There are several jokes and cartoons out there that play on the idea
of the "anonymous" Web, an Internet where you can be whatever and whomever you want. Most mainstream computer users willingly buy into this concept, deceived by the ability to adopt cryptic usernames and email addresses.Anonymous Internet usage is an appealing concept to many people, but whether it's actually possible is a different matter. Generally speaking, it's relatively simple to intercept — and at the least, monitor — the transmission of digital information.
Every time you transmit data from a computer to or from somewhere else using the Internet, literally dozens of places can exist that are monitoring the transmission. Clear-text protocols offer no built-in protection from eavesdropping. In addition, the transmission leaves traces of "evidence" on your computer — regardless of if you use data encryption or one of those software "evidence eliminator" packages.
An anonymous Internet, if such a thing existed, would be immune to eavesdropping entirely, and it would have no record of a communication ever existing. Anonymous Internet usage is like a "cash" form of communication: it would leave no traceable evidence. In certain countries, the government restricts and/or controls Internet use. For example, China has one of the most extensive Web proxy server and monitoring capabilities in the world, aptly dubbed the Great Firewall of China.
The Chinese government controls, monitors, and censors Internet access at will. Dissidents and those opposed to the Chinese government, including other governments, constantly try to bypass the censors, but the Great Firewall soon discovers and blocks these noncensored "anonymous" proxy servers.
So it's understandable why some people see the benefits in leaving no traces of any communication, especially when there's a fear of reprisal from a government or other organisations. It would be as if the transmission never happened. There's no record of it ever occurring, and therefore it doesn't exist.
But, however appealing this concept may be to some, the fact remains that it isn't realistic. Companies and individuals alike need to be aware that there really is no such thing as anonymous Internet usage. If someone wants to determine what a computer is doing on the Internet, there's always a trail to follow.
Computer users leave traces of information with almost every data transmission. In fact, an entire subindustry has evolved to deal with removing these traces of information, but these companies can only remove what's on a computer. There are so many other points that can record the digital footprints of Internet activity that it's impossible to completely guarantee anonymity.
Whether anonymous Internet usage will ever exist is not important. What is important is that companies become aware that Internet activity is easy to monitor from a variety of locations, even when data encryption is in use.
Talkback
If the article is indeed true then most intelligence/security services will have been able to trace al-qaeda news postings on the web or use of the web.
Why are so many web/internet offensive messages etc not traced if it is so easy - sorry I can't accept your proposition. It may not be easy but it seems to be happening all the time.
I think the analogy with cash is better than the author realises. Cash is not anonymous, every single note has a serial number which can be traced thoeretically at every transaction. However in practise this is not the case beause most shops dont record who gives them a specific note. Banks do record them but not always. What you get is a partial trace. The main problem is the number of notes and intermediaries leading to a theoretically solvable problem but not in the lifetime of our universe.
The internet and traceability is much the same, imperfect log recording, poor cycling regimes, bad disks and all the normal day to day stuff that is the humdrum of an SAs life, the underlying routing algorithm's injected randomness, number of intermediaries and end nodes mean that in practise it's nearly impossible to "find" the stuff you are talking about.
This is not to be confused with targetting "known" ndividuals, in much the same way that real people are tailed internet messages can be tailed but a priori they are known not found.
If you hide and no one knows you ... they will only find you by chance, fat chance!
You are known ... you can hide ... but the PROBABILITY to find you is very high ... NOT CERTAIN.
The article has some merit ... but is utterly vague and basically untrue.
I'm sorry to get personal but...I found this article unusually poorly supported and not of the caliber of writing I'm used to seeing from authors on this site. My response will be unfortunately disjointed, but then so was the coverage of subject matter..
"Computer users leave traces of information with almost every data transmission. In fact, an entire subindustry has evolved to deal with removing these traces of information, but these companies can only remove what's on a computer. There are so many other points that can record the digital footprints of Internet activity that it's impossible to completely guarantee anonymity."
It is true that given the number of points along which packets are exchanged and logged over the internet, tracing activity is possible. It is similarly true that while it is forensically possible to partially reconstruct that activity by acquiring those traces, a perfect reconstruction is as unlikely as perfectly hidden surfing. That is because the same imperfections exist that are attempting to monitor human activity as are engaging in it. The smartest Chinese security expert can no more anticipate every form of unsanctioned behavior coming in from outside than I can understand flower appreciation. It is within this zone of uncertainty that activity is occurring everyday which will never be known. This zone, while not guaranteed from the standpoint of anonymity, is still a lot easier to exploit from the standpoint of maintaining privacy than it is to monitor from the standpoint of maintaining security.
"Whether anonymous Internet usage will ever exist is not important. What is important is that companies become aware that Internet activity is easy to mnitor from a variety of locations, even when data encryption is in use."
Anonymity is not important, but privacy is; for privacy is the beginning respect around which no civil society can function.
Errr they have, so what do you mean?