Anonymous Adventures
When I was in high school I remember a guy who publically admitted to masturbating. He was fifteen or sixteen I think. That guy got verbally crucified by much of the school for the rest of his student life. Of course it’s amusing to consider that practically all of the people giving him a hard time for being a wanker were – themselves - wankers.
In a way, advocating online anonymity is a little like those oh so cruel teenagers teasing the only honest person in the class. Most people like to think that when we head online we are more or less anonymous. The less ignorant among us realise this simply isn’t the case.
Online anonymity is complete bullshit. Edward Snowden exposed some of the government surveillance conducted not just in America by the NSA but also by government agencies in all ‘five eyes’ countries. If you’re online and you’ve seen it or heard it, read it or typed it then your government already knows about it. Big Brother has been watching for some time now.
On the surface it might seem that discussions about online anonymity are meaningless because the horse has so clearly bolted. I think that because the horse has bolted, it makes the discussion all the more important.
Those in favour of online anonymity cite a variety of valid arguments. Whistle-blowers dependent on an organization, or afraid of revenge, should be able to divulge serious misconduct and anonymity can allow this. The same should apply for anonymous tips to media outlets and law enforcement authorities.
Minority groups are often more comfortable expressing their opinions if they can do so anonymously. People in general are often more comfortable discussing personal issues when they are anonymous and people may get a more objective evaluation of their opinions when their gender, status and previous opinions are not available to the reader.
Online anonymity advocates also point out that people have always had the right and the ability to express themselves anonymously. Examples of this include anonymous letters sent or even a message as simple as graffiti. For this reason anonymity is a natural part of society and unavoidable. It’s a very persuasive argument.
On the other side of the coin those in favour of a more regulated internet usually point out that there is a darker side to online anonymity. Those engaging in criminal activities can be protected because they cannot be identified.
This situation can and of course regularly does lead to all sorts of mischief. From fraud, and sexual abuse, to simple ‘trolling’ and other forms of abuse and harassment it all just becomes so much easier when people don’t know who you are. Like walking down a road where everyone is wearing a balaclava it’s difficult not to assume that everyone harbours ill intent.
What really frustrates me about those who advocate greater internet regulation is the blatant fear mongering that accompanies many of their arguments. We must have greater control or your grandparents will have their inheritance stolen, or your child’s innocence shattered. Oh the humanity!
I find it equally frustrating that those in favour of online anonymity being enshrined in law consistently conflate the right to free speech with the ability to exercise free speech anonymously. The two are not the same.
When the American founding fathers wrote the declaration of independence they were exercising their right to free speech, among other things. They did this, knowing that if the situation went badly for them they faced the noose. Those who perhaps fought hardest for the right to have a free and open society had the courage to pursue their goals with precious little anonymity.
In my view the online anonymity question should be handled in much the same way that we handle identification in the other areas of our society. If people want to remain anonymous, then they should be able to, but some activities should require identification.
For a lot of things is life, you need the appropriate identification. If you want to buy alcohol you need ID. If you want to enter a nightclub you need ID. If you want a loan you need ID. Drivers licence, again ID. If you want to leave the country you won’t be doing so without ID and should you leave your chances of getting back in without ID are slight at best.
It is equally ridiculous to argue that all your conduct online should be anonymous or that all your conduct should logged and registered. The question is how to best manage the situation? I would suggest that rather than having the ‘default setting’ for the internet set to anonymous, it should instead be set to ‘regulated’ with the option for authorised parties to set their site to anonymous.
Sites where anonymity is beneficial, such as medical, law authority and whistle blowing sites can be anonymous. Their web pages programmed in such a way that user details are not recorded once the session is complete. It’s not perfect, user details could still be captured by a third party illegally accessing the site but at least user details are not always automatically recorded forever.
All other sites automatically display user’s details which are linked to the user’s actual identification. User identification is provided by the government and protected by the government in the same way as other important information (such as TFN’s) is protected. The government faces strict regulations regarding what content they can monitor with their conduct independently audited and reported on, just like any other government agency.
This proposal isn’t perfect, but systems rarely are. I believe it would allow users to make a more informed decision with regards to their online activities under the proposed system. Perhaps more importantly government is also regulated and audited with regards to what online activities they can monitor.
In the end I guess it all comes down to what we want our internet to be. Guaranteeing anonymity or preventing anonymity is a blanket solution to what is a complex issue. Providing people with options and regulating the use of those options is one way in which all people can be respected whilst also being protected.