71Anonymous Cowards
range of a WiFi connection, and other hints (such as the type of com-
puter being used or the Internet browser software version) may be
sufficient to identify an attacker when combined with a rough physi-
cal location. Similarly, logging on at a public library may be sufficient
if the library doesn’t reliably check ID (some do, some don’t), or one
can use any other insecure connection like that at a coffee shop.
Other technological means also exist to break the connection be-
tween Internet-visible IP address and identity when using one’s own
Internet connection. These methods are generally regarded as legal
under current U.S. law. This, too, has a root in the history of the In-
ternet: basic “anonymous remailers” date back to the early days of on-
line discussions. Such remailers allowed users to send messages to
the primitive “Usenet” discussion system, without their names,
e-mail addresses, or IP addresses being revealed. These were used
when discussing controversial or illegal content but were limited in
that they worked only for Usenet.
Today, an Internet user can utilize a “proxy server” to hide her
identity. There are both free and paid proxy servers that allow users
to perform many Internet tasks—including Web browsing—with-
out revealing their real IP address to the destination website.
4
In-
stead of sending a message directly to the website they wish to view,
users send a message to a proxy server. The proxy server then passes
the message along but substitutes the proxy server’s IP address as the
“source.” The website then sends the requested material back to the
proxy server, which relays it (without the webserver’s knowledge) to
the original requester.
Newer proxy systems, such as “TOR,”
5
take the concept of
anonymous proxy servers even further. “TOR” stands for “The Onion
Router,” and it is a free software package that was developed in large
part by the Electronic Frontier Foundation for the purpose of pro-
viding a robustly anonymous system to political activists protesting
against oppressive regimes. But nothing about the system limits its
use to political activists; it is equally available to hackers, child
pornographers, paranoids, and others. Once installed, the program
72 Wild West 2.0
encrypts a user’s Internet traffic and forwards it along a chain of sev-
eral proxy servers. The data are wrapped in layers of encryption; as
the data hop from one proxy server to another, each proxy server has
only the decryption key required to remove one layer of encryption
from the packet. The last proxy server removes the last layer of en-
cryption and sends the packet to its destination. (Hence the “onion”
name: the packet of data is wrapped in layers of encryption like the
layers of an onion.) Responses are handled in the reverse order; each
proxy server adds a layer of encryption as the packet is passed back to-
ward the user. Each link can decrypt no more than is required in or-
der to find the next link in the chain. No single person or computer
knows both the sender and the destination because each link can “see”
only the link immediately preceding and following it. The first link
knows the sender, and the last link knows the destination, but these
links are separate computers on opposite sides of the world that are
unaware of each other’s existence. Intermediate proxy servers cannot
access the underlying message and have no clue as to the identity of
the sender or recipient. Only the last proxy server has access to the
message contents, but it does not know the source of the message or
have any way to find out. This complex system reduces the risk that
one proxy server could be wiretapped; even if one proxy server were
compromised, it would not have enough information to connect a
user to a message. The TOR system also prevents an ISP from being
able to effectively monitor or track what activities a user is conduct-
ing online. In effect, TOR creates a system of technological anonymity
that cannot be broken, even by law enforcement.
The Legal System Supports Anonymity
The current legal system supports anonymity online. At least in the
United States, there is no requirement that websites, webhosts, ISPs,
or anybody else collect or store any information that could be used to
connect online activity to a real human being, whether directly (such
as storing a name) or indirectly (such as storing an IP address).
6
73Anonymous Cowards
Some sites do keep logs of the IP addresses of visitors; by de-
fault, several popular webserver software packages create basic IP ad-
dress logs. After proper legal process, it is sometimes possible to use
these logs to determine who uploaded illegal content: One subpoena
is issued to the website to find the IP address of the miscreant, and
a second subpoena is issued to an ISP to identify a real user based on
that IP address. But IP logs are often deleted automatically after a
few weeks, and many websites turn off logging entirely. Most ISPs al-
most never keep track of what sites are visited by their users, let
alone what actions their users have taken on those sites; they would
have to store large (but not impossible) amounts of data, and ISPs
may be hesitant to even appear as if they are monitoring the activities
of their users, no matter what technical and legal restrictions they
put on use of the data they collect.
What is truly odd about current law is that there is no duty on
websites or ISPs to deal with harmful anonymous content. If a web-
site does not keep IP address logs (or any other form of logs), then
it has no way to know who uploaded or created harmful content.
But, even if a website has kept no information about the user who
created offensive content, it will often refuse to remove it if asked by
the victim and presented with irrefutable evidence that the content is
wrong. The website will often point to Section 230 of the Commu-
nications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which provides immunity for
user-created content, no matter how false or offensive. Even if given
absolute proof that the content is libelous, false, or otherwise inac-
curate, many websites will still continue to claim to have no duty to
remove or alter it.
What’s even stranger is that harmful attacks on individuals are
treated worse by the law than the copyrights owned by major cor-
porations. A different law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
1996 (DMCA), creates a “notice-and-takedown” system for alleged
copyright violations. If a user has uploaded a copyrighted film, song,
or photograph, then the copyright owner (usually a movie studio or
record label) can force the website to remove the copyrighted mate-
74 Wild West 2.0
rial by just sending a letter. The website must remove the allegedly
copyrighted material immediately or become subject to claims for
money damages for copyright infringement.
The DMCA has been used to remove vast swaths of content. Vi-
acom (the owner of MTV, VH1, and Comedy Central) once sent a
letter to the video-sharing website YouTube identifying more than
100,000 instances of alleged copyright infringement.
7
When there
was not a satisfactory response, Viacom sued YouTube’s parent
company, Google, seeking billions of dollars in damages.
8
The law-
suit alleges that YouTube is responsible for the copyright infringe-
ments of its users because YouTube encouraged and promoted
copyright infringement. There is no allegation that YouTube itself
uploaded or edited videos that violated Viacom’s copyrights; the only
allegation is that YouTube failed to adequately police the actions of
its users.
But nobody has been successful in claiming that a website is re-
sponsible for the libel or personal attacks of its users because it pro-
moted or encouraged libel or other forms of personal attack. Even
the foulest dens of inequity have—thus far—been able to escape li-
ability by simply pointing to Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act.
The Result: A Culture of Anonymity
Because of the technical limitations of IP and the lack of a legal re-
quirement to verify identity or remove harmful anonymous content,
there is no custom of online disclosure of real identities. Most web-
sites that allow user-created content either don’t ask for a real name
at any point in the “signup” process or do absolutely no verification of
the name submitted by a user (“John Doe” usually is accepted with-
out question).
The result is that it is possible for users to surf the Web, search
for information, e-mail each other, post comments, upload photos,
blog, and create websites—all while staying completely anonymous.
75Anonymous Cowards
The only trace left behind by most users is an IP address, but even
that footprint can be removed by use of proxy servers. This
anonymity can be liberating if it is used for good—to explore new
ideas or identities. But it can also be evil: It is possible for anony-
mous attackers to slander the good name of innocent victims with-
out fear of being traced, for credit card scammers to peddle their
wares online without fear of prosecution, for child pornographers to
trade smut in anonymous back alleys of the Internet. And everyone
is at risk from anonymous hackers.
This culture of anonymity has even reached pop culture—as the
saying goes, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”
9
Or, as one
Wikipedia editor expounded to ironic excess, “cyberspace will be lib-
eratory because gender, race, age, looks, or even ‘dogness’ are poten-
tially absent or alternatively fabricated or exaggerated with unchecked
creative license for a multitude of purposes both legal and illegal.”
10
Internet Anonymity Destroys Accountability
As a result of online anonymity, often nobody claims responsibility
for malicious or damaging Internet content. Websites and blogs can
be started anonymously and often leave no way to track down the
creator. Google claims that it is not responsible for the results pro-
duced by its search engine. ISPs claim they are not responsible for
the sites created or viewed by their customers. Video- and photo-
sharing sites may respond to requests to remove content because of
copyright violations but often refuse to do so in response to claims of
privacy violations or libel. Even reputable blogs run by major pub-
lishers often claim that they are not responsible for content submit-
ted by other users and refuse to remove harmful comments. Some
site owners even encourage misuse—owners know that they can
profit by creating virtual tabloid newspapers where users compete to
sling the most scandalous rumors with no holds barred.
The direct impact of anonymity on many Internet users is obvi-
ous. Freed from the social constraints of direct accountability for
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.