aBlog

I can only conjecture that the reason for this allowance stems directly from the perceived unreliability of today's mind-probe techniques. All said, the polygraph is not a hundred percent reliable, and the public prosecutor's browbeat even less so. But what most of us don't realize is that in our acceptance of the admittedly inaccurate interrogation techniques we have set the precedent. With time, mind-probing techniques could get better. Polygraphs will become more accurate, and it is not inconceivable that in a hypothetical future world, there will exist humane and accurate mind mapping methods that play back the very memories a suspect hopes to conceal. Scarcely anyone would lift a finger in protest against this most intense intrusion of one's privacy.

Now I'm not arguing that even our humane interrogation techniques are immoral and therefore should be abolished. Nor am I calling for greater cooperation from web-site owners in sharing sensitive information with the government. I'm only pointing out the poignant inconsistency in people's perceptions of what is allowable and what is not. Indeed, it is a rather paradoxical inconsistency, for on the one hand we sometimes allow the system to probe what we cherish as our most private and sacred sanctuaries, but on the other, we clamor with our loudest voices when the same system attempts to investigate information on the Internet, arguably many times removed from our mind-cores!

The righteousness (or lack of it) of various investigative procedures is not my concern here. But I am interested in exploring what persons who are genuinely concerned about the loss of their privacy might do to thwart authoritarian attempts to invade it. After all, do we not assume that it is natural for a suspect to attempt concealment despite being badgered at the stand? And do we not think it reasonable that polygraph test takers have at least tried to learn techniques to beat it? Why else would we find so much humor in George Costanza's parting advice to Seinfeld, who has to take the polygraph to prove he doesn't like Melrose place? "Remember," he says "It's not a lie if you believe it." That is is the perfect analogue to wiping your tracks clean on the Internet. A probe will discover nothing.

So having said that, we now ask: Is it possible to have an absolutely anonymous Internet experience - a veritable no-strings-attached one-night-stand with your browser? I confess it scares me a little to know that there are people who might want this - I mean, concern for privacy and a desire to enjoy an unsnooped life by making it "hard" for people to track you is one thing. But going out of one's way to make it practically impossible to associate one's online activity with oneself is borderline creepy. Who would want to do this?

The fact, however, is that most people are at the other end of the spectrum. They are naive enough to not know even to clear their browser histories and cookies when they leave their stations. Over the last day or so, we quickly put together a website using entirely free resources on an old PC (Clearly, with more resources, the scope for tracking and profiling users is vastly greater). The page shows how much information about users is likely logged by all the websites they visit. (Mar 2009 - The page is no longer active after we let the domain name expire)

Having been in online advertising long enough and being aware as I am of the information that we unwittingly make available to humongously hungry hosts out there, I confess to still being mildly unsettled to see all of the information distilled and presented in one place like this. But yet, I typically settle for the most common precautions one should take, like clearing browser caches periodically, and refreshing DHCP addresses once in a while. If I wanted to be absolutely anonymous, the effort involved is simply too much and is not worth it for most of us. Nevertheless, here are three precautions such a person might be inclined to take, and actions authorities might assume to address attempts at attaining absolute anonymity.

1. Not use one's own Internet connection. As the data and discussion at Pippini (decommissioned now, sorry :-) shows, an IP address is attached to the user or the limited number of people in his or her domicile. It is easy to track someone down if the number of people to examine is small.

2. Not use free Internet connections in wireless hotspots on one's own computer. WiFi routers need to assign you an Internet address and they can be configured to log MAC addresses of computers that were assigned specific IP addresses at specific times. MAC addresses are unique and instantly identify a computer. One could presumably buy a wireless access card using cash (not a credit card), and destroy it after malicious use. This would mean that the MAC address can be tracked as far as the vendor who sold it, but no further. For this reason, authorities may require that checkout counters have recorded video surveillance to photograph customers as they purchase goods.

3. Use one of the many unoccupied computers at a paid public Internet cafe and pay in cash. For this reason, authorities may require paid public Internet cafes to insist on viewing and noting government issued photo-IDs of users. Further, they might also require that users be assigned to specified stations.

These are suggestions one might do well to keep in mind, especially if he or she is considering running for President.