COMMUNICATIONSOF THE ACMApril 2002/Vol. 45, No. 4of an Internet cultu - PDF document

COMMUNICATIONSOF THE ACMApril 2002/Vol. 45, No. 4of an Internet culture thatpromotes sharing and free speechand is overtly anti-establishment.Anonymity, so the argumentgoes, ensures governmentscannot spy on citizens and thusguarantees privacy and free speech. The recommen-dations of the American Association for the Advance-ment of Sciences conference on AnonymousCommunication Policies for the InternetŽ [1] sup-port this view. Among the findings were that onlineanonymous communication is morally neutralŽ andthat it should be considered a strong human andThis view is fundamentally mistaken; by allowinganonymous communication we actually risk an incre-mental breakdown of the fabric of our society. The priceof our freedoms is not, I believe, anonymity, butaccountability. Unless individuals and, more impor-tantly, governments can be held accountable, we lose allecourse to the law and hence risk our very freedom.The following sections argue this in more detail andsuggest the only real solution is more openness, not less. Social Justice Requires Accountabilityndividuals living in a free society reap benefits interms of sustenance, shelter, and protection. Ineturn, they are expected to contribute to the com-munity. Problems occur due to imbalances in thiselationship. If individuals or groups acquire exces-sive wealth or power, or, conversely, do not receivejust rewards, tension is inevitable. Small groups,such as villages or family units, where people knowand depend more directly on each other, tend to becountries, such differences can quickly lead to crime,social unrest, protests, and even revolution. In cir-cumstances where people can be largely anonymous,and the threat of punishment is thus minimal, theyfind it easier to justify to themselves actions againstthose they perceive as outsiders or enemies.Large social groupings necessitate some sort ofdecision-making mechanism (monarch and govern-controls (police and judiciary) to ensure fairness andcompliance. In a democratic society, citizens con-sentŽ to such bodies resolving any problems or con-themselves. By punishing misconduct, society aimsto deter repetition of such offenses and send a clearalso incorporates controls (elections and laws) thatensure that governing bodies cannot abuse their posi-tion. Obviously, resolving any unfairness, whetherinvolving individuals, groups, or the state, requiresthat those responsible for the problems can be heldaccountable. In a free and fair society, justice mustxperience suggests a society relying solely on thegood will and conscience of its citizens would beunlikely to succeed in ensuring justice. Similarly,attempting to guarantee justice by adopting measurespreventing the very possibility of wrongdoing isunfeasible since there is little hope of covering alleventualities. We should, of course, attempt to raiseindividuals to be good and conscientious citizens,Anonymity on the Internet: Why the Price May Be Too HighBy allowing anonymous Net communication, ViewpointDavid Davenport April 2002/Vol. 45, No. 4COMMUNICATIONSOF THE ACMand take precautions in an attempt to make misbe-havior impossible, but we would surely be foolish notto retain the safety net of accountability.The Consequences of Anonymityccountability requires those responsible for anymisconduct be identified and brought to justice.if people remain anonymous, by defini-ble to hold them accountable. Proponents ofanonymous communications on the Internet thussocial behavior, while leaving victims and societyhelpless. Internet-based crimes, such as hacking,virus writing, denial-of-service attacks, credit cardfraud, harassment, and identity theft are increasing.Already, damage estimates are measured in billionsof dollars per year, but the human cost, in terms ofuined reputations, loss of trust, and a general dete-While all this is dangerous enough, there is a muchmore ominous aspect to anonymity. Were anonymousbe available, not just to the private citizen, but to thestate and to those individuals comprising it. Highlysensitive material could be leaked, paybacks could bemade to secure lucrative deals, pressure could beto be attacked or even eliminated, all with impunity.istrusting a government accountable to the people isone thing, facilitating a government completely unac-countable is quite another. Some may argue that gov-ernments already employ anonymity to cloakence. However, where governments do currently useit, they do so illegally. Those involved know it iswrong and know the penalties if they are caught, thusdeterring all but the most desperate or naive.The right to freedom of speech is a fundamentalit is simple: Ideas transform society, and any idea, nomatter how bizarre it may appear initially, mightultimately prove beneficial. Citizens should thus notbe unduly restricted from or punished for expressingtheir views, however unpalatable they may seem.The very notion of free speech under law means pro-tecting the speaker from prosecution and persecu-tion, thus the speakers identity is known. Whileanonymous communication is not necessary forthere to be free speech, it clearly ensures that noone, whatever they may say. Does this apparent ben-efit outweigh its costs, as advocates claim? protecting the individual against the power of theestablishment, be it the political or religious authori-ties, or the moral majority. Anonymous communica-tion, however, is likely to be singularly ineffective inthis regard. In dictatorships and undemocratic coun-tries where free speech is most needed, it is unlikelythese regimes would make such communication avail-able at all. Even in circumstances where anonymouscommunication is allowed, unless it is pervasive, itstion of wrongdoing. Besides, messages sent anony-mously are unlikely to have much impact on theirwn. Only if the recipient of a message knows andtrusts its writer is action likely to ensue. Trust is builtup as a result of numerous encounters, but if the com-munications are truly anonymous then it is difficult toestablish such a relationship. Messages sent anony-mously are thus unlikely to have much impact ontheir own and hence reliance on anonymous commu-nications for whistle-blowing, informing the world ofhuman rights violations, or promulgating a politicalistory is made by those brave enough to speakout, despite the serious personal risks involved.eform may take longer to come about, but surelybravery, honesty, and openness should be encouragedas a means of effecting change. Cowering behind acloak of anonymity hardly seems an auspicious basisfor profound social upheavals. Anonymity seems toauthority and promote change; in reality it is ineffec-tual and may ultimately prove to be very costly. When it comes to more mundane personal com-munications, anonymity is said to have the advantageof promoting free and open exchanges, unhamperedViewpoint prejudices often formed by race, gender, or reli-gion. Text-only communications certainly removetory situation. Once voice and videoconferencingtechnology become widespread, few people willexchange its convenience for such nebulous gains. Ofcourse, enabling open discussion, particularly of med-ical, psychological, or legal problems, is undoubtedlysomething valuable. It is quite natural for people tobe reticent about talking openly of such personalprofessionals in such areas (who guarantee to holdclient conversations in the strictest of confidence),confide in close friends (whom they trust to keep theconversation private), or turn to complete strangers(whom they hope will not learn their identity.) Onthe Internet however, even assuming that ones iden-tity never accidentally slipped out (to be linked withall the intimate details poured out over the months orears) and that one could trust the advice of a totallyunknown confidant, anonymity can be seriously mis-used. There are legitimate restrictions to the right tofree speech, in particular, it does not apply to libelousemarks or ones intended to defraud, or to incitehatred or violence. In order to protect the innocent,all communications must be subject to the rule of lawand this, as argued here, implies that their originatorsnot be taken to mean the government has the right totrack, intercept, or read the communication. All that isnecessary is that the courts, as opposed to the govern-ment, be able to establish the source of a communica-tion, when, and only if, it becomes the subject of legaldispute. The need for accountability requires all com-available to courts subject to due process. It does notentail that others, even the recipient, need know thesource. Authors could thus hide their identity if theyheld accountable under law. The Way Forwardanonymity is essential to ensure free speech on thenternet, and this outweighs any harm that mightesult from drug barons, the mafia, and other criminalsbeing untouchable. I have argued that this view is mis-taken. Accountability lies at the very heart of thedemocratic tradition and is crucial to the continuedstability of a free and fair society. Removing its safetynet would only encourage deceit and lead to morecrime and increasing numbers of victims unable toobtain justice. More significantly, those in power coulduse anonymity to their own ends, making governmentsunaccountable. It was distrust of gov-ensure free speech. The end result ofanonymity, however, plays right intogovernments hands and has little realimpact in terms of free speech.The way forward is clear: embrace accountabilityand reject anonymous communications. Concernedcitizens can use the improved communications of thenternet to participate more fully in government. Ourfreedom comes at the price of vigilance. If we abdicateour responsibilities we have only ourselves to blame.ving to a more participatory form of democraticgovernment is a better, safer, more stable option thanthat offered by the quicksand of anonymity.ccountability, openness, and honesty may soundlike old-fashioned morality, but these traits havestood us in good stead. They are the price of our free-doms, a small price to pay, surely, for the right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.1. Teich, A., Frankel, M.S., Kling, R., and Ya-ching, L. Anonymous com-munication policies for the Internet: Results and recommendations ofThe Information Society15 David Davenport (david@bilkent.edu.tr) is an assistant professorin the Computer Engineering Department of Bilkent University in © 2002 ACM 0002-0782/02/0400 $5.00 COMMUNICATIONSOF THE ACMApril 2002/Vol. 45, No. 4 completely unaccountable is quite another.