--- begin forwarded text
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:02:13 -0400
To: Philodox Clips List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The cost of online anonymity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/click_online/4227578.stm
The BBC
Friday, 9 September 2005, 18:03 GMT 19:03 UK
The cost of online anonymity
By Dan Simmons
Reporter, BBC Click Online
In the second report looking at privacy and the internet, Dan Simmons
examines whether it is possible to be totally anonymous and asks if this is
really a desirable thing.
In London's Speaker's Corner, the right to freedom of expressions has been
practised by anyone who cares to turn up for centuries.
But in countries where free speech is not protected by the authorities,
hiding your true identity is becoming big business.
Just as remailers act as a go-between for e-mail, so there are services
through which you can surf the web anonymously.
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.
But these programs are becoming popular in the West too.
The software encrypts all your requests for webpages. Anonymizer's servers
then automatically gather the content on your behalf and send it back to
you.
No humans are involved and the company does not keep records of who
requests what.
However, there is some censorship. Anonymizer does not support anonymous
uploading to the web, and it blocks access to material that would be
illegal under US law.
No to censorship
For the last five years, Ian Clarke has been working on a project to offer
complete anonymity.
Founder and co-ordinator of Freenet, Ian Clarke says: Our goal was to
provide a system whereby people could share information over the internet
without revealing their identity and without permitting any form of
government censorship.
The system is called the Free Network Project, or Freenet. A Chinese
version has been set up to help dissidents speak out there.
We believe that the benefits of Freenet, for example for dissidents in
countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, far outweigh the dangers of
paedophilia or terrorist information being distributed over the system
Ian Clarke, Freenet
Challenges of anonymous surfing
Freenet encourages anonymous uploading of any material. Some users of the
English version believe it is so secure they have used it to confess to
crimes they have committed, or to their interest in paedophilia.
Each user's computer becomes a node in a decentralised file-storing
network. As such they give up a small portion of their hard disk to help
the system hold all the information and as with anonymous surfing,
everything is encrypted, with a military grade 128-bit algorithm.
The storage is dynamic, with files automatically moved between computers
on the network or duplicated. This adds to the difficulty of determining
who might be storing what.
Even if a user's computer is seized, it can be impossible for experts to
determine what the owner was doing on Freenet.
But such strenuous efforts to protect identity have two side effects.
Firstly, pages can take 10 minutes or more to download, even on a 2Mbbps
broadband connection.
Secondly, the information is so well encrypted it is not searchable at the
moment. Forget Google, your only option is to scroll through the indexes
provided.
It is hoped usability of the service will improve when it is re-launched
later this year.
Ethical issues
But those are the least of our problems, according to some experts, who
think Freenet is a dangerous free-for-all.
Digital evidence expert at the London School of Economics, Peter Sommer
says: A few years ago I was very much in favour of libertarian computing.
What changed my mind was the experience of acting in the English courts
as a computer expert and examining large numbers of computers from really
nasty people, who were using precisely the same sort of technology in order
to conceal their activities.
I think that creates an ethical dilemma for everyone who wants to
participate in 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.
It can be used for many good things, like giving the oppressed a voice,
but users can also preach race-hatred or share child pornography with
complete impunity.
Peter Sommer says: Ian [Clarke] is placing a powerful tool in the hands
of other people. He's like an armaments manufacturer.
Guns can be used for all sorts of good purposes but you know perfectly
well that they are used to oppress and kill.
Most armaments manufacturers walk off and say 'it's not my
responsibility
