Ted Ts'o is right that anonymity can be used for many harmful purposes. On the other hand, as Tim May suggests, attempts to control the flow of information can easily lead to restrictions which do more harm than what they try to prevent. Although I assume that most people here share a commitment to the overall goals of what Tim calls "crypto anarchy", it's possible that we all have different reasons for our support. My own angle is that these techniques enhance privacy and provide power to individuals which can counterbalance the influence and authority of large institutions. I've been influenced in this mostly by the papers of David Chaum. For me, crypto anarchy is a way to oppose the constantly growing databases of information about each person, a way for individuals to take control of information about their own lives. This is why I like one particular justification for anonymous posting that I read, that people should be free to choose for themselves how much information to reveal when they post. I worry that, although the networks are in their infancy today, there may come a time when all information ever posted to Usenet is online, accessible, and searchable in a few seconds. The posters' email addresses may be cross-linked to their current names and addresses. Anything you post today may come back twenty years from now to haunt you. (Already, the archives are being kept, so all that is needed is technological improvements to put the information on-line and allow that huge volume of data to be usefully searched.) Now, you may say, so what, 99% of what is posted on Usenet couldn't possibly interest anyone anyway, and besides, I'm not posting anything anyone would care about. This may be true, but think about how much you reveal about yourself over a period of time if you are an active poster. Imagine all of that information being available to every potential employer or new neighbor. Imagine trying to run for public office! I simply don't like the idea of everyone I meet potentially knowing my hobbies, interests, political affiliations, sexual preferences, and so on. These same considerations apply in many other areas of our lives. Financial transactions can supply a lot of the same information. So can phone records. Perhaps someday our cars will be tracked routinely to collect information about where we go. Uncomfortable as I may be with personal and private facts being used by marketers and employers to evaluate me, there is also the possibility of even more sinister uses. Imagine how a dictatorship could exploit this much detailed information about the daily lives of its subjects. Probably "that will never happen here" but the mere possibility should provide another reason to guard our privacy. I imagine most people here agree with the thrust of these arguments, so I won't go on. But the point is that anonymous/pseudonymous communications can provide real benefits to all members of society. It's not just a romantic attraction to bomb-throwing revolutionaries or an elitist desire to escape the clutching hands of the greedy masses whcih drives us. I believe that the benefits that crypto anonymity can provide to society will clearly outweigh the problems. Hal Finney 74076.1041@compuserve.com
Hal writes:
For many transactions, identity is not an issue fundamental to the transaction. If I pay cash to you for an item, I have not made any implicit promise to pay you at a later date, as I have if I've paid with credit (card or account). Every obligation I might have to you I have already fulfilled, fulfilled by paying cash. My name is not relevant here. If I perform some service for you, and you acknowledge that the service is complete as performed, then you have no need for my identity. (As far as the two of us are concerned. Other parties intrude on this interaction usually.) Therefore, should not discrimination against anonymity when names are not germane be considered (depending on one's ideology) unreasonable, inefficient, coercive, intrusive, or illegal? Eric
Eric Hughes writes:
Try telling this to the person behind the counter when you're trying to rent a car, rent a hotel room for the night, or rent a mailbox for 6 months. Not only do these people often ask for ID, but they get very upset if you're not paying by credit card. Discrimination against cash is widespread and rampant. Sure, if you bitch enough at them, and threaten to take them to court, they might allow you to rent a hotel room without ID and paying in cash. The thing is, they never ask for ID if you're paying by credit card since they assume the credit card is enough proof of who you are. But as soon as you start flashing some paper currency, they immediatly think that you're up to no good and won't let you purchase their product/service without some ID. Hotels, airlines, and car rental companies are notorious for doing this, especially if they think you're under 21. This brings up the question of using False ID when conducting perfectly legal transactions, in order to preserve one's privacy. Can anyone reading this list with a legal background answer whether this is legal or not? I am under the, perhaps erroneous, assumption that it is illegal to use false ID only when committing a crime (ie: purchasing alcahol while underage, renting a mail drop specifically for use in mail fraud, gaining admission to private property using false ID (trespassing)). However, is it illegal to use false ID in order to conduct perfectly legal transactions in order to preserve privacy/anonymity? How about it, any of you guys associated with the CPSR, EFF, or ACLU, can you answer this one? Murdering Thug
Thug, you didn't seem to get Eric's point. When I walk up to the newspaper guy on the corner, I hand him 35 cents, he hands me a paper. We're both happy. My name is irrelevant, because there's not a hell of a lot either of us can do to screw the other one over, so he doesn't need to know my name. I don't need to know his. With certain exceptions, like the mailbox example, most situations of "rent foo" require the lessor to take a risk, and he wants *some* assurance that he'll get his rented thing back. I'm not going to rent a car to someone without ID, for cash, because I have no guarantee that he isn't going to drive away with it and never come back. I'm not saying discrimination against cash doesn't exist. It does, and that's reprehensible. But not all cases of "plastic, yes, cash, no" are discriminatory.
This is a very good question. Marc
Privacy costs. It is possible to create a company which offers insurance against damage and loss, paid for by the user, assigned to the owner. Such a policy could be presented to a car rental agency in lieu of your name. Your transaction with the rental agency would then be anonymous, even if your transaction with the insurer were not. Such an arrangement might even be preferable to a rental agency, since it means they don't have to go after individuals with shallow pockets in the event of damage or loss. I can even imagine such a company which offers standard policies for any number of different objects, written and digitally signed over the phone. Want to rent and apartment? Get your damage and last month's rent insured. There is already such a thing as "completion insurance" for construction and the like, purchased by the builder as a condition of contract. If the transaction costs of this and similar types of insurance were lowered, anonymity in the real world would increase. Eric
participants (4)
-
Eric Hughes -
Hal -
Marc Horowitz -
thug＠phantom.com