Hold on to your hats.
In my last post I mentioned that the US and Russia were in complete agreement over one of the core problems of the Internet. From the same Times story:
During a panel discussion on computer crime, Col. Gen. Boris N. Miroshnikov, an official with the Russian Interior Ministry, and Stewart A. Baker, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and the former chief counsel for theNational Security Council, agreed that the most important step in combating Internet crime would be to do away with the anonymity that has long been a central tenet of Internet culture.
“Anonymity is an invitation to criminals,” General Miroshnikov said.
Mr. Baker agreed, saying, “Anonymity is the fundamental problem we face in cyberspace.”
Ugh. Dispatching anonymity on the Internet is really, really hard. It’s all just software, so it is technically possible to do an approximation of it. The idea this would stop crime, though, is completely laughable.
Gun laws don’t completely prevent criminals from getting guns. Drug laws certainly don’t prevent people from getting drugs. Software piracy laws and Digital Rights Management software absolutely positively don’t stop people from stealing electronically.
Criminializing anonymity on the Internet would not prevent anonymity on the Internet. It would just make it expensive, difficult, and risky. Online thieves are already by definition breaking the law in any jurisdiction in the world – they are not going to politely sign on as themselves.
So who would really be effected by this? Average, everyday law-abiding citizens. Of course the Russians and Chinese and Iranians would love to see the fundamental architecture of the Internet transformed to ensure non-repudiation (you can’t deny that you – or at least your computer – sent something) and easy tracking.
I just don’t know why anyone concerned with civil liberties would ever play along.
