Police have already learned to cope with untraceable calls, disguises, and aliases. They can likewise learn to cope with digital anonymity. But authorities must not wound our fundamental liberties in targeting illegal speech. The availability of less intrusive means of enforcing information regulations, combined with anonymity’s vital role in protecting free speech and privacy, would make it difficult for the Supreme Court to excuse an outright ban on public key systems.
Predictor: Bell, Tom W.
Prediction, in context:In a 1995 article for Wired magazine, Tom Bell, a teacher at the University of Dayton Law School, writes: ”The right to anonymous speech would not protect illegal speech, of course. Police have already learned to cope with untraceable calls, disguises, and aliases. They can likewise learn to cope with digital anonymity. But authorities must not wound our fundamental liberties in targeting illegal speech. The availability of less intrusive means of enforcing information regulations, combined with anonymity’s vital role in protecting free speech and privacy, would make it difficult for the Supreme Court to excuse an outright ban on public key systems. Don’t regard this as a virtual certainty, though, and let down your guard. Whether your right to anonymity survives an upload into dataspace will depend not only on what the Supreme Court says to us, but on what we say to it.”
Date of prediction: January 1, 1995
Topic of prediction: Controversial Issues
Subtopic: Anonymity/Personal Identity
Name of publication: Wired
Title, headline, chapter name: ‘Anonymous Speech’: Imagine Combining Free Speech with Your Right to Privacy
Quote Type: Direct quote
Page number or URL of document at time of study:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/cyber.rights_pr.html
This data was logged into the Elon/Pew Predictions Database by: Anderson, Janna Quitney