Mostly Harmless

Debate?

Talk of routing and attack vectors makes up a large portion of what is interesting about Anonymity on the Internet as a topic. However on the non technical side it’s worth considering the positions for and against – if you’re going to work on, or be an evangelist for a technology like this which may have social implications you really do have a responsibility to think the issues through.

This article need citations!

The Pro Anonymity Camp

Normally believe in an absolute right to free speech. This means that they will tolerate content they themselves find to be unacceptable. They may also believe that illegal content or use of computer networks is a social issue rather than a technical one. Many of the creators of anonymity networks and tools fall into this camp often taking a “just because you do something illegal why should my right to privacy / free speech be affected” position. Because of this position the argument that they are enabling illegal behaviour means little to them. When a national security argument is levied against them, they would likely attest that a clever adversary would avoid all electronic communication whenever possible and that they are protecting the rights (as they see them) or ordinary people.

The Responsibility Camp

Others point out that we have never had perfect anonymity as a society and this is a good thing. If you wish to post a letter, you must use a post box and risk being seen doing so and having your communication intercepted. We are all aware that telephone networks can be monitored as can an individual personal movements.

This position often relies on a “if you are innocent you have nothing to hide” dictum, which other camps argue is incompatible with life in a complex society where not everyone shares the same set of values and morals. The point is also made that privacy rights should be legislated and thus a technical solution should not be required.

Others coming from a different angle suggest that because anonymity networks enable illegal behaviour to take place they make it much more likely. I.E if people can get free music with little chance of punishment for doing so – they will take the opportunity and this is bad for society.

Legislatively speaking, an approach to the Internet as to telephone services is often advocated, communications should be private unless there is a demonstrable reason for monitoring. Where this reason is demonstrated, monitoring should be possible.

It is worth pointing out that at the time of writing, most of the anonymity networks use a database of participants that reveals at least the IP – which is hardly a provision of perfect anonymity.

A little editorialising?

My own views I’ll keep to myself, mainly because they’re constantly changing – it’s also much better to read both sides and make your own mind up