Test 2
Question 3
Typically computer scientists are geeky, scrawny nerds that would rather create a Blog cleverly criticizing their enemies rather than confronting them face-to-face. But there are two things one could say to a group of computer science undergrads that would turn these pasty google-lovers into red-faced hyper-testosterone-filled maniacs: “Microsoft is awesome for the computer science industry” and “The Internet should be regulated.” Although it is hard to conjure up defenses for the Microsoft statement, the latter statement does possess some interesting arguments. There currently exists a balancing act between Internet accountability and Internet anonymity. Which side tips the scale depends on the following fundamental question: When will the values of anonymity cease to outweigh the consequences of its misuse?
Upon reflection, most computer scientists will agree that 100% anonymity does not outweigh the repercussions of its misuse. In a certain sense, this ultimate-anonymity is similar to John Locke’s “Natural” man. Before the advent of governments, Locke believed man was on his own—or perhaps living with just his immediate family—and that this is the “Natural” state of man. Every man was completely free to do whatever he wished; he was accountable to no one else and he was bound only by his own aspirations. Such a government-less society, however, emboldened physical-rule. One man could control another man if he was physically more domineering. Locke proposed that governments and societies developed to protect individuals from the domineering control of those more physically powerful. These individuals realized that if they united as a group and agreed to behave in a defined way, they could live a better life—the actions of one person would be accountable to the entire group, and thus they could establish a sense of personal security. Locke’s “Natural” man essentially decided that the values of anonymity (absolute freedom) do not outweigh the consequences of its misuse (mob-like control, no options for recourse).
This tussle between anonymity and accountability continues today in cyberspace, especially with the advent of peer-to-peer networks. Net users can communicate and share information virtually anonymously. Advocates of anonymity argue that anonymity is a necessity for free speech, for one needs to feel free to express his or her beliefs without the fear of being attacked. The Constitution itself strongly permits anonymous leafleting.[1] Additionally, the thought of Big Brother in any form does not sit well with most Net users. Severe misuse of this anonymity, however, makes government regulation very alluring. Fast spreading viruses that can wreak havoc on businesses and individuals, licentious and libel hate mail, mass unsolicited spamming, and the transfer of illegal and copyrighted materials are all examples of the Internet activities that probably happen because the perpetrator can not readily be determined. Government regulation of accountability will arguably reduce these Internet misuses; when self-regulation fails, government is typically called upon to solve the dispute.
If government regulates Net-anonymity, it will essentially be creating an “Internet Driver’s License.” As opposed to an automobile license which says that one is competent enough and legally allowed to drive an automobile, this Internet license will give the government a much greater Big Brother power: the government will track every website you visit, every purchase you make, and every email you send. This contradicts similar non-Net activities—we do not need license to talk on the telephone or to shop at the mall. (Businesses do, however, need a commercial license and such a commercial licensing will be necessary for e-commerce). At the disposal of so much personal knowledge, it is readily apparent that the government can abuse it. In the fight against terror, or drugs, or child porn, the government can unjustifiably discriminate against individuals based on race, sexuality, or religious background. The government can silence political dissidents and have a “chilling effect” on any chat room discussions—such as discussions of homosexuality—where the chatter is afraid of being identified.[2]
The tussles of anonymity and accountability are similar to the tussles of government-backed encryption key escrow where the government has a “back entrance” into any encryption algorithm. The government feels a need to protect its citizens so it wants this back entrance, but the individual is fearful that the government will unjustifiably use his or her speech him or her—or that this information will be stolen. A national database that contains the identification of all Internet users and more importantly their Net activities is the “Fort Knox” to thieves, frauds, blackmailers, spies, and political enemies. (Similarly, a national database of all the back door keys to every encryption scheme is just as enticing.)
Has the misuse of anonymity—predominantly through sharing of copyrighted material, hate speech, spam mailings, and fraud—outweighed anonymity’s political benefits? The debate over this question may end sooner rather than later. Influential record companies are making long strides for accountability for those using peer-to-peer networks to download copyrighted music and movies. Similarly, the Patriot Act enacts far-reaching means for Internet accountability to fight cyber-terrorism. In lieu of cyber-theft and cyber-terrorism, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the level of anonymity that Net-users currently enjoy. In the next few years, we will likely see the debate change from whether or not the government should regulate Net-anonymity, but to what extent the government should regulate anonymity.