Strides and Missteps Toward Consumer Anonymity

-- By KatiaBogomolova - 16 Mar 2021

Introduction/Overview - Anonymity or Privacy?

"We didn't build the net with anonymity built in. That was a mistake." -Eben Moglen at re:publica, Berlin, May 2, 2012.

In the current system, digital anonymity sounds like an oxymoron. Accessing the Web from nearly anywhere in the United States pre-supposes -- despite constitutional guarantees of privacy and protection against searches -- near total exposure. From technologies overtly aimed at removing individual privacy to more covert or removed data mining operations (through social networking sites and the like), a consumer's identity, once digitized, attaches to them immutably. In our ever more digitized society, it becomes increasingly difficult for consumers to say no to surveillance. However, existing and expanding public pressure may force corporate America to make room for privacy, albeit not full anonymity online. This paper explores the present systems that seek to enhance online consumer protections online, as well as where we can go from here.

Existing laws in the modern digital landscape

When the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was enacted in 2018, it generated a mixed response., has been enacted to enhance consumer privacy protections. The CCPA gives consumers greater control over the information that businesses may collect about them, and how they use this information further. Among others, the Act gives the consumer the right to know what information the business is collecting, using and sharing, to delete collected personal information (with exceptions), to opt-out of the sale of this information to a third party, and to non-discrimination for exercising a right under this Act. This act marks a positive stride in the direction of greater privacy; an important one since the 2006 creation of The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC). The council, an independent project by American Express, Discover, JCB International, MasterCard? and Visa Inc. sets a standard for card encryption and security.

Protection in the cloud: Several SCOTUS decisions limited the possibility of digital surveillance. Riley v. California perhaps made a dent in the unrestricted access to "private" information on the Web. In an arrest, the Court held, information found to be in the "cloud," i.e. accessible via phone but not inherently on it, cannot be considered "on the arrestee's person," To this end, the government is thus forbidden by the Fourth Amendment to engage in such a warrantless search (unless the government's interests are so compelling that a search would be reasonable). Also, the Court found in United States v. Jones and Carpenter v. United States that the use of GPS or cell phone signal triangulation to track a suspect without a warrant is unconstitutional. It follows, then, that using the Internet to keep tabs on a suspect's geographic location at all times may constitute a violation. Perhaps, as more specific cases arise, the Court may set the parameters of constitutional violation more clearly, as they pertain to the Internet.

Corporations, often motivated by intensive public opinion, are looking for ways to enhance privacy — or at the least, "privacy theatre" (the staging of privacy in some kind of space. For example, the cybersecurity department at Lowe's recently hired a specialized, chief privacy officer to work with the company's general counsel. With her oversight, the cybersecurity team's goal is to lock down corporate users with access to customer data, reducing this access significantly. Such action was compelled by the public and the state government of California, alike. The existence of the CCPA accelerated this process. Although it isn't perfect, new legislation and regulation can strengthen constitutional privacy protections enough to bring the concept of digital anonymity closer on the horizon.

Why aren't these headings distributed through the text, where they would be useful to the reader. Collected here at the bottom they don't do much work....

Is either possible in the modern digital landscape?

Perhaps possible, but not probable.

What is being done to encourage or enhance either?

By the government

By individuals/corporations

The Public Forum, with which We, the People, are One.

Limitations on the First Amendment

The government's normalization of Internet stalking

The draft's primary idea seems to be at odds with its material. I take the primary idea to be the desirability of basic consumer anonymity. That's not the same thing as web-tracking, and doesn't seem to have much role in consumer e-commerce, where the seller who ships goods to a consumer will usually know who is at the other end. Consumer anonymity is mostly about payment systems, which you discuss only glancingly. Supreme Court cases about warrantless digital searches are only tangentially relevant, because the information sellers acquire in the course of trade is subject to subpoena. This aspect of the problem is a little closer to the actual subject of this course, but you are not bound to write about it for that reason. More important to improvement is to isolate the real subject of your writing and to focus on it.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KatiaBogomolova
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.