In yet another attempt by the government to crack down on the evil and dirty internet it looks like they want to put an end to online anonymity. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140729/10593428044/uk-government-report-recommends-ending-online-anonymity.shtml Is there a need for people to identify themselves before opening accounts, do people actually use anonymity to commit crimes online ? Is it even workable ?
And of course people of criminal intent will always use their real name when signing up to a website. And it's not like websites can already record IP addresses at sign-up and dump cookies all over people's browsers to track them for advertising purposes. I would mock the HoL's stupidity, but there's so much of it I don't know where to start...
To answer your questions.... 1. Is there a need? That comes down to interpretation I think. As a lawmaker and an enforcer of the law, the logical answer would be yes. But that creates other problems which are harder to answer, IMO. 2. Do people use it to commit crimes? Obviously. 3. Is it workable? Nah, I don't think this is practical in the slightest, so it will probably never reach the light of day. I can't fault their logic - if something is made illegal and thus prosecutable, then it is only appropriate that there is a method to ensure justice can be upheld when these crimes are committed. The House of Lords have just immediately assumed the easiest way to do this. The last sentence: ...highlights that they have not considered the implication of their suggestions yet, but are clearly aware that those implications are significant. This is simply a message pointing out that that some sort of method of establishing identity to prevent the crimes in question needs to be there. From a technical perspective, asking website owners to verify is probably the only straightforward way, as tracing data via ISPs is full of holes and flaws. This is in no way a path to this actually happening, it's just a notice regarding the huge flaw in the current part of the law. Anonymity will overrule, in my view. Despite the flak they get, the majority of the House of Lords are genuinely rational people.
I disagree that it's a flaw in the law. In theory the law can arrange it so that the opportunity or likelihood of crime is very small indeed --there just would not be any privacy or personal freedoms left, or proportional punishment. At some point a balance needs to be struck; if we aspire to a society where people have a modicum of adult autonomy, then we have to have a modicum of trust.
Agreed, I probably used that term too strongly; I should really rephrase it to say that it is what the HoL view as a flaw in the application of that specific law.
Yes, but taking away our anonymity will just make it easier to target us in crimes, because far too many will have access to our real info unlike now with limited anonymity where its mostly just law enforcement that can track us down.
I'm guessing they would (if this ever came to pass) require more than just the persons real name, they would probably want to tie the online account to something like a credit card, with an address, obviously this would be open to abuse, hacking, and the prying eyes of government bodies (GCHQ, NSA). Sorry maybe I'm showing my lack of understanding of online crimes but briefly could you say why THoL may think there is a need, or why you do ? I know things like TOR can be used to commit online crimes, phishing, Ugandan lottery scams, and other type of nefarious goings on, but I'm not aware of crimes that get committed by people who have an account with online services. Wouldn't the service provider just ban, or close the account ? Sorry for my ignorance. See above, it's not obvious to me. Don't go into details (for obvious reason) but the only thing that springs to mind is the anonymity afforded to people who use P2P file sharing sites, if it's just for the likes of those i can't see them complying if this recommendation ever did come to pass. Let's hope so. Is it still not chilling to hear talk of ending online anonymity ? Especially when taken in the context of other changes over the last few years, NSA GCHQ spying, data retention, RIPA, internet filters, right to be forgotten, care.data, the list goes on. Not only that, but also it would make it easier to track down those annoying whistle blowers, we can't have anonymous people leaking governmental goings on.
Apart from the fact that criminals could still just use a stolen CC with fake ID, people will never go for it (especially after having had it drummed into them for years never to give out personal details) and CC companies would also turn white at the security risks of people giving out their number to any ol' website out there. Those without CC would also be unable to sign up (read: young people). For social networking websites it would be commercial suicide. Passport? Social Security number? Same issues apply. And of course a website now would be legally responsible under the Data Protection Act to keep all this info secure. No website is going to accept that burden. I really don't see how a website could verify that you are really you at sign-up. Moreover if this applies to UK websites only, foreign-based websites will instantly get a competitive advantage for not requiring this. And then there is a creative community lf hackers who will no doubt find a way around the whole thing.
I think most social media sites, twitbook et al already have age restrictions in place, not sure but i think it's 13 or something, not that it means much. And since when has the government be worried about the commercial implications or giving a competitive advantage to foreign-based companies ? Do they care that the internet filters cause some web sites to lose revenue, do they care that any company providing data communications to UK citizens could potentially lose business because of the recently rushed though data retention law ? It's also not a matter of if a web site would accept that burden, they would be forced by law (if something like this came to pass) to accept it, and i dare say the government would use our taxes to compensate them. Much in the same way as it uses our taxes to compensate ISPs for implementing data retention and the infrastructure needed for intercepting our communications (warrant permitting).
I don't personally think there is a need, as the additional problems that solving that need creates have far greater (and worse) implications, in my opinion. The House of Lords are stating that "Right, we have these crimes defined by these laws, which we know are happening because of this evidence. Right now we cannot find out who is committing those crimes easily because of online anonymity. Therefore it's logical that if we have a crime defined by this law, it seems appropriate and proportionate to expect some sort of method to bring these criminals to justice. The obvious answer is removing the anonymity." Extremely trolling, cyber bullying, threatening behaviour on social networks, extorting money out of people if they have sent nude videos/pictures (this happens way more than you would think), catfishing money out of people, people selling fake goods on a forum like this one (fortunately we are not victim to it very often but it happens a lot), eBay fraud, the list goes on. Yes, it is chilling, but as I mentioned, it's so impractical that I'm not worried about it in the slightest. The internet has an interesting way of evolving and overcoming issues (think bit-torrent once the original P2P networks like Napster, Kazaa etc became problematic), so even if the government bods do attempt it, there will be a workaround soon enough.
And there in lies the problem with such a "recommendation" it's not like the behaviour is impossible to detect, as The House of Lords are stating. Removing online anonymity would just make it easier for law enforcement, as mentioned in the techdirt article... ... The equivalent to extreme trolling, cyber bullying, and threatening behaviour on social networks also happens in real life, only the consequences can be much worse, yet we don't force people to carry ID cards, or identify themselves upon request. Sure if someone has beaten another person, or threatened them the police can ask for the perpetrators name but that doesn't mean he has to provide it, or that he won't give false details causing the police to do extra work. Catfishing, blackmail, selling fake goods, and fraud all happen in real life as well yet as above we don't force people to carry ID cards, if law enforcement need to identify a criminal there are other methods that don't involve infringing on everyone's civil liberties. Impracticability didn't stop them when it came to the internet filters, or the right to be forgotten, or the data retention law that was said to be contradictory and unworkable in 2003.
This is the problem when people who are out of touch with the modern world, but don't think they are, make the rules. How can they legislate on something they know nothing about? Of course they can have committees make recommendations but that's assuming their ego doesn't then get in the way. An analogy would be me deciding on the best use for the LHC. Even if you explained everything to me the amount of technical jargon and pre-required knowledge would mean that I would still really have no idea about how good the decision I was making was.
I'm not trying to argue or justify their point, by the way, I was only answering your questions to me.
As the closure of Silk Road and the arrest of its owner nicely demonstrated, law enforcement can already track you down no matter how hard you try to hide. Which leads me to assume the claims law enforcement needs anonymity to be removed is nothing more than a excuse to further erode privacy.
For once we agree! Indeed. Anyone can click the "I am over 13" button. That is small fry. If companies like, say, Dennis Publishing lose money however or are motivated to take their web hosting abroad, then you may see some business lobbying taking place in the halls of Westminster. Unless said companies take their web hosting abroad. And the government is known for not paying generously unless it really has to --if it's made law, it is not made profitable. As julianmartin says: there is just no way this is ever going to work.
