I think the previous posters on the blog have done a good job discussing the benefits and drawbacks of anonymous speech, and I don't want to spend too much time repeating some of the same points. To me, the system of traceable anonymity seems to make the most sense, since it preserves the parts of anonymous speech which are essential to democracy, while providing deterrents for those who would abuse anonymous speech and break the law using anonymity as a veil. I think that an interesting issue to discuss now, which I have no solution for, is ho the government can and should go about actually enforcing traceable anonymity.
In some cases, this does not seem to be so difficult. I think there is consensus that frivolous CyberSLAPP cases should not be allowed, and the judicial system should implement a system so that ISPs only hand over information about clients for legitimate reasons. The question now becomes, how can the government force all companies to keep such records? If a company already has user information on file, a court subpoena will make them hand over a user's information to the government. But nowadays, there are many websites which one can use which don't know much more about you than your IP address. Does the government have the power to tell these companies to start collecting more information about their users, so this information can be available if the government is trying to track someone down? It is unclear to me if the government has the power to do this. On the other hand, might this be necessary in order to properly regulate anonymous speech for those cases in which people should be prosecuted for their online speech? In a way, this brings us back to some of the questions we have been discussing in previous weeks about the government giving out Internet IDs so that it knows what everyone is doing online.
So my main question is this: How far should the government go in compelling websites to keep information about their users so that traceable anonymity can be effectively used when the government deems it necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This an interesting idea because the predominant conversation in Washington right now seems to be about how to get websites to keep less personally identifiable information on their users because of privacy concerns. The government issued ID question is interesting because it moves knowledge of user behavior from a third party like Google to the government...which one is the better protector of our information?
ReplyDeleteIn that vein, consider what would happen if Google went bankrupt and was suddenly looking for ways to squeeze value out of every last one of its assets. In that scenario, relying on Google to "not be evil" and refrain from selling the vast quantities of information its collected about its users to the highest bidder seems like a pretty precarious safeguard...
ReplyDelete