[Note: This is a two-part article I posted to the "Nym" list. I'm posting
it here as well, but not in a "cross-post" form, because it obviously
touches on many themes of interest to Cypherpunks. Declan M. has created
this new list to discuss anonymity and pseudonyms. It is, predictably,
largely duplicative of discussions on the Cypherpunks and other lists, but
Declan and others feel it is needed. It is not necessarily open to all, to
reduce the number of insults, ASCII art posts, drunken ramblings (mine
excepted), and off-topic spams and such, so don't ask _me_ for
instructions on how to subscribe to it. Declan may send you instructions if
he wants to, of course.]
[The second part will follow this part]
There are many swirling notions of anonymity here, and a bunch of what I
think are misconceptions about the link between anonymous systems and
"accountability."
Some here believe accountability (which I'll define and discuss in more
detail below) is important enough to take precedence over a "right to
anonymity." I think this is confusing some important issues.
First some observations:
* The norm in most interactions is a very loose amount of formal checks of
identity credentials. Most of us never actually check the credentials of
our friends and associates. Most commercial transactions, and most travels,
involve no identity credentials whatsoever. (A point nicely make my Marc
Rotenberg today.)
* However, as we have repeated dealings with people, on lists or in person,
we begin to establish a "sense of identity" for those persons, a repeated
history. This has nothing _formally_ to do with identity credentials, but
much to do with _expectations_ about the future. Thus, in my several years
of dealing with "Black Unicorn" I have come to view him (or her, or it) as
a persistent personna. Whether or not he truly is one person, and whether I
know his (alleged) True Name, is largely unimportant.
* It is very important that even we non-lawyers keep in mind what a
_contract_ is. A contract is an offer, and an acceptance. Whether a True
Name is part of the offer, by any of the parties, is unimportant. (In terms
of enforceability of the contract, in terms of going after parties who fail
to meet the terms of a contract, some measure of identity may of course
help accountability. But this is epiphenomenol to the basics of the
contract...it's just a matter of convenience.)
* Hence the view many of us have that if Alice and Bob interact, they may
or may not use fake names, nicknames, handles, putative True Names, or even
DNA-verified biological markers. Their call.
* In cases where accountability is Very Important, as in purchases of large
ticket items, the usual method is to use strict title search companies,
specialists in tracking actual records. Title companies, in other words.
(And, even then, proofs of identity are less extreme than many
anti-anonymity advocates might think. In the purchase of three homes, I've
only had to "flash" my state-issued I.D. card. In fact, it was a driver's
license, hardly designed as an actual proof of identity. Of course, there
are certain ontological assumptions about identity in such large-ticket
purchases, such as that I.D. is backed up by other things, including
possession of a title deed.)
* The main question that involves Washington (or other lawmakers) is this:
Under what circumstances may the state compell identity to be produced?
I happen to agree with several on this list, including E. Volokh and
(actually) D Brin, that there are cases where identity can be compelled.
Even if it only means a _sworn statement_ (as in "making an X" on a
statement written by others). Applying for a passport, appearing before
court, perhaps driving on the public roads.
But note that there absolutely is no requirement in the United States for a
general form of identification. Non-drivers need not have any form of I.D.
And as we have seen in court cases, a la Lawson v. Kolender (where a black
man in dreadlocks used to like to walk the streets of San Diego...the cops
stopped him many times and jailed him for not having I.D. on him...the
court ruled that people don't have to present credentials issued by the
state to walk the public streets).
* Therefore, the issue is not of a "right to anonymity," which would
probably be as nebulous to debate as the "right to privacy" (which Bork
probably was correct in saying cannot be found in the Constitution), but,
rather, the issue of when the State may compell identity. To put it in the
blunt terms we libertarians find useful: "When can men with guns tell us we
have to produce a piece of paper with our pictures on it that they find
acceptable?"
Possibly for the situations I mentioned above. But maybe not even in all of
those situations. (Next time I am called for jury duty, and my last time
was in 1973, I plan to take no state-issued I.D. junk with me...I will
_tell_ them who I am and leave it at that.)
* In ordinary interactions and in commercial transactions (modulo gun
purchases and a few other similar areas), identity cannot be compelled.
Alice is free to ask Bob for his name, or his blood type, or anything else
she chooses (modulo questions banned by the Civil Rights Act, disgustingly
enough), and either is free to cancel the interaction or transaction as
they wish. Contracts again: an offer made and an acceptance.
* Now if Alice wishes to _extend credit_ to Bob, or take his promise to pay
via a check or some other "delayed clearing" instruement, she is free to
request various things that will satisfy her that she can later track down
Bob and collect from him.
Importantly, this is not a _state_ function. This is still a matter of
contract. Bob is of course free to refuse to give his name and to cancel
the transaction.
* It's a fact that most vendors (Alice) are less interested in acquiring
market research data by getting True Names than they are in selling stuff.
Hence, most merchants don't care about True Names. And for online clearing
(instant clearing, as with cash or guaranteed payments sytems), names
really don't matter. Even Radio Shack, which makes a big point of asking
for names and addresses, will gladly make a sale to those who refuse to go
along.
* There are cases where this normal "Alice doesn't care about names"
situation is distorted by other considerations. Recently, airlines have
been instructed by the FAA to do a credential check...they are happy enough
to comply, as it cuts down on the practice of companies buying advance
tickets in bulk and then deciding later who will actually use the tickets.
(I believe the pre-FAA ruling situation, where airlines didn't bother to
check I.D.s to be a good indicator of what free market forces would produce
absent such an FAA rule.)
Certain large-ticket purchases may no longer be made in cash. Part of this
is the move to control money-laundering and smurfing, and the "structuring"
laws. Black Unicorn has an amusing story of trying to buy a car in suburban
Washington, with cash (or a cashier's check, I forget which), and having
law enforcment arrive a short time later and hold him for questioning....
Likewise, it's becoming more common for motels and hotels to demand photo
I.D. Some even refuse to accept cash without a credit card (which we know
is not an actual I.D., but it sort of acts as one). I'm not sure what all
the reasons for this are. Here are some, briefly: fear of being stung by
someone who trashes the room, concern about being charged with enabling
prostitution, pressure from regulatory boards (who may be pressured by law
enforcement), or perhaps just the general attitude that "I.D. is required."
(As I've said, this attitude hasn't filtered down to ordinary daily
transactions.)
So, identity is not the same as accountability (though there are some
correlations). And lack of identity does not mean criminality. And most
importantly, most cases where some proof of identity is requested don't
need any state involvement in what are private transactions or contracts.
Lastly, there is no "is-a-person" (in the cryptographic sense)
credentialling system in the U.S.
In Part II of this post, I'll combine these various points, made somewhat
anecdotally here, into a more graphical form.
--Tim May
The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article
(U.S. Statute 43-666-970719).
Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance
is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable
by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense,
and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself
not contain material in violation of the Act.
** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** :
Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up.
Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes
Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes
Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes
Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes
Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh?
--Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture,
regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering.
--Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of
color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article.
**SUMMARY**
Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1
Composite Age Rating: 45 years
