UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity
from the dangerous-and-stupid dept
Every so often, people who don't really understand the importance of anonymity or how it enables free speech (especially among marginalized people), think they have a brilliant idea: "just end real anonymity online." They don't seem to understand just how shortsighted such an idea is. It's one that stems from the privilege of being in power. And who knows that particular privilege better than members of the House of Lords in the UK -- a group that is more or less defined by excess privilege? The Communications Committee of the House of Lords has now issued a report concerning "social media and criminal offenses" in which they basically recommend scrapping anonymity online. It's not a true "real names" proposal -- as the idea is that web services would be required to collect real names at signup, but then could allow those users to do things pseudonymously or anonymously. But, still, their actions could then easily be traced back to a real person if the "powers that be" deemed it necessary. Here's the key bit:From our perspective in the United Kingdom, if the behaviour which is currently criminal is to remain criminal and also capable of prosecution, we consider that it would be proportionate to require the operators of websites first to establish the identity of people opening accounts but that it is also proportionate to allow people thereafter to use websites using pseudonyms or anonymously. There is little point in criminalising certain behaviour and at the same time legitimately making that same behaviour impossible to detect. We recognise that this is a difficult question, especially as it relates to jurisdiction and enforcement.The report notes that the findings are "tentative" and that these recommendations might possibly "be an undesirably chilling step towards tyranny," but they don't seem that concerned about it, or they wouldn't have made the general recommendation in the first place.
There is a long list of problems with such a proposal, beyond the obvious questions of how you would possibly enforce it and what the various chilling effects would be. But let's take it one step further and note the fallacy of the very premise made in the report: that without such requirements it is "impossible to detect" who did an action online deemed to be illegal. We've been dealing with this issue forever. A decade ago, we reported on the various freakouts over open WiFi and how it would "allow" anyone to commit crimes online and make it "impossible" to find them. And yet, time after time, we noted examples of basic detective work allowing police to track down the criminals.
Yes, without being forced to first identify yourself, it might make the police work a bit more difficult, but never impossible. Take a similar situation in the physical world. Anyone can walk into a store or a bank and hold it up. And they can do it without identifying themselves at the door before coming in. It happens all the time. Police have no official identity to work with, but they do have other clues -- fingerprints, video, photos, the clerk's memory -- to work off of and can piece together who committed the crime. The same is true of people online. Even if they don't identify themselves upfront, they frequently leave plenty of clues that allow law enforcement to figure out who they are.
So the very premise that this is somehow necessary is pretty much eliminated. Then combine it with all of the downsides that we already know about: chilling effects, the end of important anonymity, potential privacy violations and leaks and more. What you're left with is a horrible idea all around.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, crime, house of lords, privilege, uk, undetectable
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, it's the UK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like most of the "developed" world is rushing headlong into tyranny these past few decades. A new age of kings and serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
precisely, if it isn't done explicitly, it is done by non-enforcement on the ruling klasses...
perhaps the sheeple should take note that puppetmasters can wreck world economies and rake in trillions of ill-gotten gains, ruining countless lives, and waltz away to orchestral music...
99%-ers -especially the browner, poorer ones- can look squinty-eyed at The Man, and they get rousted, persecuted, or summarily executed...
all perfectly legal and justified, of course...
why ? well, 'cause, fuck you, is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely correct. Right there - cannot argue with that logic. If you cannot determine who did something, it does not make sense to call it a crime.
And if I say that in my head with a British accent, it sounds even dumber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> same time legitimately making that same behaviour impossible to detect.
By 'detect' does the House of Lords mean to detect the result of a crime? Or who did it? If the result, then...
Hey. Psssssst! I did something bad, but nobody will ever be able to detect that I did something bad.
You cannot detect it. Not now. Not ever. No victim. No missing person. The bad thing I did doesn't affect anyone, anywhere. Or any property.
Certain self appointed moral crusaders will say that this must therefore be the worst kind of crime.
Maybe the common folks should not be allowed to think unmonitored thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...as long as you make it clear that they are COWARDS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(P.S. Ed Snowden is in Russia because he could not remain anonymous.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they can't be chased down. Because there's too many of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is not that there are TOO MANY of them. The problem is now that everyone is a criminal... they can pick and choose when to chase even JUST ONE of the many down.
There are so many laws on the books contradicting each other that following one law means breaking another...
This has always been about one thing... solidifying power so that all manor of opposition can be squelched as they deem necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://culturaldissidence.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/why-real-name-commenting-doesnt-work/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you imagine if cars didn't have license plates? What would the roads be like?
Can you imagine if we turned the street lights off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even with license plates, you are relatively anonymous. As long as you don't severely break the law, most people don't care about your license plate number. They are more likely to check to see whether they find you attractive.
On the other hand, we also don't need to put our names and personal information on our vehicles in big letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With automated license plate recognition becoming more and more common, this is less and less true regardless of whether you are breaking the law or not.
I know you were talking about being anonymous from ordinary people and, while that's important, it's less important than being anonymous from the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe they'd put more traffic police on the streets to, you know, catch people breaking the road rules rather than implicitly encouraging breaking the rules to rack up speeding/red light revenue?
Besides, I know the chance of me being caught RIGHT NOW doing an illegal u-turn, changing lane on a deserted road without indicating, stopping at a red light at 3am then going through it while it's still red, and so on is pretty slim even WITH number plates....
When there is traffic around and it would be dangerous to do that u-turn (whether legal or not), change lanes without indicating, or going through a light (whether red, yellow or green), then I use my common sense and DON'T DO IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) got out of hand, meaning that those of power and wealth would be able to track those who were not of those categories
b) would signify even more how freedom and privacy is being removed from the ordinary people.
there is only one way to stop this and it has to be at the ballot box. it appears that this type of opinion is spreading dramatically and it wont be long before ordinary people will be banned for even talking of things that the privileged dont like and that jail sentences, even death will be handed out by those in the privileged positions. ie , the planet would turn into one that up to now has only existed in comic books and films. come to think of it, it's the industries that exist on nothing but selling make believe that started all this shit in the first place and as governments everywhere are doing everything these industries desire, maybe i'm not far wrong with my thoughts!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Great Opportunity
- This problem can be fixed.
We already have shoplifting portals on exits of many stores. Simply put them on the entrances as well (I'm willing to sell them for less than a couple hundred thousand dollars). Then simply deny entry to anyone not carrying a registered RFID card. With modern technology, it only takes a second or two to check the potential customer against the national database. (I will supply these systems too, for a price).
Another great advantage is that stores can run a credit check immediately and decide on the spot if the potential customer is deserving of admittance.
So many wonderful advantages and endless applications and opportunities. Sounds like Utopia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Great Opportunity
All kinds of advertisers, and competing stores, and Amazon and Google, would like to know which stores you visit, when you visit, how long you visit, which aisles you go to first, etc.
The robot droid at the door could greet you by name. Good Morning Mr. Smith.
If you look at a music CD in the store but don't buy it, the RIAA can safely infer that you went home to download it. Dirty pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Great Opportunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring police work into the 21st century
Police just want their work to be push-button-easy like it is on TV. Or like real knowledge workers who use a computer all day.
clickitey-clickitey-click. I've broken through the encryption boss!
clickitety-click clickitey-click. I've got the bad guy boss!
(cut to shot of two dozen military assault vehicles approaching a residential home)
Congratulations! You got the bad guy who said bad things about our beloved dear leader! A free box of donuts for you! Now somebody please bulldoze all these smoldering buildings and ashes! And get these bodies out of my way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The house of Lords and excessive privilege
Since the 1997 reform, the House of Lords is largely appointed on a lifetime basis. Still more than a little privileged, granted, but this article reads as if you still think the institution is mostly hereditary nobility, which it has not been for over a decade and a half.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The house of Lords and excessive privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The house of Lords and excessive privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The house of Lords and excessive privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The house of Lords and excessive privilege
The problem is that the apple falls all over the fucking place and are easily ruined!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The house of Lords and excessive privilege
There are also senior judges, who don't exercise their votes, and a few CofE bishops, nominally appointed by the Queen on the PM's advice, but the PM himself follows the CofE's recommendation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The house of Lords and excessive privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless all entry points to the internet are required to log all trafick and keep real names on file for later discovery, such a system can never work.
Internet user > entry point > route > online service.
A US online service is not required to ID its users for the benefit of the UK governmens, and is in any case protected from civil liability under § 230.
A noncitizen outside the territory of the US has no First Amendment right, but the online service has a First Amendment right to re-publish speech that's illegal under UK law but protected under the First Amendment.
The most obvious examples are speech violating UK's prohibition on publishing hate speech, spent convictions , defamation and glorification of terrorism.
In the US, the plaintiff must prove that the defamation is
false, whereas in the UK the defendant bears the burden of establishing truth.
Also in the UK, glorifying terrorism is a serious crime, whereas it's protected speech under the First Amendment to defend the moral propriety of terrorism.
Everything boils down to that the UK is censor happy and doesn't want to abolish its speech suppressive laws.
But why should it concern us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Defense of Anonymous Speech ~pj
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120212133227775
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a UK person uses a US social network to publish hate speech, the American provider should not treat any UK request different from one from China or Saudi Arabia.
If the speech is protected by the First Amendment, it should be the end of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> provider should not treat any UK request different from one from China or Saudi Arabia.
Ah, but then what if the RIAA or MPAA wants the UK to throw some kid in a room and throw away the room because of something the kid did that was legal in the UK, but offensive to the RIAA / MPAA here in the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like they tried to do to Richard O'Dwyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attn: Great Britain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does it end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I snipped that segment out because I had a slightly different take on it in that perhaps it's now well past time to reconsider what constitutes a criminal because I'm pretty sure that infringement, weed, poker and hookers isn't it.
The foundation of law, or more specifically law enforcement, requires no uncertain amount of leverage to sustain. Naturally, desiring anonymity further enhances ever increasing degrees of control thus enforceability. The law, on the other hand, is held up by the people, or should be. The bit that's getting ripped from our quickly loosening grip is that government and the public grow further and further apart as corporations and government grow ever closer. That path leads to destruction (like total global resources < null destruction.
Without a means of anonymity the scales of control will become all but permanently tilted to tyranny. I can't recall any tyrants ever stepping aside without blood. Anybody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a problem caused by the many refusing to squash corruption the moment it even looks like it is there. You may thank party systems for this... it does its job exceptionally well keeping the sheeple at the left and the rights throats in efforts to protect their 'less corrupted' evil guy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What could go wrong? (everything)
With the way things are going, the stereotypical British dialect will become robotic droning about how great the government is, which is exactly what the government wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What could go wrong? (everything)
Being a pedophile isn't a crime.
People need to learn the differences between these words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What could go wrong? (everything)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What could go wrong? (everything)
No we wont! we are not going that way many to the UK don't like this government that way we will vote them out next year! also your country wants you to be "robotic drones" as well! also they will never end online anonymity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like reading Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facists at work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right up there with "I'm not a racist but..."
then possibly, maybe you're wrong and should listen to your inner angel and STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, ConDems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, ConDems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, ConDems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't Enforce It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Supreme Court on benefits of Anonymous Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lolwut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity in HMG
We have to give up anonymity when reading a newspaper article, while they get quoted "speaking under condition of anonymity"?
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, St. James's Square, London, also known as Chatham House, even has an anonimity rule.
At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to the meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed ever to reveal the identity, employer or political party of the person making a comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion of public policy and current affairs, as it allows people to express and discuss controversial opinions and arguments without suffering the risk of dismissal from their job, and with a clear separation from the opinion and the view of their employer.
If Her Majesty's Government wants to abolish anonymity online, shouldn't it begin by abolishing anonymity within its own walls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymity in HMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how it begins.
Like, who's a jew ? Like in France where they passed a law where Jews had to wear Yellow "Juif" (Jew) stars on their clothing ?
And what about homosexuals ?
I will accept their law when all politicians will publish their bank account information and amounts, and a scan of every bill spend with public money.
I also want the names of everyone they know in private and public, all their rendez-vous, all money received from whom and what amount.
They want those rules for everyone else, but not them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline correction required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]