A Tale of Cookies (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde)

QUESTIONS of anonymity, pseudonymity, the various degrees of privacy are connected with the technological fact that no generic system for identification in cyberspace currently exists. It is not possible to absolutely identify an entity or to tell accurately whether an object has a specific characteristic. The digital identity is a unique construction, one based on the lack of a physical presence . The political debate about the costs and benefits of anonymity presuppose that digital transactions cannot be traced. Possible digital transactions include exchanging e-mail, participation in a discussion group or in a chat room, browsing in cyberspace . Multiple identities; liberty of gender, age, name, and other constructions; social roles that follow the Pessoa ethics: the appearance of anonymity is unimaginable without the net. Consequently , almost nothing prevents the transmission of false identity information, or the duplication of the identity information of others . To avert these problems, the actual identity must not be transmitted along with the message; instead, a verification scheme needs to be used to convince the recipient that the message was actually sent by the sender. The culture of disappearance and pseudonymity raises the need to crystallize the sociology of multiplied identities. There are legal issues with pseudoanonymity: in reality, outside cyberspace , a unique characteristic serves normally as the representation or identifier for identity (for example, social security, driver’s license, or credit card number). SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Spring 2002) A Tale of Cookies (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) BY PÉTER GYÖRGY If cyberspace technically and practically allows the multiplication of identity, it means that digital identity can only be a useful metaphor, an intellectual concept in network games, because it lacks significance as a real social construction, with legal responsibilities and consequences. The aftermath of multiplied identity is the challenge of balancing the right to freedom of speech, the myth of the First Amendment, and defending privacy(!). There is the right to be and remain invisible, and the right to multiply identities: consequently, the right to be false. But there is the question of the intention of lying, or the creation of false identity. The analogy with the magazine Hustler—according to my impressions—is false. In the case of Hustler the Supreme Court defended the right of publisher Larry Flint to lie in order to protect the freedom of speech. The argument of public interest was stronger than the defense of privacy, but it does not mean that every false identity created by different users automatically represents public interest. Global Reach, Local Control There are the well-known cases, in which the false identity of the multiplied identities, the mask of the sender, could be the source of different dangers, of political and legal tensions. Child abusers, child pornography users, neo-nazi cyber-citizens artfully appropriate the benefits of digital freedom: the untraceable points of the network. Those who believe in the right to free speech are not interested in child pornography users, who appropriate the arenas of multiplied identities. In case of neo-nazis, the debate is more difficult: there are liberals who allow the Auschwitz-lüge and the other neo-nazi activities. They argue that the cost of controlling content could be higher than the benefit of exclusion of neo-nazis from cyberspace. I think it might be useful to pause for a moment to clarify certain elements of this narration. First, we have the example of the 240 SOCIAL RESEARCH neo-nazis and the level of regulation, the connections and interconnections between cyberspace and the real world, where nation-states and national laws are valid. In 1996, Germany tried and convicted neo-nazi Gary Lauck, who is an American citizen. From his home in the United States, Lauck had sent neo-nazi propaganda to countries around the world, including Germany. Along with other neo-nazis, Lauck maintained a website and sent e-mails and traditional letters also. The two forms of neo-nazi propaganda are not the same. The website could be interpreted as passive access for those browsing the net and who attempted to find a neo-nazi content. Sending e-mail, however, is an active act, which could be interpreted as a violation of...