By Martin Brampton, 15 February 2005 07:05
COMMENT If we are to take full advantage of the internet, we must be able to discuss its many problems, such as lack of accountability for wrong-doers. But having such a conversation is not as easy as it sounds, says Martin Brampton.
When my website was hacked, an incident I wrote about in last week's column, the intruder obligingly left web and email addresses. If it had been a more hostile attack, the hacker would probably have been less helpful. Issues like this point up many ambiguities in our attitude to questions about anonymity on the internet.
Shortly after the hack, I was intrigued to meet the key people from a company that specialises in finding out the geographic location of IP addresses. Quova has built a huge database to support an information service for address checking. The largest use for it is in geographically related marketing through the web but the fastest growing is in combating fraud.
The level of detail is remarkable, given that the information held by the registration authorities is scanty and sometimes misleading. Large blocks of IP addresses have often been allocated and are then used in a huge variety of ways at different locations. Service providers do not typically release information about the structure of their networks.
Yet by following activities on the web and reading what people write in their postings to discussion forums and the like, it is possible to build a remarkably detailed map of networks. It is also often possible to distinguish public access points such as internet cafés or to detect people who are using anonymising services.
Developments of this kind raise conflicting issues. On the one hand human beings have always been suspicious of strangers, at the least wanting to know their origins or at worst simply murdering them on sight. But we also have a strong feeling that there should be areas of privacy, that our lives should not always be open to the gaze of the public or even the security services.
Often the simplistic cry is heard that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. The most obvious objection to this is that only exhibitionists would want a web camera permanently installed in their bedrooms and most of us would not want one in our living rooms either. Most people regard privacy as an essential element to human dignity.
Going further, there is often a dangerous trend in society to be intolerant of any questioning of received wisdoms. Even if one is not prepared to argue for unrestricted free speech, it seems onerous and stultifying if wide ranging discussion is to be prohibited. There is a long tradition of anonymous publication of radical political statements, some of which contributed significantly to the kind of freedoms we now regard as fundamental.
All the same, the global reach of the internet and the damaging actions of some push us towards wanting to know who is doing what. There is a feeling that service providers should exert more control on the spread of spam. Simple advertising is bad enough, clogging up mail boxes and internet bandwidth. But mail involving fraud, deliberate damage or attempts to hijack computers is a serious threat.
Vendors come forward with schemes to make all kinds of digital material more traceable and the principle is often welcomed. Unfortunately most such schemes founder due to lack of trust. Consumers are rarely convinced the large vendors have the public good at heart and fear they are merely seeking to manage the market in their own interests.
Nowadays governments are frequently tarred with much the same brush. There is a widespread feeling that information is used to manipulate rather than to inform. Politicians' reputation for honesty, rarely especially high, seems presently to be at a low. As we attempt to feel our way through a host of new issues raised by the technology that has given us the internet, we lack convincing honest brokers.
This is a pity, as we need to solve the problems of the internet in a constructive way if we are to consolidate the many benefits it offers. A prerequisite for that is informed and intelligent discussion of the possibilities. Where will we find it?
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard Allan
Good question. I am all for protecting privacy and preventing snooping wherever possible, but there are genuine fears in public policy circles that internet anonymity may prevent necessary law enforcement that benefits the wider community. In the real world, we are not normally anonymous and our behaviour is moderated by the fact that we expect to be held to account for our actions. I would want people who commit serious crimes using the net to be detectable (and therefore hopefully deterred) while not wanting state authorities to be able to trawl over what people are doing "just in case". The challenge is to get this balance of privacy with detectability where it is needed.
2. Chuck Bonner
A perplexing dilemma! Interestingly, there seem to be a few companies attempting to resolve the concern without the use of PII or worries of anonymity. Iovation is one such group. Without collecting any personally identifying information on a user they tie a "reputation" to the device that is being used. This reputation follows the user wherever he/she goes. Participating companies, then, may stop the user in their tracks without the necessity to know who they are. Not a solution for law enforcement, but at least an interesting attempt at stopping the offenders without needing to know who/where they are.