Social Effects of Media Anonymity - Research Paper Example

Social effects of media anonymity: should it be protected or regulated? Introduction To refine better media communication technologies, should anonymity on the Internet be protected or regulated? This is a question that must be honestly answered by all of us who are so indulged now online and who cannot live one minute without being connected to the internet. Anonymity is one of the benefits of the technological innovation. But do we really need this? Do we need the cloak of anonymity in order to express our ideas and opinions, socialize with people, express “instant” love, or just surf or search something we want to know about? Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. This is a quote from a Supreme Court ruling (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334) enshrining into law an individual’s desire to remain anonymous on the internet, and which is a topic of great interest for this paper. From the simple sentence above, a thousand and one pictures are framed and painted in our minds that indeed we can be anonymous for a thousand and one reasons. There are a lot of arguments, valid pros and cons, that accompany one’s desire to remain anonymous. And for this writer the subject is quite interesting to write about. What are the facts behind anonymity? Is it really that possible to remain anonymous over the Internet? Anonymity is one of the Internet’s attractions that allow users to surf endlessly without being known. You can make comments, you can divulge or keep some secrets, you can criticize people or even the powers that be without being known, or you can express and find love even if you are shy. But like any other medium, it is also being abused by people – criminals, dissidents, opportunists, etc., people who want to do their thing with deceit, or say something against people and just vanish into cyberspace. Internet anonymity is said to be a doubled-edged sword. This is because while this is being safeguarded by the U.S. constitution, as upheld by the Supreme Court, it is also used to suppress other people’s rights and not being held responsible or accountable for their actions. There are many good things that the Internet can offer. You can ask for help for an immediate reply, you can promote good governance or preserve the environment using its many features, and the preacher can even preach worldwide using the Web; we can even protect ourselves by being anonymous. But the criminal too can do his/her thing without being known. How is it possible to be anonymous on the Internet? Let’s start with this revolutionary technology – how it all started? The Internet’s identity is reproduced by a mix of fandom community, commerce and business, linked by technologies that are both private and publicly owned and variously regulated. The Internet came into existence as the result of numerous factors, accidents, passions, collisions and tensions; these tensions are between economic and regulatory factors and the communicative practices (Lister et al 163). It is possible to regulate anonymity in the Internet. Internet experts say that in theory, it is not really that impossible to remain anonymous because an Internet user can almost always be identified by the IP number and can be traced back through the ISP (Internet Service Provider) to determine his/or her identity (Lambert 8). The Internet Protocol number can be used to trace anyone online; the IP number is a set of four numbers separated by periods that uniquely identifies the connection made through the Internet Service Provider or ISP. In theory, an IP number is like having a Social Security number printed on your shirt and in very small writing; other Internet users don’t necessarily see it but can easily find it if they really want to (Lambert 9). However, unless the ISP can provide the names and the records of the users, it is really difficult to trace individuals on the Internet. If you’re using a computer from a public establishment like cyber cafés, libraries, schools, and other publicly accessible connections, you can hardly be traced at all. If anyone wants to chat confidentially to other people online, he can adopt a pseudonym and chat in pretty much complete confidence that no one will find out his identity. Nevertheless, government agencies can use or trace the IP number to track people or criminals and violators of the law. In instances for example an investor got wind of financial irregularities at a company and decided to post that information, anonymously, on an Internet message board, the company could take legal action and force the person’s ISP to disclose his identity in an attempt to shut him up. But there are also other ways to counter this. Internet users can use some tricks and techniques to hide their identities or they can obscure their IP numbers. This can be made by some sophisticated technology provided by ISPs who maintain no records of their users and allow payment in cash so their users can remain anonymous and are completely untraceable. The police can only trace the IP number back to the ISP, but since the latter has no record, the user therefore cannot be traced at all. Some of these ISPs are established in places that are inaccessible to law enforcement agencies. There are other ISPs which provide complete anonymity, for example Freedom and Anonymizer, Inc. (Lambert 8). The Website of Anonymizer states that they protect subscribers from identity thieves. It uses a software with “the latest and most advanced technology” for online privacy and identity protection, and secures financial lifeline against would-be identity thieves. Anonymizer Anonymous Surfing combines the protection of rotating anonymous IP addresses with the security of 128-bit SSL technology” (Anonymizer.com). There seems absolute anonymity on the part of the subscriber. This is protecting users or customers from identity thieves while conducting online shopping, internet banking, and other transactions that need to be secured. The Website further says that “spyware technologies are becoming more advanced and sophisticated each year and are the primary tools for identity thieves, while firewalls and anti-virus software alone aren’t enough to stop them.” There is also what they call anonymous remailers that disguise the sender’s identity. The remailer receives the email and strips off the original header and forwards the mail to its destination. When a response is sent, again the remailer receives it and keeps it in a temporary address, examining first who the sender is. Again this is not strictly anonymous because the remailer knows the identity of the “customer”. Another way to stay anonymous is to hide in a “crowd”. This technique was introduced by a system called crowds, actually a program developed by Michael Reiter of Bell Laboratories and Aviel Rubin of AT&T. The system links a group of Internet users together and represents each one as a virtual entity, or a “johndoe.” It works this way: when a member or a “johndoe” sends something to the Internet, this is being sent randomly to the other johndoes before it is sent to its final destination. And when an information is received, it goes the same path to the original johndoe via the other intermediate johndoes. It means no one in the system can really tell who is doing what at any given time because all the johndoes pass their information to the other johndoes. Crowds does not claim to offer complete anonymity; it uses the mathematics of probability theory to describe the degree of anonymity each user can expect under different circumstances, ranging on a scale from absolute privacy to absolute exposure. Crowds is effective with large groups of people. However, each user is an identifiable part of the crowd. (Lambert 9) Other ways of remaining anonymous on the Internet include web browsing using a Website called an anonymous proxy server. In this way, your browser points to a proxy who types the address you want to visit; all your Web page requests pass through the proxy and it is the proxy’s IP number that can be detected not yours. Publishing on the web can also be done completely anonymously by using a system called data haven that makes document storage and retrieval from the Internet without revealing the identity of the authors or the people looking at the documents. This system can be used by dissidents living under repressive regimes. But again some abuse can be done by other people (Lambert 10). The Internet’s anonymity can be abused, like any other system. Law enforcement agencies have been trying to stop this by asking for more laws to empower them. The U.S. Government wanted to make some moves to limit anonymity on the Internet. In November 2002, newspapers reported that the Pentagon had briefly considered an idea called eDNA. This concept could have tagged general Internet traffic with personalized markers. It’s like DNA in humans, which is unique in everyone. This one is used on any Internet traffic. The Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) wanted this implemented to trace those wanted by law. If it had pushed through, it could have outlawed most forms of Internet anonymity. But then this was opposed by online civil liberties campaigners. In support of anonymity There are many organizations, many of which can be contacted online, supporting the rights to privacy and anonymity. The American Civil Liberties Union has branches for every state protecting citizens from the infringement of their human and civil rights. The Electronic Privacy Information Center or EPIC is a public interest research center established in 1994 which informs the public on emerging civil liberties issues and aims to protect privacy under the First Amendment, and constitutional values (EPIC website). EPIC focuses, among others, policy issues such as profiling of people, government surveillance, cloud computing, etc. Cloud computing involves a “software and server framework (usually based on virtualization)” that uses “many servers for a single software-as-a-service style application or to host many such applications on a few servers. This is an emerging network architecture where applications reside on third party servers, managed by private firms that provide remote access through we-based devices” (EPIC website). This type of network architecture allows anonymity in its fullest sense. Anonymity is central to free speech, and free speech is central to democracy (Lambert 10). Authors and great men of the past have used anonymity to prove their points and belief. Anonymity is a right protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many authors have written controversial works using pen names. There is a long and respected tradition of anonymous political writings in America. Thomas Paine’s writing Common Sense, recognized as the first work to spark Americans to consider independence from Great Britain, was anonymously written by “An Englishman.” The Federalist Papers was written by the Founding Fathers using a pen name. They were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison who wrote under the pseudonym “Publius” (Jonathan D. Wallace, “Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet,” The Laissez Faire City Times, January 3, 2000, cited in Freeman 176). The First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and freedom of assembly have been understood for many years to provide protection for certain levels of anonymity. (A. Michael Froomkin, “Anonymity and Its Enmities,” J. Online L., Art 4. Par. 54, 1995, cited in Freeman 176) Then again on privacy, Justice Louis D. Brandels says this: The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness…. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Justice Louis D. Brandels, Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 1928, qtd. in Rosenberg 339). In a court battle involving the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Alabama state government, the Supreme Court upheld in 1958 the organization’s right not to reveal the list of its members. The Court recognized “the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” The NAACP’s right to pursue its lawful interests privately and to associate freely with others was considered more important than Alabama’s request for the membership lists. The Court also invalidated a Los Angeles ordinance against the distribution of anonymous leaflets. (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), cited in Freeman 176) Also, in a 1995 ruling, McIntyre v. Ohio Campaign Commission, the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio statue prohibiting the distribution of campaign literature that did not indicate the name and address of those responsible for its issuance. Anonymity has its ups and downs. It was also outlawed, although only for a short time. The first known act to outlaw Internet anonymity and pseudonymity happened in the state of Georgia in 1996 through an amendment of the state’s Computer Systems Protection Act. Right away the move was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) saying that the law was an attack on free speech. ACLU moved to quash the amendment with a permanent injunction. Ann Beeson, an ACLU lawyer, argued: “The right to speak and publish using a virtual nom de plume has its roots in a long tradition dating back to the very founding of democracy in this country” (Lambert 10). The Georgia Act made it misdemeanor for Any person… knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network … for the purpose of setting up maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information if such data uses any individual name … to falsely identify the person. [GA. CODE. ANN. § 16-9-93.1 (1996), qtd. in Freeman 174] This says anonymity is a criminal offense. But thereafter, concerned individuals and groups including the ACLU Georgia branch challenged the constitutionality of the Act saying it was a violation of the First Amendment. The following were the arguments for the Act to be overturned. “Unconstitutionally prohibited protected speech by placing restrictions on anonymous Internet use Violated constitutional rights to freedom of association and privacy by restricting the use of pseudonyms and pen names Restricted protected expression by prohibiting anonymous access to online information Was too vague to be applied because it did not define “names that ‘falsely identify’ their user” (Freeman 174). The arguments supporting anonymity were opposed by the State of Georgia who countered that: The conduct prohibited by the bill did not apply to anonymous communications on the Internet but only to fraudulent computer use. The Act was directed only to false or misleading speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. Finally, the civil rights organization won when Judge Marvin H. Shoob granted the ACLU’s request for an injunction against the Act (ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997), qtd. in Freeman 174). Judge Shoob made his decision on some grounds that the statute’s prohibition of anonymous Internet communications was a restriction on free speech based on the content of the speech. This was based on the U.S. Supreme Court previous rulings that the government should not suppress ideas because they are unpopular or offensive or merely to stifle dissenting viewpoints. As Justice Homes wrote, there must be a “free trade of ideas.” Truth will be accepted through the “competition of the market.” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), qtd.in Freeman 175) Furthermore, the court commented on the statute as too broad because “it was not drafted with the precision necessary for laws regulating speech. On its face, the act prohibits such protected speech as the use of false identification to avoid social ostracism, to prevent discrimination and harassment, and to protect privacy … a prohibition with well-recognized First Amendment problems” (ACLU at 1233, cited in Freeman 175). The decision was firm in its stand on the First Amendment principle as applied on the statute. ACLU proved triumphant when the state decided not to appeal Judge Shoob’s ruling, so the ruling became the final and definitive statement on the constitutionality of the Act. Rationales for anonymity on the Internet There are some questions in our minds on the rationale of anonymity on the Internet. Why do many of us want to be anonymous? In Georgia v. Miller, ACLU highlighted the role and the results of anonymity on the Internet. Some people find it easier to express themselves without divulging their identities, most particularly if they are unsure of themselves or of their ideas. There are those who are ashamed or feel humiliated when their ideas are not accepted or opposed. The feeling of humiliation or repercussions was stressed. Many would want to surf or research, or share their ideas, about certain conditions, situations, illnesses, businesses, academic or plain research, and would not want to be known to the public. Whistle blowers too should be protected from the ones they have made their attack. But the repercussions of anonymity have to be considered too. There are countless individuals out there who hide in the cloak of anonymity in their shady Internet moneymaking schemes, criminals with their swindling techniques. And then there is the issue of jurisdiction because the nature of the Internet defies standard laws of jurisdiction. It is often difficult to determine which state court should hear a case, especially when the parties to the transaction are from different states and the transaction itself occurred on the Internet. (Issues of Jurisdiction in Cyberspace,” Information Systems Security, Winter 1999, p. 20, qtd. in Freeman 175) Those who are against anonymity state that when people show their identity, they are true to their words: Disclosure helps audiences assess the truthfulness, objectivity, and accuracy of a speaker’s words. It discourages people from saying wild, unsubstantiated claims, writing libelous documents, or speaking in the name of a respected authority. It can also serve to limit hate speech that the speaker knows to be offensive. (Note, “Disclosure as a Legislative Device,” Harvard Law Review, 76, 1273, 1963, qtd. in Freeman 176) Another negative repercussion of the anonymity is that it is easily obtained though users can be tracked using the IP Number, as stated earlier. The difficulty in tracing hackers and perpetrators of online fraud can be solved, and not by restricting anonymity altogether. Individuals can use anonymity to infringe on the rights of others. Anonymity can be used as a weapon to damage or destroy reputations, and everyone has the right to defend himself/herself. Although this is a valid argument, this is still not the reason to abolish anonymity in the Internet. The negative side of free speech is simply the price people must pay for freedom in a democratic society. Austin Hill, president of Zero Knowledge Systems (ZKS), which established a network of anonymous ISPs, says: “Like all freedom, this can be abused or used for good. We don’t outlaw cars because people sometimes have accidents in them” (PC World April 27, 1999, qtd. in Lambert 11). There are really difficult sides in enforcing laws on anonymity. Restrictions can be used on certain situations but not to the extent of banning it altogether. In a particular situation, in March 2000, the President’s Working Group on Unlawful Conduct on the Internet argued that “anonymity is a much more difficult and immediate problem than sometimes abstract and philosophical discussions about rights and liberties might suggest: “Law enforcement agencies today for example, are faced with the need to evaluate and to determine the source, typically on very short notice, of anonymous emails that contain bomb threats against a given building or threats to cause serious bodily injury.” (Lambert 11) Law enforcers and politicians would like to give themselves freedom in tracing people when situations arise. However, anonymity on the Internet can be compared to other situations, such as anonymity in books and pamphlets. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that anonymous books and leaflets are a justified form of free speech, the argument goes that Internet communications should be treated the same. Nevertheless, a Website cannot be considered a book or a leaflet. We can distinguish it from printed materials, just as radio and TV are different from books; they are broadcast media. There can be regulations on extreme situations that need to be recommended against anonymity in the Internet but it has to be studied carefully so as not to infringe on people’s rights. What about software and Websites that promote “absolute” anonymity? How can these be regulated? There are complicated issues and situations that have to be resolved. Still, the Supreme Court has ruled on the legality of anonymity as in ACLU v. Georgia. We also have to protect ourselves from so-called Internet viruses, worms, and other Internet maladies that cannot just be treated with ordinary software. Do we think privacy can protect us? Well, it is an ‘indiscriminate’ question. Because we cannot avoid people abusing the Internet, we can have a bit of regulation. But what is happening now is there seems to be an absolute enjoyment of anonymity. How can this be treated now? The question is a hanging question because a lot of people, businesses, organizations (legal or not legal) are now hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. But that is the law we can’t violate. The Constitution has to be followed because we live in a democracy as initiated and forwarded to us by our Founding Fathers, and logically speaking, given to us by God. Then, since we have to protect ourselves from viruses, worms, and other clandestine exhibitions in the Internet, must we not also protect ourselves from overreacting law enforcers? For example, there is the so-called “Magic Lantern” used by the FBI purportedly to enforce the USA Patriot Act, which was pushed through by John Ashcroft and the FBI. In this situation, the FBI can break into one’s home and plant this Magic Lantern on anyone’s computer. Sometimes it is known as the “sniffer keystroke logger.” The Magic Lantern records all your activities you conduct on your computer, saved in plain text, and when the FBI comes to your home to pick up the recorded activities of yours in the Magic Lantern, they can download it and everything is for evidence (Hentoff). Now, if we can’t trust people on the Internet, the more reason we can’t trust law enforcers. Conclusion Another more pressing question is how can we use anonymity for better media communication? Communicating anonymously is exercising our right, at the same time we express ourselves.  To say it in another way, there’s not only a single right we have exercised here protected under the Constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court, this aside from the fact that we are exercising our right as human beings. But freedom is not always absolute, and freedom is practices with a lot of caution with emphasis on the rights of others as humans with a culture, race, belief, system, and so forth. We always practice our rights with caution so as not to hurt others. We love to communicate freely without any hassle, meaning without disturbing or hurting the peace of others, or of a community working within a system. In other words, we cannot enjoy freedom of anonymity if we hurt others. It is good to enjoy anonymity, but let the law enforcers do their job, without maligning this precious right in the process. If only we are assured that all who use the Internet will do it for the common good; if we only we are assured that every Internet user will follow the law, then we don’t need to regulate or be nervous about anonymity in the Internet. But as we have witnessed as we surf the Internet, there are countless frauds and evil schemes out there that we need to be careful of. How can we feel safe of our accounts and Websites if we don’t allow the law enforcers to monitor and identify the perpetrators of cyber crimes? We have to do it: allow anonymity as what has been permitted by our Supreme Court, but not to the point of allowing it absolutely. There has to be some regulation. Works Cited Anonymizer. 2007-2009. Anonymizer Inc. 18 September 2009. . Epic.org. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 17 September 2009. . Freeman, Edward H. Anonymity on the Internet: ACLU of Georgia v. Miller. In R. Herold, (ed.), The Privacy Papers: Managing Technology, Consumer, Employee, and Legislative Actions. Florida, U.S.A.: CRC Press LLC, 2002. Hentoff, Nat. The FBI’s Magic Lantern; Ashcroft Can be in Your Computer. 22 May 2002. The Village Voice. 19 September 2009. Lambert, Laura. The Internet: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: MTM Publishing, Inc., 2005. Lister, Martin, Dovey, Jon, Giddings, Seth, Grant, Iain, and Kelly, Kieran. New Media: A Critical Introduction (Second Edition). New York: Routledge, 2009. Rosenberg, Richard S. The Social Impact of Computers, Third Edition. California, USA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2004. Read More