Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: PRIVACY Internet Hide and Seek: Staying Under Cover (fwd)


From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:05:40 -0400



Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:17:54 +0300 (EEST)
From: Luther Van Arkwright <waste () zor hut fi>
To: cypherpunks () toad com

http://www10.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/04/circuits/articles/08pete.html

April 8, 1999

STATE OF THE ART / PETER H. LEWIS

Internet Hide and Seek: Staying Under Cover

    W ASHINGTON -- He did his best to remain anonymous, but within days
    after an expert programmer released the Melissa computer virus into
    the world late last month, the police reported that his identity had
    been cracked. Investigators used a tracking mechanism the Microsoft
    Corporation had secretly installed in its Office software to gather
    information on its customers surreptitiously.

    In Yugoslavia, meanwhile, messages poured onto the Internet from the
    war zone, providing what appeared to be firsthand accounts of Serbian
    atrocities against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Privacy advocates
    realized that if the Serbian authorities were able to trace the
    identities of the writers, many lives could be lost. Ominously,
    messages from some writers had stopped suddenly.
    
    The privacy groups moved swiftly to provide the writers with special
    access to Anonymizer.com, an Internet service that allows users to be
    anonymous and untraceable online, and with information about PGP, a
    data encryption program so strong that the United States prohibits
    its export.
    
    These two cases, worlds apart, underscore a growing dilemma that now
    confronts the electronic world. "Anonymity has incontestable value in
    a huge number of situations, and it is constitutionally protected,"
    said Philip Reitinger, a prosecutor for the Justice Department,
    speaking at a Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference here today.
    Moments later, during a panel discussion, he added, "If you're
    serious about prosecuting crime on the global communications
    infrastructure, you have to have traceability.
    
    "Should communications on the Internet be traceable in some
    circumstances? And if so, what should the rules be?"
    
    The issue is a broad one because anonymity is not of interest only to
    criminals and dissidents, and not available only to the technically
    astute. New technologies are emerging that enable even casual
    Internet users to be anonymous online for the first time. At the same
    time, new technologies are being deployed to gather ever more
    personal information from users.
    
    In recent weeks, a debate has emerged over new technologies that have
    been deployed to allow companies to track individual users on the
    Internet. The Intel Corporation embedded a unique identification
    number in its Pentium III processor that would enable network
    operators to identify individual computers on the Internet, and the
    Microsoft Corporation designed a "globally unique identifier" that
    secretly appears in Microsoft Office documents and can be used to
    trace files back to a specific person. The Microsoft Office
    identification number was used in the Melissa investigation.
    
    Some privacy tools are being simplified and made available
    commercially to a broad audience, allowing anyone to browse the World
    Wide Web and use E-mail without being identified. The technologies
    are morally neutral. They could be used, for example, to commit a
    crime or to report one anonymously. The tools, like the Anonymizer
    (www.anonymizer.com)
    , are also useful simply for browsing the Web without having to give
    up personal information to marketers, for visiting sex-related Web
    sites without potential embarrassment, posting messages on newsgroups
    using pseudonyms and for avoiding spam, the bulk-mail advertising
    pitches that advertisers send incessantly to E-mail addresses they
    have culled from the Net.
    
    "The Internet has shifted the balance away from privacy, and these
    are attempts to bring it back," said David Banisar, an officer of the
    Electronic Privacy Information Center (www.epic.org)
    .
    
    There are other anonymity systems in the works.
    
    AT&T Labs-Research in New Jersey, a system called Crowds is being
    tested that operates on the premise, familiar to any New Yorker, that
    one can be anonymous in a crowd. In the Crowds system, large groups
    of geographically dispersed Internet users would be able to band
    together and their individual Web page requests would be randomly
    forwarded through a shared computer called a proxy server. The
    operator of the Web site would not know which member of the crowd
    submitted the request, and neither would anyone else in the crowd.
    More information is available at
    www.research.att.com/projects/crowds.
    ___________________________________________________________________
  
  On-line anonymity tools insure privacy as well as shield wrongdoers. 
    ___________________________________________________________________
  
    At the Lucent Corporation's Bell Labs, another anonymity system
    called the Lucent Personalized Web Assistant allows a Web user to
    create a pseudonym for each Web site; the same pseudonym would be
    used on each visit. The Web site operator would not know the
    visitor's true identity but could still build a profile of the user's
    preferences that could be used to tailor advertisements and content
    to the customer on subsequent visits. More information about Lucent's
    system is available at www.lpwa.com.
    
    Yet another anonymity system under development, this one at the
    Government's Naval Research Laboratory, is Onion Routing. An Onion
    Router (www.onion-router.net) hides not only the content of messages,
    but also the very fact that two people are communicating over a
    public network.
    
    One of the more intriguing anonymity services under development is
    Freedom, a Windows program developed by a Canadian company, Zero
    Knowledge Systems (www.zeroknowledge.com). Freedom, which is expected
    to be available for public testing next month, is similar to the
    Lucent system in that it enables users to establish pseudonyms that
    are consistent over time. That would allow a user to participate
    freely in a discussion group without worrying about being identified.
    
    Freedom is expected to cost $50 a year for five separate digital
    pseudonyms (extra identities are $10 a year). These on-line personas
    cannot be traced to reveal the user's identity.
    
    The technical details of the system, including strong data
    encryption, masked Internet addresses and proxy servers, are hidden
    behind a simple user interface, which I've tried in early form. After
    a user chooses a persona by clicking on it, all identifying
    information is stripped from the original request and replaced by the
    information created for the pseudonym.
    
    Millions of Internet users already employ pseudonyms; America Online,
    for example, calls them screen names and allows each subscriber to
    have several. But in most cases a pseudonym can be traced to its real
    owner, often when the Internet company is compelled by a court order
    to divulge the information or is tricked into doing so.
    
    For example, the giant defense contractor Raytheon Corporation sued
    more than 20 employees earlier this year for posting pseudonymous
    messages about the company on the Internet. At least two employees
    resigned after Yahoo, in response to a court subpoena, revealed the
    true identities behind the postings. Ray-theon asserts that the
    messages, which contained gossip and criticisms of the company,
    divulged proprietary and confidential information.
    
    With Freedom, not even Zero Knowledge Systems can link the pseudonyms
    to a user's real identity. The company knows only that the person has
    a Freedom account.
    
    The oldest commercial service offering anonymity, and the only one
    currently available to users of any Internet-connected computer, is
    Anonymizer.com. Unlike Freedom, Anonymizer does not require the user
    to download or install any special software. For a fee of $5 a month,
    users can process Web browsing requests and send messages through
    Anonymizer's proxy servers. (There is also an unlimited free browsing
    service, but Anonymizer inserts a delay, typically 10 seconds, on
    page views in the free service. The paid service has no delays.) For
    an extra fee, Anonymizer will also allow users to receive E-mail
    responses and set up Web pages.
    
    In either case, the user types the address of the Web site to be
    visited, and the request is sent to Anonymizer's proxy computer. The
    proxy strips off the customer's identifying information and forwards
    the request to the Web site, which knows only that the request is
    coming from Anonymizer. The page or graphics file is then returned to
    the user's computer, and the site can be bookmarked for return visits
    with the anonymity intact.
    
    If a company is tracking Web usage by its employees -- which the
    courts have ruled is legally permissible, along with reading
    employees' E-mail and listening to their phone calls -- it will see
    only that the user is connected to Anonymizer.com, but it will not be
    able to find out what sites are being visited. For that reason, a
    number of companies prohibit employee access to the Anonymizer site.
    Other companies use Anonymizer regularly to visit the Web sites of
    competitors and gather information, and law enforcement agencies use
    it routinely to check up on people under investigation.
    
    At the other end of the line, some commercial sites do not allow
    connections from Anonymizer, either because they require visitors to
    provide personal information before granting them access or because
    they have had bad experiences with Anonymizer users who abused the
    system with bogus credit card scams or harassing messages. Anonymizer
    was forced to block its users' access to the White House Web site
    because customers were sending threats to the President.
    
    Anonymizer boots out customers who try to use the system to send
    batches of spam, or in response to complaints from people being
    harassed through the site.
    
    As with all of the anonymous services now being developed for the
    Internet, the good has to be balanced with the bad.
    
    "The real world is routinely anonymous," said Lance Cottrell,
    Anonymizer's chief executive. "When you drive down the street,
    typically there is no one photographing your license plate, no one
    keeping track of where you park and how long you stay. What's unusual
    about the Internet is that everything is by default logged and
    tracked. What's aberrant is not the presence of anonymity on the
    Internet, but that you have to take special steps to achieve it."
    
    State of the Art is published on Thursdays. Click here for a list of
    links to other columns in the series.
      ________________________________________________________________
    
    Related Sites
    These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The
    Times has no control over their content or availability.
    
    * www.anonymizer.com
    * www.epic.org
    * www.research.att.com/projects/crowds
    * www.lpwa.com
    * www.onion-router.net
    * www.zeroknowledge.com
      ________________________________________________________________
    
    
   Peter H. Lewis at lewis () nytimes com welcomes your comments and
   suggestions.

  Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company


Current thread: