h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course I think that Privacy is important, and the safety of our personal information is vital, but it seems to me that the internet seemed/s to offer the possiblity of total anonimity in a way that has never existed before and somehow everyone thinks the maintaining of that anonimity is paramount.

The argument seems to be that we have a right to do, look at, or say anything at all without anyone knowing who or where we are because we've always been able to do what we wanted without anyone knowing about it. However, never before in the history of mankind has it been possible to have a live conversation with someone without them knowing at least something about you (gender, accent, etc). It's clear that people say and do things and behave in ways they would never otherwise do as a result of this, and I for one am not conviced it's such a good idea to be able to remain truely anonymous.

It is certainly not a fundamental human right to have no responsiblity for your behavior or actions. Sure, you have a right to keep private conversations private and your habbits to yourself, but in so much as those things impact other, I do not think the connection to the physical you that did them should be untraceable.

That level of total privacy only benefits the antisocial few who wish to prey on the masses or make trouble for trouble's sake.

Of course, I'm not saying who I am...

There are plenty of people who could benefit from internet anonymity who are not "antisocial." For a moment, let's pretend the internet is 100% anonymous.

Under these conditions, black people could have conversations with white racists who happen to be in the same forum as they are, and yet they could avoid harassment. A person with early indications of cancer could look up the latest information online and even ask a doctor for advice without the risk that their private health insurance provider would find out. A teen questioning their sexuality could discuss their feelings with several gay teens without fearing that their parents would later be told what was said.

For the most part, internet speech does not translate into real behavior -- or if it does, it is possible to notice the real-world behavior regardless of whether any internet speech occurred. The only exception might be acts of terrorism, and many governments (including the US) do have internet surveillance in place for that special case.

The reason we can't just lift the vail on internet anonymity is that there is no clear divider between private and public speech online. You probably assume email and instant messaging are private. Bulletin boards on the WWW may or may not be private, depending on the context. A free-for-all bulletin board for rumors on the next Star Wars movie is not private, but a bulletin board with a password for reformed drug addicts is. The same goes with chat rooms. Posting a web page is almost never considered "private" speech. And yet, some people do post diaries or personal stories on web pages anonymously. Newsgroups are another area where privacy depends on what is said, in what forum, and how.

The problem is that humans can make these distinctions, but computers can not. As far as computers are concerned, all speech on the internet is the same. It's a bunch of 0s and 1s. And since humans come up with new forms of "speech" on the internet roughly every two years, it would be tough for our laws to keep up. In an attempt to remove the few bad apples online, we might cut off the internet's ability to act as a social equalizing force. And since the government would presumably be at the head of this effort, it raises serious free speech questions. At least, it does to me.

I am a proponent of having volunteers who willingly give up their anonymity, so they can act as a stabilizing force. After all, *someone* should be accountable for every word coming out of their mouth. We all feel more comfortable knowing there is someone we can trust. But I think it is too much to ask all people at all times to give up their right to have private conversations and to ask questions and get information under the veil of anonymity.

I love the quote given recently by the head of sun (?) :- "You don't have any privacy any more - get over it"

I gave up on my privacy a long time ago, out of despair, rather than any desire. Sure, you should look at the privacy statements of sites, but 80% of them don't have one anyway, and those that do exist tend to be wrapped in so much jargon that you'd have to be a specialist lawyer to understand them. Then, most of them have get-out clauses allowing the site owner to change the policy at any time without telling anyone.

To paraphrase someone else - "internet users have no rights which will be upheld in court, and website owners have no duties which they cannot, quite safely, renege on".

The best safeguard on your privacy is to have no interesting private life. If you're a politician, all bets are off.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there is value in general anonymity, the examples that you gave are good ones. However there is a difference between everyone in a chat room knowing who you are (or not knowing) and there being absolutely no connection between you and your actions/speech.

I think that in most cases what you do on the internet is traceable at some level even when you appear to be anonymous on the surface. So no one really has that 100% privacy anyhow unless they are taking extreme measures.

The problem I have is that somehow people seem to have decided that true 100% anonymity is somehow a basic human right. There is simply no basis for that thought. There is nothing more basic that having to deal with the consequences of your human interactions (bad or good), even if you were just a stranger who drifted through town.

Our personal information should be protected so that it cannot be used against us, and we should be able to get information or interact anonymously as far as those around us are concerned, but there should always be a thread, tenuous though it may be, that connects back to the real us. You can't yell fire in a crowed theater, and you shouldn't be able to go on a high school chat room on the other side of the world and make death threats just for kicks without a chance of repercussions.

Just because there is a technological possibility for creating 100% anonymity, doesn't mean that we should do it or fight for that right. It allows for far too much mischief without any real benefit.

But there is a tenuous connection between your real and virtual self at all times. True 100% anonymity is legally impossible. At any time, the police may subpoena information from your internet service provider if they suspect you of illegal activity connected with your internet communications. The service provider must connect the dotted lines between a person's "anonymous" internet self and their real-world self including name, address, and phone number.

If someone really thinks they can subvert the law purely through the internet, they're mistaken. The only way they might have a chance would be if they were a computer genius. Even then, if the crime were serious enough, the government could likely crack any efforts they made.

To give an example, I know a stalker who attempted to use the internet to subvert stalking laws in the UK. He went to a great deal of effort to conceal his true identity through forged email headers and other technical solutions. He has since been prosecuted. All the police had to do was subpoena the guy's ISP, and his defenses crumbled into dust.

This information holds for the US, UK, and Canada. I'm not familiar with the laws elsewhere.

As long as such a connection exists, however tenuous it may be, I think we'll be ok.

It just seems sometimes that the argument is that we really do/should have a fundamental right to 100% privacy (= 100% anonymity) when we don't have that kind of privacy and never did in the first place.

I don't know. At least in America, there is a good argument that we used to enjoy more privacy than we do now. The Bill of Rights speficies that people's homes can not be unduly searched or seized. This has always been read by the courts to include privacy within the home.

You could at least conduct private conversations within your own home, and nobody was supposed to know what products you were using, what you were saying, or what you were doing at any given time there. If you did not want a salesman or religious nut to speak to you, all you had to do was close the front door on them. With the advent of technology that allows uninvited third parties to initiate conversations and spy within the home, the Constitution has been subverted. The solution would be to pass laws preventing such uses of personalized technology.