The New York Times, January 2, 1996, Business, p. 14
Viewpoint: J. Walker Smith
Standoff in Cyberspace Gulch
In the new frontier that is cyberspace, a showdown is shaping up as the law moves into town. On one side is a band of cybercitizens bent on protecting their privacy as they explore this unmapped territory. On the other are the lawmakers charged with safeguarding all cybercitizens from crime, even if it means forcing them to give up some of their privacy by, say, signing in as they enter town.
This is how the public debate over cyberspace security has been framed. And on-line users are, indeed, worried about security. Yankelovich Partners surveyed 400 randomly selected on-line users, aged 16 and older, by telephone in mid-October and found that 90 percent agree that better Internet security is needed to insure that personal and financial information is not accessible to unauthorized people. Nearly 80 percent believe it is too easy for one's credit card number to be stolen if used on the Internet. And almost 70 percent agree that pornography on the Internet has gone far beyond reasonable bounds.
This op-ed starts out by portraying the two 'sides' as 'lawmakers safeguarding from crime", and "citizens bent on protecting privacy"--which I'd say is fairly accurate. The next paragraph, however, discusses the fact that almost everyone agrees that 'better internet security ' is neccesary is support for the lawmakers side of things. It goes on to say: [...]
A cyberspace that offered privacy, security and decency would clearly be preferred. But recognizing that this simply may not be technologically achievable, most on-line users put security and decency ahead of absolute privacy. Fifty-three percent of cybercitizens agree that guaranteeing Internet security is more important than worrying about the privacy of each user.
The rest of the opinion piece only gets worse--the author thinks that, while privacy is a good goal, "in no way should [privacy] distract regulators from maintaining order and decency on this new frontier, nor should it be allowed to defeat the progress of commercial ventures. " Now, first of all, the cypherpunks are clearly an entity that values _both_ privacy and security, and doesn't see them as at all contradictory. They're two sides of the crypto coin. The very same encryption that can make it possible to set up secure credit card transactions also makes it possible to use anonymous remailers--and the security isn't harmed by people with anonymous shell accounts or access to the net. Chaum's digicash could theoretically provide security _and_ anonymity, without any contradiction. Now, Walter Smith probably wouldn't be satisified with cypherpunkian solutions--he doesn't want anonymous communications _regardless_ of whether we also get secure credit card transactions, and would be perfeclty happy with crypto available to everyone, and a law against anonymous communications on the net. But, regardless of his own opinion of privacy/anonymity and security individually, in this piece he portrays them as linked, and in fact mutually damaging. There is a danger of this view becomming commonplace--whenever we encounter it, we should take pains to argue that privacy/anonymity and security _aren't_ mutually exclusive, are sometimes mutually _enhancing_ (ITAR restrictions make anon remailers and secure financial transactions a pain in the ass to set up legally). And we should make it clear that there are a lot of people out there who value both extremely highly, and don't see any need to sacrifice one for the other. [I'm not sure of the proper email address to send a response to this viewpoint, but you might try "viewpts@nytimes.com", which is the proper place to submit "viewpoints", ie op-ed pieces in Business section of the NYT]. Very interesting also, is that Smith explicitly says that privacy concerns shouldn't be allowed to "defeat the progress of commercial ventures". It's unclear exactly what the 'progress' that Smith is talking about is, that would be defeated by putting too much emphasis on privacy. But the previous paragraph mentions "users will find it in their self-interest to reveal more and more about themselves so the interactive system can cater easily to their needs and preferences.... 71 percent of respondents found it highly desirable to be able to receive customized information, while only 35 percent felt the same about a guarantee of anonymity." Smith appears to be saying that the interests of commercial ventures in ammassing data about what consumers visited what web sites, and what consumers are likely targets of customized marketting (customized information?), should take precedence over the interests of citizens in keeping their information private! Many on cypherpunks are used to thinking of business interests as if they match cypherpunks interests, I think--certainly they seem to where ITAR is concerned, at the moment. But it's good to remember that 'business interests', at least as interpreted by some businesses, are going to contradict cypherpunks interets. Unfortunately, business interests often seem to have the advantage in the U.S. legislative process--with this in mind, lobbying action from 'public interest' groups like the EFF, and us as individuals, is more important when it doesn't line up with business interests (protecting anonymity) then when it does (getting rid of ITAR). Large corporations are lobbying for loosening ITAR, and we can help them, but when lobbying for allowing anonmity, if it comes down to that, we'll have fewer/less powerful allies. Also, clearly in this survey, they asked two independent questions "Do you find it desirable to be able to receieve customized information" (71% said yes), "do you find it desirable to be able to guarantee anonymity" (35% yes, which is actually enhearteningly higher then I would have thought). In the context of his opinion piece, though, he clearly sets them up against each other--what if the surveyed had been asked "When guaranteeing anonymity comes into conflict with allowing commercial ventures to send you customized adverts, which is more important"? Obviously, that question is biased also, but my point is that it's important to make this connection in people's minds. Here, there might _be_ a tradeoff--and consumers frequently get up in arms about how anyone can get their credit report, or their driving record, or whatever. It's important that we create a connection between anonmity on the net, and empowerment to keep personal information personal--we need to link the "customized information" which Smith's surveyees were so enamored of, to the privacy invasions posed by credit reports and such, that consumers already know about and know they don't like. [I'm going to try to make myself write a letter to the NYT in response to that viewpoint, making some of these points I'm saying it's important to make, but you should too. :) ]