The cost of online anonymity

I know this has been discussed before Online Anonymity but I have found this report on online anonymity, and of course would like your views. A reporter Dan Simmons who works for BBC Click Online had been researching the cost of online anonymity and I think it is an important and interesting issue that affects us all. The link is below.

Can you guys pm me if the above link is still broken, it works for me but I will pm a mod if it does not work for anyone else, thank you :)


The Cost of Online Anonymity

Great article..

I'm with Ian Clarke on this one..
Especialy on the the issue of the necessity of censorship..

Quote:

---

Isn't censorship sometimes necessary?

Of course no issue is black and white, and there are many who feel that censorship is a good thing in some circumstances. For example, in some European countries propagating information deemed to be racist is illegal. Governments seek to prevent people from advocating ideas which are deemed damaging to society. There are two answers to this however. The first is that you can't allow those in power to impose "good" censorship, without also enabling them to impose "bad" censorship. To impose any form of censorship a government must have the ability to monitor and thus restrict communication. There are already criticisms that the anti-racism censorship in many European countries is hampering legitimate historical analysis of events such as the second world war.

The second argument is that this "good" censorship is counter-productive even when it does not leak into other areas. For example, it is generally more effective when trying to persuade someone of something to present them with the arguments against it, and then answer those arguments. Unfortunately, preventing people from being aware of the often sophisticated arguments used by racists, makes them vulnerable to those arguments when they do eventually encounter them.

Of course the first argument is the stronger one, and would still hold-true even if you didn't accept the second. Basically, you either have censorship, or you don't. There is no middle-ground.

---

This was mentioned briefly on my forensics course. It was possible, in the consultants opinion, that the area you have given up for freenet storage could be used for storing illegal images (as mentioned) and that you would be liable for having that material on your PC and subject to prosecution.

This would depend I suppose on your computer being taken as evidence and the encryption cracked.

I think it's one of those thing where you would have to say, why would you use this unless you have something to hide.

Quote:

---

From Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ne/4227578.stm
After 10 years in the business, Anonymizer has two million active users. The US government pays it to promote the service in China and Iran in order to help promote free speech.

---

As Anonymizer uses encryption, and we all know the US govs position on encryption. I would hazard a guess there is a backdoor for this system?

Quote:

---

again from the same article but concerning Freenet

"You are giving over part of your computer, it will be in encrypted form, you will not know what you are carrying, but some of it is going to be seriously unpleasant. Are you happy with that?"

What worries many, is that Freenet is a lawless area.

---

And that is what would worry me also. Im all for anonimity when surfing and carreing out other tasks on the net. But if i'm using a P2P client I want to know what is comeing into by PC.

Quote:

---

I think it's one of those thing where you would have to say, why would you use this unless you have something to hide.

---

That is such a weak excuse..

Oh.. if you have nothing to hide.. just let me browse thrue your panties.. k..
What you don't want me to browse thrue your personal photo's.. got something to hide ??

Yeah I know it's ****.

But why would you want your personal photos encrypted on someone elses PC.
If you've got stuff you want to keep safe and private why would you want to spread it around the world. Encrypt it stick it on a CD and put it in a safe.

Now if you've got something which would be illegal to hold on your own HD it might be a good idea to store it on someone elses.

Quote:

---

Oh.. if you have nothing to hide.. just let me browse thrue your panties.. k..

---

you might wanna PM that to hardcode121 :D

Quote:

---

But why would you want your personal photos encrypted on someone elses PC.

---

If I lived someware like Burma, Iran, Etc and those photos showed government atrocities I absolutly would want them stored on someone elses PC.

But in that case you would have something to hide.

Even if you don't have anything to hide, you still want your privacy..

And that is what projects like freenet are trying to protect..

To once again abuse this quote:

Quote:

---

Benjamin Franklin: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

---

Or how about

Quote:

---

Clarence Darrow: You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

---

Or perhaps

Quote:

---

Dorothy Thompson: When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.

---

What about

Quote:

---

Eleanor Holmes Norton: The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with.

---

Exactly what is "Privacy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy and is "Anonymizer" truly Anonymous, surely someone still sees the traffic, at some point. :cool:

I'm not a great beleiver in anonimity.

Certainly I would like to be able to spout my usual waffle without a member of the public being able to kick down my house door to berate me about it, but I have no problem with law enforcement agencies knowing what I do & write while online.

Only the guilty have something to hide.

But then I live somewhere which is almost a democracy and is reasonably tolerant of free speech.

Steve

To add a new view to this. Willingness as such to disclose everything to law enforcement agencies, because you're not doing anything illegal is based on an unwavering trust in the pure lawfullness and justness of those law enforcement agencies and their overseeing bodies. How about if you don't like the current government and what they do, how about you're wrongly accused of things, how about corruption, how about aciidental information leakage etc. Being not-guilty and being not-wrong and being not-convicted are three different things in a non-perfect world.

Damn I sound philosophical.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by the_JinX
That is such a weak excuse..

Oh.. if you have nothing to hide.. just let me browse thrue your panties.. k..
What you don't want me to browse thrue your personal photo's.. got something to hide ??

---

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, founding father of The United States of America (attributed)
Many would argue he is one of the great historical figures definable as a "hacker" (positive connotation)

The response to this should be "what do I have to prove?" Without formal charges by a proper court of law, they can go piss off.

As a former Police Officer, I can certainly understand the statement and the position of the investigators that might make it; they are simply trying to do their job. But as a free citizen of the Repulic, I don't give a rat's ass. My privacy is mine to treasure or relinquish as I see fit, without explanation. Bring a warrant, or go have a nice warm cup of shut the f*** up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by neel
To add a new view to this. Willingness as such to disclose everything to law enforcement agencies, because you're not doing anything illegal is based on an unwavering trust in the pure lawfullness and justness of those law enforcement agencies and their overseeing bodies. How about if you don't like the current government and what they do, how about you're wrongly accused of things, how about corruption, how about aciidental information leakage etc. Being not-guilty and being not-wrong and being not-convicted are three different things in a non-perfect world.

Damn I sound philosophical.

---

Yes you do :)

A lot of places that's the exact situation where you don't like the current government and the very privacy you need is to be used against that government. Sure they'll try to 'crack open' your activities and know what you're doing and lock you down, but that makes it no less an issue for people in free [more or less] countries to worry about. If it's possible there one must never ever be comfortable enough and say nothing like that can happen in my country. Nowadays the transition is less likely to be abrupt [coup d'etat or what have you] and more of an Orwellian mode. And people relinquishing their privacy is far better than people having their privacy taken from them. From the same "1984", to paraphrase, it's much more a victory once you convince people that what they're doing is what they want to be doing. Give them the illusion of free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by zencoder
[B]

[i]My privacy is mine to treasure or relinquish as I see fit, without explanation. Bring a warrant, or go have a nice warm cup of shut the f*** up.

---

Well you can say this because, more or less, you're given a choice in the matter. But the article does consider those countries where a search warrant doesn't exist and where your privacy is not up to you to keep or give up as you please.

And who knows what tomorrow brings?

Like many things in life, this is something that should be based in context. For example, if a police officer wanted to look in my backyard for evidence because a thief ran through it, I'd gladly let them take a gander without a warrant. However, I wouldn't let them paw through all my stuff unless I was damn sure that they had a good reason, hence waiting for a warrant.

Quote:

---

My privacy is mine to treasure or relinquish as I see fit, without explanation. Bring a warrant, or go have a nice warm cup of shut the f*** up

---

Precicely! Its yours, but you may CHOOSE to relinquish it if YOU feel its appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hypronix
Yes you do :)

A lot of places that's the exact situation where you don't like the current government and the very privacy you need is to be used against that government. Sure they'll try to 'crack open' your activities and know what you're doing and lock you down, but that makes it no less an issue for people in free [more or less] countries to worry about.

---

Those of us here who live in the US must remember that our founding fathers and signers of our Declaration of Independence were in fact subjects of the british crown, and they were revolting and encouraging insurgency against the British. I'm sounding like a libertarian now, but the truth is, if we trully, honestly, and realistically hold "freedom" and "liberty" so dearly, we must not take them for granted.

I am not suggesting you automatically deny a request from the authorities if they are ASKING you to be helpful...but as neel implies, if we had an unshakeable and unwavering trust in our law enforcement authorities and governing bodies, there would be NO NEED for a Bill of Rights amended to our Constitution. How many of you are willing to give up those rights, at the simple request of an "authority"?

I don't want to come off as a hardliner, anti-gov't sort. But the truth is, govt's are made up of people, and people are a problem my friends. Each and every one of us. We have emotions, biased opinions, and differing perspectives. So how can John Q. Public expect to always be treated with 100% proper respect, reasonable doubt, and justice cause, at all times and in all manners, by the PEOPLE who function in our governing bodies? Honestly, he can't; and thus we have the founding intent of the Bill of Rights.


/* Edit: Again, beaten to the punch of the "Post Reply" button, by WolfRune */

CONTEXT is of course exactly what I mean in that third paragraph. I am addressing primarly the accusational "so why can't we take a look, if you have nothing to hide" mentality. The "can we look in your private rooms to see if evidence of something we believe to have occurred, that has no likely bearing on you whatsoever?" mentality is totally different...if that's the truth. Ever hear the old urban legend (in the US) about asking someone if they are a Narc before you buy or sell dope, because "Narc's can't lie about that"? Total and utter bullshit.

Lying to someone as an investigator (because, let's face it...if they are speaking to this investigator, they are doing so willingly, even if they don't know the true identity of the subject) is completely within the realm of acceptable. And don't go spouting "entrapment" until you understand the full legal definition of that word within the realm of a US court.

Let me preface this with the statement that, "I am pro Law Enforcement".

But, I have seen cops plant evidence and or incriminating substance in or on unsuspecting citizens. Like others have stated, I would allow a police officer to inspect my property and such to try to solve a crime, or track a criminal. I would be highly suspicious of one that just wanted to look in my house or car though.

I personally think we have lost to many rights where search and seizure are concerned, and I believe that we are going to lose more in the future.

Quote:

---

For example, if a police officer wanted to look in my backyard for evidence because a thief ran through it,

---

That's doing the civic thing, but sayy just as they were about to leave they notice a funny looking bed of plants, and not being too much of a "green" thumb decide that it looks "suspicious", and hey mind if I look around while my partner goes back the car and calls in a "Search Warrant" :rolleyes:

The law will use every advantage available to (within the law) to obtain or search if a person is deemed to be "suspicious", this could mean you are sweating profusley (regardless it's maybe 100deg out), or you won't look them in the "eyes", in other words act nervous and hey you must be guilty of something. :mad:

And whils't I admire the American's and their freedoms, the "Homeland Security or Patriot Act" scares the S**T out of me, but that could be because I don't understand the full extent of the act, as it concerns me :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dalek
...the "Homeland Security or Patriot Act" scares the S**T out of me...

---

You and me both. Forgive me if I sound ignorant (the big dumb American says), but what Freedoms do you admire from the US that you as a Canadian do not enjoy? Just curious...I know there are nominal differences, but you seem to imply something more.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/at_your_door

Quote:

---

This is common sense: Always keep any private items that you don't want others to see out of sight. Legally speaking, police do not need a search warrant in order to confiscate any illegal items that are in plain view.

---

Combine that with

Quote:

---

While you are under no obligation to answer police questions, it will often be possible to terminate the encounter simply by agreeing to turn down your music or bring your barking dog in from the backyard. If the police officer indicates that he or she would like to enter your home, you have become a criminal suspect and must be prepared to exercise your constitutional rights.

---

You see how there might be a problem..

Let's take a car as example..
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/cri...ice_stops.html

Quote:

---

During an investigative stop, or a traffic stop, a police officer may ask if he can search you or your car. However, if you give the police officer permission, he can perform the search even if he otherwise had no legal authority to do so. Some people don't know, or forget, that they have an "open" bottle of liquor in the car - a bottle with the seal broken, whether or not the cap is off. Sometimes, people have knives or other weapons which can be classified as illegal "concealed weapons." Sometimes, people forget that they have contraband in their cars, such as illegal drugs, or find to their chagrin that their teenaged child dropped a marijuana cigarette in the car. Unless you are the only person with access to the interior of your car, you may be in for a surprise if you grant permission for a search.

---

The same goes for your computer..
Unless you are the only person with access to your computer,
You may be in for a surprise if you grant permission for a search.

Quote:

---

You and me both. Forgive me if I sound ignorant (the big dumb American says), but what Freedoms do you admire from the US that you as a Canadian do not enjoy? Just curious...I know there are nominal differences, but you seem to imply something more.

---

I mispoke, your's and ours are fairly consistant with each other as far as each States Laws and each Province interprets them from the Federal laws, (it's a quagmire), I should have said I admire the American's tenacity to defend such liberties.

There is usually more of an uproar from the South (US) when something as precious as civil liberties are concerned, and it's taken up by the media in a hurry. Up here it doesn't get the same play, or that's the way I see it, sometimes, the noncommital approach by Canadians can be exasperating, just once I would like to see a mini revolution in laid back Ottawa, we would probably treat it like a Hockey game though, and settle for a tie.

Speaking of uproars, would you guys get at it with the "Gas Prices", ours will come down if yours does first. ;)

Here's one thing that no one even touched on. Everyone here is a criminal. When was the last time you heard of a government getting rid of laws? Hardly ever. In the US, the only body that ever does that is the supreme court. There are so many laws that the average citizen will never be able to abide by the law. Do you know all the laws that effect you in your life? I sure don't. I'm also sure that there are so many laws to keep in mind at all times, that the only way I couldn't break the law is to be dead, and even that's illegal if you kill yourself. So moral of the story is, we're all criminals. You just haven't found out you are yet.

I'm a criminal because I don't keep up with my lawn maintanence. I own my house, and I can't even decide if I want to cut the grass or not. I'm also a criminal because I had a non-operating vehicle parked in my driveway. I couldn't take it to get the EPA tests on it (thanks for that royal pain in the ass hippies), so they suspended my plates. Ok, I abide by the law, I didn't drive it. So good ole code enforcement comes along, and I get a nice lovely $50 ticket because my vehicle was abandoned...in my driveway. It didn't matter where the car was, if it was on my property with suspended license plates, I was a criminal. So there you go folks. Your all criminals.

It would be impossible to read all the laws that effect you. Hell, it's illegal to mispronounce the name of a town just 20 minutes away from me. It's only a $5 fine payable on the spot, but it's illegal none the less.

My advice, keep your severely punishable offences to a minimum, and if you have to do it, do it in a destructable environment like a linux live-cd. Having the super encrypted bla bla bla bla bla isn't gonna do **** except tell them to keep looking into the situation.

They may not get you for the pictures of you killing a random hooker right away, but they'll find something to lock you away for while they brute force the S.O.B. even if it takes 10 years.

Have a nice thursday.