Sciblings are discussing the ethics of anonymity all over Scienceblogs.
I want to pose a different question: practically speaking, is anonymity even possible?
Consider:
1) There is no standard definition for what is anonymous or anonymized. For instance, AOL released a putatively anonymous database of search queries a few years ago, but it was soon discovered that individuals could be identified in it. Google "anonymizes" some user records but the method they use is pretty pathetic.
2) The field of reidentification is growing in sophistication. Professor Latanya Sweeney at Carnegie Mellon has shown that even census records can be reidentified in Uniqueness of Simple Demographics in the U.S. Population:
...87% (216 million of 248 million) of the population in the United States had reported characteristics that likely made them unique based only on {5-digit ZIP, gender, date of birth}. About half of the U.S. population (132 million of 248 million or 53%) are likely to be uniquely identified by only {place, gender, date of birth}, where place is basically the city, town, or municipality in which the person resides. And even at the county level, {county, gender, date of birth} are likely to uniquely identify 18% of the U.S. population. In general, few characteristics are needed to uniquely identify a person.
And look what Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov did to the putatively anonymous Netflix database.
3) The more you blog/comment/etc, the more fragile anonymity becomes. You may incidentally reveal identifying information, directly or indirectly. The shifting context of information may cause you to inadvertently identify yourself from previous posts. And metadata often is available, such as your IP address, which helps individuals hone in on your location, ISP, etc.
4) One little mistake, and you're anonymity is gone! For instance, this blog requests email addresses for commenters. People frequently enter a pseudonym or "anon" and yet leave what appears to be a real email address! Sometimes users employ a pseudonym in a context where they want to hide their identity, but then use the same pseudonym on another website where their identity is easy to determine. So, anonymity is contingent upon technical sophistication (use of technologies such as TOR), discipline, and attention to detail.
I am not arguing that anonymity is a bad thing. I think anonymity is key for fostering non-instrumental values, such as personhood, exploration of controversial ideas, autonomy, free expression, etc. But, are we being naive in our assertion of this protection? Can we, as bloggers who are frequently posting about our experiences, enjoy a strong level of anonymity (whatever that is)?
- Log in to post comments
another utter red herring. Just about every post on the topic from those that are in favor of pseudonymous/anonymous discussion stipulates this understanding. mine certainly do.
re-iteration of this from the anti-pseud types betrays their failure to get past an incorrect belief that pseud bloggers or commenters universally would not say similar things under their own names for reasons specific to the local context.
continual revisiting of such beliefs shows that the anti-pseuders have no desire, intention or ability to engage in good faith discussion by actually reading and understanding what others have to say. denying their arguments through willful ignorance, one might say.
alternately one might interpret this continual recitation of the talking point to be a resort to threatening behavior in lieu of addressing the genuine points at hand.
Tor is pretty much plug and play these days. The content of the blog is the real sticking point, I guess. The unabomber's anonymity was apparently busted by his writing style (well the fact that he used the same typewriter helped to confirm it.)
Scott adams doesn't keep an archive of his blog, so he can get a bit more freedom to say what he wants, without the fear of it haunting him forever after. Could help with anonymity, too, by requiring anyone who wants to ruin your anonymity to collect data for a long time.
If you want to find out how well anonymity works, I suppose a good way would be a sort of adversary system.
You have a team of people trying to break the anonymity of various bloggers, and they can get back to you on what works, what doesn't, how good your anonymity is.... it could be a volunteer force of fellow anonymous bloggers.
I don't consider this to be a particularly interesting question, because the kind of pseudonymity/anonymity that bloggers/commenters care about--and which allows them to freely discuss controversial issues--is not the strong kind that, e.g., child pornographers perceive themselves as requiring. The weak sort of pseudonymity/anonymity that bloggers/commenters care about is composed of two elements: (1) inability of trivially simplistic Google searches to reveal identity and (2) some level of trust that one's discussants will not vindictively react to a substantive disagreement via "outing".
This is presumably the reason that the HONcode demands, without reservation or exception, respect by a certified Web site of "confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors...including their identity".
Hey Chris,
Just a quick note that one must distinguish between the anonymity of communication (which Tor helps with), and the anonymity of the content itself (which is looking more hopeless by the day.) Internet-scale writing-style de-anonymization is one of those things on my "someday" pile.
P.S: we will be making some more of our work public any time now. Watch my blog :-) http://33bits.org/
CPP, that's all well and good if the interest in your controversial topic is limited enough to control who the discussants are. Once you get outside that, though, well, it only takes one determined person to make you easily Googled.
DM, you're such a paranoid. You realize this is my brother, not me right?
Obviously. It is *always* possible that some determined individual is going to fuck with you in all sorts of ways: outing your pseud, stealing your girlfriend, keying your car in the parking lot, etc. That is why this is weak pseudonymity/anonymity.
The question is, does it makes sense for bloggers to collaboratively create an environment of trust in which this kind of weak pseudonymity/anonymity is encouraged and can flourish? Or, rather, should they create an environment of intimidation by making it clear that, if they unilaterally perceive someone as having blogged/commented in a manner that constitutes misbehavior, then they will use outing to punish that perceived misbehavior.
It seems pretty clear to me that the HONcode demands that its certified Web sites create the former sort of environment. Clause #3 of the HONcode, entitled "Privacy", states that "Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to a medical/health Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site."
And certainly we'll protect our commenters according to our new honcode certification, as we have said again, and again, and again.
However, many blogs do not have honcode certification, or haven't explicitly said how they will use comment information. We have repeatedly indicated we will keep information here private consistent with our statements and Seed's privacy policy.
But this is not the point of Chris's post. His point is that identifiable information in blog posts and in the publicly-visible portion of comments removes anonymity much of the time unless people are very careful. And further, commenting on many sites divulges geographic (and in the case of email) personal information.
On the other thread going on right now, you said this:
So, just to be sure we're clear on this: Your position is that you will obey the HONcode principle here in relation to your own commenters, but outside the confines of this blog you consider yourself free to "go after" people whom you personally consider to be "liars" using "any means necessary"?
CPP, I'm calling false dichotomy on that one.
It is, however, a useful question to ask whether someone who maintains such an environment should periodically remind people that it is a weak environment. Several people have done that recently with posts about the anonymity of commenting. I think those are useful reminders to people that, while we may all be friends here as far as we can see, we're still in public. You may not ever forget it, but that's not necessarily a good enough reason to assume no one else will either.
Actually, it doesn't even take a determined person. I got hit with a neighbor saying, "Oh, are you the Stephanie Z who [bunch of easily Googled stuff]." They just thought it was cool that they knew me.
I gave up.
@CPP, I have said I will comply with the honcode certification as it relates to my blog and as I have previously said I won't divulge anonymous information I obtain through comment backend against people.
If people publish information in the public section of comments that is of course fair game for anyone. And the Honcode certainly doesn't mean I have to respect all anonymity on the internet. The Honcode certification is to protect the privacy of individuals who want to comment at a medical site. It doesn't mean I have to protect the anonymity of any creep on the internet, or some creep who happens to comment on my site that I know the identity of incidentally. It exists to create guidelines for the handling of information by bloggers.
So actually, yes. That is correct. Despite your attempt at petty lawyering there is no inconsistency here. Honcode doesn't swear me to secrecy about any anonymous blogger on the net.
I was not attempting to impute inconsistency to you. I just wanted to clarify unambiguously that your position is that if you decide for yourself that someone is a "liar" or otherwise "shitty", then--outside the scope of your limited obligations under the HONcode--you will use "any means necessary" to "go after" them, including intentional outing.
There are two fundamental types of "anonymity" at issue, and part of the problem seems to be that they are conflated.
On the one hand, there is the relatively straightforward matter of determining the meatspace identity of ILoveFondlingKiddies who is a well-known Internet PITA. The detective techniques required to do this are well understood, and are mostly what we're discussing so far.
On the other hand, there is the version that matters much more to most of us: the reverse mapping. As Isis pointed out a while back, she wants a Google search on her meatspace identity to first return her professional work and not discourses on glitter, babies, recipes, and shoes. That's a totally different issue, and in fact even though most of us know who Orac is (and you have to be pretty thick to avoid having the Cluestick of Enlightenment do a job on your forehead) it doesn't matter because searching for XXXXX X XXXXXX doesn't return anything from Respectful Insolence.
So, should we distinguish "Type I" and "Type II" anonymity?
Privacy policies don't mean anything if they don't have some mechanism of enforcement.
It's all about the content, which is unavoidable if you want to be able to post whatever, however, you want. IP and email are easily defeated, like so. Tor also takes care of cookies, browser fingerprinting techniques, etc.
I am now free to be a creep. Let's get some ascii art going on here.
Yes. Although the "by any means necessary" doesn't mean throwing rocks at their house. I mean yes, I think it's ok to go after someone and create real world difficulties - including having their speech attached to their real name, or exposure of their ideas to their colleagues. Just yesterday many of my commenters joined me in bashing RFK Jr. to the Obama Campaign for instance tying his anti-vax opinions to his unsuitability for a science position in government. A pre-emptive political attack on someone to keep them from getting a job for which they are not suited.
I operate on the principle that my public presence may at any time end up in front of the people who decide my fate. I think others should too, if only because the reality of the internet is that it is not a consequence-free zone for speech, quite the opposite.
Okay, no ascii art. While useful, I don't know if type II counts as anonymity, though. Also, as soon as type I is effectively broken, type II would presumably follow - somebody , perhaps innocently, posts a blog entry with your name and your blog title, and that's it.
D. C., thanks. I think the two types are useful. I know of one case of type I but not type II and I'm waiting with no small degree of interest to see how that works out. It's the only time I've seen it.
Then how about putting your stated principles to the test here?
I'm not at all hard to find, and I work with and for people who are so far to the right that their big gripes with the McCain campaign were that McCain wasn't sufficiently committed to deregulation and Palin wasn't forceful enough on gun rights. You should see the cartoons posted around the office.
Well, if it isn't obvious I don't share their views. Out me. Get me fired for my online activities. Show you mean it.
I must admit that although I agree with MarkH on most substantive issues, I do depart a bit on this one.
I think there is a distinction between public figures and others. I don't think it's OK otherwise.
I think others should as well, but I'm certainly not going to appoint myself the policing power.
Oh, I'm a type II. (At least if you're using the same sequence I was.)
Not in this nym, of course -- but I do post elsewhere under other handles. I'm reasonably well-known in my field and have from time to time represented my employer(s) in the industry, so I have to be careful to distinguish my personal positions from theirs. Since I can't change what I'm called in an "official" capacity, I have to be careful to post industry-related opinions under another name.
It also has the secondary benefit that anyone Googling for my name doesn't find some of my more attitudinous writings, but that's not a serious problem thanks to the cover provided by a concert series in the national capitol. You really have to go a ways or else add search terms to find me; when you do it's on subjects (vaccination, in particular) where my positions aren't going to cause a rash to anyone at work.
Dude, why not? If people are misbehaving, then you should use any means necessary to go after them, right?
It's quite simple, actually. Your perception of reality is indubitably correct, and anyone who perceives things differently is an evil shitty liar, and must be destroyed. Right?
D. C., I'm a type II as well, at least around here. I may have one of the more odd reasons for doing it. I have a not-quite-unique name. There are two of us, and I'm by far the more argumentative. Seems only fair to hold a little something in reserve.
CPP, it annoys me when people confuse you and DM. Try not to do the same thing here.
Damn it, PP, it bugs the shit out of me when you and I are on the same page. Just knock it fucking off, would you?
Sheesh -- it's hard enough when MarkH expects me to defend your positions. Before you know it I may start posting like you and then I'll have to cut my own throat before $HERSELF does something painful to me.
"4) One little mistake, and you're anonymity is gone! "
Can incorrect use of the apostrophe be used to identify people over the internet?
@ Lab Lemming: No, there are many blogger's who use the apostrophe; and it's pointy little punctuation friend's incorrectly.
One minor point of correction, it is Tor, not TOR.
As you've mentioned, anonymity works on a time scale. The more data collected, the less anonymity you may have.
And anonymity is a right according the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Tor's point about time scale is called a long term intersection attack. If one can solve this, one has solved one of the biggest issues in the world of anonymity research.
An intersection is where you tie two or more pieces of data together about a target. Over time, humans are horribly bad at avoiding intersections.
Does anonymity exist? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. Forever? Unlikely.
If Al Gore had invented the Internet in the 1790's instead of the 1990's concerns regarding Privace and Anonymity would not be an issue. That's because people back then weren't as stupid as many people are today. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. etc. understood that there was an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. I'm not talking about it in the way that the morons on the Supreme Court misinterpreted it for Roe v. Wade though. I'm talking about it in the way that the values back then were based on correct timeless and enduring principles and therefore were different from our values today. There values back then were about as similar as our values today as the English Language is to the Swahili Language. There values were based on correct principles such as fairness, hard work, honesty, and the values of Christianity. Today our values are based on Greed, laziness, dishonesty, and secularism. Therefore, there is an inherent right to privacy on the Internet because the values at the time the Constitution was written included Respect. Thus, anonymity exists on the Internet to the extent that people value correct principles. To the extent that people value incorrect principles anonymity does not exist.
Tom said "Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. etc. understood that there was an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution....There values were based on correct principles such as fairness, hard work, honesty, and the values of Christianity."
You obviously slept through American History.
> There is no standard definition for what is anonymous...
Wrong. Pseudonymity and anonymity is defined by the level of communication between sender and receiver. If you can identify the person (z.B. Orac), but do not know their normal identity, we have pseudonymity. If you have absolutely no clue from whom the message comes, you have anonymity. It depends wholly on the sender and receiver: One can be anonymous here, but not anonymous for a country.
> I want to pose a different question: practically
> speaking, is anonymity even possible?
Yes. The reason people use even weak pseudonymity is the simple fact that most of the people are very inept to find
or use information. The simple Caesar chiffre couldn't be cracked by more than 95% of the population. A good lockpicker could easily crack most of the locks used in Europe and the USA, but still most of the burglars prefer the crowbar and give up if the door with the weak lock doesn't budge.
So weak pseudonymity is more than sufficient to spare you most of the trouble. But if the threat level goes up (very controversial theme, whistleblowing, powerful opponent), than yes, you can use much more sophisticated gear to remain anonymous.
@Tom: I have a new saying for people like you: "Evidence, or stfu."
Picking out two names of people famous for their philosophies and saying "ooh, in my subjective opinion those two were moral, therefore the whole of human civilization in that period was very moral too" is just nonsense.
@CPP - The whole point of blogs like mine and Oracs and other sites is to expose the stupidity of others based on our principles of scientific demarcation. We, I think to our credit, defined the principles by which we try to operate with our first weeks of posting.
We exist here largely to attack nonsense and the purveyors of nonsense. It is what we do. And yes, that requires us assessing objective truth.
Call me a jerk and an asshole for the extent to which I will pursue people, but don't pull this "there is no objective truth" crap at a scienceblog. You're turning into a boring troll.
Where do you get the crazy idea that I have asserted that "there is no objective truth"?
Perhaps you are confusing that with the assertion that it is frequently difficult to discern objective truth, and that it is therefore important to pay attention to the *process* by which truth is ascertained. As a scientist, I am sure you would agree with the latter.
Drug Monkey Said:
pseud bloggers or commenters universally would not say similar things under their own names for reasons specific to the local context.
Putting the word "universally" in this phrase makes your remark both unassailable and absurd. Pulling it out so that this can be part of a real conversation about real life, and you are simply wrong.
Don't you think there are pseudonymous bloggers who, if they acted and spoke as they do in their real lives, would be locked up in a padded room, and would occasionally have their arms broken at the elbows by people they annoy?
Shorter Tom:
"Anyone who agrees with me is obviously of superior intelligence, and anyone who disagrees is a poopy-head."
LanceR, JSG said "anyone who disagrees is a poopy-head." as a response to silly Tom... I have couple of questions for you:
1) What does "JSG" stand for?
2) If you are ever in the largest city in Wacky Washington Way Out West, can I buy you a beer?
HCN, you are the first person to ask me that. I started using the JSG in reaction to a rash of people claiming to be nurses & doctors who sounded completely irrational. Tacking letters after your name is an easy and completely irrelevant way to appear to be competent.
JSG: Just Some Guy. <grin>
I don't get out west much, actually I don't travel much at all. But you can buy me a beer anytime!
It's interesting to see another educational institution dealing with similar issues, http://www.biconews.com/?p=11966, SGA Talks Anonymity and the Honor Code.
I find this paragraph humorous here at denialism blog which pretty much exists to apply a rational process for solving the demarcation problem.