FC: Replies to LA Times columnist wanting to limit anonymity online

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Previous Politech message:

"LA Times columnist wants it to 'be harder to be anonymous' online"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03477.html

---

From: "Vincent Penquerc'h" <Vincent.Penquerch () artworks co uk>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous" on
        line
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:43:35 +0100

> So instead of worrying ourselves silly about ways to protect these few
> who are afraid to stand up for their words and actions, we should be

*sigh*
It's so easy to stand up for your words and actions, when these
are nothing that could annoy the government or other bodies of
power. Thank you, John Balzar, for these rare insights into how
political dissidents in many countries could use the internet.

--
Vincent Penquerc'h

----

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:10:27 -0400
Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be
        anonymous"online
From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
To: <declan () well com>

Declan, this is ridiculous. This guy is either afraid of technology or
doesn't know how things work in an information-based society.  A few
responses are provided below -  I do hope these make it to your list.

Article source:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/3170530.htm

He says:

> Last I looked, some Internet service providers offered subscribers the 
chance
> at five different identities, perfect for all but the most advanced cases of
> split personalities.

Gee, AOL calls them 'child accounts' - sure, they could be used for
anonymous purposes....many folks use one for 'spam purposes' when they
register software. Just because the capability exists for someone to use
something for malicious purposes doesn't mean they actually will.

Besides, if such accounts were used for malicious purposes - stalking and
such - nearly every ISPs, especially the mainline ones like AOL, can provide
dial-in and customer information to law enforcement when subpoenaed. If
anyone thinks they're anonymous going through such ISPs, they're sorely
mistaken.

Besides, a truly bad person would stand up his own email server to cause
mischief, and bypass the AOLs of the world.

> Your ability to sound your way across the Web anonymously means that you can
> harass someone else and intrude on their time without being answerable. By
> what sensible measure can this be defined by a word so noble as ``privacy''?

This guy's a public figure. If he was victimized by such actions, it's no
different than a Hollywood star being forced to deal with the paparazzi
masses. He's just angry because his name got mixed into something
embarassing....it happens to the best of us....he needs to get over it.

If you don't want to risk it, don't stick your neck out.

> The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that 
anonymity is
> one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy.

His sarcasm aside, the folks that built the Web never envisioned it to be
the mainstream environment that it is currently, or that it evolve into a
corporate-controlled quagmire (eg, MS, WIPO, ICANN) that it is today. This
guy needs to do some homework before making such broad jabs at visionaries
like Lee, Cerf, Postel, and others, who indeed brought the world into a new
age.

I agree that the web's "foundation is wormy" - but not because of how it's
designed or because of anonymous ways of using it, but because many of the
systems providing content on the net are insecure - either through operator
ignorance/oversight, or because such systems are running easily-exploited
buggy operating systems. Addressing security concerns at this level will
help prevent most of the concerns he's bringing up in this article.

>Already, one of the first lessons taught in  middle-school computer labs 
is to
>regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder -- apt to bite you at
>any moment. Is this the best we can expect  from the information revolution?

How is that any different from when our parents told us not to talk to
strangers when walking home from school??

A few closing comments:

Think about it. If someone writes for months and years for a reputable
publication - like Balzar does - and then all of a sudden, a byline with his
name appears on a kiddie-porn advocacy article on some website somewhere, it
doesn't take a genius to think something fishy happened there. I don't think
many folks would think he's a kiddie-porn guy even if the situation would
break the mainstream news. A simple search of the web and his journalistic
credentials would be proof enough that such an article wasn't written by
him. Instead he blames anonymity in cyberspace. I know that if it was any
journalist I know, I'd be questioning the authenticity of the document, and
not rush off to judge them as evil or deviant.

Eg, someone posts a fake press release on Yahoo Finance. Sounds fishy to
some. Might the person think "hmm, this is peculiar and out of the norm for
Company X or Person Y?" and  They try to confirm it with Marketwatch, CNBC,
WSJ, and any number of other sites, who neither have it posted on their site
nor even know about this release. Maybe you call the company itself for
verification, that's what they have PR and investor relations offices for.
Only the idiot would assume such an item to be valid, just like only an
idiot would impusively act on news from a single, uncorroborated source -
it's common sense always, and more so with the scandals on Wall Street
coming to public scrutiny.

The web's transparency means that if you've got a historical 'good name' out
there, when there's something that sounds goofy associated with yours, it's
relatively easy to correlate and disprove, if you have half a clue and a
good head on your shoulders. Sure, there's a lot of extraneous white noise
on the net, but it's generally easy to correlate and clarify things, too.

There will always be bad people out there - who will always abuse the system
and find ways around the established norms of behavior.

This article has nothing to do with anonymity on the net - it's one guy's
response to a situation that ruffled his feathers, in a new medium (the net)
that he's probably uncomfortable operating in.

Richard Forno
www.infowarrior.org
(c) 2002 by author. Permission granted to reproduce in full.


---

From: guess () who com
To: declan () well com, wk () c4i org
Subject: Re: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous"  online

This Story has been sent to you by : guess () who com






Hi Declan,

Ironically SiliconValley.com runs a very nice
anonymous email system that I found from
reading Mr. Balzar's article.  The "email this article" feature is a great 
way to send email to anyone.  The sender has complete control of the
return address, subject line, and message text.

The best part is that the sender's IP address
is not recorded in the email headers as far as
I can tell.

bye bye

---

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 09:40:29 -0500
From: Chet Uber <eidetic () mindspring com>
Reply-To: eidetic () mindspring com
Organization: SecurityPosture

Mr. Balzar:

What middle schools teach this? Is it all, most, some, few, or just the
imaginary one you created for your article? Please give States and
districts to support this claim. Being directly involved in K-12 ethics
and cyberspace curriculum development I would really like to know. This
is a huge problem, as if the Web is truly as dangerous as the adder
(responsible for thousands of IRL deaths a year) then no one should be
allowed to use it. It is better to talk about the subtle dangers they
might face, like stalking and scams -- in the real world context. Not
some made up "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" bullshit
scare story.

I think the only reason that this person wants to get rid of anonymity
is that they think this would help them qwell parody speech. Which
further shows there complete lack of understanding of free speech and
the Internet community.Why do people who really don't get it continue to 
want to make therules.There is nothing wrong with anonymity in and of 
itself. It is one of the
cornerstones of privacy. Without it, you must rely on security to ensure
privacy, and to date this has been as effective as -- well posting your
private affairs on a bulletin board. When you use it to lie to commit a
crime there is an issue, but IRL people use ski masks and stockings.
Should we ban ski masks and stockings as well?


eidetic

--
Chet Uber, eidetic () mindspring com, PGP
B8DE8D3F
Senior Advisor, SecurityPosture
7660 Dodge Street, Suite D - Omaha, NE 68114
vox +1 402.498.2673 fax +1 402.391.3906 cell +1 402.671.9720

---

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:50:11 -0400
To: declan () well com
From: Eric Tully <eric () tully com>
Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be
  anonymous"  online

I wonder what he thinks about the anonymity of The Federalist Papers.

- Eric

---

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:52:03 -0400
From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVY () citizen org>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be
        anonymous"online

Is the LA Times going to stop relying on anonymous sources?  Or, are they 
going to "out" anyone who tries to give them information and asks not to be 
identified?

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html

---

From: Cynthia Grossen <cgrossen () lans mha org>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous" on
        line
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:02:18 -0400

Sorry Declan -- I'd rather email the author directly but his email address
wasn't readily available from his article. Maybe he's protecting his
^privacy^.

Basically my response is . . . so what. I want my anonymity.

 And I dispute the claim that anonymity is only used by people for
illegitimate or illegal purposes. When I go to the library and browse
through the stacks I can see all sorts of information that I wouldn't
necessarily what other people to know that I'm looking up. Maybe I'm looking
for information on a species of plant or an exotic animal. Maybe I'm
researching an embarrassing medical condition. Maybe I'm a professional
person who wants to look up the answer to a question that I should know the
answer to already. (i.e. what if I'm a computer programmer and I have a
basic question about computer programming?) My point is that by browsing the
stacks I can find the information that I need/want without anyone knowing
who I am and having no records kept of my visit or what I did while there.
(as long as I don't check anything out.)

It would be nice if the web worked this way too. Instead however we can not
browse the web with out myriads of records being kept about when we logged
in and where we logged in from and how long we were logged in and what
topics we researched on google. And what pages we accessed as a result of
that search and how long we accessed a particular page and where we went
after reading a given page. In short everything that we did is known (or at
least it could be known, so it is prudent to assume that it is known.) and
records are kept. Of course I don't know who has the records and/or what
they plan to do with them.

(if we do something very bad then we will probably get caught and get into
trouble. If we do annoying things and make pests of ourselves then it
probably won't be worth the amount of effort required to track us down and
'punish' us. This is analogous to the real-world, where more effort is
expended to track down a rapist than a vandal. Even though both are wrong,
one is much less likely to get caught--unfortunately it's probably the
rapist.)

I guess my vision of the ideal internet would be a library. Where you can
come and go as you like and the only time they need to know who you are is
when you wish to physically borrow one of their books (resources).
Furthermore the library records are reasonably well-protected from spurious
perusal.

In the real world though, the internet is not anonymous and anyone who
believes (and/or acts) like it is runs some very serious risks. Check the
USENET archives for examples of people who believed they were having
anonymous conversations.

As a side note it sounds like the author has a problem with "anonymity" on
the road too. Should we pass a law requiring everyone to put their name on
their cars in 18 inch high lettering? Why is it that people recommend the
stupidest things for the internet? We would never contemplate passing the
kind of laws that get passed for the internet in other areas. (IMO)

(just an interesting thing, notice that in both examples that the writer
uses to illustrate anonymity. Anonymity doesn't actually exist--I think that
is telling.)

---

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:14:22 -0700
From: Brandon Long <blong () fiction net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous" 
online

On 05/02/02 Declan McCullagh uttered the following other thing:
>
> Legitimate announcements and news stories are hijacked from Web sites
> and rewritten by anonymous mischief makers. Once in the vapors of the
> Web, a stink arose when my byline was circulated over a fabricated
> story about the president of the United States being a child molester.

That sounds more like an authentication problem than a anonymity
problem.  Its actually a lot harder to be truly anonymous on the web
then most people think... a point which can bite them in the ass when
they least expect it.

As for authentication, there is a technological solution... the digital
signature.  Obviously there are still some hurdles to over come in
making them easier to use, easier to verify, and easier to maintain as
information is based from medium to medium (how do you sign a web page,
how is that signature maintained by people who then mail the web page to
their friends?)

> The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that
> anonymity is one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy.
> The longer that Web-heads insist on anonymity, the more the
> credibility and usefulness of their creation will be undermined.
> Already, one of the first lessons taught in middle-school computer
> labs is to regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder --
> apt to bite you at any moment. Is this the best we can expect from the
> information revolution?

Question your sources is always a good idea.  Very few places have a
complete record of truthfulness and lack of bias.  This is as true
online as elsewhere, the information available is only as trustworthy as
the source... and trust is earned and lost.  Besides, there are almost
as many sites available to debunk the myths as to exploit them.  Perhaps
the current level of gullibility of those online is actually a
pointer to a lack in their education and critical thinking... a lack
which politicians and advertisers have been exploiting for decades.

Brandon
--
program, n.:
  A magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn one's input
  into error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pastime similar to banging
  one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
                                         http://www.fiction.net/blong/

---

From: drumz () drumz best vwh net
Subject: Re: FC: LA Times columnist wants it to "be harder to be anonymous"
To: declan () well com
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:59:21 +0000 (GMT)

Nasty non-anonymous attacks on idiots...just because I can!

> Legitimate announcements and news stories are hijacked from Web sites
> and rewritten by anonymous mischief makers. Once in the vapors of the
> Web, a stink arose

Yes, stinks tend to rise once in vapors.  Jeez, this guy can't even write.

> when my byline was circulated over a fabricated
> story about the president of the United States being a child molester.

I simply can't imagine, based on this piece, why any evildoer would be
tempted to put Mr. Balzar's name on such a fabrication.

> The creative geniuses who have given us the Web still insist that
> anonymity is one of its cornerstones. If so, the foundation is wormy.
> The longer that Web-heads insist on anonymity, the more the
> credibility and usefulness of their creation will be undermined.
> Already, one of the first lessons taught in middle-school computer
> labs is to regard everything on the Web as you might a puff adder --
> apt to bite you at any moment.

Excellent!  Now if only we could get people to regard the mass media with
similar skepticism, we'd *really* be getting somewhere.

> Is this the best we can expect from the information revolution?
> So instead of worrying ourselves silly about ways to protect these few
> who are afraid to stand up for their words and actions, we should be
> going in the other direction: making it harder to be anonymous,
> marginalizing those who try.

I rather suspect he means "incarcerating" and simply isn't honest enough
to admit it.

> We may never humanize the automobile,

Thank heaven.  If there's one thing "Knight Rider" should have taught us,
it's that talking cars are seriously annoying.

> but we can the future -- by tearing down those barriers that shield us
> from each other and tempt us to be our worst.

Even as those same barriers help to shield political dissidents from
retaliation by repressive regimes.  I challenge him to live in China for a
few years and see how long he regards online anonymity as the enemy.

If the name weren't already taken by an ingenious privacy tool, I'd be
tempted to call Mr. Balzar "Triangle Boy" based on the dunce cap he wears
so prominently.

Ethan

---




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------