Assessing AnonymousCommunication onthe Internet: Policy Deliberations RobKling and Y a-chingLee Centerfor SocialInformatics, Indiana University ,Bloomington,Indiana, USA Al Teich andMark S.Frankel AmericanAssociation for theAdvancement of Science,W ashington,DC, USA same time,anonymity can facilitate socially unaccept- Anonymouscommunication on theInternet offers new opportu- ableor even criminal activities because of the dif® cul- nitiesbut hasill-understood risks. This articlehelps to ground the tiesin holding anonymous users accountable.Because of policydebates by examining some fundamental aspects of anony- thecomplex interaction of social conventions, legal tra- moussocial behavior and currentcontroversies over anonymous ditions,and technological designs the policy issues asso- communications.It is a companionto the article in thisissue, ciatedwith the regulation of anonymous communications ªAnonymousCommunication Policies for the Internet: Results ontheInternet have some importantnuances. This article and Recommendationsof theAAAS Conference.ºIt examinesthe examinessome ofthenuances behind the policy debates. socialcharacter of anonymouscommunication and theways that anonymouscommunication has played important roles for profes- sionalssuch asjournalistsand thepolice. It alsoexplains some of the AAASPROJECT ON ANONYMOUS new technologicalsupports for anonymous communication on the COMMUNICATIONON THEINTERNET Internet.The openness,decentralization, and transnationalchar- TheAmerican Association for the Advancement of Sci- acterof the Internet challenge the ef® cacy of traditional control ence(AAAS), with funding by theNational Science Foun- mechanismsand haveraised issues related to accountability,law dation(NSF), conducted a projectto examineonline ano- enforcement,security and privacy,governmental empowerment, nymityand identify criteria for judging the desirability and e-commerce.Y et,to ban orrestrict all anonymous communi- 1 cationonline because of theharms it could bring would denyits ofanonymousand pseudonymous communications. The bene® tsto those people who maylegitimately gain from it. This goalsof theAAASprojectwere to developan understand- articlehelps to understand how tobalance these positions. ingof anonymouscommunication on theInternet, to de- termineif and how it might be possible to facilitate so- ciallydesirable uses ofanonymouscommunication while Keywords anonymity,CMC, email,encryption, information policy, limitingundesirable ones, and to develop policy recom- Internet,privacy, professional communication mendationsfor implementing these ideas. Theproject consisted of fourcore activities: TheInternetprovides new opportunities for anonymous communicationÐopportunities to make political claims 1.AAAS conductedan online survey inthesummer of andnon-political comments, engage in whistle-blowing, 1997togather information from Internet users about performcommercial transactions, and conduct personal theirexperiences with anonymity and pseudonymity correspondencewithout disclosing one’ sidentity.At the online.2 2. Five focus groups wereconducted in the summer of1997to examine experiences and views regarding Addresscorrespondence to RobKling, Indiana University, School theuses ofanonymity in differentsettings off-lineÐ ofLibrary and Information Science, Main Library, 10th and Jordan, lawenforcement, journalism, counseling and sup- Room012, Bloomington, IN 47405-1801.E-mail: [email protected] portservices, whistleblowing, human rightsÐ and TheInformation Society, 15:79± 90, 1999 Copyright c 1999T aylor& Francis 0197-2243/° 99$12.00 + .00 79 80 R.KLING ETAL. tosee whatlessons mightbe learned for use DIMENSIONSOF ANONYMOUS online. COMMUNICATION 3.In November 1997, AAASconvenedan invitational GaryMarx (1999) enumerates seven elements of personal conference inIrvine,CA. Participants were drawn identi®cation: fromthe computingindustry, including Internet ser- viceproviders, network administrators, and provid- 1. Legal name:Alegalname involves a person’strue ers ofªanonymizingºservices; thelegal community, identityand may be connectedto biological, social, includinglaw enforcement; professional societies; andother information. academicinstitutions; and human rights groups, to 2. Locatability :If aperson’saddress is known,he or discuss uses ofanonymous communication on the she canbe locatedand reached. Internet.3 Themeetingwas organizedin part around 3. Traceablepseudonymity or pseudo-anonymity : fourcommissioned papers that were intended to fo- Apersonusing a pseudonymthat can be linkedback cus andfoster conference discussions: tothat person or hisor her address underrestricted conditions.In the case ofInternetcommunications, · ªTechnicalDimensions, ºbyPeter W ayner, onlineservices actas anintermediary and allow par- ConsultingEditor, BYTE Magazine; ticipantsto use pseudonymsin BBS orchatrooms. · ªEthicaland Social Dimensions,º by Gary Theonline services retaina recordof eachperson’ s Marx,W oodrowWilson International Center identi®cation. forScholars and Director of the Center for 4. Untraceablepseudonymity :Apersonusing a pse- theSocial Study of InformationTechnology, udonymwhich cannot be linked back to that per- Universityof Coloradoat Boulder; sonor his or heraddress byintermediaries because · ªLegalIssues inAnonymity and Pseudo- ofprotective policies or the inability to trace. In nymity,ºbyMichael Froomkin, Associate thecase ofInternet communication, people using Professor ofLaw at the University of Miami pseudonymscan make their identities untraceable Law School; throughchain mailing and encryption remailer ser- · ªCommercialDimensions, ºbyDonna vices(e.g., Mixmaster). Hoffman,Associate Professor ofManage- 5. Patternknowledge :Apersoncan be identi® ed by ment,and Co-Director of Project 2000 at referenceto hisor herª appearanceor behaviorpat- theOwen Graduate School of Management, terns.ºPersons makinganonymous postings can be VanderbiltUniversity . knownby thecontent and style of theirmessages. 6. Social categorization :Apersoncan be identi®ed bysocialcategories, such as gender,age, class, em- Revisedversions of thesearticles appear in thisissue ployment,and religion. of TheInformation Society . 7. Symbolsof eligibility /non-eligibility :Apersoncan beidenti®ed byher possession of knowledge(pass- 4.Following the conference, in the summer andfall words,codes) or artifacts(tattoos, uniforms) as an of1998,AAAS staff, in collaboration with several eligibleor ineligibleperson. conferenceparticipants, developed and tested sev- eral case scenarios onanonymity /pseudonomityfor Anonymouscommunication is afeatureof socialrelation- educationaluse. The cases willsoon be postedon the shipsand encompasses severaldimensions: WorldWide W ebat http: //www.aaas.org /spp/anon/ 1. Relational:Anonymouscommunication is relatio- nalas itinvolves at leasttwo parties, sender(s) and Thisarticle distills and elaborates on the discussions receiver(s).There may or may not be anintermedi- atthe AAAS Conference, on data generated by the on- aryacting as alinkbetween these two parties, and linesurvey ,andon information gleaned from the project’s theintermediary may know or maynot knowthe true focusgroups. It begins by de®ning some keydimensions identi®cation of thesender (Marx, 1999). ofanonymityand then describes the technologies that en- 2. Con®dentiality :Anonymouscommunications, full ableanonymous communication on the Internet. This is orpartial, can be con® dential. Con® dentiality in- followedby an overview of the advantages and disad- volvesthe sharing of informationwith the expecta- vantagesof anonymous /pseudonymouscommunications, tionthat it will not be revealed to third parties, or asummaryof policy issues relatedto the regulation of thatit willbe revealedonly under restricted circum- suchcommunications, a comparativelook at the control stances (Marx,1999). Con® dentiality is aformof ofonline versus of¯ine communications, and a set of anonymity.Forexample, it is commonfor journal- conclusions. ists touse anonymousinformants. The identities of ASSESSING ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATION ONTHE INTERNET 81 theinformantsare con®dential, but are knownto the usedto gleaninformation about network communications, journalists. evenwhen the contents of thecommunicationsthemselves 3. Pseudonymity :Pseudonymouscommunication in- are encrypted(Dif® e &Landau,1998, p. 35± 38). For ex- volvesthe use ofapenname, symbol, or anickname. ample,if aremaileris knownto process incomingmes- Peoplewho use theInternet can have one or many sages andsend them on immediately,it isasimplematter pseudonymsthat allow for the continuityof identity toconnectthe source of agivenincoming message with andthe creation of anonlinepersonality (Froomkin, thedestination of the next outgoing message. Also,be- 1995a).Sometimes an individual can establish a rep- cause messages differin size,they can be tracedand dis- utationover time based on his or hercommunica- tinguishedby size (Cottrell,1996a). Traf® c analysisis par- tionswithout disclosing his or her actual identity ticularlyeffective when the identity of thecommunicants, (Froomkin,1995a). ratherthan the content of thecommunication, is desired.To 4. Pseudo-anonymity :Pseudo-anonymityresults counterthese methods of detection,certain remailers (e.g., whena personopens an account with a remailer Mixmaster)reorder the packets of networktraf® c andmake serviceprovider and chooses or isassigneda pseudo- themall the same size. 4 nym.Only theremaileroperator can link the pseudo- Theadvantage of usingchained remailers is thateach nymto