't protect anyone. Even the "better" ones have either been shut down, raided or both.

Proxies only shed the IP, and are only effective if they block traceroutes and pings (including TCP pings). Even then, time-frame analysis, content analysis and correlation between boards can give a good idea as to where you are.

Of course, proxies are useless if they don't protect the packet. Even if encrypted, when going into the proxy, the stream going in and the stream going out only need to be correlated ONCE for your identity to be revealed.

You also have to secure the network between you and the proxy, decently. Someone only has to do a man-in-the-middle attack, by DNS spoofing & telling the Internet that their computer is the proxy, rather than the real one, and all the IP-laden packets will float straight to them.

Of course, none of this is really necessary, if you haven't secured your computer. A portscan of every computer in the US isn't going to take long, on a decent machine. If it was a serious corporate or Government move, you can assume they'd have high-power machines in each State, making it possible to waltz into any computer, ANYWHERE in the US, in a very short span of time.

Re:Anonymity is like a cup of tea...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been done. Remember when the FBI was caught trying to issue bogus SNMP commands to German government routers, to hack them?

Isn't that just inviting ACs to spam now?

[Rexifer]

I wouldn't have mentioned that moderation wasn't working... Although I was wondering why the BUNG postings weren't going away...

"Given the importance of anonymity..."

[joshamania]

"Given the importance of anonymity as a component of free speech, the cost of banning anonymous Internet speech would be enor-mous. It makes no sense to treat Internet speech differently from printed leaflets or books. "

Lovely little quote to describe a concept isn't it. I am just thrilled to see someone base an argument on an assumption. Little things like logic need not apply here. As long as we can say "Given" preceeding any assumtion, then the assumption must be true, right?

Apparently it is safe to assume that anything printed in a fancy briefing paper is true. Let me ask you first amendment thumpers out there, "Did Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our constitutional fathers add an amendment to the bill of rights guaranteeing anonymity?" In fact, I believe the constitution does say something about the accused having the right to confront their accuser. Also, the printed word does not guarantee anonymity either. I'm sure the New York Times or the Washington Post are fascinated by this new idea of publishing stories without bylines, and then claiming innocence when hit with a libel suit.

Re:"Given the importance of anonymity..."

[Samrobb]

"Given the importance of anonymity as a component of free speech..."
I am just thrilled to see someone base an argument on an assumption.

It's really hard not to respond to this as if you were a troll... particularly since you go on to provide examples that buttress what you apparently consider a faulty assumption. Yes, it is an assumption - a fairly good one, I think; but in any case, logically you can either accept the assumption, and argue it's consequences, or reject the assumption, and attempt to show why it is invalid. You do neither, instead prefering an ad homeneim attack on the issuer of the statement, which makes you appear unwilling (or unable) to debate the substance of the argument.

Secondly, you make the mistake of equating "freedom" with "lack of responsibility". The NYT is free to print whatever they damn well please - as long as they take responsibility for their actions. If that includes being sued for libel, fine - they may be willing to take that risk, in some instances and for some reasons.

Finally - the right of the accused to confront their accuser applies in a court of law. If I claim (in print) that my old fourth-grade teacher was an ex-Nazi war criminal child molester, he's got every right to accuse me of libel in a court of law, and I have every right to face him there, as he is my accuser .

Re:"Given the importance of anonymity..."

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the press has the right to protect the identity of its sources. Or did you forget this little tidbit?

Re:"Given the importance of anonymity..."

[joshamania]

First, forgive me for not making a very good argument.

Second, logically, assumptions may be used to keep the speaker from having to go too deep into details. For instance, if I say that the ocean is blue, than that is an assumption. If my argument is that the ocean is blue, than I had better say why. When one bases an argument on a premise, he or she must be able to provide proof for that premise, or logically, the argument is invalid.

Below, my faulty assumption is spelled out, just as you would read it in the Constitution of the United States. It says no where in the first amendment that anonymity is a component of free speech. The sixth amendment goes on to say one of the few things about anonymity that is mentioned in the Constitution. Yes, the sixth amendment speaks of criminal proceedings, in a court of law, and we are discussing the rights of the individual. Where are those rights determined? In a court of law. Anonymity is a priveledge, freedom of speech is a right, and the only reason freedom of speech is a right and not a priveledge, is because of the Constitution.

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 6:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Re:Anonymous Coward (offtopic)

[Rusty Shackelford]

Those posts are showing up because they're getting the "Long Comment" bonus. Increase the lower size limit for that bonus to a ridiculously high number if you don't want the bonus to be applied. (I set mine at 999,999, and those posts no longer show up.)

Interesting theory.

[Dast]

I'll have to check it out. ;)

I did it...

[um... Lucas]

It's sloppily converted to HTML here.

It traveled through word, so some of the symbols might be gone... err... just read my disclaimer...

Re:I did it...

[techwatcher]

Thank you. It's a good article, well worth reading, and since I'm reading in a public library (not my own system with Acrobat on it), you've given me access to something I might not otherwise have been able to read.

If not for AC, I wouldn't *READ* Slashdot at all.

[root]

I wouldn't trust info from Slashdot if AC posting was eliminated. 31337 idiots or no, ACs are the Great Equalizer that keeps Slashdot legit. It lets people post the Truth without PH33R that their employers, etc. will find out about them ratting on their company's shady dealings. Of course, lies, flames, and non-sequitors will get posted too. At least the facts are in there too. Without ACs Slashodot would be about as trustworthy as Gallop polls or other news media.

-------------------------------------------------- --------------
I mean, if ACs are being censored, God knows what else they're censoring.
-------------------------------------------------- --------------

Long live ACs on Slashdot!

FBI purjury is ROUTINE PRACTICE in these cases.

[jms]

What is more likely to happen is that the agent will take the stand, and lie about what happened.

In a very recent case, Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Douglas Strickland testified that it is routine practice for the highway patrol's drug interdiction teams to lie under oath in exactly these cases.

From an editorial on the case:


THE CONTROVERSY STEMS from a May 19, 1998, car search. At the time, Strickland and Trooper Bruce Hutheson told a Polk County judge that they had pulled up alongside a broken-down Lincoln Continental stopped on Interstate 4. They said they became suspicious of the driver, Michael Flynn, because he would not give them access to the trunk so they could check if a fuel shut-off switch had malfunctioned. When they called over the police dog they just happened to have with them, it homed in on the back of the car. Inside they ``discovered'' 220 pounds of cocaine. The state judge, on the basis of this evidence, set bail at $1 million.

Trouble was, the troopers neglected to tell the judge they knew all along that the car contained drugs. They had been with the FBI when the car was loaded. The FBI, we now know, was conducting a reverse sting and had used a remote control device planted in the car to make it inoperable.

So, in theory, he "won't do anything" because the information was obtained illegally, but in the absolutely corrupt-to-the-core "real world" of the FBI in the 1990s, he will simply lie to the judge about where the evidence came from.

Re:FBI purjury is ROUTINE PRACTICE in these cases.

[jms]

Here's a better article

Long-comment bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

Go into your preferences and disable the long-comment bonus. While it's active, those posts can never go below zero. It really doesn't serve much purpose.

Re:Long-comment bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

Done. Danke schõn.

Re:Long-comment bonus

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of which, adding 1 to the scores *that I see displayed*, rather than just using them to determine the threshold, is a bug in Slashdot. The system should not deceive anyone about the actual score of a post if they are displaying scores.

Not with IPv6

[redelm]

Anonymity currently exists on the Internet largely due to dynamic IP addressing by dial-up ISPs. The more rigorous alternatives (www.anonymizer.com) are problematic and troublesome for casual use. The anonymity comes from the difficulty of dredging through ISP logs to link an IP with a userid, and the limited number of requests ISPs will fulfill, mostly from law enforcement. Often, the logs will have expired [been deleted by rotation].

However, all this will vanish with 128-bit [sic] addressing in IPv6. Many bits will be used for routing, but you can bet some bits will be dedicated to identifying _you_, even if you did dialup. Essentially, you will have a static dial-up IP address. Since any site you commpunicate with has to be able to return packets to you, they will have to know your IP.

-- Robert

Re: CID

[Anonymous Coward]

BUNG is cool... they make some really nifty Nintendo 64 accessories. Especially good when used with websites like avenue64 :)

(Looking at the original subject...)

CID is cooler... it's made by many different people. Especially good when used with lots of flashy lights. :)

Re:If not for AC, I wouldn't *READ* Slashdot at al

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I think Alexander Hamilton was schmoking weed when he said it, but he did say "The price of freedom is occasional annoyance." BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG BUNG just kidding.

Public Forums, a definition.

[jelwell]

Well, it seems that plenty of people don't like a little sarcasm. It just seems odd that places like Zdnet - that can be harmed by public criticism etc... - allow anonymous posting while mozillazine stifles would be anonymous users from using their forum.

Anyways, for anyone interested there is a really good research paper on Public Forums, calledWhose Forum is this Anyway?

I guess it's an American thing to use litigation as sarcasm. When I was in Switzerland I went Canyoning - two weeks before 21+ kids died at the same place I went. Anyways, when my group was being driven up the mountain in our van - some guy backed up into the van. Wham. Someone in the back seat yelled out, "I'm suing". To which, the drive - a swiss local - replied, "This is Switzerland, go back to America."

Go read the research paper.
Joseph Elwell.

Anonymity is just a quick fix...

[jlamorie]

Gidday there,

I disagree with the whole concept of anonymity, on the Internet or anywhere. In this day and age of people not taking responsibility for their actions, proclaiming anonymity just makes this worse.

I would prefer to live in a world where all information was free, and that I could speak openly with my name front and foremost associated with my comments. There is so much effort being spent on making things anonymous, but wouldn't that energy be better spent trying to make it less difficult for people to be intimidated when they speak openly.

Or perhaps by increasing the amount of tolerance.

Finding technology that makes people anonymous doesn't fix the underlying problems of irresponsibility and intolerance.

Joshua Lamorie
An obligated engineer.

Anonymity Is a Two Edged Sword

[the eric conspiracy]

In some ways a site like /. serves as a new publication populated by a bunch of amatuer journalists and a couple of wet-behind the ears editors. Great. But there is smoe precident here.

Journalists have to face the issue of anonymous sources every day. Anonymity will sometimes allow people to reveal information they otherwise would not, BUT anonymity also prevents people from verifying information. Thus journalists (at least good ones) try to avoid using anonymous sources whenever possible.

Anonymity may be a cloak for illegal action, like making claims intended to influence the price of a stock (very common on the internet) or slander a political candidate (like the recent campaign claiming that John McCain was suffering psychological damage from his tour as a prisoner of war).

It is important for journalists to be able to use anonymous sources, but it is ALSO important for journalists to take information received from such sources with a large dose of salt.

The boon and the flaw in the internet is that you get the news unfiltered. The danger is that the audience may take too much of it as fact, especially if the sources are not verifiable.

What is really needed when reading places like slashdot is a healthy dose of schepticism and a willingness to do a little thinking. The first is easy, but the second?

CNNfn article on Workplace Monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

CNNfn is carrying this article on just where to draw the line in setting workplace policies on monitoring communications of employees.

The SAS Institute is used an example.

use registration to create anonymity

[Anomalous_Coward]

I prefer to remain anonymous as much as possible and ironically registering at websites, etc. actually helps with that. I got a telemarketing call one day and since I was bored, I answered some questions. After the survey, I was asked for my last name. I said I don't give that information out and apparently the person "had" to enter something. Weeks later I started receiving junk mail for Mr Firstname Smith. Now with that name (and a few others) I signup for webemail accounts and "register" at websites with them. Since all these databases eventually will be shared and compared, I think I'll have a couple pretty solid virtual people created in a year or so. Beats the heck out of creating them from scrap DNA.

Anonymity and Speech

[Artagel]

A couple of points:

Sure, the government cannot require that the protected speech identify you. That is not the same as saying you are guaranteed untraceable means to use. If you are handing out unsigned leaflets on a street corner, a policeman can still look at you to see who you are. Remember, earlier this year the KKK was required to march unmasked in New York. (Personally, I think that decision was wrong, but that decision was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.)

I just don't see where the Internet is any better or worse off than the real world in a lot of ways. First, you can ignore what you want to. Second, people CAN do things anonymously in real life, such as distributing defamatory leaflets, or sending crank snail-mail.

Re: www.anonymizer.com (was: Re: Freedom)

[wmono]

> Anonymizer is crap. They ask you to pay a good sum of money to use their service, AND they ask for your email address and other coordinates. They're riding the anonymity bandwagon and understand it's hot, but have no clue what the hell it is.

I remember when Cottrell set up the Anonymizer years ago. It started off free, with no registration. Then it was disabled for half an hour each hour for non-registered users. I haven't seen what it's become in the past few years, but I presume all of the new restrictions and whatnot are due to the reality that bandwidth costs a lot of money.

(Recall that Cottrell is the one who wrote the Mixmaster "Type II" [post-cypherpunk] anonymous email remailer software, and as far as I know is still running at least one anonymous remailer. He is well known to cypherpunks and others concerned with privacy and freedom. He is definitely not clueless.)

For *much* more detail...

[Froomkin]

Actually, there's very little new in this paper, although the presentation is very snappy, and the PR blitz is impressive, verging on excessive (I've seen this announcement about 15 times on various lists today).

For a much more detailed, and perhaps more tedious, look at law and anonymity issues, see my paper Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living With Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases (1996), which discusses the cryptographic foundations of anonymity, and the legal issues it raises. You may also be interested in my 1996 paper on the Clipper Chip, which discusses whether a legal restrictions on crypto use would be consitutional.

Hmmm. Maybe next time I write a paper I should issue a press release? (No, I know, I should write shorter papers....)

A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA

Re: Freedom

[bluespower]

The first link points to Anonymizer.
That site requires signup for decent service but if you are patient enough the site allows anyone to load pages anonymously, except that a frustrating delay is imposed deliberately to "encourage" users to pay the $50/year.

Unfortunately there are several problems with the Anonymizer approach. To hide the origin of the HTTP request, active content including Javascript and applets must be disabled. (Otherwise bad things happen: for example using the object-model script could force another HTTP request to server revealing the original IP)
This means that pages which have dependency on script will not work. It is entirely another story whether designing one's site to require Javascript for proper functioning was such brilliant idea and surely Jakob Nielsen will have plenty to comment on this. But the reality is that especially among the recent breed of ecommerce sites have all the latest DHTML incorporated and script is crucial there.

More importantly cookies are not exchanged meaning that shopping carts will not work. Technically you could browse but you could not buy-- moot point since there are other privacy problems in electronic transactions. (Shipping address, credit cards, etc.) Neat feature would have been to create a temporary cookie jar used per session and discarded.

Paradoxically this service creates a problem of different type. Because the number of registered users is small, web servers getting requests from Anonymizer.com will assume that it is coming from one of the handful of registered users :)
In other words previously you could be one of the millions on the web-- but thanks to your proxy you are now identified within a few thousand people. One could only hope that the company can manage to keep its user database private.

BluesPower

No it is NOT illegal

[A nonymous Coward]

The supreme court has in fact ruled that it is an essential part of liberty to be able to distribute anonymous flyers.

I wish I had a reference for you. but I am absolutely positive about this. I remember well the day I saw the article, and rejoiced that there was still some sanity left in this world.

--

Re:No it is NOT illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you had a reference, too.

Sadly, you don't, so nobody has to believe you.

And nobody should.

Re:No it is NOT illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

One superb reference demonstrating the legality of anonymous political pamphlets is the article we're all talking about:

Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet

Not a strawman

[A nonymous Coward]

There was the article recently on Slashdot about Tim Berners-Lee's sidekick who wanted to license all internet surfers. Now if this guy, supposedly on the side of good, can advocate banning anonymity, imagine what the idiots in the NSA and FBI must be wanting.

--

but does it exist?

[periscope]

The question that needs to be raised really is is there such a thing as anonymity? I would argue that there is and there is not. True, I can come on to a news site like /. and submit anonymous stories, etc. However, you need to remember that whilst Joe Public doesn't know who you are, the government, law enforcement agencies and large corporations can find out that kind of information with the *click* of some fingers. I have accepted the fact that it is not possible for me to be anonymous on the internet, isn't it time we all just lived up to that fact? There's no extreamist paranoia here, just the plain simple truth that the internet doesn't function in an anonymous manner, so it's users cannot either.

Anonymity banned on @Home

[Anonymous Coward]

@Home's Acceptable Use Polity bans anonymous chat: "Forging, altering, or obscuring your identity (other than using a nickname from which @Home could if necessary determine your real name) while participating in chat sessions is forbidden."

Cogeco Cable's AUP (they are part of the @Home network, in Canada) has a similar section: "Forging, altering, or obscuring your identity while participating in chat sessions is forbidden. You, may, however, use a nickname as long as all chat participants are able to discover your real name via normal Internet conventions, such as the "whois" command."

Do any other ISP's have restrictions like this?

Hey Asshole!

[Nexeslad]

Its Assholes like you that make it hard for real speakers try to post their ideas with out fear of beings attacked for it!

Quicken Monitoring your Email reading

[SEWilco]

An anonymous email address is not enough. You need email-reading programs which enforce your desired level of privacy.

For example, if you just got the "Quicken TurboTax December Tax Alert" email and you read it with a web browser, then they've made a connection between your name on file, your IP address, the email address configured in your browser, and other HTTP data. Look in that message and you'll see

img src="http://secure.emailpub.com/sensor?image=2379& id=1234567"

And every time you reread that message and tickle that web server they get another look.

Re: Freedom

[Kris_J]

. To hide the origin of the HTTP request, active content including Javascript and applets must be disabled.

Proxomitron is very good at surgically removing specific Javascript without destroying the functionality of the page. I only have two side effects; MSN sites tell me to upgrade to IE5, which is what I'm using, and Yahoo's Club's Photo albums don't work because it doesn't look like I'm loading the images from their page. This is because the User-Agent and Refer are blocked. Since I then run through a proxy and the acutal address of my PC is 195.0.0.153 it's pretty hard for people to trace me, if I don't want them to.

However, there are plenty of services where I'm happy to supply info and accept cookies, so the site can help me or supply me with something.

Getting back to the subject of this article - I do not believe that anonymity is a requirement for free speech. If free speech were really valued and protected, you wouldn't need anonymity.

I Tested Freedom from Zero Knowledge...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and IMO it's a lot better than nothing, especially for the non-technical user, but it's not nearly as secure as I would like it to be.

Freedom can not co-exist with a PC firewall. Period. Their tech support says that the Freedom client "is" a firewall, but where's the traffic log? An independent review of Freedom's performancer as a firewall, from a certifying body with respectable credentials, is the only thing that would make me consider Freedom a secure network application.

Freedom's routing system does not remix, which means that pinpointing a given user is a fairly linear process, well within the means of, for example, a repressive State.

Closed source proprietary payware. Is that three bad words or four? But seriously, I would trust it a lot more if the source was open and independently reviewed.

As I said, I would consider the Freedom client and service a *lot* better than nothing, especially for the non-technical user; but I personally prefer having a real firewall and the Internet Junkbuster local proxy: Real intrusion resistance plus powerful anti-tracking functions. Lotsa Slashdot fans will like knowing that IJB is available for Unix and OS/2 as well as Windoze, is open source, and is under GNU public liscence.

BTW, I post as an anonymous coward because all the good pseudonyms are taken.

:o))

Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Long live the Anonymous Coward!!! /. is helping preserve free speech! (Well, duh). Once everyone is accountable, for everything, suddenly, nothing interesting gets said. When the 'net is completely censored, we'll just have to find another means of communicating/expressing ideas.

Re:Color... sig

[NatePuri]

The real significance of this is the fact that there is definite Supreme Court support for on-line anonymity.

I'd be suprised if the author was not a lawyer; if he is not, it is the best written legal analysis by a non-lawyer that I have ever read.

The first amendment is the last refuge of freedom in the Constitution; that, and attorney-client privlege.

Anon. sources lead to better on-record sources

[sansbury]

Speaking as someone who not long ago worked at the City Desk of a large daily, anonymous sources often provide the "missing link" a reporter needs to pin a story down. If an anonymous source came to you alleging corruption by some city official, you didn't necessarily print it, but you did call up that official and ask... and investigate, if called for.

-cwk.

Purjury - Australian Police.

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a policeman under oath, and on the record said he did not know what the word perjury meant, not 'set up' either. Time to cry.... Like most proven cases - referred to AG's - no action. May be different in USA, but in Australia a policemans 'word' is regarded more than the plantiffs, and illegal evidence is often allowed. For traffic violations, this stinks. on the other hand - makes for a more peaceful society - and besides - we have no privacy anyway. What I find awful, is that 25 years later, liars do not get just deserts. What was that British movie??

Re:Howto

[Anonymous Coward]

Try rules of evidence to get off, and bog the process down. Study shows lawyers hopeless.. Lawyer on drink driving charge I should get off because I was not THAT high Judge How High Lawyer: .15 not (.3) - 2 days of expert evidence Judge OK, conviction recorded at .15. Lawyer appeals - and gets off on basis that to get off, he had to incriminate himself. Another aussie snippet: Here, self incrimination is accepted by the law

No to anonymity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymity on the internet should be banned. It's so cowardly.

And you have to log out to have it here... sheesh! ;-)

Re: Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech can't be completely protected in a free society. If none of my statements were novel and controversial enough I'd face harassment, blacklisting, or worse ("accountability" is a euphemism for all these forms of revenge) for expressing them, I wouldn't need to speak them at all.

Segfault Lamer??

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that since segfault stopped free speech due to immature behaviour such as first posts the offenders won't start on slashdot.. Personally i think they have no chance as Slashdot is too popular:)

You mean pseudonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly the same as anonymity.

Don't Get Complacent!

[werdna]

It is comforting to have ACLU v. Miller as a cyber-leg-up into the Supreme Court free speech anonymity case, but it isn't enough. The Anonymity cases do NOT proffer absolute rights, and there have been some very dangerous trends.

Notwithstanding what we may think of the Klu Klux Klan, the Second Circuit ratification of Giuliani's enforcement of New York's gag law is a harbinger of dangers to come. There, claims of anonymity during a pilitical demonstration took the back seat to claims that folks are less likely to do harm if they are "unmasked."

The difference is that Georgia didn't recite its "compelling governmental interest." Regrettably, Miller may in time stand more as a roadmap how to make an enforceable cyber-mask law than as proof that the right to anonymity exists.

The long and short of it is that we must remain politically vigilant. You never need to test the constitutionality of a law that doesn't pass. Rather than using "rights" language ("you can't do this because its unconstitutional"), we must use the "policy" language that legislators understand ("you can't do this because its bad for America and bad for you, and because you'll never get reelected if you vote for it").

We must make our case for privacy on the net in terms Americans understand, before the debate is seized and controlled by the censors. It is we who must seize the initiative, and create a status quo of public sympathy that the censors must overcome.

Cybermask laws are the next CDA -- count on it! The Courts now have told the censors how to do it, and they are just waiting for the next big opportunity to make it happen. Let's seize the initiative before they have their chance.

Information Laundering

[Anonymous Coward]

This was precisely the method used by Los Angeles cops to "launder" information gathered through illegal wiretaps.

KKK in NY

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue wasn't about anonymous marching, it was about New York's somewhat recently passed ordinance banning the wearing of masks in marchs/parades/etc. w/ exception to Halloween. The KKK lawyers were saying that ordinance prevented anonymous free speech, but NY claimed that it's for safty precautions, such as when violence breaks out and the police *have* to be able to identify aggressors and victims so they can file their reports and to prevent questionable lawsuits against the city.

http://www.freedom.net

[Anonymous Coward]

they are making it happen now.