From: Kenneth Canfield <ksc2103@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:35:02 -0500

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

Very interesting paper, Josh!  I do agree that anonymity can lead to
some of the undesirable, offensive communication that you mentioned.
While I haven't seen the websites you specifically referenced regarding
women posting about ex-boyfriends, I can see how that can be
problematic.  However, on the whole, I still believe that anonymity (and
pseudonymity) are important in fostering communication in a way that we
are used to.  I wrote about this some in a paper for Law in the Internet
Society (http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LIS/discuss/119.html).

I'd be interested to hear more about your solution and how you think it
could be.  Under the current situation, despite all of the intrusions
going on, the "normal" person certainly feels like he/she can have
anonymity and pseudonymity, and I do not think much speech is being
suppressed.  I would not be able to support a law like the Violence
Against Women's Act provision that makes it illegal to "annoy"
anonymously, or even worse a law that simply made illegal anonymous or
pseudonymous communications.  While I haven't read about it aside from
aside from the link below, NJ's law which requires ISPs to record user's
ids and disclose them in any claim of defamation concerns me
(http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006 03.php#004478).  If this means
that one's identity is constantly being logged by the ISP, for fear that
defamation may arise, I believe too much speech will be suppressed.
While it is beneficial to be able to know the source once defamation
occurs, I do not believe the sacrifice is worth it.  What is your view here?

I am particularly concerned that the absence of anonymity and
pseudonymity would make it impossible to separate your private and
public worlds, to separate your communications with your friends from
those with your co-workers.  Additionally, it would make it impossible
to recreate your identity by moving to a different place, or to rid
yourself from the stigma of a formerly-held belief.  We already have
discussed the repercussions students who use facebook.com can face when
searching for jobs, and this is an example of voluntary
identity-disclosure in a world where anonymity/pseudonymity is still
possible.  Forced identity disclosure (which it appears you might not
advocate, but which might held by at least some people having an
anti-anonymity position) would on exacerbate this problem.

Josh Kolsky wrote:
> 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
> 


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