Index: [thread] [date] [subject] [author]
  From: Josh Kolsky <jmk2118@columbia.edu>
  To  : <CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:47:55 -0500

[CPC] Paper 1: The Danger of Absolute Internet Anonymity

The Danger of Absolute Internet Anonymity
by Josh Kolsky

     There is no doubt that the Internet will radically transform
political discussion and effective freedom of speech in this
country.  Numerous possibilities for change exist, but the most
important is certainly the reduction of barriers to entry that
previously limited the voice of ordinary speakers.  Central among
the relevant questions to consider regarding the Internet and
freedom of speech is the effect of anonymity on free speech values,
keeping in mind the distinction between absolute anonymity (which
would prevent an Internet user from ever being tracked) and
relative anonymity (which allows users to be identified through
their IP address).  Although absolute anonymity offers the
possibility of promoting some free speech values, overall I believe
the balance weighs against such anonymity as a promoter of free
speech values.
      Numerous free speech values have been identified throughout
history: self-expression,[1]  the “development of faculties,”[2] 
the promotion of self-governance,[3] and the protection against
overreaching government.[4]   Often considered the most basic free
speech value, however, is the development of truth.[5]   While
absolute Internet anonymity would promote the relatively inferior
free speech values, such as self-expression, it would likely
disturb society’s search for truth.
	Anonymity encourages speech generally, but it encourages false
speech to an inordinate extent.  Anyone who wishes to malign a
political opponent, defame a public official, or inject doubt into
political debate using falsehood can do so under a regime of
absolute Internet anonymity.  As the public turns more to the
Internet for news and political discussion, the honesty and
accuracy of information on the web becomes more important, and the
ability to track and identify unscrupulous users becomes critical. 
The history of American politics strongly suggests that a
sophisticated mud-slinging tool such as an anonymous Internet would
be embraced and used effectively to win political power.  I consider
it unwise to introduce to society the technological ability to lie
with impunity.
	Of course, anonymity does promote free speech values in certain
ways.  Perhaps, it might be argued, anonymity even promotes the
attainment of truth.  By encouraging more people to enter the
debate, and encouraging a more candid debate, a broader range of
views could develop from which the truth might more easily be
perceived.  However, the mix of truth and falsehood might just as
easily dissuade honest people from entering the debate – who wants
to converse when there are no ground rules to ensure sincerity?
Some may argue that the presence of falsehood might promote the
search for truth by forcing people to become skeptics.  Perhaps
people, too willing to believe everything they read today, will
develop skills to distinguish between true and false claims, and
will more readily consult different sources to check facts.  This
suggestion ignores the realities that most people do not possess
the time to conduct research projects on the Internet, and, more
importantly, are happy to believe what they want despite questions
of accuracy.
	One can also imagine scenarios in which the organization of the
Internet mitigates the harm from anonymously produced falsehood. 
If an absolutely anonymous Internet was permitted, websites could
decide on their own whether to require some sort of authentication
mechanism for users, thereby opting-in to an identity-based system.
 Internet users might then learn to trust information from the
non-anonymous sites and question information from the anonymous
ones.  However, the presence of false information on the anonymous
sites would still likely have corrupting influence on the general
political debate.
	The current regime of relative Internet anonymity, in which users
remain anonymous unless they are tracked by their Internet Service
Provider or by the government, strikes a more proper balance
between promoting open discussion and preventing defamation.  The
risk of identification is generally strong enough to prevent
defamation, and the high likelihood that one will remain anonymous
encourages open and candid debate.
	Relative anonymity is not without its problems.  The ability to
speak to a large audience without being identified has encouraged
speech that is true yet still arguably inappropriate.  Consider,
for example, the website DontDateHimGirl.com which allows users to
anonymously malign a man’s character by designating him a
“cheater.”  There is also WomanSavers.com, where users can
anonymously post information about a past boyfriend, including such
traits as hygiene, sexual performance, and infidelity.  Sites like
these invade the privacy of their targets, and exist only because
of anonymity.  In the physical world, the stigma associated with
lashing out at someone would prevent most people from publicly
divulging another's intimate secrets.  Also, the interested
audience is so small that it would not be worth identifying that
audience to speak to.  The Internet makes this process efficient –
the interested audience themselves can effortlessly seek out the
relevant information about a particular person, making anonymous
personal attacks worthwhile.
	The abuses of relative anonymity, invading the privacy of
individuals without their consent, foreshadow the problems we would
face with an absolutely anonymous Internet.  The menace of relative
anonymity relates to the threat of true speech, in which the
private details of one’s life are broadcast like a modern day
Scarlet Letter.  These problems are arguably acceptable when
compared to the free speech benefits conferred by relative
anonymity.  In contrast, the problems associated with absolute
anonymity relate to the threat of false speech.  Here, the balance
of free speech values weighs against anonymity.
     The Internet’s primary contribution to free speech values is
its ability to amplify the voice of ordinary, unsophisticated
speakers.  While the prospect of absolute anonymity could bring
further speech benefits, the danger of such anonymity is real and
should not be ignored to accommodate one’s reflexive opposition to
Internet regulation.  Considering the sole topic of free speech
values, it seems clear that Internet users must remain ultimately
identifiable.



[1]  See Perry, Freedom of Expression: An Essay on Theory and
Doctrine, 78 NW. U.L. REV. 1137, 1153-56 (1983).

[2]  See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (Brandeis, J.,
concurring).

[3]  See A. Meiklejohn, Free Speech and its Relation to
Self-Government (1948).

[4]  See James Madison, 1799 Report on the Virginia Resolutions.

[5]  See John Milton, Areopagitica, 1644 (“Truth indeed came once
into the world with her divine Master, and was a perfect shape . .
. but . . . a wicked race of deceivers . . . took the virgin Truth,
hewed her lovely form into a thousand pieces, and scattered them to
the four winds.  From that time ever since, the sad friends of
Truth . . . went up and down gathering up limb by limb, still as
they could find them. . . . Suffer not these licensing prohibitions
to stand at every place of opportunity, forbidding and disturbing
them that continue seeking, that continue to do our obsequies to
the torn body of our martyred saint.”)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list



Index: [thread] [date] [subject] [author]