This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Google Moves to Destroy Online Anonymity … Helping Authoritarian Governments In the Process
Governments Move to Destroy Online Anonymity
Gene Howington reported last year:
The history of anonymous political free speech in America dates back to our founding. The seminal essays found in “The Federalist Papers” were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the nom de plume of “Publius” although this was not confirmed until a list of authorship complied by Hamilton was posthumously released to the public. As previously discussed on this blog, the right to anonymous political free speech has been addressed by the Supreme Court. Most notably in the cases of Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). In Talley, Justice Hugo Black writing for the majority said that, “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” In McIntyre, Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said that, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. [… ] an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” That seems clear enough in defining that citizens do have a Constitutionally protected right to anonymous political free speech.
Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge points out (with slight editing):
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks), anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the United States. Used by the likes of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (aka publius) to write the Federalist Papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume.
Particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the United States, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech.
Like the Economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker – as it should be. We believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn’t.
But governments – especially authoritarian governments – hate anonymity.
A soon-to-be-released book by Google executive Eric Schmidt - called “The New Digital Age” – describes the desire of authoritarian governments to destroy anonymity. The Wall Street Journal provides an excerpt:
Some governments will consider it too risky to have thousands of anonymous, untraceable and unverified citizens — “hidden people”; they’ll want to know who is associated with each online account, and will require verification at a state level, in order to exert control over the virtual world.
Last December, China started requiring all web users to register using their real names.
But the U.S. is quickly moving in the same direction. Gene Howington explains:
Do you have a right to anonymous political free speech?
According to the Supreme Court, you do. According to the Department of Homeland Security, you don’t. They’ve hired General Dynamics to track U.S. citizens exercising this critical civil right.
***
The full DHS policy statement regarding its activities can be viewed in the DHS Privacy Compliance Review of the NOC Media Monitoring Initiative (November 15, 2011), but rt.com’s summary spells out the basics:
“Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.
Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.
Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.
The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.” – rt.com
This question about the right to anonymous political free speech is also asked over the background of the Electronic Privacy Information Center filing a FOIA request against the DHS to find out the details of the agency’s social network monitoring program.
***
As part of recent disclosures related to the EPIC suit, it is revealed that the DHS has hired and instructed General Dynamics to monitor political dissent and the dissenters. The range of websites listed as being monitored is quite impressive. Notably, jonathanturley.org is not on this list [Howington's essay is a guest blog on constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley's website], but equally of note is that this list is by the DHS’ own admission “representative” and not “comprehensive”.
***
Some of the more high profile and highly trafficked sites being monitored include the comments sections of The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, Wired, and ABC News. In addition, social networking sites Facebook, MySpace and Twitter are being monitored. For the first time, the public not only has an idea who the DHS is pursuing with their surveillance and where, but what they are looking for as well. General Dynamics contract requires them to “[identify] media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond government activities.” The DHS also instructed General Dynamics to generate “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.” In other words, the DHS wants to know who you are if you say anything critical about the government.
Anybody thinking of the name “Goebbels” at this point is not out of line.
Indeed, valuing online privacy could even get you labeled as a potential terrorist.
Google Moving to Help Destroy Anonymity
Google’s motto is “Do No Evil“. And Google notes in a patent application:
When users reveal their identities on the internet, it leaves them more vulnerable to stalking, identity theft and harassment.
So you might assume that Google is fighting to protect anonymity on the web.
But Schmidt’s new book reveals that Google will support the destruction of anonymity (via Wall Street Journal):
Within search results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the top (verified) results. The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance.
Search Engine Journal explains:
[Passages from Schmidt's book] confirm what many industry writers have been passionately clattering away about for months now. Google+ is an identity verification network. As the network continues to grow, content associated with a verified identity will rise to the top of Google search rankings.
(Google+ is now the world’s second most popular social network.)
In other words, Schmidt acknowledges (in the first quote above) that authoritarians want to destroy anonymity … and Google will help them do so.
We are not saying that Google likes authoritarians. True, there are potential ties between Google and the government. For example, the head of DARPA now works for Google, and Internet powerhouse Vint Cerf has worked at both institutions. Wired reports:
Long before it reportedly enlisted the help of the National Security Agency to secure its networks, Google sold equipment to the secret signals-intelligence group. In-Q-Tel [the CIA's investment arm] backed the mapping firm Keyhole, which was bought by Google in 2004 — and then became the backbone for Google Earth.
And a former high-level CIA officer alleges that the CIA funded Google with seed money.
However, the focus of this essay is on Google’s profit motive. Specifically, Google will do business with anyone … and will cowtow to authoritarians they happen to do business with.
Google is doing this to make money. Remember, Google gathers information across all of its platforms, and personalizes search engine results based upon what you’ve looked for in past searches.
After all, Google is primary an advertising company … not a search company. See this, this, this and this.
As the Daily Mail reported last year:
A former Google executive has lambasted his ex-employer … claiming that the search company has been turned into an ‘ad company’ obsessed with harvesting people’s private information.
James Whittaker, a current Partner Development Manager at Microsoft and ex-Engineering Director at Google, posted the 1328-word attack on Google on his Microsoft blog this week.
‘Perhaps Google is right,’ writes Whittaker, ‘Perhaps the future lies in learning as much about people’s personal lives as possible.
‘The Google I was passionate about was a technology company. The Google I left was an advertising company.’
***
The move comes in the wake of Google’s controversial new ‘privacy policy’, which allowed the search giant to ‘pool’ information from 60 separate services including Gmail, Google Search and Android phones, to create ‘personalised’ advertising.
The bottom line is that anonymity reduces Google’s ability to monetize personal information and sell it to its advertisers. So Google is on a campaign to destroy anonymity … and unintentionally helping tyrants in the process.
As INeedHits laments:
We knew a day would come when privacy was a thing of the past, but Schmidt clearly spells out that day is sooner than we had expected.
»
- advertisements -
never try to confuse people with facts.
,
This will be bearish for Google in the long-term. Others will fill the void for anonymity which will gain demand as the state continues to overreach.
Others will fill the void for anonymity which will gain demand as the state continues to overreach.
Others already filled it, but no one wanted to pay them. They all wanted shiny free shit.
Re the Google 'war on anonymity' in GW's excellent article above
Google will no doubt make an exception for the CIA-Mossad Wikipedia, the very point of which is to give full anonymity for CIA and NSA agents, Mossad agents, and all criminal internet stalkers associated with the US and Israeli governments and the oligarchs who own those countries
The criminal Google Inc. always pumps Wiki-rubbish to the top of search results and multiplies it over and over, although Goog knows it is CIA-heaven ... this was proven years ago as thousands of Wiki edits were tracked to known CIA computers (Wired News)
90% of Wiki is allowed to be 'neutral', even publishing stuff about past CIA crimes etc., so the world will get sucked into the lies planted in the other 5% or 10% against current targets of CIA or Mossad ... That is the Wikipedia 'trick' which Google and that criminal murderer Schmidt has been backing
---
Jewish Jimmy Wales, criminal mafia porn meister in the 1990s, selected by CIA to pose as 'Wikipedia founder' because of his willingness to harm children and help murder any innocent people who are targets of US-Israel ... Jimmy Wales is the biggest internet hoaxer and fraudster since the internet was founded
Jimmy Wales is so high up with Mossad he goes to intimate birthday parties of the President of Israel Shimon Peres, as documented by Israeli journalist Barry Chamish.
---
Google Inc. itself, as well as Wikipedia, have both been publishing hoaxes using fake and anonymous names, to try to destroy and help murder the political refugee from the US in Brussels ... while blocking all the refugee's websites so he cannot reply to the hoaxes
Our refugee was quite well-known as maybe the world's best commenter on US court corruption and bribery, before Google 'erased' him ... I know him here, he is under the protection of the Belgian government and police and the house of the King of the Belgians
Live Photo: Google Inc. Caught Censoring EU Search Results on US court corruption (for USA - CIA)
Google Internet Censorship - Censure d'Internet par Google - Internet censuur door Google
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22325431@N05/6100668211/in/photostream
Some of the articles on US court corruption the refugee wrote before he was 'erased' and censored by the CIA's Google Inc.:
Foreign Companies Face Risk of US Court Corruption:
Doing Business in the Big Bribery Nation
http://www.banned-in-america.net/us-court-big-bribery-nation.html
America's Corrupt Legal System -
A Danger to Visitors, Travellers as Well as USA Residents
http://www.banned-in-america.net/us-corrupt-legal-system.html
Americans Murdering Their Judges, and the US Crisis of Judicial Corruption
http://www.banned-in-america.net/americans-murdering-judges.html
"According to the Supreme Court, you do. According to the Department of Homeland Security, you don’t" They act as if there are actually three separate branches
this is interesting. what articles in wikipedia toe the mossad/cia line? thanks.
None that I know of. I editted an article on Zionism, so as to correct anti-Palestinian bias ... no problem.
You and your Jewish Internet Defense Force buddies think we are too dumb* to see through your duplicious efforts to confuse and redirect the audience. But this is ZH...you lose.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/ei-exclusive-pro-israel-groups-pla...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-gr... "The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel".
*ok, we are pretty dumb, it's true...but luckily we got some straight players from amongst the tribe to give us some help! http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/
I just Googled Dr Leslie Sachs and found heaps of entries - reputedly 4,180,000 in all - including one mentioning Google censorship.
All rather odd considering what you've written.
Terrific review. Thanks.
Is there anymore reason to start a revolution than right now? Before they try and take my guns. Stop paying taxes, stop using banks only use cash or precious metals
Sooner or later everyone has to grow up and give up Internet along with TV and automobiles. Maybe not today or tomorrow ... but soon and forever.
Sooner or later everyone has to grow up and give up Internet along with TV and automobiles
So it's bye bye ZH, interactive services (news, weather, finance etc), probably bye bye e.mail too then.
No cars might mean a fitter healthier society, but no transport may prove a double-edged sword especially in case of emergency.
As to TV - many think current Broadcast television is in its final years, with the "digital revolution" providing the potential for unlimited on-line access. However, with no Internet that's surely a dead duck.
Well, we'll be OK (with the radio, CD collection, and lots of good books). Duno about the rest though - without the "entertainment fix" we might see a spot of civil "dissatisfaction" methinks.
from the Daily Bell on the Internet reformation:
The Internet Reformation is the culmination of the power and glory of Western civil society and free-market thinking. It is the apogee of all that is best in a sweep of history that began with the ancient Greeks and has culminated in the hearts and minds of millions of young men and women who industriously add to its impact every day via additional code, non-mainstream news or fundamental scientific commentary.
Sooner or later everyone has to die. Maybe not today or tomorrow ... but soon and forever
In the interim, how about this, Steve. You give up the Internet. Now. Please.
He left breathing off the list.
“governments will consider it too risky to have thousands of anonymous, untraceable and unverified citizens”
.. except if they are motor voter utility bill registered illegals voting Democrat.
https://cyberghostvpn.com/en/surf-anonym.html
http://www.ufreevpn.com/
Hey, the Free VPN thingy has google email.
And it says they rat you out.
They also scan every single word of every single email you send and receive if you use GMail... All in order to serve you ads they say. But ask yourself this: If you had the ability and power to "see" millions of emails, how long would it be before you start cutting corners in your "don't be evil" mantra?
A human wouldn't even have to view the emails... All it would take is a tweak to a few algorithms and add some geo-targeting, and Google could analyze for keywords to have incredibly deep insights into things like mergers and acquisitions, military troop movements, big political decisions, granular economic data... The list is endless.
And if you think they would never do that, consider that they already use search terms (and maybe Gmail?) to anticipate flu outbreaks based on the search terms people type into their search engine. These guys are incredibly dangerous, and you'd be a fool to use Gmail.
http:www.scroogled.com
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/997/086/864/tell-google-to-stop-going-thr...
Tor
I would imagine, given the current climate we find ourselves in, that Tor users will eventually be placed on the "undesirable" list if they are not already.
Problem for the USG (who funded it) is, for it to be effective rather than incriminatory for their agents, their traffic needs to "dilute" with as much outside traffic as possible (which forcibly includes undesirable sources, as was explained to them, then - it's somewhere in their site). So, until it becomes obsolete for them, it's in their own interest that as much people as possible uses it.
www.guardian.co.uk/ world/ video/ 2013/ feb/ 10/ raytheon-software-tracks-online-video
How Raytheon software tracks you online - video
Irony is, as usual, all this surveillance technology is a double edge sword: it can both be used against you and your privacy, rights, as against anyone threatening or abusing it, as proven by countless hidden camera videos of police, etc. abuse you find online.
Also, even in the hypothetical chance you could know everything about everyone, you'd instantly be able to out any undercover agent, as they would either be the only ones untraceable or their cover ids just wouldn't stand scrutiny. Your anonymity is their own, as proven by Tor.