Anonymity, Privacy and Security Issues in Cyberworld
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
Mohamed Chawki, Ashraf Darwish, Mohammad Ayoub Khan and Sapna TyagiCybercrime, Digital Forensics and JurisdictionStudies in Computational Intelligence59310.1007/978-3-319-15150-2_77. Anonymity, Privacy and Security Issues in Cyberworld
(1)
International Association of Cybercrime Prevention (AILCC), Paris, France
(2)
Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
(3)
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Engineering and Technology, Sharda University, Greater Noida, India
(4)
College of Computer Science and Engineering, Yanbu Branch, Taibah University, Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
(5)
Institute of Management Studies, Ghaziabad, India
7.1 Introduction
Anonymity, often considered a cornerstone of democracy and a First Amendment guarantee, is easier to attain than ever before, due to the emergence of cyberspace (du Pont 2001, p. 191). Cyberspace enables people to share ideas over great distances and engage in the creation of an entirely new, diverse, and chaotic democracy, free from geographic and physical constraints (N’oeil 2001). As of September 30, 2009, about 1,733,993,741 users had access to the internet. Those numbers are growing rapidly. Due to the nature of ICTs, identities in cyberspace are easily cloaked in anonymity (du Pont 2001, p. 192). Once a message sender’s identity is anonymous, cyberspace provides the means to perpetrate widespread criminal activity among the masses, with little chance of being apprehended (du Pont 2001, p. 192; Brenner and Goodman 2002). In a report to former Vice President Al Gore, Attorney General Reno found a need for greater control of anonymity in cybercrime. Reacting to several attacks on eBAY, CNN.com and other websites, former President Clinton underscored the opinion that the government needs to maintain a watchful eye on cyberspace. On the other hand, anonymity in cyberspace allows whistle-blowers and political activists to express opinions critical of employers and the government, enables entrepreneurs to acquire and share technical information without alerting their competitors, and permits individuals to express their views online without fear of reprisals and public hostility (Aldesco 2002). It is clear that in various parts of the world, people may have an interest in not being identified and thus connected to certain published views and opinions (Nicoll et al. 2003). Due to the international character of the internet, those reasons for anonymous communications which are related to the “freedom of expression” may gain new dimensions (Lipschultz 2000).
Before the information age, a person’s identity, and information relating to his or her identification seemed to be more precisely controlled (Nicoll et al. 2003, p. 3). But all that has changed. The advent of the information society has vastly increased the need for identifying mechanisms and thus, public availability of the relevant technologies (Nicoll et al. 2003, p. 3). Names, addresses, e-mail addresses, photographs, social security numbers, etc., are freely available on the internet and numerous identity related characteristics are for sale (Nicoll et al. 2003, p. 3). On the internet, anyone has the opportunity to gain knowledge about other people. The development of ICTs makes more and more people reluctant to reveal their true identity (Nicoll et al. 2003, p. 3).
In combination with this, different services have recently been developed which make internet activities, such as surfing, anonymous. Facilities are also anonymous. Facilities are also available to provide individuals with a pseudo identity (Nicoll et al. 2003, p. 3). Hence, anonymous communication is promoted as the solution to the problem. Anonymity does, however, raise various legal questions: What exactly do we mean by anonymity? Why would people want to communicate and transact on an anonymous basis? What are the practical and legal constraints upon anonymity when communicating and transacting with others? Finally, total anonymity may be possible through the use of privacy-enhancing technologies.
7.2 Anonymity in Cyberspace
There are two kinds of anonymity: true anonymity and pseudo-anonymity (du Pont 2001, p. 192). However, some scholars fail to sufficiently address this distinction. Dialogue on the issue of anonymity legislation suffers on account of this lack of distinction. This section will therefore distinguish between true and pseudo—anonymity, two completely different forms of expression, with differing degrees of political and social value and constitutional protection (du Pont 2001, p. 192).
7.2.1 True Anonymity
Truly anonymous communication is untraceable. Indeed, only coincidence or purposeful self-exposure will bring the identity of the mystery sender to others; the identity of a person acting in a truly anonymous manner cannot be definitively discovered with any amount of diligence (du Pont 2001, p. 192). Attempts can be made to discover the identity of the sender through inference, but any concrete trail of clues betraying the message sender has been erased by circumstance, the passage of time, or by the sender herself. Although some forms of truly anonymous communication, such as political speech, are considered valuable, this form of anonymity has exceptional potential for abuse because the message senders cannot be held accountable for their actions (du Pont 2001, p. 192).
7.2.2 Pseudo-Anonymity
Pseudo-anonymous communication is inherently traceable (Rigby 1995). Though the identity of the pseudo-anonymous message sender may seem truly anonymous because it is not easily uncovered or made readily available by definition, it is possible to discover their identity. This kind of anonymity has significant social benefits; it enables citizens of a democracy to voice their opinions without fear of retaliation against their personal reputations, but it forces them to take ultimate responsibility for their actions, should the need somehow arise (Rigby 1995). Although governments could abuse their ability to uncover the identity of people acting pseudo—anonymously, it is not in the government’s interest to break that trust; by respecting pseudo-anonymous identities, governments can often avoid the far more dangerous abuses stemming from true anonymity (Rigby 1995).
7.2.3 Anonymity, Privacy and Freedom of Speech
The world in which we live can frequently be extremely conservative, often making it dangerous to make certain statements, have certain opinions, or adopt a certain lifestyle (Brin 1994; Rigby 1995). Anonymity is important for online discussions involving sexual abuse, minority issues, harassment, sex lives, and many other things. Moreover, anonymity is useful for people who want to ask technical questions that they do not want to admit they do not know the answer to, report illegal activities without fear of retribution, and many other things. Without anonymity, these actions can result in public ridicule or censure, physical injury, loss of employment or status, and in some cases, even legal action. Protection from harm resulting from this type of social intolerance is a definite example of an important and legitimate use of anonymity on the internet. An example of how vital such anonymity can be is exemplified by the following excerpt from a newsgroup post during a temporary shutdown of penet.fi (Rigby 1995):
I had been posting to a non-technical misc. newsgroup about an intimate topic for which I felt I required privacy. I have received immeasurable help from the people in that news group…Please, folks, believe me, I *need* this service. Please consider my point of view and permit admin@penet.fi to turn the service back on.
Doctors who are members of the online community, moreover, usually encourage their patients to connect with others and form support groups on issues about which they do not feel comfortable when speaking publicly. It is important to express certain opinions without revealing our true identities. One relevant example of anonymity in the physical space is the debate over Caller ID on telephones. A great number of people were extremely disturbed that the person at the receiving end of a telephone call would know the identity of the caller. People had taken it for granted that they could be anonymous if they wanted and were distressed at the idea of that anonymity being taken away. Many Net users feel the same way about online anonymity.
Anonymity allows an individual to seek online information, resources and support without jeopardizing their public reputation and relationships. Fear of discrimination might prevent an individual from seeking help. Anonymity allows information gathering about issues like addiction to alcohol, gambling, drugs or sex; sexual identity, where identifying as non-heterosexual could cause problems at work or home; testing or treatment options for illnesses like AIDS; or information about birth control or sexually transmitted infections. Especially for youth, the ability to search anonymously allows individuals to make informed and responsible choices with information they may not have been able or willing to locate had they been forced to disclose their identities.
Society benefits when people are not afraid to seek help. Individuals have the right to be left alone, in this case to not be persecuted for challenging societal norms and this is facilitated by the opportunity to operate anonymously in cyberspace. Anonymity is effective in promoting freedom of expression. Julf Helsingius asserts that anonymity is beneficial because it gives people an outlet for their opinions, even controversial ones. He argues that it is “good to bring out things like that in daylight because that actually allows you to … start processing it, see how people react to it, and so on” (Rigby 1995).
This may have sort of a cathartic effect in that it allows people to get their feelings out without physically hurting people of other cultures, races, etc. In addition to this, anonymity hinders some methods of controlling the actions of other people. This is a further argument for the usefulness of anonymity in the protection of freedom of expression. There are many long-standing precedents for anonymity in publishing. The responsibility of journalists not to reveal their sources is recognized almost universally. Many authors write under pen-names and there are still some cases where the true identity of the author has never been discovered. Even the Federalist Papers were published under a pseudonym. Most newspapers publish letters to the editor and help columns and allow the letters to be anonymous or signed with a pseudonym and many newspaper papers are merely credited to ‘AP Newswire’. Additionally, anonymous peer reviews of proposals and papers are common in academic circles (Rigby 1995).
In Forensic Advisors v. Matrix Initiatives, a Maryland Court has been asked to order the disclosure of the identity of subscribers to a newsletter. In this affair, Matrix, a pharmaceutical company, was seeking a publisher’s subscriber list to use in connection with a lawsuit filed against numerous individuals who posted allegedly derogatory comments about the company to an internet discussion board. Privacy and civil liberties advocates, including EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center have filed an amicus brief in support of the publisher’s right to protect the list. The brief argues that the list ought to be protected under Maryland law that protects a journalist’s sources. They further argue that subscribers have a right to remain anonymous under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, since disclosure of the list would deter readership and violate established privacy rights. In ACLU v. Miller, the American Civil Liberties Union got an injunction against the enforcement of a Georgia statute that prohibited a person from falsely identifying herself while sending e-mail, posting on the internet, and more (one of the problems with the statute was that it was too vague). The court ruled that it was appropriate to grant an injunction, among other reasons, when there was the potential for chilling free expression. The court agreed with the state that its purpose in enacting the statute—preventing fraud—was a compelling state interest, but decided to side against the state because the statute was not narrowly-enough tailored to its purpose.