Why freedom can't be preserved by ending anonymity [fs][priv]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[The proper term for what Lessig was suggesting (at least if the Economist 
article was correct) is identity escrow. The idea is that a trusted third 
party will hold the truename of the speaker or publisher and divulge it 
when certain predefined circumstances are met, such as a subpoena arriving. 
(This is not a new concept. A Google search turns up about 1,000 hits for 
the phrase.) There are obvious objects to this idea, a close cousin to 
1990s-vintage key escrow, when it is used as a kind of "Internet drivers 
license." First, the identity database becomes a target for thieves, social 
engineers, and malicious hackers. Second, governments will seek to subvert 
its published procedures and obtain backdoor access. Third, it is not 
easily enforced in a global Internet where accounts can be created with a 
one-line command (like /usr/sbin/adduser). Fourth, U.S. legal precedents 
recognize constitutional protections for anonymous speech. --Declan]

---

From: MarkKernes () aol com
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:42:30 EST
Subject: Re: [Politech] Economist, Lessig want to preserve freedom by 
ending anonymity [fs][priv]
To: declan () well com

In a message dated 12/3/03 9:14:48 AM, declan () well com quotes:

<< The issue boils down to the question of how much anonymity society can
tolerate on the internet. Drivers' licences and registration plates
dramatically reduce the incidence of hit-and-run accidents. Crack cocaine
is never bought by credit card. If everybody on the internet were easily
traceable, people would think twice about hacking. "I'm kind of a fan of
eliminating anonymity," says Alan Nugent, the chief technologist at Novell,
a software company, "if that is the price for security." >>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin, 1755
Mark Kernes, AVN

"I have a solution for Mrs. [Jocelyn] Elders. I mean, if she wants to
legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich 
and let's
be rid of them." — Rush Limbaugh, 12/9/93

---

Subject: Re: [Politech] Economist, Lessig want to preserve freedom by
        ending anonymity [fs][priv]
From: Alan <alan () clueserver org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:36:12 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The only reason to remove anonymous communication is so that you can
punish people.

If there is no anonymity then people will also think twice about
complaining about government waste, corrupt governments or officials, or
even things that have nothing to do with politics.

Think of the blackmail potential!

Every dirty little secret can be exposed and used against you.

Every naughty web site.  Every off the side tryst.  Every interest that
could cause strife in your life.

This would have been J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream.  I am sure it is
Ashcroft's wet dream.  (If he has not had his genitals laminated shut
already.)

It will make the net more like the giant Disney controlled shopping
network that some people seem to want.

I thought Lesig had better sense than this.  I guess not.

---

Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
From: Aaron Swartz <me () aaronsw com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Economist, Lessig want to preserve freedom by 
ending anonymity [fs][priv]
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:26:51 -0600
To: Lawrence Lessig <lessig () pobox com>

> To preserve freedom further, suggests Mr Lessig, anonymity could be 
> replaced by [warrant-traceable] pseudonymity.

Can you explain this? The Economist article seemed to be total nonsense, 
but I'm surprised they paraphrase you as saying something like this. In 
general, for eliminating anonymity to make sense you need to answer three 
questions:

1. Is anonymity the problem? Between DMCA subpoenas and national security 
letters, it seems that very few people on the Internet have even limited 
anonymity.

2. Will the people who are anonymous evade things? The people who _are_ 
anonymous, of course, are people like crackers. If you outlaw anonymity, 
crackers will likely find security holes that let them hide their identity 
and pass their actions off as those of others (e.g. using the WiFi network 
of some squeaky-clean grandma to launch the attacks).

3. Is it worth the cost? Even if you can answer the above questions, it'll 
be difficult to do without knocking large groups of people off the 
Internet. (If the digital divide is bad now, imagine what it'll be like 
when you need a credit card to get on the Net.)

Were you misquoted? If not, can you answer these questions? Or is this more 
blind optimism?
--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/



_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)