Corinne Dalelio
Infowars.com
February 3, 2010

I read an article today. It was published in Time magazine, written by Barbara Kiviat, and entitled, “Driver’s licenses for the Internet.” The fear-mongering in this article was unabashed, as the very first sentence stated that even just discussing the current state of Internet security was “scar-y” with a hyphenated “y.” This fear-mongering continues until the fifth paragraph, where THE solution is proposed: Internet licenses.

There is a notable absence in Barbara Kiviat’s article of one of the most important aspects of online access: freedom of expression.

Fear-mongering aside, the arguments for this solution were weak. Kiviat states that a major obstacle to implementing the licenses would be the public outcry against the loss of online anonymity. Her response is that, in the real world, your anonymity is only allowed in public; however if you were to, say, walk into a bank vault, you would need to present ID. Well, the equivalent of that structure is already in place on the Internet, so I fail to see what the issue is. I cannot enter into anyone’s bank account but my own, and even then it is required that I register my online account with the company, and am granted access each time I log in. If someone were to gain access to the online equivalent of the bank “vault,” they would certainly need to present credentials that most of us do not have.

Kiviat’s second argument is that the licenses would prevent scammers from collecting donations for fake charities, as they would have to present their true identity in order to set up such a site. Personally, I am no more likely to give my money to a non-reputable charity that I know nothing about online than I am to some random guy on the street corner with a bucket and a sign. Does that mean that some overly trusting people wouldn’t fall for the scam? No, of course not, but scammers can be prosecuted, online or off, just like someone stealing from a bank would be criminally charged whether they hacked in or walked in off the street and held the place up.

Kiviat mentions identity theft only in the fear-mongering portion of her article. She does not explain how the licensing system would prevent identity theft, perhaps because it would in fact make it easier for criminals to accomplish. Common sense tells us that, if all of our online interactions are consolidated under one license, one only needs to gain access to that license in order to learn everything about you, and to act as though they were you under false pretenses. Seeing as cyber-criminals, to date, have managed to outsmart security protocols time and again, why should we believe that this licensing system would not be vulnerable?

The fact is, right now, you do not have to put your information online. You can elect to provide personal information to certain companies for the sake of convenience, but you still reserve the right to keep any and all information about your identity offline. If these licenses are put into place, will you still be allowed that right? Or will you be required to provide your personal information in exchange for the “privilege” of accessing the Internet?

[efoods]Finally, there is a notable absence in this article of one of the most important aspects of online access: freedom of expression. Kiviat says that it is fine if you want to read Time magazine articles without identifying yourself, but says nothing about what would be required if you should want to respond to an article, or dispute the claims made. Will you have to present your license first? Click a user-friendly button that identifies who you are, where you live, what bank you use, what purchases you’ve made, and what activity you’ve conducted on other websites? Who will you be sending this information to? What criteria will be used to determine whether or not you are allowed the “privilege” of expression?

There has already been talk of requiring journalistic licenses or certifications to prevent bloggers (read: citizens) from having the ability to talk about news and world events from their own editorial perspective or presenting their own research online. I would argue against such a requirement, as it is a more intelligent society that leaves it up to the discretion of the reader to determine whether or not the information presented is credible, regardless of the source. We should not have to be told who to listen to and who not to, without having to do any critical thinking or research of our own.

The current time period has been dubbed “The Information Age,” and there is good reason for that. It is because the user-to-user networked design of the Internet has provided us with the opportunity to both disseminate and collect information from a variety of sources. For decades, we received the majority of information via the one-to-many communication system of television, in which our only response to the talking heads could be aired amongst a small group of people we already know, around the proverbial “water cooler.” Now those conversations can be had in a much more public way, with people who have additional knowledge and alternative viewpoints. Whether it was originally intended to or not, the Internet has allowed for a resurgence of the public sphere, simply because it affords citizens an alternative to the one-way system of information dissemination.

Of course there are issues with security on the Internet. People have been victims of identify theft, been taken advantage of, scammed, robbed. That is not in question. But these things happen in the offline world, too. And, as has always been the case, criminals should be prosecuted. The main difference is, victims cannot be physically harmed on the Internet. So, what is the real threat? What makes the Internet so “scar-y?” Perhaps the real fear is amongst those who have been threatened by the re-structuring of information ownership that has occurred, and are looking to regain their privileged status in society.

Kiviat argues that it is our “right to anonymity” that we, the public, will so rigidly cling to when presented with the new licensing system. But I disagree. One only needs to spend five minutes on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube for a study in just how willing people are to identify who they are, what they are about, what they are doing, and how they spent Saturday night. Instead, I believe that it is freedom that we will, and should, fight for. Freedom of privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of information. If we can all agree that a level of discernment is required when presented with a piece of information, no matter whom the source or from where it was derived, then there is no need for a central system of authoritative oversight to control what is and isn’t allowed, and who is or isn’t privileged, on the Internet.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!