[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@private
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@private
In a message dated 12/3/03 9:14:48 AM, declan@private 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@private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
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@private>
From: Aaron Swartz <me@private>
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@private>
>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/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 13:22:38 PST