Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Collateral Damage in the War on Anonymity
From warrantless wiretapping to ever-present surveillance cameras, our world is right now in the midst of a long war on anonymity.
In the media and political arenas, we've seen paparazzi culture famously fetishize the outing of anonymous iconoclasts, from Watergate's Deep Throat (Mark Felt) to a top CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction (Valerie Plame). Likewise, in our communities, we now know that we are almost always being monitored in highly trafficked parks, malls, airports and stadiums -- and as Slate recently reported, we may soon have apps on all of our smartphones that let us identify random faces in a crowd.
Teeming with incognito bloggers and commenters, the Internet seemed to be the last bulwark against this trend -- a rare public space that let us broadcast opinions from the shadows. But even cyberspace will likely be exposed to the white-hot spotlight of identity, as a new campaign for disclosure now starts in earnest.
Launched in response to cyber-bullying, this campaign made headlines last month when Facebook executive Randi Zuckerberg declared that "anonymity on the Internet has to go away." Her statement echoed that of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who previously called for "true transparency and no anonymity" on the Web.
As advertising corporations always seeking new information about their users, Facebook and Google have an obvious financial stake in these positions. Regardless of these firms' particular motives, though, they set standards for the entire Internet. So when their luminaries declare war on anonymity, it's presumably a fait accompli.
Thus, the key question: Will the end of Internet anonymity be good or bad for society? Probably both.
The big potential benefit of users having to attach real identities to their Internet personas is more constructive dialogue.
As Zuckerberg and Schmidt correctly suggest, online anonymity is primarily used by hate-mongers to turn constructive public discourse into epithet-filled diatribes. Knowing they are shielded from consequences, trolls feel empowered to spew racist, sexist and other socially unacceptable rhetoric that they'd never use offline. Compare a typically friendly discussion on the non-anonymous Facebook with the usual flame wars that dominate anonymous comment threads, and you'll understand why a new Zogby poll shows that most Americans believe anonymity makes cyberspace less civil. Ending that anonymity, then, probably guarantees an online world that is a bit more cordial.
The downside, though, is that true whistle-blowers will lose one of their most essential tools.
Though today's journalists often grant establishment sources anonymity to attack weaker critics, anonymity's real social value is rooted in helping the powerless challenge the powerful. Think WikiLeaks, which exemplifies how online anonymity provides insiders the cover they need to publish critical information without fear of retribution. Eliminating such cover will almost certainly reduce the kind of leaks that let the public occasionally see inconvenient truths.
Encouraging civility while preserving avenues of dissent is a tough balancing act, and the core debate over whether one should have a right to anonymity in public spaces is long overdue. However, it comes with a danger -- namely, that legitimate arguments for disclosure will be expanded to justify illegitimate spying on private interactions.
If you think that's far-fetched, recall that this is precisely what happened in Congress last month, when a House committee moved forward a proposal forcing Internet service providers to keep logs of all online activity by their users.
Clearly, if it ultimately becomes law, this legislation would undermine not just anonymity in public spaces, but privacy in general. Should it succeed, we may achieve transparency, but at far too high a cost.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
28 Comments so far
Show All"As Zuckerberg and Schmidt correctly suggest, online anonymity is primarily used by hate-mongers to turn constructive public discourse into epithet-filled diatribes."
For this comment alone, Mr. David Sirota should never grace the pages of Common Dreams again with his filth.
So I guess all the pamphleteers at the dawning of our Republic should have been outed as well, right, you f*cking idiot?
Serioulsy, if Mr. Sirota doesn't believe that there are legitimate reasons for people maintaining their anonymity online then he's an even bigger fool/shill than I'd previously thought.
Sirota is a Democratic operative and an MSM wannabe.
GoingGreen,
Pot calling the kettle black?
The point is to not abuse and offend others who's opinion is different or attack another poster personally for their point of view or if they see some merit in an article that you don't like.
It does one's cause no good to offend others who may have a different point of view and may be on your side if you just try be nice.
Remember you are not anonymous to the authorities, just other posters.
If you are afraid of losing your job or anything like that for your opinion, you can stay anonymous. That is your privilege here but it goes too far if you abuse free speech and attack others that would amount to slander if you were not anonymous.
I try to be nice but still fail many times even with being vulnerable using my true name but I still support the right to be anonymous.
"Remember you are not anonymous to the authorities, just other posters."
Thanks, Jim, for pointing out this fact.
Anonymity also prevents like minded individuals from direct contact.
True.
I completely agree.
This quote is shocking:
"and the core debate over whether one should have a right to anonymity in public spaces is long overdue."
Hey Sirota, there is no fucking debate. Anonymity is essential for the internet to exist. Take it away and we have given the State the best tool to make 1984 a reality. It's capitalist scumbags like Facebook that have no concern for privacy, who are in bed with the intelligence agencies, that want complete neo-conservative domination of the internet.
The Terrible Truth About Facebook:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJqGbA2tLww
Here's a chronological snapshots of Facebook's declining privacy policies compiled by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which I wouldn't expect to cease anytime soon:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline
Seems like the Church Committee hearings are ancient history at this point.
"As Zuckerberg and Schmidt correctly suggest, online anonymity is primarily used by hate-mongers to turn constructive public discourse into epithet-filled diatribes. Knowing they are shielded from consequences, trolls feel empowered to spew racist, sexist and other socially unacceptable rhetoric that they'd never use offline."
Perhaps we're just lucky here on CD. Except for the occassional put down, even our trolls are well behaved. I don't believe its the anonymity that's the problem so much as I believe its the individual sites. And for the record, I would rather put up with a little abuse than to get rid of the shield that anonymity provides those who truly have things to loose by speaking out. Not just whistleblowers, think of the abuse that could happen when a boss sees what political thoughts their employees are posting online, particularly anyone who works for government at any level.
Anonymity is too important to be traded in for a onesided transparency that will leave corrupt governments alone to operate in secret because people will be too afraid to go after them.
It's none of your business, as long as I'm not being a hate monger,racist, sexist or otherwise reprehensible. I've been corrected, banned usually rightfully so. Although being banned from HuffPoo is an honor.
Actually, it's far more than probably none of my business even if you're being a hate monger, racist, sexist or otherwise reprehensible. Also, it's probably none of my business where and why you've been corrected or banned (rightfully or not), unless you want to tell me. Your right to speak perfectly balances my right to be offended.
Civility is nice (all good and well) when you can have it...it's comfortable. But we do not live in a comfortable world, and when we choose to venture out into such a world (one of our making, don't forget) we are not necessarily entitled to be shielded from its discomforts. Intellect and discourse tend to thrive out there in the rough and tumble.
The First Amendment puts prohibitions (or at one time was thought to) on the government. But shouldn't it be taken as a guideline for our private intercourse as well?
"But we do not live in a comfortable world, and when we choose to venture out into such a world (one of our making, don't forget) we are not necessarily entitled to be shielded from its discomforts."
I could not disagree more. A single individual does not have the right to expect civility from other individuals? Far from being simply a matter of respect, we're talking about the nature of the human capacity for social/spiritual engagement - which is an essential aspect of integration into the living cosmos - call it compassionate intellect or even benign imagination - it allows for the individual to integrate in the larger organism.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the assertion that an individual does not have the right to expect civility and the assertion the world is (one of our making) . If I consider an expectation of civility as exercise of a capacity for interactive reading of health in an encounter, then it also serves as a barometer of threat, which enables healthy response - thus contributing to the quality of the world (of our making).
A single individual does have the right to expect civility from other individuals. That same individual does not, however, have the right to civility from others. (For purposes of this argument, I'm saying that a "right" that is not enforceable is no right at all. The "right" that you're suggesting is enforceable by the individual upon himself.) Civility is a matter of mutual agreement. Like good manners, it may make the transaction easier for both parties. But both civility and manners are an expectation, not a right. And neither can be enforced outside an authoritarian setting, like a classroom (if things are going well).
Sorry, but I'm not following your last sentence (unless you're saying what I'm saying). Could you re-state it for me please?
It's none of your business, as long as I'm not being a hate monger,racist, sexist or otherwise reprehensible. I've been corrected, banned usually rightfully so. Although being banned from HuffPoo is an honor.
Will oligarchs, politicians and spies lose their anonymity also, or just the unwashed masses?
Parts of this article appear to have been ghostwritten-- anonymously-- by Cass Sunstein.
By all means, Mr. Sirota, if it will hasten complete civility, let's just bring back the Inquisition.
As Zuckerberg and Schmidt correctly suggest, online anonymity is primarily used by hate-mongers...
-----------------------
Sirota likes to hear the sound of his own voice (and see the words of his own articles) but apparently has a great deal of contempt for anyone calling him out.
As is typical of DLC operatives he's hyper-sensitive to critics on the left.
If truth were told David would probably prefer that all commenters nodded courteously in agreement with his predictably banal words. (Instead his essays usually cause one to nod off to sleep.)
The internet, created with taxpayer dollars, rightfully belongs to the public. Thus the public should decide the rules of its operation and engagement. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear someone claiming to be a progressive make that case instead?
Sirota, sadly, is probably correct that the end of anonymity on the internet is approaching.
Ironically, billionaires like Zuckerburg and Schmidt will end up throwing millions of "free-speech" dollars (undisclosed of course) at the appropriate congressperson to make it happen.
But there I go again engaging in anonymous hate speech.
Please accept my apologies David.
Remember the TV screens in 1984? The people watched them and they watched the people. Total lack of consumer online anonymity goes Orwell one better because the internet was introduced as a more libertarian artifact long enough to get the masses used to and dependent on it. Now they will sacrifice their online freedom of expression to vague amorphous open-ended fears, political power hunger and industrial greed--the same way they've surrendered all their other liberties except (for now) the 2nd Amendment. Of course the anonymity of the fascist industrial & political watchers will be preserved that is how totalitarian CONTROL always works.
There is professional life, which requires diplomacy at all times, and there is personal life, wherein one has always been free in their home and in their mind. The internet is used both ways and so rightfully has a double standard.
That is my “professional” comment.
And here is my “personal” comment:
Take your Nazi inspired Thought Police and jam it up your ass.
:)
This is a tough room... I thought that was funny!
Ultimately, one can remain anonymous if one puts some effort into it. Use public links to the internet, e.g., municipal nets in parks, wifi in shopping malls, cash as an internet LAN house, cafe, etc., and use a laptop that isn't registered anywhere and for which you paid cash. But, for those on the web from home, they already can figure out who you are.
anyone who uses "collateral damage" without quotation marks cannot be taken seriously; they have bought into the propaganda.
With this Government and the unimaginable amounts of money budgeted to the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the myriad of 100's of thousands of other bought and paid for "Thought Police", I have always assumed that nothing that I ever wrote on the internet, spoke over the phone, wrote in A letter or even discussed in public places was as "Anonimous" as they allowed it to be...
In other words, just think the worse, be fatalistic and constantly vigil, and above all be cautiously aware of their contempt of your freedoms and their upcoming agenda...
They {The dirty Bastards} can't possibly arrest each and ever one of us free thinkers, or can they???
I suppose anonymity could be considered a high form of privacy for obvious reasons. Just recall Ben Franklin and Poor Richards Almanac.
I think it a poor piece because Sirota says a debate about anonymity is long overdue and posits the two sides as, on the one hand, the terribly important matter of declining civility in on-line comments, versus, well maybe sometimes whistleblowers would be affected. It's not only that he weighs the former as too important and the latter as minor. He completely misses the crucial dichotomy. While the privacy and anonymity of odinary people is being assaulted on all sides--as some commenters have correctly noted, almost nothing we do can be assured of anonymity if those with power really want to find out--simultaneously, what the government and corporations do (or, not incidentally, is that a grammatical error? Shouldn't I say "does" since the government and orporations are really one entity?) is now entirely none of our business. We, unless we're extremely poor or extremely rich, must pay taxes, but what's done with the money is none of our business. The US, with no genuine enemies, is constantly at war--but the real reasons, and the details, are none of our business. Just which corporations pay for the campagns that assure seats in Congress for their minions--that's none of our business.
Why would anyone consider Facebook or Google as experts in the realm of individual or privacy rights. It's contrary to both their business models. If these are the people setting the rules we're in big trouble. They both make money selling your information to advertisers. It's not your security they are interested in, it never has been. Are we really that stupid?
Mr. Sirota does a disservice to America here.
He shows no knowledge of first amendment jurisprudence.
To wit:
If Common Dreams and other internet sites are considered "public forums" or "quasi-public forums" (remember, legalese does not necessarily mean what the words mean in conversational English) then Sirota/Zuckerburg and Google would have a difficult time obtaining universal transparency and zero anonymity.
If ANY site is deemed to be one of these, wholesale transparency would be as unconstitutional as it gets, and no court applying the law could find otherwise.
Of course, many sitting judges, including at least 5 of 9 sitting on the SCOTUS, cheerfully ignore precedent (aka stare decisis) and toady up to megacorporate interests--helped along by the last 8 or so presidents and a mostly bought/paid for congress. And of course, the Citizens United case guarantees the corporate lobbyists will rain cash down until these fascist seeds sprout--
So Sirota is either an ignoramus or a toady.
Either option equals zero credibilty.
More Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein.
Ignorant toadies they are not.
Cheers.