The government has reached a crossroad with digital anonymity that will determine the future of both digital security and free speech on the Internet.
The world is looking to the United States to set the model for digital freedom, and anonymity is becoming a large part of this debate. The problem is that criminal hackers and people sharing illegal content online use tools to hide their identities—the same tools used by people under rule of authoritarian regimes.
After Google announced it would no longer censor its services in China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted on Jan. 21, 2010, that the Internet can be used for both good or ill.
Clinton stated, “Technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights,” according to a government transcript.
There is a clear link between the overall freedom granted in a country, and its freedom online, found a study by professor Barney Warf of the University of Kansas Department of Geography.
Warf told The Epoch Times, “One-quarter of the world’s netizens live under the harshest forms of censorship, and in most countries self-censorship accomplishes what governments have not.”
Close to a third of the world’s Internet users live under some form of digital censorship.
The issue of information freedom ties into “what kind of world we want to live in,” stated U.S. Senior Adviser for Innovation Alec Ross, following Clinton’s speech on digital freedom.
“Do we want to live in a world with one Internet, one common knowledge base from which we can all draw? Or, do we want to live in a world in which access to information and knowledge is based on what country you live in and the whims of the censors in that country?” Ross stated, according to a State Department transcript.
Yet, behind the loud voices on ensuring digital freedom, the issues of anonymity are growing shaky. The problem is that the same tools used by people to circumvent digital censorship and guard their identities are being used by cybercriminals.
Members of the hacker group LulzSec were using proxies and VPN tunnels to hide their identities—some of the same tools used by activists in the Arab Spring revolutions that saved them from retribution by the ruling regimes.
In late September, police arrested an alleged LulzSec member, 23-year-old Cody Kretsinger, after his U.K.-based VPN provider revealed his identity to authorities.
The incident gave a clear demonstration that while these servers can hide user identities, they are still governed by the laws of the countries they are established in.
Following the incident, the VPN provider stated in a Sept. 23 blog post that while their services “are not designed to be used to commit illegal activity … This includes certain hardcore privacy services, which claim you will never be identified, these types of services that do not cooperate are more likely to have their entire VPN network monitored and tapped by law enforcement, thus affecting all legitimate customers.”
Hackers are still allowed a plethora of options to hide their identities, yet with the growing number of cyber-attacks, and a growing focus on security on the Web, user anonymity will likely become a stronger point of debate.
One of the realities of the Internet is that security ties directly into digital freedom.
“We’re always going to be vulnerable unless we give up our liberties, which we shouldn’t,” Matthew Jonkman, president of the Open Information Security Foundation, told The Epoch Times.
Next...Regulating Online Identities
Regulating online identities
Currently, the problems facing digital anonymity are being addressed with lighter approaches—things that will not solve larger problems, but will help solve lighter cybersecurity issues.
An “Identity Ecosystem” to replace traditional passwords was released by the Obama administration on April 15. The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) project aims to protect users from identity theft, online fraud, and low-level cybercrime.
The NSTIC program gives government-issued identities for the Web, comparable to a driver’s license for the Internet. The “credentials” range from smartphone software to smart cards, according to a White House fact sheet.
This will help online markets “provide more secure online credentials, while protecting privacy, for consumers who want them,” according to the fact sheet.
Meanwhile, the lack of strong regulation around digital anonymity is allowing companies to take matters into their own hands—often through terms of service certificates customers have to agree to before using a service (which many users check off without actually reading).
Many companies store user data, such as Facebook, and many others sell user data to third parties.
Verizon Wireless alerted customers in October they will begin monitoring their Web activity, including what they’re typing in search boxes, and then sell the data to third parties. OnStar made a similar announcement in September, stating they will track customers and sell their data even after they cancel their services.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer called OnStar’s privacy policy “one of the most brazen invasions of privacy in recent memory,” in a press release.
Many online communities are also starting to require real identities, or identities reinforced by each user’s Twitter, Facebook, or email accounts.
This is typically to root out cyberbullies and people wanting to cause trouble, since, as Pandora Corp. co-founder, James Leasure stated, “Cyberbullying thrives on anonymity,” according to a press release.
Regardless of the direction it takes, the great balancing act with digital anonymity has begun, and will inevitably tie directly into the rights of people outside the digital real.
In a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, it was stated, “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views.”
It adds, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society.”
