Value conflicts about anonymity on the internet
Value conflicts about anonymity on the internet
作者
李雅靖
中文摘要
英文摘要
Anonymous communications on the Internet have gained considerable attention recently. It is difficult to ask whether anonymous communication is good or bad -- in general. We must to examine various situations of anonymous communication. Policies about ways to encourage, allow, or restrict anonymity are based on specific values and there often conflicts. One way to focus these evaluations is to examine the kinds of social values by which any of these actions may be viewed as good or bad. This paper will first identify three value positions that underlie debates about anonymity: 1) Libertarian Model; 2) Privacy Enterprise Model; and 3) Statist Model. These help to identify the kinds of interests that easily align with different policies for regulating anonymous communication. Online anonymous communications and information transmission catalyze value conflicts in arenas of anonymous e-mail, anonymous browsing, traceable pseudonymity, and encryption. Across these arenas, there is a general alignment of Private Enterprise position and Libertarian position against the Statist position. If the Internet will become a pervasive marketing tool, the advocates of Private Enterprise positions and Libertarian position may find fewer common grounds than they do today. This paper distinguishes self-regulation of the Libertarians and self-regulation of Entrepreneurs, especially in regard to the privacy of people on the Internet. By self-regulation, business groups mean to set guidelines or policies to collect, maintain, and disseminate customers ’ personal information. They claim that individual benefits to easily access (advertising) information outweigh the loss of anonymity. Unfortunately, few business follow privacy guidelines based on Fair Information Practices. Self-regulation does not work for entrepreneurs because they are reluctant to carefully police and impose strong penalties on each other. "Self-regulation" has proven ineffective. By self-regulation, Libertarians support the ability of online communities to tailor their own guidelines for anonymous communication between their members. Many people are skeptical about the effectiveness of self-regulation because it is not legally binding nor properly enforced. However, the efforts to mitigate Internet anarchy through an exercise of responsibility do not eliminate the need for legal system for guidance. This is why the author of this article proposes that service operators should keep logs in case that the harmed parties complain and the law enforcement officials need to confront malicious originators of anonymous messages. In accordance with principles of human rights groups, the author take the stand of Libertarian Model and believe that individuals should have the rights to choose how, when, to whom, and what they want to communicate and read on the Internet. People also should have the rights to decide if they want to remain anonymous, use a pseudonym(s), use encryption, and reveal their identity. Only when civil liberties are maximized and people self-regulate by their own community norms that people can fully benefit from using the Internet without stifling the growth of online services and without placing an unfair economic burden on either providers or their users. This is the policy upon which the Internet will flourish for the benefit of the people.