助成

Institute forInternational Policy Studies
・Tokyo・

IIPS International Conference“The IT Revolution and the Transformation of Society”

Tokyo
November 5-6, 2003

“Internet Anonymity as a Reflection of Broader Issues
Involving Technology and Society”
By
Prof. Gary MarxProfessor Emeritus of Sociology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Internet Anonymity as a Reflection of Broader Issues
Involving Technology and Society*
It’s a remarkable piece of apparatus.
F. Kafka, “The Penal Colony”
Gary T. Marx, M.I.T.
I am honored to be at the Institute for International Policy Studies meeting and forthe chance to share ideas with, and to learn from, a distinguished international group ofcolleagues about phenomena that have done, and are doing, so much to transform oursocieties. The hurricane of social change being wrought by information technology canbe viewed as among the great transformations of civilization, along with the developmentof permanent agricultural communities, urbanization, and industrialization.
Yet it is also important to ask how social and cultural factors effect the forms andprocesses of information technology, especially across cultures and time periods. We
must avoid the reductionist trap of technological determinism involving the failure toappreciate the extent to which human choices in turn effect technical forms and impacts.
I am a sociologist who for several decades has been studying the social impacts of
information technology, particularly as these involve questions of privacy, anonymity,
confidentiality, identity, civil liberties, surveillance, crime, deviance and social control.
Much of this work is summarized in a web page: garymarx.net .
In this short period I will say a bit about anonymity and information technology. I
will use this topic to illustrate some more general conclusions about why issues of
information technology and society are so very complicated and do not lendthemselves to easy solutions, nor support the rhetoric of technophiles who optimisticallyview information technology as the solution to societal problems, nor the technophobes
who pessimistically view it as the source of societal problems.
The topic is complicated because 1) the elements or variables are multidimensional and contextual 2) there are enduring value/goal conflicts and often a lack ofclarity with respect to what abstract values mean and how they should be prioritized and3) there are ironic trends and counter-trends and unintended consequences. The field is
fluid with new opportunities and problems ever emerging. Solving one problem maycreate another in an endless dialectical dynamic.
I will summarize 5 topics related to these questions from a much larger body ofwork.1 The topics are 1) some types and contexts of anonymity 2) some values supportingand opposing anonymity in communication and some broader value conflicts within
which these fit 3) some trends and counter trends involving information technology andsociety as this relates to personal information. 4) some techno-fallacies of theinformation age and 5) some principles to guide the setting of policy as this involves
personal information and surveillance.
__• Remarks prepared for conference on “The IT Revolution and the Transformation ofSociety” Tokyo, Nov. 2003, Institute for International Policy Studies.

A. Types and Contexts of Anonymity
First we can make problematic the question of anonymous with respect to what?
The dictionary defines anonymous as “not named or identified”. Thus the issue more
broadly involves the availability or unavailability of a variety of kinds of information that
may be known or identified about persons. Nine descriptive types of information about
individuals which may be revealed or concealed can be noted. (Marx, forthcoming).
These are:2

1. Individual identification [the who question]
2. Shared identification [the typification question]
3.Geographical/Locational [the where, and beyond geography, how to reach question]
4.Temporal [the when question]
5. Networks and relationships [the who else question]
6. Objects [the whose is it question]
7. Behavioral [the what happened question]
8. Beliefs, attitudes, emotions [the inner or backstage and presumed “real” person
question]
9. Measurement Characterizations (predictions, potentials) [the kind of person question,
predict your future question]
Table 1 offers examples of these concepts. Table 2 offers a different, more
abstract approach in considering factors that may cut through these descriptive forms,
uniting the seemingly dissimilar and separating the seemingly similar shown. With
respect to these categories the absence of anonymity and the involuntary revelation of
personal information becomes more problematic the more the values on the left side of
the table are present.
I hypothesize that other factors being equal when anonymity or non-revelation areappropriate but not honored there is an additive effect and the more the values on the left
side of the table are present, the greater the perceived wrong in the collection of personal
information. The worst possible cases involve a core identity, a locatable person, andinformation that is personal, intimate, sensitive, stigmatizing, strategically valuable,
extensive, biological, naturalistic and predictive and reveals deception, is attached to theperson, and involves an enduring and unalterable documentary record.
One Size Does Not Fit All

Beyond the above types and dimensions, regarding personal information, judgements
will vary depending on:
1. types of communicator/recipient (children and other dependents, responsible andirresponsible adults, law enforcers, persons vulnerable to retribution for reporting
wrong-doing, those seeking information vs. those from whom information issought, sending information/communication vs. receiving it)
2. the structure of communication (one-on-one, one-to-many, many-to-one andreciprocal or non-reciprocal, real or stale time, moderated and unmoderated
groups)3. types of activity (browsing, requesting information, posting bulletin boards, Email, discussion groups)
4. content/goals (games, self-help groups, hot lines, commerce, politics, science,protecting the sender of a communication or the recipient)
5. the national and cultural borders that communication invisibly crosses and typesof response (prohibit, require, optional but favor or disfavor, laws, policies,
manners). Even if one could agree on a policy regarding computer related
anonymity, there is no central world net authority to implement it and technicallydoing this would be difficult.
B. Rationales For and Against Anonymity
The public policy questions raised by technologies for collecting personal
information are more controversial than many other issues such as ending poverty anddisease. In those cases the conflict involves asking "how" rather than "why". The
questions raised by the concealment and revelation of personal information are like somerelationships in which persons can not live with each other, but neither can they live apart.
The issue becomes under what conditions do they co-exist? So it is with anonymity andidentifiability. There are existential dilemmas and in many cases we are sentenced to alife of trade-offs.
I often ask my students what society would be like if there was absolutetransparency and no individual control over personal information --if everything that
could be known about a person was available to anyone who wanted to know. Conversely
what would society be like if there was absolute opaqueness such that nothing could beknown about anyone except what they chose to reveal. The absolute anonymity vs.
absolute identifiability is a strand of this. Both of course would be impossible and equally
unlivable, but for different reasons. To have to choose between repression and anarchy ishardly a choice between a pillow and a soft place.
The hopeful Enlightenment notion that with knowledge problems will be solved
holds more clearly for certain classes of physical and natural science questions than formany social questions. Certainly those who live by the pursuit of truth dare not rain onthat parade. Yet there is a difference between knowledge as providing answers, as against
wisdom. Current debates over anonymity and identifiability in electronic communications
would greatly benefit if better data were available, but the issue would not disappear
because the value conflicts and varied social and psychological pressures remain.

A cartoon image nicely captures this -- we see a tanker truck with a sign on theback which says, "the scientific community is divided about this stuff. Some think it ishazardous. Some don't." So it is with this issue. The divisions do not reflect ignorance,
stupidity, ill-will and evil on one side and empirical truth, wisdom, benevolence andrighteousness on the other. Rather they reflect varying degrees of empirical truth on bothsides and differing value priorities. Being able to disentangle these is vital for our
understanding and for developing policy. Let us consider the values and goals question.
Among the most common justifications for full or partial anonymity:
1. to facilitate the flow of information and communication on public issues.
2. to obtain personal information for research in which persons are assumed not towant to give publicly attributable answers or data.
3. to encourage attention to the content of a message or behavior, rather than to thenominal characteristics of the messenger which may detract from that.
4. to encourage reporting, information seeking, communicating, sharing and selfhelp for conditions that are stigmatizing and/or which can put the person at a
strategic disadvantage or are simply very personal.
5. to obtain a resource or encourage a condition using means that involve illegality
or are morally questionable, but in which the goal sought is seen as the lesser evil.
6. to protect donors of a resource, or those taking action seen as necessary but
unpopular from subsequent obligations, demands, labeling, entanglements or
retribution.
7. to protect strategic economic interests, whether as a buyer or a seller.
8. to protect one's time, space and person from unwanted intrusions.
9. to increase the likelihood that judgements and decision-making will be carried out
according to designated standards and not personal characteristics deemed to beirrelevant. A well known cartoon of two computer literate dogs captures this, as
one says to the other, “on the internet no one knows you’re a dog.”
10. to protect reputation and assets.
11. to avoid persecution.
12. to enhance rituals, games, play and celebrations.
13. to encourage experimentation and risk taking without facing
large consequences, risk of failure or embarrassment.
14. to protect personhood or "it's none of your business".
15. traditional expectations.
A consideration of contexts and rationales where anonymity is permitted or
required must be balanced by a consideration of the opposite. The rationales here seem
simpler, clearer and less disputed. While there are buffers and degrees of identification,
the majority of interactions of any significance or duration tilt toward identification of atleast some form.
Central to many of the contexts where some form of identifiability is required wefind the following rationales:
1. to aide in accountability.
2. to judge reputation.

3. To pay dues or receive just deserts.
4. to aide efficiency and improve service.
5. to determine bureaucratic eligibility --to vote, drive a car, fix the sink, cut hair, dosurgery, work with children, collect benefits, enter or exit (whether national
borders, bars or adult cinemas).
6. to guarantee interactions that are distanced or mediated by time and space.
7. to aide research (links to other types of personal data and longitudinal data).
8. to protect health and consumers.
9. to aid in relationship building.
10.to aid in social orientation.
The value conflicts involving anonymity and identifiability are nestled within abroader set of information and societal value conflicts.
Value Conflicts
There are enduring value conflicts and ironic, conflicting needs and consequences
which make it difficult to take broad and consistent positions regarding the revelation orconcealment of personal information as this involves information technology.
For example we value both the individual and the community. We want bothliberty and order. We seek privacy and often anonymity, but we also know that secrecy
can hide dastardly deeds and that visibility can bring accountability. But too muchvisibility may inhibit experimentation, creativity and risk taking.
In our media-saturated societies we want to be seen and to see, yet also to be left alone.
Note the desire to reveal as seen in popular talk shows and celebrity tell-all books andpublic relations activities.
We value freedom of expression and a free press but do not wish to see
individuals defamed or harassed. We desire honesty in communication and also civility
and diplomacy. We value the right to know, but also the right to control personal
information. The broad universalistic treatment citizens expect may conflict with theefficiency driven, specific treatment made possible by fine-honed personal surveillancedata. The expectation that one should be judged as an individual and in context may
conflict with the greater rationality and predictive success believed to be found in
responding to aggregates.
Many discussions between those who look optimistically at information
technology as the solution and those who view it as the problem reflect Rudyard
Kipling’s tale about blind persons and the elephant, in which each observer offers aplausible identification for one part of the elephant (e.g., the tail as rope). That is alegitimate goal or social trend is identified but others confounding ones are ignored ordenied.
C. Some Trends and Counter Trends
Let me locate changes in anonymity alongside of a number of other social
developments that suggest issues for social research and which make broad and unitarysocial and moral assessments challenging.

Central to these developments are the continuing very rapid changes in datacollection, storage and analysis. Through 2003, processing speeds had doubled every 18
months and storage capacities had doubled every year. (Privacy in the Information Age,
National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming)
Means of data analysis once restricted to governments and the largest
organizations are available on a much wider scale to smaller organizations andindividuals. Diverse kinds and sources of data are increasingly woven into a network.
Computing is becoming ubiquitous and automated with sensors that passively read andsend (with no action required on the part of the actor) remote signals to the internet andelsewhere, are increasingly found in objects (e.g., computing and communications
devices, switches, groceries, cars, tools, weapons, clothes), persons and environments(roads, walls, doors). Through a “value-added” model the aggregation and analysis ofdata collected in varying formats and for varying purposes in turn creates new data andmodels. More information is also available for analysis because ever more is being kept
rather than culled. It is now less expensive to store information than to discard it.
Given such changes, among trends that many see as worrisome and actually, or
potentially, threatening traditional values of democratic societies:
1
2

3

4

5

6

the decline of anonymity. The ability to be unnoticed has declined
significantly, although this is not the same as being uniquely known.
making the meaningless meaningful. Once noticed the ability to remain
unidentified, whether by core identity, or some other specific measure has
declined.
colonization of time, space and physical borders. Whether voluntarily or
involuntarily on the subject’s part, the ability to discover and track the varied
forms of individual information in real time across physical barriers, locations
and over time has significantly increased.
increased validity (if still far from ideal for many purposes). When correctly
applied, current core identification technologies show a high degree ofvalidity relative to the cruder bodily measurement and eye witness techniquesof the 19th century. Validity and understanding of current empirical events,
competencies and experiences on the average is stronger than for those in thepast and the latter in turn tend to have a greater validity than for future
predictions. This factor has mixed consequences but the specter of unseen
control is a concern.
category expansion. There is a significant expansion of ways of measuring
and classifying individuals and contexts and these are retrospective, as well as
prospective. These abstract characterizations that symbolize personal
characteristics involve behavior as well as presumed essence (whether
physiological or moral). These often are, but need not necessarily be, attached
to a core identity. These involve greater precision with respect to traditional
measures, as well as composite measures that are increasingly removed fromthe “natural” relatively uncomplex factors which composed personal
information prior to, and even during industrialization.
The merging of previously compartmentalized data. The ability to be known

7

8

9

about as a result of combining indicators has significantly increased.
Apart from technical developments that permit involuntarily collecting
personal information, there has been a major expansion of laws, policies
and procedures mandating that individuals provide information. Whether
related to effectiveness, crises, or fairness, access to participation in modern
life (voting, government benefits, employment, building or gated community
access etc.) increasingly requires some form of identity validation.
the integration of life activities with the generation of personal data. We
increasingly live in ways that automatically provide personal information aspart of the activity –i.e., the use of credit cards, communication and driving.
the blurring of lines between public and private places makes personal
information more available. Note the privatization of places traditionally seen
as “public” such as shopping malls and industrial parks (with legal means ofcollecting personal information). Or consider the blurring of the lines between
home and work and the merging of public and private data bases and theability of technologies to reveal some aspects of what is within a private space
without the need to literally enter it, e.g., thermal imaging or cameras in pubic
places that aimed at private places. Other examples are the availability of web
and related searches in finding and merging personal information that had
been de facto private because of spatial and temporal separation and thepresumed ability to learn about non-consenting individuals by generalizing
from those sharing attributes who voluntarily provide the information (e.g.,
focus groups).

These trends suggest the familiar no where to run, tightening of the noose,decline of private space, privatization of public space, Leviathan all-knowing political,
commercial and even interpersonal State of the dystopic imagination. Yet however
powerful as an indicator of a social trend and as a raiser of consciousness, this view must
be tempered by noting opposing developments.
The current situation is dynamic and rapidly changing. Some opposing trends
involving the ironic vulnerabilities of any system of control, as well as broader historical
trends can be seen. Among some counter trends:
1) increased freedom of choice. Individuals in some ways are freer both morally andtactically to make or remake themselves than ever before. Some identities that
historically tended to be largely inherited such as social status or religion canmore easily be changed. Other identities have become culturally more legitimate,such as divorce and homosexuality, out of wedlock birth, adoption, with asubsequent decline in traditional stigmas and the need to be protective of certain
kinds of information.3 Even seemingly permanent physical attributes such as
gender, height, body shape or facial appearance can be altered, whether byhormones or surgery or beauty parlors. The ultimate is the emerging technology
of total face transplants.Television “make over” shows and self-altering products
reflect related strands of this. These developments reflect the emergence of amore protean self and the self as a commodity and an object to be worked on, justas one would work on a plot of land or carve a block of wood. Identities in some

ways are becoming relatively less unitary, homogeneous, fixed and enduring, as
the modernist idea of being able to choose who we are continues to expand, alongwith globalization processes. This is aided by the expansion of non-face-to-faceinteraction.42) new opportunity structures for exercising choice. The distance mediatedinteraction of cyberspace which calls forth new means of authentication also
opens up a vast potential for offering various forms of alternative or prevaricatedindividual information. Cyberspace as play (e.g., internet service providers
offering on-line aliases and fantasy chat rooms) encourages this.
3) new functional alternatives to core identity. The absolute number and relative
importance of non-core forms of identity offering varying degrees of anonymity
has increased. There is a significant expansion in the variety of pseudonymous
certification mechanisms intended to mask or mediate between the individual's
name and location, yet still convey needed information. As more and more actions
are remotely tracked in cyberspace (e.g., phone communication, highway travel,
consumer transactions) the pseudonym will become an increasingly common andaccepted form of presenting the self for particular purposes (whether as a unique
individual or as a member of a particular category). A cartoon showing a talking
bird who speaks but only anonymously illustrates this.
4) enhanced chances for neutralization. Beyond the expansion of life style/identity
choices we see the ironic emergence of markets for counter-surveillance offeringa vast array of methods to protect individual information, whether by blocking,distorting, deceiving or destroying the surveillance means. Much of thisrepresents a righteous response to the creeping or galloping expropriation of
personal information, yet some also represents new opportunity structures forviolation. The ease of presenting fraudulent identities divorced from thetraditional constraints of localism and place and time is central to crimes ofidentity theft.
5) significant improvements in technologies for protecting individual information.
With encryption there is the potential for a degree of confidentiality incommunication, and enhanced accountability and data protection never before
seen. Technologies and services for protecting personal information are
increasingly available, from shredders to home security systems to various
software and privacy protection services.
6) new normative protections and awareness. There has been a significant
expansion of laws, policies and manners that limit and regulate the collection of
personal information and its subsequent treatment. There has been some growth inchoice and opt-in systems. This ties to the broader 20th century expansions ofcivil liberties and civil rights, as well as to particular crises. Whether these go far
enough, are effective, and how they compare across institutions and cultures areimportant research questions.
These opposing trends work against sweeping generalizations beyond this one
against sweeping statements. Considered together some of the above developments are
ironic and contradictory, I take this as a sign of reality's ability to overflow our either/or
categories and the need to avoid simplistic theorizing, as well as the need for empiricalresearch.
Let me move from the above considerations which reflect my views as anempirical scientist to some ideas more explicitly reflecting both data and values to inform
policy.
Scholars can endlessly debate these questions. But those setting policy must act.
What can an academic analysis such as the above offer? Awareness and vigilance andself-reflection is one answer! We must be mindful of the cultural backgroundassumptions (both empirical and normative) that like icebergs lurk beneath the surface of
our taken-for-granted worlds. We can also offer ideas as buoys or channels to direct
policy.
D. Some Information Age Techno-Fallacies
In listening to the rhetoric around information technology and society I often hearthings that, given my knowledge and values, sound wrong, much as a musician hears notesthat are off key. Table 3 identifies a number "information age techno-fallacies" .
Beliefs may be fallacious in different ways. Some are empirically false or illogical,
and with appropriate evidence and argument, persons of good will holding diverse
political perspectives and values can agree that they are fallacious. Others are normative
statements and will be seen as fallacies only when there is disagreement about the values,
or value priorities on which they are based.
However the reasons for a normative position often involve empiricalassumptions, along with moralistic claims. For the social scientist in particular, it isimportant to identify and evaluate the former.
While it is possible to identify fallacies (as well as truths) unique to particular
information extractive tools and privacy contexts, my emphasis here is on fallacies thatcut across these. Related beliefs about technology can also be seen in other issues such as
those involving the environment, energy and transportation. 5

E. Principles to Inform Public Policy
Finally let me go beyond calling for increased awareness of these assumptions
and a call for empirical research and logical thought regarding them, to state some value
positions or principles which I, as both a scholar and a citizen, would like to see moreclearly reflected in our policies concerned with the social aspects of information policy.
Here I move from the role of the scholar and scientist to that of the partisan advocate.
An English expression holds that, “where you stand depends on where you sit.”
Certainly this social analysis reflects my own personal and national experiences. Crosscultural analysis of the social impacts of information technology is sorely lacking andvery needed. My comments refer to the situation in the United States. Yet I would
hypothesize that the values reflected in Table 3 and 4 speak to the highest ideals ofcontemporary democratic civilization and are consistent with the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights. In addition through globalization and international
convergence we see increased commonalties in social forms and impacts across societies.
The cross border and non-territorial aspects of cyber-space also add a universal element.

With respect to questions of ethics and policies for governing the collecting,storing, accessing, merging, analyzing and communicating personal information theprinciples in Table 4 are central.
Many of these were first expressed in the Code of Fair Information Practices
developed in 1973 for the U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare. They arealso now found in various European and Asian directives.
The 1973 Code offered a principle of informed consent in which the datacollection is not to be done in secret, individuals are to be made aware of how it will be
used, and where appropriate, consent to it; a principle of inspection and correction inwhich individuals are entitled to know what kind of information has been collected and tooffer corrections and emendations; a principle of data security in which the information
will be protected and precautions taken to prevent misuses of the data; a principle ofvalidity and reliability in which organizations have a responsibility to insure theappropriateness of the means used and the accuracy of the data gathered and a principleof unitary usage in which information gathered for one purpose is not to be used foranother without consent.
As new information technologies, uses, and problems have appeared, additional
principles have emerged. These include a sanctity of the individual and dignity principle
in which there are limits (even with consent) on the taking, volunteering andcommodification of personal information; a golden rule principle in which those doing
the surveillance would agree to be the subjects of information gathering undercomparable circumstances; a principle of consistency such that broad ideals rather the
specific characteristics of a technology should govern surveillance practices; a principleof morality in which the fact that a tactic is legal is not sufficient justification for using itapart from broader ethical considerations; principles of relevance and of minimizationsuch that only information that is directly relevant and necessary for the task at hand isgathered (minimization refers to both the amount of information gathered and the
intrusiveness/invasiveness of the means); a principle of joint ownership of transactional
data such that both parties to a data creating transaction should agree to any subsequent
use of the data, including the sharing of benefits if appropriate; broadening of theprinciple of informed consent to favoring opting-in over opting out and a principle of codeterminiation, or at least consultation regarding policies; a principle of restoration suchthat in a communications monopoly context those altering the privacy status quo shouldbear the cost of restoring it; a safety net or equity principle such that a minimum
threshold of information protection should be available to all; a principle of equal
treatment such that surveillance deemed to be invasive, but appropriate, is applied to allmembers of an organization not just the least powerful members; a reciprocity orequivalence of tactics principle in which in situations of legitimate conflict of interest all
parties can use the same tactics; a principle of timeliness such that data are expected to be
current and information which is no longer timely should be destroyed; a principle of theperiodic review and evaluation of data collection policies as broadly defined; a principleof human review such that an automated decision is always subject to review by a person;a principle of redress such that those subject to inappropriate surveillance or unfairly hurt

by it have adequate mechanisms for discovering and being compensated for the harm; aless worse alternative means principle in which means are compared to each other and asometimes it is better to do nothing principle in which the consequences of inaction arecompared to those of action.
These principles can be stated in the form of questions to be asked about policy
development for a given area such as anonymity. In an earlier 1999 paper drawing on
many of the above principles, I suggested the questions found in table 5.
Certainly these principles cannot be automatically transferred to situations suchas those of public order and health, criminal investigations, national security and times ofcrisis. A central point of much sociological analysis is to call attention to the contextual
nature behavior. Yet common sense and common decency argue for the consideration ofthese principles, absent compelling circumstances.
Whatever action is taken there are likely costs, gains and trade-offs. At best we
can hope to find a compass rather than a map and a moving equilibrium rather than afixed point for decision making.
This article opens with a tongue-in-cheek statement by the novelist Kafka that a
new technology, “is a remarkable piece of apparatus.” This is from his short story, "ThePenal Colony” in which a correctional officer invents a very sophisticated machine forpunishing inmates. The story ends with the officer being killed by the machine hecreated.6 While it is premature, and perhaps even sacrilegious, to conclude that
information technology will destroy, rather than save us, Frankensteinian outcomes are
not always figments of the literary or psychoanalytic imagination. Research and vigilance
however may work against this.
1

In particular I draw from Marx, G. T., forthcoming, Windows Into the Soul:
Surveillance and Society in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press; and “Varieties of Personal Information as Influences on Attitudes Toward
Surveillance” forthcoming in R. Ericson and K. Haggerty (eds.) The New Politics ofSurveillance and Visibility, University of Toronto Press and various articles atgarymarx.net -- “What’s New About the New Surveillance?: Classifying for Change andContinuity,” Surveillance and Society. vol. 1, no. 1, 2002 (at www.surveillance-andsociety.org./ );“What’s in a Name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of Anonymity,”
The Information Society, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999; “An Ethics for the New Surveillance”.
The Information Society. Vol. 14, no. 3, 1998); “Murky Conceptual Waters: The Public
and the Private”, Ethics and Information Technology. Vol. 3, no. 3, 2001); “A Tack in the
Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 59,
no. 1, 2002).
2
One important distinction is between anonymity with respect to core biological identity(e.g., an individual as unique because he or she is born at a particular place and time as aresult of the biological uniting of two parents) as linked to a legal identity, as against
various other pseudonymous forms of identity such as a national identification number.
Pseudonyms may or may not be linked to a given name or location. Sometimes whatmatters is being able to locate an individual or authenticate some aspect of their identity,rather than literally knowing their core biological/legal identity. This may be for purposesof communication or to deny or grant some form of access or privilege.
3
Increased freedom of choice can exist with increased volume and intensity ofsurveillance. This is merely to suggest that the kinds of information individuals wish to
keep private changes with social and cultural change, not that the overall amount we wish
to conceal declines. That is an empirical question which must take into account theabsolute amount there is to be known about a person, a factor that has markedly increased
and continues to increase in recent centuries. New diagnostic means involving DNA andpredictive profiles for at risk individuals may create new forms of stigma. The case for a
relative increase in surveillance is dependent on the ratios of what there is to be knownof interest, what the technology is capable of and the actual extent of its application.
4
Sex change operations are at one extreme. But more common are the new identities
created through the increased intermarriage of ethnically, racially, religiously andnationally distinct groups. An increase in children of mixed marriages, those holding duocitizenship, immigration, tourism and communities in cyberspace illustrate this. New
categories for marginal, hybrid and anomalous groups will appear. As just one example
take the millions of Americans who, as products of a mixed marriage, consider
themselves both Christian and Jewish, White and Black or Asian and Hispanic.
5
See for example, on computers and society Wiener (1967) and Weizenbaum (1976) andfor the environment some of the aphorisms offered by Mander (1992). Many can be seenin discussions of modernism in general (e.g., the analysis in Beninger 1986 and Scott1998).
6

Note also Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story, “The Birthmark” in which an alchemist inseeking to successfully rid his wife of a small blemish accidentally kills her. The
operation was a success but the patient expired.