Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:07:06 PDT
From: Jim Hunt <Jim.Hunt@eng.sun.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Privacy vs. Anonymity
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 085, Message 8 of 10


I would like to discuss the difference between Privacy and Anonymity.
As always, read completely twice through before responding.

Definitions:

Privacy: keeping what I DO - in private - secret.
Anonymity: keeping my IDENTITY secret when interacting with others.

Observations:

At the time our constitution and bill of rights was written, there
was almost no concept of anonymity.  Everyone in town knew everyone
in town, and "the stranger in blue" was sufficient for any newcomers.

Privacy with respect to government seems to be different from other
forms of privacy, in law, in these discussions, and in most matters.

To drive a car requires release of some anonymity, every car must
have a plate.  (though this does not uniquely identify the driver)

=========

Plates are so we can catch those who violate the societal rules of the
road.  Nobody says the requirement to carry a plate is a violation of
privacy, it is accepted.  Why then do some people respond so vehemently
to a request to identify themselves?  The idea of a unique identifier
is perfectly acceptable for every car on the road, and the requirement
that it be prominently displayed is also accepted.  My freedom to drive
wherever is legal is not compromised by my plate.

I do not see how anonymity is a cornerstone of freedom.  If I am
free to do something, I am free to announce my name while doing it.
If I choose NOT to announce my name while doing something legal,
then I still have no qualm with someone writing down my license
number, or snapping my picture, or shaking my hand for a DNA sample.
In cases where the law places unjust restrictions on my freedom,
the law should be attacked, not those who would identify you and
violate your anonymity, but NOT your privacy.
(NOTE, this is in public, don't stick a camera in my window)

The problem of proof of identity is at the core of many of these
discussions, and is often confused with privacy issues.  I accept
that a merchant must have sufficient proof of my identity before
he/she should accept a piece of paper in lieu of cash.  This is
an identity problem, not a privacy problem.  That merchant is not
trying to find out what you do, but who you are.

There are many true abuses of this identity information.  Mailing
lists are the most common and least worrisome.  People living
alternative lifestyles are most at risk, but I do not want to see
freedom eventually lost by erosion of privacy.  True freedom must be
protected, and I admit that privacy/anonymity are blurry at the
edges and overlap quite a bit.

I often get the impression that those who plan to break the law
are the ones attacking identification under the shield of privacy.
Anonymity helps those who break the law.  The bombing of PG&E
power stations however, does NOT automatically give the FBI the
authorization to take down every license plate at an Earth First
rally.  But if Earth First literature was found at the scene,
then the line gets vague.  And further, should the FBI be restricted
from doing what any citizen could do?

In cyberspace, and our daily lives as they take on aspects of it,
these discussions often also hinge on the definition of private.
Courts have said your phone is private, unless they don't want it
to be (taps), or it would be too costly (encrypting of cell calls).
In my mind, your phone is thus NOT private.  Email is even grayer,
and I'm sure will turn out just as private as your phone.  (None!)

Perhaps the need is for a law that information given for the purpose
of identification not be released without permission.  The selling of
mailing lists was never officially authorized by law or discussed in
Congress, it just started.  I would like to see it stopped.

I could go on, but this should seed some discussion.

Card carrying member of the ACLU.
But then again, I'm still getting older...


jim hunt@Eng.Sun.COM		yatta yatta disclaimer
George Bush is 68 years old and Dan Quayle is an idiot.
In '96, George Bush will be 72 and Dan Quayle will still be an idiot.