DHS Official Thinks People Should Have To Give Up Their Anonymity To Use The Internet
from the screwing-the-nation-for-the-good-of-the-nation dept
Apparently, the only way to stop terrorists from hating us for our freedom is to strip away those offensive freedoms.
Erik Barnett, the DHS's attache to the European Union, pitched some freedom-stripping ideas to a presumably more receptive audience via an article for a French policy magazine. Leveraging both the recent Paris attacks and the omnipresent law enforcement excuse for any bad idea -- child porn -- Barnett suggested victory in the War on Terror can be achieved by stripping internet users of their anonymity. You know, all of them, not just the terrorists.
After a short anecdote about a successful child porn prosecution in Europe. Barnett gets straight to the point. Here's Kieren McCarthy of The Register.
Before we have an opportunity to celebrate, however, Barnett jumps straight to terrorism. "How much of the potential jihadists' data should intelligence agencies or law enforcement be able to examine to protect citizenry from terrorist attack?", he poses. The answer, of course, is everything.In short, if you value internet-related freedoms, you're basically supporting terrorism and child porn. No person -- especially no legislator -- would want to be seen as valuing personal freedoms over the good of the nation's infrastructure/children. And, because terrible ideas must be buttressed by terrible analogies, Barnett theorizes that the internet is basically a car.
Then the pitch: "As the use of technology by human beings grows and we look at ethical and philosophical questions surrounding ownership of data and privacy interests, we must start to ask how much of the user's data is fair game for law enforcement to protect children from sexual abuse?"
"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate. The license plate's identifiers are ignored most of the time by law enforcement [unless] the car is involved in a legal infraction or otherwise becomes a matter of public interest. Similarly, should not every individual be required to display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"To use the Fourth Amendment for a moment, a lowered expectation of privacy is in play when operating a vehicle on public roads. However, the Fourth Amendment affords a great deal of privacy to the interior of people's homes. Because the government (in most cases) does not provide internet access, it has no basis to demand ongoing access to citizens' internet activities. It may acquire this information (along with subscriber info) using search warrants and subpoenas during the course of investigations, but it cannot demand (or at least shouldn't) -- for national security reasons or otherwise -- that every internet user be immediately identifiable.
Discussions of requiring a license for internet usage have been raised previously but rarely go anywhere. To do so is to start heading down the path to totalitarianism. Unfortunately, being in a constant state of war against an ambiguous foe often results in legislators and government officials declaring their interest in seeing this path not only surveyed, but the first layer of asphalt applied.
Barnett is one of this number, and he wants a strawman to serve as construction foreman.
"Social media is used to generate support for terrorist groups ... How appropriate is the law enforcement engagement of the social media companies to reveal digital fingerprints of these extremist groups? Who determines the level of 'extremism' of a group? Few would disagree that law enforcement and intelligence services should have the ability..."Actually, lots of people would disagree, starting with many citizens and running all the way up to their service providers. On top of that, the nation's courts would find the institution of a law that strips the anonymity of internet users to be unconstitutional, so that's another hurdle Barnett and like-minded officials would not be able to clear, no matter their stated justification.
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, dhs, erik barnett, internet, internet license, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
Corruption in public offices on the other hand...
As such I propose that all public servants, from the simple cop on the street, to government agency attaches, all the way up to the US president be required to make available to the public all of their data, from phone calls to emails, browsing history to data on any service they use, so that the public will be able to pour through it and spot corruption before it is allowed to affect the public.
All of those with access to the data(that being everyone) will of course promise to never misuse the data, and will of course only use it in the name of spotting and preventing corruption, with no other use allowed, under penalty of a really stern finger wagging and talking to by a judge.
As I'm sure that no public servant is in favor of corruption among their ranks, I have no doubt that they will greet this proposal with their full support, and pass it into law with all due expediency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
Likewise, for civilian armaments. The police are nothing but last resort, last minute, after the fact officials with guns on their belts most of the time. Citizens should be no less capably equipped for dealing with crime than the police, no less armed, no less empowered.
Intelligence agencies may not operate within the country any further than can any citizen using any form of technology or methodology in order to gain information. Against enemy countries, that's a different matter, just as with policing the interior being different than military force projected outwardly in defense of the entire country. So in the same way, citizens are no less empowered to "spy on" or "perform counterintelligence" against intelligence agencies in the country in any case where they are suspected of corruption, which is to say using espionage powers within the country and against any citizen.
What I've said in effect is that a country of laws based in proper foundations of right and justice will not allow intelligence activities beyond the scope of any citizen's equal right to the same in country, and the same with military force. NO MORE "SPIES FOR THE KING." They are a department of the military, nothing more.
Likewise, no rights to government. It is not a repository of rights, it is a registrar of their performance in public. Any citizen can govern the country de jure and de facto. That's the very basis of the idea of government by the governed in the first place. It is a collective ipsarchy, and that is it. People are the agents and operatives and officials at all times, and the "government as such" is this. The institutions of the registration of public events and their due process is only ensured, validated, recorded, and as it were "broadcast publicly" by the government. Real government would look a lot more like journalism on the institutional level, and be a lot less invasive into people's lives on the personal level.
The bare fact that people cannot, on average, even grasp the sense of what I'm here saying proves that the prison-state has already robbed them of their minds as well as their bodies and property. Given some events of which I'll here not detail, their souls are also very much at stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
Often, all that's left for them is to clean up the mess.
Hell, what's wrong with driving a pickup truck around that's dragging a German eighty-eight with a box full of ammo? It's just a gun, right?
I'm being sarcastic, in case it isn't obvious. There's a quantitative difference between a handgun or rifle and anti-aircraft artillery that can destroy a Sherman tank or a building or shoot down an airliner.
They're supposed to be spying on potential enemies (to protect us from them). They're supposed to accept that they're constrained from spying on us domestically. That job is for the *civilian* (non-military) police. This distinction appears to have been lost in recent years.
Uh huh. Believes souls are a real thing. Maybe you need a nap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Corrupt Deserve No Rights
So the difference between police and everyone else would just be a matter of training?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought I was a shitty posterchild...
So which revolving door multibillion dollar company is he gonna get the inside track on handling all of this data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete NON Sequitor
http: // files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/213.html
Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society.
~John Adams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete NON Sequitor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Complete NON Sequitor
Easier to rule when you can just kick down known dissenters doors in the middle of the night and make them vanish in the name of "fighting terrorism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete NON Sequitor
And if we only had a President who was prepared to accept the true nature of the enterprise that we are fighting against then we would have less need to
Preface written into the copy of the Koran owned by
John Adams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Complete NON Sequitor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws only affect law abiding people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes sense
Part of the deal with giving up anonymity is that we must also give up all encryption. Encryption is an impediment to identifying people who voice opinions. Again, this is so that the government can protect us from The Bad Guys™.
I feel safer already.
Don't lose any sleep worrying about the consequences of not having encryption. The government will protect all of our critical infrastructure from hackers. The government is our friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plates do not identify the driver
In IT terms that might be analogous to the MAC address on the network card in the computer or other device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plates do not identify the driver
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plates do not identify the driver
Nope. I think I've a choice of about five places within a block of where I live that I could walk into and use their freely provided WiFi connection, not to mention all the open unlocked routers people have in their homes in the area. Some of them, I wouldn't even need to go inside. I could be sitting at a bus stop outside across the street. Fold in a VPN and you or anyone else would never be able to find out who or where I am.
I'm beginning to think demanding people have a valid Internet driver's license may be a thing we should consider just to keep the imbeciles off until they've learned enough about it not to hurt themselves or others while connected. I do not want that license to be provided by government. An ISP can do that perfectly well when you show up to buy your connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is he coming from
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where is he coming from
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AB != BA.
Your logic here is shaky at best. I don't the concept is that if you support internet freedom that you support terrorism (or CP). It's the much more nuanced concept, one where you desires for absolute freedom and to be unaccountable for your words or actions online are being used by others to far less positive ends. The harder you push for absolute freedom (and dig in your heels against anything that take any of it away), is the harder you fight for their rights to be protected as well and to remain entirely, completely anonymous.
It's not that you support those evil terrorists, just that your need to be anonymous gives them an equal footing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the fact that all these bad guys (criminals) are hiding in the midst of all of us law abiding (non-criminals) is why we need to have our rights taken away?
You should probably not sleep in that top bunk any more. I think you've hit your head way more often than you should've by falling out repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barnett should avoid that analogy
This is an analogy he should avoid. In the first place, nobody "agrees" to display a license plate. They are required to. That's an enormous difference.
Regardless of that, though, with the increased public awareness of ALPRs, license plates are becoming something that more and more ordinary people are resenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barnett should avoid that analogy
This sentence is no longer correct; now the identifiers are being collected everywhere and being shared not only with LE, but also with insurers, debt collectors and corporations willing to pay. I think we're going to be seeing pushback in this area soon as well.
His analogy was more apt than he thought. Previously, we didn't record LP data, just like most of the internet activity back in the 90's went unlogged (or at least uncorrelated). Now we've moved to "collect, sort and store it all!" on both fronts, because we can. This is a big issue, no matter who is doing the collecting and storing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Barnett should avoid that analogy
This is a particular grievance of mine, and it applies to personal data in general. Personal data has NEVER been regarded as belonging to the data subject, and even under the most protective regimes, as long as it's declared by the collector to some authority to some degree, it's free to be disclosed to just about anyone willing to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Only a Matter of Time
The technology to give every person on Earth their very own unique identifying cyber ID is already here. It's called IP version 6. There are 3.4×10^38 unique addresses in IP v6, more than enough to give one to every human being on Earth. At the moment IP v6 is not compulsory. Some day though it will be, even if only because we have now run out of IP v4 addresses.
The easiest way for governments to implement Barnett's advice would be for them to compel ISPs to make IP v6 compulsory and issue a unique address to each of their customers, one they would use every time they go online. The downside for the government: if you change ISPs you'd get a different IP address.
The more Big Brother-ish way of handling it would be to assign every citizen their own unique IP address at birth and then compel ISPs to use that IP address for you whenever you go online using some national or international registry. If that ever happens it is not clear that even software like Tor would be able to overcome it, especially if IP v4 addresses are retired.
iI would also point out that should the latter scenario ever come to pass, using a different IP address will probably be illegal, equivalent to using a fake (or somebody else's) passport or driver's licence, complete with criminal penalties for lawbreakers.
None of this is likely to happen today or tomorrow but given the way the world is going, sooner or later one of those two scenarios is likely to happen, especially in places like China where the initial moves at banning anonymity are already being taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
The license plate analogy is apt only up to a point. Take a business with a fleet of vehicles. It's possible one vehicle could have as many as 100 different people driving it in it's history but said vehicle will display only one license plate until the company sells or disposes it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
Indeed. The MAC addresses on my mobile devices are so unique that they change every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
Is that more unique? Not necessarily. If you were to use both your wi-fi AND your ethernet to connect to the ethernet not only will you have a different MAC address your router will also assign each a different IP address
None of these though necessarily identifies an individual person.
2) There are far more IP version 6 addresses than there are MAC addresses. That allows it to be more unique than MAC addresses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
MAC addresses are less useful (and, in a sense more unique) because it is trivially easy to change them to something else. My portable devices really do get randomized MAC addresses that change every day. So, MAC addresses are so unique that my devices don't even keep the same one for very long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
Every computer, router, or other device on the Internet has its own unique IP address. True, if you are behind a firewall, those outside may only see you out on the wider Net as using an IP address common to other users operating at the same time. Also if you are using DHCP your computer's IP address amy change from session to session; and of course if more than one person uses your computer they may well find themselves using the same IP address. you do
NONE OF THAT NECESSARILY APPLIES WITH IP VERSION 6!!!
Those sorts of situations are mainly being there at the moment due to the limitations of IP v4, which only has 4 billion unique addresses. Under IP v6 it won't be necessary, and I suspect governments will mandate that the address you are assigned will be the one you will use out on the Net, and irrespective of the device your use.
There are en enough unique addresses in IP v6 to give one to every human being today and for centuries to come. In fact there are enough addresses to give one to each device (computer or phone) you are using and another to you as an individual person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
Not quite true...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
That's the thing - the IP address goes with the device, not the person. If I hand my phone to someone else, the IP address doesn't change, whether it's v4 or v6. There may someday be a mandatory national ID, but doing it via IP addresses would be dumb. The only thing IP v6 has going for it in this regard is that it's a really big identifier (ie enough possible values for everyone), but it's really not hard to come up with really big identifiers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Only a Matter of Time
We already tunnel IPv6 over IPv4, so irrelevant.
What criminal would ever care about legality? They already break the law. What's one more to them? Yeah, let's penalize the law abiding. That makes so much sense, I can't believe it took so long for us to think of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about influence
None of their "anonymity" will be degraded by this proposed law. It will only prohibit activities of the ordinary citizen, by eliminating the anonymity for individual speech that might dilute corporate influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about influence
Or, he could be campaigning for a cushy revolving door type job once his term in office is over. I can't imagine anyone coming up with this drivel any other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't help but wonder about this statement in light of Techdirt's enthusiastic support for municipal broadband...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do know what the "F" in FBI means, yes? Don't they teach you guys about this stuff in civics classes?
I've met a lot of civic politicians just while we were out walking on a sidewalk. I've never met a head of state, though I did know a couple of members of parliament who did end up heads of state.
They play in completely different leagues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since they continue to turn on their CIA handlers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F*ck DHS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of interest, what punishment can I expect to receive if I'm caught DUI on the digital super-highway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do they even detect it? Bad typing or dyslexia? Lots of people do that stone cold sober. I'd have thought this Erik Barnett had to be on something fairly intoxicating to come up with something as silly as this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Corrupt
Ya, we all trust the govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik "The Nosy Pervert" Barnett should be thrown in jail.
How in the world does someone this foolish manage to grow to adulthood? The dumbth is staggering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody wake up Barnett!
I wonder what rock he's been living under. How can anyone not know about red light cameras, automated license plate readers, and CCTV surveillance cameras?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DON'T LET THE ZIONISTS CONTROL THE INTERNET
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am totally anonymous on the net, and there is not a damn thing this asshole can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not willing to give up anymore of anything to receive any more protections that criminalize me. Go away!
Who are the terrorists? The ones who created them? The ones who brought them here? The ones who allowed them to cross our borders? The ones who invaded their countries when told to leave? The war mongers? The liars and deceitful?
We already know the agenda that is planned far ahead of time- go after the REAL terrorists if you want us to be safe. But that may cut your paychecks wouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DHS Cretinism Writ Large
American citizen thinks the defective thinking DHS Official known as Erik Barnett should have to give up his Anonymity by wearing a dunce cap when ever he goes out in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DHS & Anonymity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]