A Few friends of mine, and myself put this reply together regarding having an identification system on the Internet.

The full article can be found here: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/

the article is by BARBARA KIVIAT

“[Anonymity] enables a massive amount of cyber crime: if you’re attacked from a computer, you might be able to figure out where that particular machine is located, but there’s really no way to go back one step further and track the identity of the computer that hacked into the one that hacked into you.”

Most computers aren’t directly hacked into in the way the author imagines. Instead, the user downloads a file, such as a program or a song, that is infected with a virus or other kind of malware, and that malicious program gives control of the computer to its author. In this way, vast illegal networks of computers, called botnets, can be made. Even if each of these computers was attached to a name, it could be nearly impossible to tell which, if any, was the owner.

“What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not to mention an inspection, insurance, etc).”

This analogy is flawed for one very important reason, and it’s why inspections and insurance are unecessary for computers. Most car crashes accidental; the driver may have been careless, but few people crash on purpose. On the internet, nearly all damage done is purposeful, and by criminals. No one hacks into a computer by mistake. There are no accidents for ordinary people to get into on the internet, so requiring licenses from all of them is overkill.

“If you do something bad with that car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your license and be prevented from driving in the future. In other words, there is a legal and social process for imposing discipline.”

However, with current government attempts, they want to treat the Car Manufacturer (the File Sharing services for example, or in this case the Internet as a whole) as the party responsible for its drivers (Internet Users, File Shares) who speed (break the law). We cannot focus on the providers, they are simply providing a service… we need to focus on users, and the best way to solve that problem is allow other users to police themselves. Law Enforcement officers are not federal government coming into your town writing tickets, they are locals who attempt to keep the peace, and make their personal communities safer. This works well for the United States as a whole, why would this practice not work on the Government?

Mundie imagines three tiers of Internet ID: one for people, one for machines and one for programs (which often act as proxies for the other two).

When we go online for the first time in our lives, we are told by everyone and their grandmothers to go.. play… have fun… but NEVER EVER give out your name, address, or phone number on the internet. With this proposal, not only do they have your personal information, but also details about the machine you are on, and the programs you are using. This opens each user up to futher risks of their information getting into the wrong hands.

“Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?”

We think that because we’re entitled to anonymity to speech. Most of the internet is written, and a large portion of that writing is political. Wherever political writers aren’t entitled to privacy, people are afraid to criticize government. Keep in mind that anonymous political writings are hardly unique to the internet; many documents critical to this nation’s history, such as the Federalist Papers, were published under pseudonyms.

“Mundie pointed out that in the physical world we are implicitly comfortable with the notion that there are certain places we’re not allowed to go without identifying ourselves. Are you allowed to walk down the street with no one knowing who you are? Absolutely. Are you allowed to walk into a bank vault and still not give your name? Hardly.”

You are allowed to walk into a bank vault, if the owner of the bank allows people to walk into the bank. Even if it was against the banks policy for random strangers to walk into the vault, then we expect the bank to come up with policies and interal enforcement of those policies. It is only when someone attempts to break those defenses, that the local law enforcement is called. Again, this beautifully outlines how the system in place already can (and does) work.

“If you want to go to Time.com and read all about what’s going on in the world, that’s fine. No one needs to know who you are. But if you want to set up a site to accept credit-card donations for earthquake victims in Haiti? Well, you’re going to have to show your ID for that.”

Why? While yes, there may be abuses, as with most problems… the key to solving the issue is education… not making it difficult for the majority of the people who are doing good things. There are plenty of reasons that a person setting up a donation website for the victims of Haiti may not want to be identified. We should be encouraging people to help out a person in need, not make their life difficult.

“The truth of the matter is, the Internet is still in its Wild West phase. To a large extent, the law hasn’t yet shown up. Yet as more and more people move to town, that lawlessness is becoming a bigger and bigger problem.”

And who gets to dictate the morals and laws of the Internet? The United States of America? the United Nations? Who gave them the devine authority over what can happen on the Internet?
We have found that the internet has developed many internal rules, regulations, and even encorement, and self defense practices that have worked, and the Internet is constantly developing. Lets also use the Wild West metaphore, and take it further: If a Westerner in the United States, travels to the East Coast (in general, New York specifically) he will find that people have a whole new set of decorums, and decorums that Westerners might even find rude. Because the West was born out of a state of so called “lawlessness”, they have developed their own moral code, they still tip their hats in Monatana and Wyoming, and though its slowly dieing, the men still hold doors open for women. This is what will happen and is happening on the Internet. We are developing our own decorum, and while it will take some time and wiggle room to get sorted, the Internet needs to be able to have its own identity… it is not, and should not be tied to real life political differences. Otherwise we kill the basic foundation of what the internet is: A place to share differences.

“As human societies grow over time they develop more rigid standards for themselves in order to handle their increased size. There is no reason to think the Internet shouldn’t follow the same pattern.”

The Pirate Party agrees with this statement… The Internet SHOULD be allowed to grow, and create more ridgid standards for itself. However, we would not encroach on the British if they wanted to develop their law enforcement differnetly than ourselves.
When an outside oppressor tries to take over a culture, that culture will have two options, they can either fight, or they can become assimilated. So the question must be asked: Is the world ready to fight a battle with the Internet? I can tell you who will win, and you can be assured they do not have guns, they have our entire way of life in their hands.

“Though that’s not to say it’ll happen anytime soon. Governments certainly have been talking to each other about this (almost by definition, any effective efforts will have to be international in nature), but even in Europe, where there is a cyber security convention in effect, only half of the Continent’s nations have signed up.”

There are laws regarding Internet that need to be fixed, and there are people that need to be taught how to protect themselves online… however, those laws that the EU (and the US, and the UN) needs to be discussing are those impacting the future of the failed Intellectual Property laws, the laws that are shutting down legal companies who operate within the law, whos independant users abuse that service. The US needs to work on reforming its patent laws, new laws that allow us better access to our first ammendment rights (protesting without a permit).
There needs to be dicussion on the future of the internet, but what is being proposed here is simply idiotic, and detrimental to the future of the Internet as we know it. If Government regulation wins… it will no longer be a place of un-inhibitied sharing of ideas and information, and thats is scary.

One stumbling block that was mentioned at today’s panel discussion: governments’ own intelligence agencies are huge beneficiaries of the Internet’s anonymity. We managed to spy on each other before the Web, but how much easier it is now that we can cruise around cyberspace without anyone even knowing we’re there.

Understand that the Pirate Party does not condone the United States’ percieved power that they can spy on its citizens with no warrent with reason of “National Security”. We need to stay on focus: The power to stay anonymous on the internet is one of its greatest features. Bad people will keep doing bad things and find ways to circumvent any system thats developed… this will only put good people at risk, and now they would have personal identity tied to themselves while cruising the web… that just is asking for disaster.

So don’t expect any changes in the short term. But do know that the people in charge—as much as anyone can be in charge when it comes to the Internet—are thinking about it.
This is the reason why the United States needs to move away from a two party system, and the people need to start electing congressment and senators who will stand up for rights, and have real platforms to represent. The people in charge ARE thinking about taking away your digital rights, and without American citizens standing up for themselves and the rights of their brothers, we will see no real progress.

Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/

Regardless of whether the original intention was full anonymity, the Internet’s current incarnation should not be so readily discarded. Many crimes that are perpetrated on the Internet today have been practiced? for decades preceeding the creation of the Internet. However, while true criminals should be sought after and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, innocent, law-abiding citizens of this country should not be held accountable without having committed a crime.

Of course The Pirate Party hopes that the American People are the largest obstical from this happening (at least in the United States), and that they stand up for the rights that they have been given, and not back down to an opressive two party system.