Declan McCullagh wrote:
It says the executive branch should consult with privacy groups and attempt to preserve civil liberties, but concludes that in some cases, privacy could be limited. "Allowing completely anonymous communications on a wide-scale basis, with no possibility of determining the source, could shelter criminal, or even terrorist communications," the draft says.
I wonder whether the authors know that it is impossible to stop anonymous communications for the intelligent criminal or terrorist who is willing to jump through a few hoops. If they don't, they shouldn't be writing such reports, as they are not qualified. If they do, then I wonder at their motives. The use of the term "wide-scale" is worrying in it's implication that they do know of the impossibility, and merely want to prevent anonymity for the masses. If the motive is to provide general surveillance capability, it is reprehensible and oppressive. Didn't you 'merkins once fight against oppressive government? If it's intended to help catch the dumb criminals and terrorists, they are mistaken about it's likely effectiveness - tracing is only useful when there is something worth tracing, and this only happens when people are unaware that their communications can be traced. Even dumb criminals and terrorists (who can usually be caught by less intrusive methods anyway) will quickly learn not to use traceable communications. Disposable mobile- and pay- phones are already favourites. I suppose they might be comparing the slight, short-term benefit to be gained in the ease of catching the dumb against the long-term loss of liberty for all, and weighing the loss of liberty at naught. If the motive is to give citizens the feeling that something is being done, it's just more political bullshit, but with unfortunate consequences. I can't think of any other possible motives. -- Peter Fairbrother