In recent times, the issue of privacy and anonymity has come to the forefront of national policy discussion. Donald Kerr, the deputy director of national intelligence, recently called for a change in the way the United States treats privacy, saying that rather than protecting anonymity, we should instead focus on ensuring that the government prevents the data it collects on private citizens from being mishandled. Although data protection of this sort is certainly important, Kerr’s dismissal of the importance of anonymity represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the need for privacy in a free society.
Anonymity is valuable because it provides people with the ability to make statements without damaging their reputations or endangering the lives of those close to them. The utility of anonymity in allowing free discussion is recognized by society in substance abuse programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, and by the legal system, which protects the identity of witnesses in whistleblowing cases to allow them to speak out against wrongdoing without risking their careers or wellbeing.
Just as anonymity is useful in allowing people to confront personal issues or speak out against the wrongdoing of private organizations, it is also important in allowing citizens to speak out against injustices of the government. If anonymity is not protected, people may be unwilling to speak up out of fear, real or perceived, of retribution for their statements.
It has long been noted that if people know they are being watched, their behavior changes. People will be less willing to take actions which might be viewed as suspicious or controversial if they feel their actions will be highly scrutinized. The upside to this phenomenon is when these activities are of a criminal nature. However, the damage which is inevitably done to the state of free discourse is too great to be ignored.
In his statements, Kerr made reference to the pervasiveness of personal information on the Internet, stating “Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that.” This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of privacy protections. Protecting anonymity does not mean ensuring that every statement a person makes is made anonymously, but rather that all people have the capability to make statements without their identity attached. The fact that I have chosen to make my full name and contact information available in a public forum such as Facebook does not mean that I have surrendered my right to anonymity in general. Indeed, part of free discourse is the ability to identify yourself or remain anonymous as you see fit, depending on the context of the situation.
It is important to realize that surveillance is a danger to free discourse even if it is not misused. Even if no action is taken against dissenters, the perception that action might be taken will oftentimes be enough to dissuade a potential whistleblower from making statements.
In order to protect the right to free speech and cultivate an environment in which people are willing to speak freely and openly about the issues of the day, we must ensure that our right to remain anonymous is protected.
Editor’s Note: “The Elephant’s Peanut Gallery” and “Liberal Bias” run biweekly and are opinion columns granted by the Editorial Board to the College Republicans and the College Democrats.
