The usage of the Internet is rid with debates, one of the major ones being the compromise of privacy of an individual. This debate at the core concerns with balancing interests of free speech/access to information and privacy. The question is not so much about what should remain in the public domain and what should come in the private domain as about how much compromise should be allowed with the private domain to provide access to information? In other words, which is the more important right- privacy, or access to information?
So on one hand, you have companies like Google trying to coagulate all your searches, email and other information you’ve dropped by them into one database in a quest for the perfect search engine; and on the other you have rights advocacy groups like Privacy International hankering on privacy issues. But the question goes far deeper than implying a mere stand-off between two interest groups…it also brings up conflicts within us as individual Internet users. There are two aspects to this...
First, as an Internet user, I do desire better Internet services (say search services). On the other hand, I also don’t want any Internet entity to be storing my data for long periods as I fear it can fall into wrong hands and be abused (say credit card information, search keywords like “how to make a bomb”, the sites I browse etc.).
Second, as an Internet user, while I do want the Internet to be a safe place, and law enforcement to work effectively to catch criminals who commit misdeeds over the Internet (say putting up illegal pornography, or Internet pedophiles) thanks to the anonymity which the Internet can ensure; I also want to be able to criticize what I deem to be an evil organisation without letting my identity be known (eg. a whistleblower) , or create an anonymous movement against a totalitarian regime (a recent case in point, Tunisia).
Now the questions which arise now are many. But in this post, I’d like to tackle one specific aspect: How can the desire/need of an Internet user to maintain his safety (which is many times associated with how well protected his privacy is) be maintained while protecting his anonymity on the Internet at the same time?
By just laying a claim that this exercise is indeed possible, I’m actually asserting that there is a distinction between privacy and anonymity, and the question to be decided is which is to be prioritized when.
I think the difference between privacy and anonymity can be best understood by the constructs of private and public domains. Thus, privacy is afforded to all those activities which are conducted in what is deemed as private sphere. Anonymity, on the other hand, is needed for activities which are per se deemed to belong to the public sphere. So I’d demand privacy when I’m having sex, but I’d demand anonymity when I’m making a speech criticizing government policy. So what I seek anonymity for is only my identity, not the content; in fact, I vociferously want the content of my speech in the case to spread and catch the public imagination. But I don’t want my preferred sexual position to be available to the public- here it’s the content itself which I do not want to spread.
So what should law be policing? Privacy or anonymity? It’s a tough question still. Because, traditionally law is not supposed to extend to the private sphere. (but when you have domestic violence et al, the issue is moved to the public sphere- refer Hilary Charlesworth). So maybe it’s anonymity which requires protection in the public sphere. But then consider a child pornographer. He desires anonymity (not letting his identity be known), and certainly not privacy (as he still publishes pictures of his private actions). What comes to rescue there? (Though, interestingly it is to be noted that while adults having sex is a private activity, sex with minors relegates to the public sphere as law enters to regulate it.)
