Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
/. 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.
(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
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.
-------------------------------------------------- --------------- --------------
I mean, if ACs are being censored, God knows what else they're censoring.
-------------------------------------------------
Long live ACs on Slashdot!