\chapter{Applications, Legalities, and Ethics} \section{Introduction and Assumptions} In the world of academics, it is very common to develop new and interesting technologies without regard for the moral and ethical implications of these technologies. Indeed, it is very common for physicists or theoreticians to spend months on a given problem without even considering applications of their solution -- it is their job to solve the problem, and somebody else's job to come up with ways of making the answer useful in a wider context. In the case of Free Haven, it is vitally important that we consider its uses and applications {\em before} deploying the service. There are a number of other projects developing networks similar to Free Haven, but these related works do not offer the same levels of anonymity as Free Haven. It is precisely this lack of accountability that makes Free Haven so powerful and so useful, but at the same time this lack of accountability makes Free Haven potentially very dangerous. There will be no way of policing the content on the network, nor will there be any way of shutting down the service (or even reliably detecting if it's still deployed!). In this context, we have to consider and compare uses which we consider legitimate, as well as uses which we consider illegitimate. Before we start enumerating case studies and examples, however, %there are %a couple of fundamental ideas and beliefs that we must make explicit. we must make explicit our underlying assumption and belief: %The first of these is that the rights and liberties of the individual are the fundamental building blocks of society. % As Locke originally believed % http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco57.htm As Jefferson described, ``governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'' \cite{jeff} Indeed, as Kropotkin might argue, freedom involves both `freedom from' and `freedom to'. `` `Freedom from' signifies not being subject to domination, exploitation, coercive authority, repression, or other forms of degradation and humiliation. `Freedom to' means being able to develop and express one's abilities, talents, and potentials to the fullest possible extent compatible with the maximum freedom of others.'' \cite{free} Supporting and maintaining freedoms for the individual, including self-management, responsibility, and independence, is one of the most important causes we can hope to undertake. \section{Anonymous speech} \topquote{No long string of citations is necessary to find that the public interest weighs in favor of having access to a free flow of constitutionally protected speech.}{Reno, 929 F. Supp. at 851.} \subsection{Overview} Anonymous speech has been a hotly disputed topic in the United States since the very creation of our government. The Federalist Papers, published during the original constitutional debates, were published anonymously\cite{federalist}. Thomas Paine wrote his famous pamphlet\cite{TOM-PAINE} entitled ``Common Sense'' under a pseudonym. Indeed, ``[a]nonymous 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.'' \cite{talley} One of the features of the Free Haven project is that it provides a tool that enables individuals around the world to engage in anonymous speech. By publishing a document on the Free Haven service, anyone can offer political or other speech on the internet without providing any accountability as to source or authorship. The following examples of case law in the United States explore some of the issues integral to anonymous speech. \subsection{A Case Study: ACLU of Georgia v. Miller} On September 24, 1996, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs, including the AIDS Survival Project, the Atlanta Freethought Society, and Atlanta Veterans Alliance, against the state of Georgia based on Act No. 1029 (Ga. Laws 1996, p. 1505), a law which effectively outlaws anonymity on the Internet. In particular, one of the aspects of this law made it illegal % http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~dmolnar/miller.htm % http://www.aclu.org/news/n062097b.html % http://www.aclu.org/news/n092496a.html % http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~dmolnar/anon.htm % http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/censor/GABRIEF.html ``knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network \dots for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information if such data uses any individual name \dots to falsely identify the person.'' The original intent of this act was to prevent online fraud. Decreased fraud would make the internet and other online resources (such as AOL or local bulletin board systems) safer and more convenient for individuals and businesses. However, the court found that the law was far too vague and broad in its scope, covering transmissions which were not deceiving or fraudulent and in fact had no intention of being either (``intent to defraud'' and ``intent to deceive'' appear nowhere in the act). The defendants said that it was also designed against misappropriation of another's identity, but this too was not specified in the act at all. The above omissions do not occur in other Georgia legislation meant for purposes of criminalizing fraud{\footnote {See, e.g., O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-453, 16-9-1(a), 16-9-2, and 16-8-3.}}. In short, the court found that the wording of the law did not at all match the intent of the law. ``The act prohibits such protected speech as the use of false identification to avoid social ostracism, to prevent discrimination and harassment, and to protect privacy... it operates unconstitutionally for a substantial category of the speakers it covers.'' \cite{aclumiller} Indeed, what this act {\em did} criminalize was shown to be ambiguous -- criminal statutes must ``define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.'' \cite{kolender} The court closed with a number of interesting quotes characterizing the history and importance of free speech. The US Supreme Court has held that ``the loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury'' \cite{elrod} and the ACLU was able to demonstrate that this law threatened `irreparable injury' to citizens and organizations alike. The decision was reached in favor of the ACLU on Friday, June 20, 1997: the law was declared unconstitutional. \subsection{Analysis} The example of ACLU v. Miller is not just a case of corrupt or ambiguous laws going awry. It is a case of the fundamental freedoms of individuals being infringed by the state. Whether the original intent of the law was to prevent online fraud, the law provided too much flexibility to those who would actually carry out the law to interpret it in whatever manner was most convenient at the time. ``The Court recognized that anonymity is the passport for entry into cyberspace for many persons,'' said Gerald Weber, Legal Director of the ACLU of Georgia. ``Without anonymity, victims of domestic violence, persons in Alcoholics Anonymous, people with AIDS and so many others would fear using the Internet to seek information and support.'' \cite{acluwins} Another example specific to this case was the Atlanta Veterans Alliance, an organization that serves the needs of gay, lesbian and bisexual military veterans. Not only do members of the AVA employ anonymity and pseudonymity on the internet to avoid harassment and discrimination, but many of them are currently in active military duty, and disclosing their real names during their discussions would mean that they might lose their jobs. \subsection{A Case Study: Lamont v. Postmaster General} Indeed, one of the more subtle aspects of the ACLU v. Miller case is that it addresses anonymous {\em receipt} of information as well. By referencing Lamont v. Postmaster General (381 U.S. 301 (1965)) \cite{lamont}, the plaintiffs compare the act to a statute that has been influential in free speech Supreme Court cases over the past three decades. The Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962 required the Postmaster General to monitor mail coming into the United States from certain foreign countries. If the mail was deemed to be `communist political propaganda', the Post Office would detain the mail and send a note to the addressee. This note would describe the mail in question, and indicate that the addressee should fill out the form and return it if he wanted to receive the communist propaganda. If he didn't fill out the form and return it within twenty days, then the Post Office would conclude that he was not interested in that publication or any further similar publications, and destroy them. The Post Office implemented the statute by maintaining 10 or 11 screening points around the country, through which all mail from suspicious foreign countries was routed \cite{lamont}. Customs officials would examine each item of mail, and determine whether it was communist political propaganda. In this case, ``[t]he term `political propaganda' includes any oral, visual, graphic, written, pictorial, or other communication or expression by any person (1) which is reasonably adapted to, or which the person disseminating the same believes will, or which he intends to, prevail upon, indoctrinate, convert, induce, or in any other way influence a recipient or any section of the public within the United States with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party or with reference to the foreign policies of the United States or promote in the United States racial, religious, or social dissensions, or (2) which advocates, advises, instigates, or promotes any racial, social, political, or religious disorder, civil riot, or other conflict involving the use of force or violence in any other American republic or the overthrow of any government or political subdivision of any other American republic by any means involving the use of force or violence.'' \cite{usc1} Communist political propaganda is political propaganda which is ``issued by or on behalf of any country with respect to which there is in effect a suspension or withdrawal of tariff concessions or from which foreign assistance is withheld pursuant to certain specified statutes.'' \cite{usc2} If these Customs officials determined that the mail in question was communist political propaganda, they would send the note instead. This law effectively requires citizens receiving material which might be communist political propaganda to actively choose to sign their names onto a list which the federal government keeps. Since the card has a checkbox for whether the addressee wishes to receive similar mails in the future, this list is exactly a list of citizens who are interested in reading dissident materials. Two separate individuals, Dr.\ Corliss Lamont of New York, and Mr.\ Heilberg of California, filed complaints in 1963 against this law in their respective District Courts when they were sent a note about material addressed to them. The District Court in New York dismissed the claim as moot, since Lamont had the opportunity to check the box indicating he wanted all further mails to go through unhindered -- since he had this opportunity, his First Amendment rights were not being abridged. The California District Court ruled in the opposite direction, claiming that requiring the addressees to actively request mail infringed on their First Amendment rights. The case was made stronger on March 15, 1965, when the government terminated its practice of keeping a list of citizens who wanted to receive communist political propaganda. Because the Post Office wasn't keeping this list, they required addressees to actively request the delivery of each such piece of mail. With this new twist, the US Supreme Court found the law to be unconstitutional on May 24, 1965, on the grounds that requiring addressees to respond separately for each piece of mail constituted an undue burden on their constitutional right to receive mail. Justice Douglas explains that ``[t]his requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect, especially as respects those who have sensitive positions. Their livelihood may be dependent on a security clearance. Public officials, like schoolteachers who have no tenure, might think they would invite disaster if they read what the Federal Government says contains the seeds of treason. Apart from them, any addressee is likely to feel some inhibition in sending for literature which federal officials have condemned as `communist political propaganda.' The regime of this Act is at war with the ``uninhibited, robust, and wide-open'' \cite{nytco} debate and discussion that are contemplated by the First Amendment.'' \cite{lamont} Indeed, the Court goes on to address the specific parts of this case that relate to anonymous access to publications -- while they never use the word anonymous, they draw a distinction between a passive receipt of the material, and an active request for receiving the material. Justice Brennan argues in the same text: ``It is true that the First Amendment contains no specific guarantee of access to publications. However, the protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. %See, e. g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 ; %NAACP v. Alabama, 357 %U.S. 449 ; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 ; Aptheker %v. Secretary of State, %378 U.S. 500 \dots I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.'' This notion can be extended to the arena of the internet, in terms both of receiving email and of receiving data from a web page. In the former case -- passive receipt of data -- it is more traditionally clear that the right to receive email should be protected under our Constitution. The latter case, however, presents more confusion: should this `active' receipt of information receive the same protections as passive receipt of information? We as members of the Free Haven project believe the answer is yes. \section{Anonymous Publication} \topquote{If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.}{Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.} The previous two case studies deal in large part with the issue of freedom of speech and anonymous speech, both from the perspective of making the speech and also from the perspective of having the right to receive speech from others in an unhindered and uninhibited fashion. Our third case study explores the issue specifically of anonymous {\em publication}, to show that freedom of publication, and indeed anonymous publication, is protected by the First Amendment. \subsection{A Case Study: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission} On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting at the Blendon Middle School in Westerville, Ohio \cite{mcintyre}. The meeting was in part to discuss a proposed school tax levy, and McIntyre was distributing pamphlets signed `Concerned Parents and Taxpayers' in opposition to this proposed levy. While Mrs.\ McIntyre was distributing her handbills, an official of the school district warned her that distributing the pamphlets without signing them with her name was a violation of the Ohio Elections Commission. Specifically, Ohio Code 3599.09(A) prevented distribution of campaign literature not containing the name and address of the person issuing such literature. Margaret McIntyre challenged this law upon being fined \$100 for distributing her pamphlets. The fine was reversed by the Common Pleas court, but upheld by the Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court, which held that the law was necessary to prevent ``fraud, libel, or false advertising'' and that the requirement for producers of campaign literature to identify themselves ``neither impacts the content of their message nor significantly burdens their ability to have it disseminated. This burden is more than counterbalanced by the state interest in providing the voters to whom the message is directed with a mechanism by which they may better evaluate its validity.'' Ohio did not suggest that all anonymous publications should or could be outlawed, simply that this was a reasonable electoral regulation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the fine. Justice Stevens delivered the majority opinion: he claimed ``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. The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm.'' He also pointed out that ``in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.'' Talley v. California (1960) \cite{talley} was heavily cited. In this case, Talley violated a Los Angeles ordinance against distribution of unsigned handbills in distributing leaflets urging boycott of certain merchants practicing discriminatory employment practices. The ordinance was declared unconstitutional. Stevens held that this could be extended to anonymity in advocacy of any political cause, up to and including secret ballot. Ohio's regulation ``does not control the mechanics of the electoral process. It is a regulation of pure speech.'' Political speech was also held to be at the core of the First Amendment. Stevens states that ``[a]nonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority'', and goes on to describe the purpose of the First Amendment: ``to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.'' He cites \cite{abrams}, a case in which five plaintiffs are accused and convicted of distributing during wartime pamphlets that urge American citizens to cease production of ordnance and ammunition; the Russian-born plaintiffs argue that citizens should rise up against capitalism, and also that they should realize that the munitions they are building are being used to kill their families in Russia. Justice Holmes writes a strong dissenting opinion, declaring that ``Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, `Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' '' Justice Thomas asks whether `` `freedom of speech, or of the press' as originally understood, protected anonymous political leafletting'' and concludes it did. ``Regardless of whether one designates the right involved here as one of press or one of speech, however, it makes little difference in terms of our analysis, which seeks to determine only whether the First Amendment, as originally understood, protects anonymous writing.'' He cites Zenger; opposition in 1779 to identifying Leonidas, writer of articles critical of Congress's economic policies; and other cases of liberty of the press being linked to anonymity. He mentions the Anti-Federalists, who drove the Bill of Rights, and comments that they often criticized attacks on anonymous publishing. He describes the national outcry (centered in Philadelphia) against two Boston papers that refused to print anonymous articles: ``The understanding described above, however, when viewed in light of the Framers' universal practice of publishing anonymous articles and pamphlets, indicates that the Framers shared the belief that such activity was firmly part of the freedom of the press.'' He goes on to cite many instances of further anonymous political speech after the revolutionary period, arguing that anonymous speech is also suitable and reasonable for conditions other than those extremely unusual circumstances. While the support for anonymous political speech is clear, and the decision of the Court was seven to two, there is nonetheless some interesting material in the dissenting opinions. Justice Scalia disputes Thomas's use of the historical record, stating that anonymous electioneering was not held to be a violation of freedom of speech or the press, and that regulation of the electoral process was never an issue until the late 1800s, and lack of regulation before then does not render later laws unconstitutional. Laws against anonymous political pamphleteering have existed in most states (including Ohio) since the end of World War I and form a better historical record than revolutionary essays. He goes on to then examine the right to anonymity. ``Several of our cases have held that in peculiar circumstances the compelled disclosure of a person's identity would unconstitutionally deter the exercise of First Amendment associational rights. [list of cases] %xxx But those cases did not acknowledge any general right to anonymity \dots rather, they recognized a right to an exemption from otherwise valid disclosure requirements on the part of someone who could show a `reasonable probability' that the compelled disclosure would result in `threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.' \dots Anonymity can still be enjoyed by those who require it.'' Scalia argues that the decision in the McIntyre case was unusual and differs significantly from previous case law: ``The existence of a generalized right of anonymity in speech was rejected by this Court in Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U. S. 288 (1913), which held that newspapers desiring the privilege of second class postage could be required to provide to the Postmaster General, and to publish, a statement of the names and addresses of their editors, publishers, business managers and owners. We rejected the argument that the First Amendment forbade the requirement of such disclosure. Id., at 299. The provision that gave rise to that case still exists, see 39 U. S. C. 3685, and is still enforced by the Postal Service. It is one of several federal laws seemingly invalidated by today's opinion.'' He goes on to cite Ginsburg's concurring opinion, and wonders at the extensions of ``the Court's unprecedented protection of anonymous speech'' including parade permits issued to groups who refuse to provide their identity, anonymous sponsorship of theatre presentations at a city-owned theatre or of speeches at public universities, anonymous letters to the editor in government publications, and other ``silliness that follows upon a generalized right to anonymous speech.'' He points out that a number of foreign democracies, including Australia, Canada, and England, all have prohibitions upon anonymous campaigning.{\footnote {See, e.g., Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, 328 (Australia); Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., ch. E-2, 261 (1985); Representation of the People Act, 1983, 110 (England).}} In closing, Scalia explains: ``I do not know where the Court derives its perception that `anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.' I can imagine no reason why an anonymous leaflet is any more honorable, as a general matter, than an anonymous phone call or an anonymous letter. It facilitates wrong by eliminating accountability, which is ordinarily the very purpose of the anonymity.'' \subsection{Analysis} Clearly, there are strong arguments on either side of this issue. The overall opinion was that {\em content-based} restrictions on whether a given publication can be distributed anonymously conflict with the First Amendment. Furthermore, the justification that Ohio provided for needing protection against anonymous electioneering does not make sense for this particular situation: in this case, knowing that Mrs.\ McIntyre was the author of the pamphlet in question would not provide readers with the ability to ``better evaluate its validity''. It is also worthwhile to note that much of the dissenting opinion focused not on the issue of anonymity of speech itself, but on the issue of whether allowing anonymous political speech was more valuable or less valuable than protecting the elections process. For instance, while Canada may prohibit anonymous campaigning, section 14.1 of the Canadian Copyright Act \cite{effcan} states that the author has the right ``to be associated with the work as its author by name or under a pseudonym and the right to remain anonymous''. \section{Legal, yes -- but Moral?} \topquote{It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end.}{Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795} It is clear both from the United States Constitution, and also from the case law described above and held by the US Supreme Court, that anonymous publication is a legal and protected right for US citizens. However, the legal support in the United States -- or even in other countries -- for anonymous publication is not the only issue we as developers of Free Haven must consider: even if we are legally allowed to deploy a Free Haven service, is it morally a good idea? We have the power to make this choice now, but after we deploy the service we will not have the power to undo our actions. First of all, there are a myriad of applications for the system which we consider `bad uses'. These can be broken down into several categories, based on the type of use or offense involved. % We group these applications %into the categories of `free speech issues' \subsection{Problems with Anonymous Speech} These are issues which generally come up in the context of all anonymous speech or communication systems, rather than specifically in the context of anonymous publication systems. They include: \begin{itemize} \item {\bf Death threats:} users may be able to make death threats without accountability. \item {\bf Terrorism communications:} users may be able to coordinate and conspire to plan terrorist activities against the state or other organizations or individuals. \item {\bf Kidnapping communications:} similarly, users might conspire and coordinate to plan kidnappings or other illegal actions. \item {\bf Spam:} users might make use of the anonymous channel to spam victims with targeted advertisements or other text. \item {\bf Harassment:} as opposed to targeted spam, stalkers might make directed communications intended to embarrass, defame, or threaten. \item {\bf Blackmail:} users might publish material without disclosing the key, and then threaten to publicize the location of the material. \end{itemize} These issues are addressed in a broader scope by other organizations, such as the ACLU, the Center for National Security Studies (their papers include ``The FBI's Domestic Counterterrorism Program''\cite{FBI-COUNTERTERROR}, a description of the FBI's current capabilities to combat terrorism), the Cato Institute (their papers include ``Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet''\cite{CATO}, a briefing paper addressing anonymous speech on the internet), Amnesty International, and the EFF. Since these issues are argued in the broader context of free and anonymous speech in general rather than anonymous publication specifically, we consider them outside the scope of this document, and refer the reader to the literature from these organizations. One useful survey paper is the one by Rigby \cite{RIGBY-STS}. %xxx could use some more examples... \subsection{How reputable is anonymous speech anyway?} \topquote{Seek not to know who said this or that, but take note of what has been said.}{Thomas Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ} Another topic that is related to free and anonymous speech is the question of whether making speech anonymous decreases the credibility of its content. On the one hand, cases like the McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Committee findings show that there are in fact situations where knowing the author of a statement doesn't seem to add or detract at all from the content. On the other side of the spectrum, the `Net Anonymity FAQ' \cite{anonfaq} includes a variety of comments pointing out that anonymous postings often have very little useful content. It includes an insightful comment: ``I think anonymous posts do help in focusing our attention on the content of one's message. Sure lot of anonymous posts are abusive or frivolous but in most cases these are by users who find the anon facility novel. Once the novelty wears off they are stopping their pranks.'' \subsection{Copyright, Patent, and Trade Secrets} Another issue with substantial impact on society and economics is the fact that anonymous communication, and indeed also anonymous publication, can be used to share documents in a manner that violates copyright or patent laws, or exposes trade secrets. The recent issues with decss and cphack as examples of trade secrets getting published on the internet, as well as the earlier example of the distribution of pgp being restricted due to patent issues, show that there are a number of controversial issues with these laws. On the other hand, more clear-cut cases such as copying a band's music in violation of the band's copyright and wishes are very prevalent, and becoming even more common. This issue is a real problem. Related projects like Napster are beginning to realize the power of established organizations such as the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to protect their assets and lobby Congress for protective laws. The continuing trend towards high-bandwidth internet connections %for individual people will exacerbate this conflict: eventually the %current system of copyright will be forced to change dramatically to %handle this new paradigm of global connectedness. for individual people will exacerbate this conflict: eventually this empowerment of individuals will force a dramatic change in the current copyright system, to enable it to handle this new paradigm of global connectedness. In the case of music, the RIAA is fighting to maintain the status quo based on a principle of intellectual property and copyrights developed centuries ago\cite{COPYRIGHT-HISTORY}, which many argue is no longer applicable to today's information-age society. This system probably cannot last, and bands are going to have to adapt to other mechanisms for making money, such as live performances. %% xxx this is more than a little sketchy - "information-age society" %% isn't well defined, and it's not clear which way the world is going %% to go just yet. Even if you believe it's inevitable, it could %% happen sooner or later. and later I'll be dead. -dmolnar Such artists as Billy Idol, Public Enemy, and the Beastie Boys have already attempted to give out MP3s for free to increase their publicity. John Perry Barlow, the lyricist of the Grateful Dead, has published a detailed essay\cite{BARLOW} entitled ``The Economy of Ideas'', which describes why ``everything we know about intellectual property is wrong'' from the point of view of his band. In late 1997, Clinton signed an act called the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, which made it a felony to copy copyrighted materials. It appears that the main change in the law that they had made was changing the definition of financial gain: ``the term `financial gain' includes receipt of anything of value, including copyrighted materials.'' \cite{NET} The Act suggested five year jail sentences for those found distributing more than ten copyrighted works in a given amount of time. Apparently the RIAA and the rest of the music industry have enough influence to convince the Clinton administration that it should enact much more severe laws against intellectual property violators. But the situation is not hopeless. Alternate copyright systems have been proposed, such as Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey's `Street Performer Protocol' \cite{STREET-PERFORMER}They describe this protocol as ``an electronic-commerce mechanism to facilitate the private financing of public works. Using this protocol, people would place donations in escrow, to be released to an author in the event that the promised work is put in the public domain. This protocol has the potential to fund alternative or `marginal' works.'' In other words, this Street Performer Protocol (or more likely, some future variant of it) could be used to help shift the emphasis away from {\em purchasing} information and more towards paying the designer for the act of {\em creating} the information in the first place. %%% xxx add Eric Hughes' Universal Piracy Network %%% add Ian Grigg and Systemics article on markets for doing just this %%% cite Idea Futures and programming on spec Overall, we consider the fact that Free Haven might be used to further violate copyright and patents laws to be an unfortunate consequence of deploying the system. We believe this is a strong argument against developing a system like this. \subsection{More Porn on the Net} Another unfortunate consequence of deploying a service like Free Haven is that it may well speed the proliferation of pornography on the internet. Just as the pornography industry was influential in accelerating the growth of the technologies behind videotapes, many people have commented % xxx [reference?] that it is now a major driving force behind increase in hard drive capacity and internet bandwidth. While the pornography industry is in fact of questionable moral usefulness to our society, there can be no doubt that it is often a major factor in new technologies. On the other hand, most of the porn industry bases its profits on being able to charge subscribers and meter distribution. All of this process is legal and already in place on the internet. Precisely because Free Haven provides such a high level of anonymity, it doesn't provide sufficient accountability for companies to conveniently sell their data in a trackable manner. Free Haven is simply not a very hospitable environment for organizations trying to control or in any way limit access to information. Thus, the porn {\em industry} as a whole will probably largely ignore it. But the fact that it provides such a high degree of anonymity leads to a few other possibilities: although companies won't be able to make easy money from it, individuals desiring greater anonymity may make use of the system to distribute illegal media such as child pornography or snuff films in an untraceable manner. Just as in the case of copyright and patents, we believe this is an unfortunate consequence of the system, and believe it is a strong argument against developing a system like Free Haven. \subsection{Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Arbitrage} Eric Hughes, cofounder of the cypherpunks, describes jurisdictional arbitrage as ``moving an action from one country to another country to take advantage of a different law or regulation there.'' \cite{hughes} This is a very broad topic, but one that is well worth addressing, since it provides a very good example of a situation where the internet can provide decentralized community solutions that entirely avoid the issue of a given nation's legislation or jurisdiction. The case of the Teale couple in Canada provides a good example. In this case, a husband and wife pair were suspected of several acts of particularly gruesome manslaughter. The wife pleaded guilty and provided evidence; the Judge banned all those who were present at the trial, including the press, from publishing any evidence or details on the murders, ``in order to insure that Paul Teale receives a fair trial'' \cite{karla}. (Actually, Paul Teale was known as Paul Bernardo before the arrest; many Canadians know of him by the latter name.) Despite the fact that the Canadian court issued the gag order, U.S. papers continued to print news concerning the case \cite{washpost}. Indeed, the Canadian border officials even went to the point of ``stopping trucks carrying U.S. newspapers to keep Canadians from learning what their neighbors to the south know about the case.'' \cite{nyt} Beyond the fact that the United States press was rabid enough to ignore a Court decision from Canada, there's another facet to this case: the internet played a very important role in distributing information about the case. Soon after the court order, a pair of university students in Canada set up a newsgroup by the ironic name of {\tt alt.fan.karla-homolka} (Paul's wife's name). When this newsgroup was banned by a number of Canadian universities, two new newsgroups sprang into existence: {\tt alt.pub-ban} and {\tt alt.pub-ban.homolka}. According to Wired Magazine, ``One Net dweller jokingly proposed the ideal tactic: `The solution is obvious. Take the discussion to {\tt rec.sport.hockey}. You silly Canadians would never ban that group.' '' \cite{wiredkarla} While intended as a joke, this comment makes a very clear statement: banning the internet just isn't feasible. Douglas Barnes, a member of the Austin Cypherpunks, provides an excellent overview \cite{barnes} of various classes of jurisdiction, including some surprising examples such as `effects doctrine', wherein the crime can be prosecuted based on some location that felt the {\em effects} of the action. In the case of United States v. Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) \cite{united}, the US established precedent for this `effects doctrine' by successfully bringing an anti-trust action against this foreign company based on the effects on the US of their restraint of trade. %\begin{itemize} %\item {\bf objective jurisdiction}, wherein a crime can be prosecuted %based on the location of the object of the crime. A classic example of %this is the US Supreme Court's Lamar v. United States{\footnote {240 US 60 %(1916)}} case, where they held that telephone fraud could be prosecuted %based on the jurisdiction of the location to which the call was made. %\item {\bf effects doctrine}, wherein the crime can be prosecuted based on %some location that felt the {\em effects} of the action. In the case of %United States v. Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA){\footnote {148 F. 2d 416 (1945)}}, %the US established precedent for `effects doctrine' by successfully bringing an %anti-trust action against this foreign company based on the effects on the US of %their restraint of trade. %\item There are a number of legal issues and tricky points behind the concept of jurisdiction, but once again the legal aspects are not the entire picture: is it moral to circumvent a court's decision of information blackout? Who are we to make that decision, or enable others to make that decision? We believe the short answer to this is `it depends'. The longer answer is that we feel that it is crucial for this option to be available: while it may not be the appropriate answer for all situations, it may well be a reasonable response for some circumstances. %\subsection{Unrevocable slander and libel} \subsection{Slander is Forever} Once published in Free Haven, a document will persist at least until it reaches its expiration timestamp. Since there is currently no mechanism for revocation or unpublishing, any statements made at one point will potentially last for a very long time. This permanence of speech can have negative consequences. For instance, if a document were published in Free Haven claiming that a given person is a police informer, then there is no way that the author can unpublish this statement: it lives until it reaches the expiration date chosen by the publisher. Since the document is anonymous, there is no entity or organization to attack or sue. Another scenario to consider is one where a radical extremist posts a flaming attack on the United States government and attaches his name to it, and then fifteen years down the road is refused from a job at the FBI based on his past life. The `right' to force somebody who slanders you to take back their statements is completely removed in Free Haven. On the other hand, this is precisely what Free Haven is built for. We cannot be responsible for people who use it without thinking first. The decision to publish a document in a persistent global forum should be a carefully considered process, weighing the pros of getting the word out against the corresponding repercussions. \subsection{Is content-neutral wise?} One of the features that sets Free Haven apart from related works such as Freenet is the fact that Free Haven maintains an entirely content-neutral approach to the data stored in the system. In the implicit contract between servers, each server agrees to store data for the other servers without regard for the legal or moral issues for that data in any given jurisdiction. There are a number of arguments against being content-neutral. Freenet pays attention to the popularity of documents, and provides greater availability and persistence to those documents which are accessed more frequently. This provides more efficient use and distribution of Freenet resources around the world. Another argument, based on morality rather than practicality, is the idea that server administrators should exercise good moral judgment and decide on a per-document basis which documents should be stored on their server and which are inappropriate. A system like this would clearly not be vulnerable to people sneaking immoral or illegal material onto it. On the other hand, such a system requires a lot of resources on the part of each server administrator. Indeed, as the trend towards increasing computational capacity and ability continues, we should be looking for solutions that minimize human involvement. A solution could be found such that the server administrator automates the content filtering, but examples indicating this hope might be naive include the recent issue with AOL's `youth filter' blocking the Democratic website but allowing the Republican site through \cite{aoldemo}. From a legal perspective, server operators who are unaware of the particular content that they're hosting, and have reasonable cause to expect that the content is legal, are not responsible. On the other hand, if the operator has the capacity to glance over the data before accepting it, they may be considered to have affirmatively accepted the data and are therefore responsible for its content. Until the Communications Decency Act, this state of affairs roughly described case law in the United States. In the case of {\em Cubby v. Compuserve},\cite{CUBBY} the online service CompuServe was found not liable for a post on its message boards on the grounds that it merely provided a forum for expression and had no prior control over the messages posted. By contrast, the online service Prodigy was found liable in {\em Stratton vs. Prodigy} for a libelous posting, because the court found that by engaging in moderation of postings, the service became a ``publisher'' of the postings instead of a mere carrier\cite{STRATTON}. The Decency Act changed this by creating statutory protection against liability for ISPs or online services who wish to moderate content passing through their lines; this part of the act, unlike the more famous "indecency" provisions, was not invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United States\cite{DECENCY-LIVES}. Designing a protocol which encourages content-neutrality may well mean that server administrators are less liable for the content on the network. Examples include common carrier law, wherein phone companies are not responsible for the content that they carry over their systems. % xxx cite Finally, our strongest argument for maintaining a content-neutral system is that we think this is the most useful approach to a persistent anonymous data storage service. The Free Haven system is designed to provide privacy for its users; rather than being a persistent publication system, it is designed to be a private low-profile storage system. Requiring operators to read through publication `submissions' runs counter to this goal. \subsection{Personal uses} As an anonymous storage service, Free Haven provides a number of functions that are useful to individual users. For instance, users or companies might employ the system as the ultimate redundant backup server, encrypting their data and then spreading it anonymously and robustly across the world. More generally, individuals who wish to retain possession of data but not be physically associated with it for a certain period of time can benefit greatly from Free Haven. Perhaps the next person targeted by the Church of Scientology could have an available mechanism for removing the data from their person in a manner that makes it convenient to both offload and later retrieve. Amnesty International workers might benefit greatly from the ability to generate an address list as they tour southeast Asia, and have a convenient way to retrieve it once they return to more hospitable areas. Arming individuals with the ability to defend themselves against larger potentially hostile groups %large multinational organizations like the Church of Scientology is an important end in itself. \subsection{Is privacy bad?} A common belief is that those who choose to communicate via strong cryptography or other cryptographic protections on privacy have `something to hide', and that normal upright citizens have no need for cryptography. Similarly, some believe that people who speak anonymously are somehow ashamed of the actions that they take behind the shield of anonymity. However, this idea that only shame generates a desire for privacy is a very narrow view. %is a very narrowly and conventionally %moral notion. % you haven't shown why conventional morals are bad. % you need to in order to use that statement, % unless you want to be written off. -dmolnar %{\footnote {\tt %http://hotwired.lycos.com/talk/club/special/transcripts/96-07-11.hughes.html}}. Privacy in our ordinary lives is something that we take for granted -- would you be willing to publish your tax return worldwide? What if your neighbor published the contents of your garbage on the evening news? Is using cryptography to achieve privacy in online activities really any different? If online privacy through cryptography is in fact still distinct from offline privacy through more conventional means, we believe the trend is moving strongly in favor of merging them into a single concept. Frequently, people respond to these disturbing possibilities by denying that they could happen to them: after all, safety in numbers should be a sufficient defense against any other individual or organization wanting to collect information about `typical' citizens. However, this defense is terrifyingly naive, considering the explosive growth of storage and data warehousing and retrieval technologies in the past few years. Companies ranging from Doubleclick to Amazon collect a startlingly wide array of information about potential customers, in the name of directed advertising. Insurance companies might cross-reference with Amazon to determine whether their customers have purchased books on car racing. Divorce attorneys might cross-reference with credit card companies to identify and offer services to persons who have recently paid for hotel rooms or purchased other paraphernalia associated with extramarital affairs. Employers might cross-reference with medical histories to determine HIV status or even genetic predispositions. With the continued rise in electronic commerce and global internetworking, extensive databases of personal profiles on every person on Earth are visible on the horizon. % mention Database Nation in here somewhere? -dmolnar % No. Yick. -arma Confining to the police or other intelligence agencies the ability to collect, correlate, or make use of this information does not help much. Building correlations between disparate data sets is a tricky task, and the people asking the questions are almost never the ones building the databases or doing the queries. Because of this, they don't understand the limitations of the data they have available. Government divisions may well be required to make a certain quota of profiles matching certain constraints, such as `pedophile' or `drug dealer'. If time is short, budgets are tight, and relaxing some of the query constraints is much easier and cheaper than collecting or verifying more data, the choice seems clear. The result of this is that ordinary innocent citizens will get targeted as `suspicious' for one reason or another. The transition from surveillance state to police state may well be a very subtle one. \subsection{Tool for Political Dissidents} One of the most important goals we could hope to achieve is to aid political dissidents in spreading their statements. The Rewebber document by Goldberg and Wagner enumerates a wide variety of causes through the past few centuries for which publication was a driving force\cite{taz-rewebber}: % directly quoted from rewebber paper \begin{itemize} \item The Protestant Reformation was greatly aided by the invention of the printing press, which enabled widespread distribution of many copies of the Bible \item the French ``Voice of the Resistance'' used nightly radio broadcasts from constantly-changing temporary locations to reach the people during the German occupation \item the USA used high-power radio stations such as Radio Free Europe during the cold war to combat censorship behind the Iron Curtain \item in past years, banned information was copied through underground channels from person to person in the Soviet Union, in a process known as samizdat (which is Russian for ``self-publishing'') \item when the Serbian government began jamming the Belgrade independent radio station during the Serb-Croat war, Serbian students used the World Wide Web to mirror broadcasts and combat the government's censorship %{\footnote {Veran Matic, ``Another `Jamming Device' Activated Against Radio B92,'' Press release, 1 Dec 1996. %{\tt http://www.dds.nl/\~{}pressnow/news/9611300.htm}}} % %{\footnote {Rebecca Vesely, ``Banned on Radio, Belgrade Dissidents Take to Net,'' Wired News, 3 Dec 1996. %{\tt http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/777.html}}} % %{\footnote {24 Rebecca Vesely, ``Net Presence Widens as Serbia Shuts Down Media,'' Wired News, 4 Dec 1996. %{\tt http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/806.html}}} \end{itemize} Indeed, we might also include \begin{itemize} \item Saudi dissidents using fax machines to communicate. \item In addition to the Protestant Reformation making use of the printing press, Luther's critiques of the church were of similar magnitude. \end{itemize} % xxx committee for defense of legitimate rights... and Prince Sultan's % not very flattering comment on fax machines. By providing tools and a mouthpiece to dissidents, we enable them to speak out about the events that are happening around them. Due to the features of Free Haven, this speech is very difficult to trace. Providing a safe avenue for publishing this speech is an important step to leveling the playing field between individuals and governments or corporations. It is important to recognize that this publishing system must truly be safe. If we provide an unsafe mechanism for publishing text from political dissidents in dangerous countries, the immediate consequences could be disastrous. Further, a few such `mistakes' may well dissuade people from using similar technologies in the future even if they become more safe. %system has to be bulletproof if it's actually used by dissidents %how can we justify aiding dissidents in other countries? why is it for us to do this? \subsection{Whistleblowing -- now with documentation!} One of the canonical examples of good applications for anonymous speech is the ability to provide workers or other individuals a channel for anonymous whistleblowing. That is, if something untoward or illegal is happening in a factory or other workplace, one of the workers can report the incident in a manner that doesn't risk disclosing his identity -- often such a disclosure could cost the worker his job. % (cite here?) %no cite here, i guess. In the case of Free Haven, we can do more than provide a simple channel for reporting these incidents -- we provide an actual publication area in which the individual reporting could include extension documentation about the incident, such as pictures or videos of the sanitation levels in the chicken factory, pollution concentrations, outflow rates, epidemiological statistics, financial records, government funding allocations, etc. \subsection{Persistent software distribution} A distributed publication system like Free Haven doesn't have to be used solely for political activism or enabling individuals to speak out about controversial matters. Indeed, such a publication system may well be an excellent resource for software distribution in a few years. Current software distribution schemes involve maintaining a single server at a fixed location somewhere in the world; slightly more robust schemes include separately maintained mirror sites to increase redundancy and thus robustness. On the other hand, a decentralized publishing system like Free Haven would provide much smoother redundancy, since the protocol itself divides the document around the world in a robust fashion. There are a number of very difficult problems to solve, most notably the persistent naming issue (providing global and permanent names \cite{urn} for each document or object in the world, such that revision of these documents is seamlessly integrated into a name update), before a global publishing system can take the place of the web for software distribution. However, some sort of more decentralized global network which emphasizes separation between data and physical location seems likely to be its successor. Providing some hints for future designers and developers of what works and what does not work could be invaluable. \section{Conclusions} Free Haven provides a service that is not currently available from any other project or application. Web pages available from the internet have their source easily evident. Usenet articles do not reliably reach all readers, and are subject to unpredictable expiration from disapproving administrators or simply due to space constraints. Because the Free Haven design requires servers to provide space in proportion to the size of the documents they store, we expect the amount of `unwanted' (porn, etc) material to similarly be proportional to the number of servers attempting to store such material. This means that if 10\% of the servers in this system are provided by pornography companies, then roughly 10\% of the material in Free Haven will be their material. Therefore we believe that there is little danger of the system getting entirely swamped by such data. This is very different from systems like Freenet, where popularity of a document causes it to be replicated all around the network, expiring other less-popular documents in the process. By providing a stable and distributed service for anonymous publishing and anonymous reading, we provide dissidents with more powerful tools for both communication and publication. We believe in -- and provide -- a stronger notion of free speech than simply the ability to make government-sanctioned statements. Overall, we believe that providing individuals with the power to speak in a free, persistent, and untraceable manner is well worth the risk that the system could also be used for less wholesome activities. % \item ``You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words % make your blood boil who is standing center stage % advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top % of yours.'' -- American President % \item ``The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also % has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that % flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you % can stand up and sing about the land of the free.'' -- American President %"Here we are protecting Nike, McDonald's, The Gap, and all the while I'm %thinking, 'Where are the police? These anarchists should have been %arrested.'" Thus spoke Medea Benjamin, crusader against corporate tyranny %and ubiquitous spokesperson for the non-profit Global Exchange.