A FORWARD VIEW OF
ANONYMITY ONLINE
JOSH SMITH
ELLIOT JONES
ELLEN JUDSON
WHAT’S IN A
NAME?
APRIL 2020
Open Access. Some rights reserved.
As the publisher of this work, Demos wants to
encourage the circulation of our work as widely as
possible while retaining the copyright. We therefore
have an open access policy which enables anyone
to access our content online without charge.
Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute
this work in any format, including translation,
without written permission. This is subject to the
terms of the Demos licence found at the back of
this publication. Its main conditions are:
• Demos and the author(s) are credited
• This summary and the address www.demos.co.uk
are displayed
• The text is not altered and is used in full
• The work is not resold
• A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent
to Demos.
You are welcome to ask for permission to use this
work for purposes other than those covered by the
licence. Demos gratefully acknowledges the work
of Creative Commons in inspiring our approach to
copyright. To nd out more go to
www.creativecommons.org
Published by Demos April 2020.
© Demos. Some rights reserved.
76 Vincent Square, London, SW1P 2PD
T: 020 3878 3955
hello@demos.co.uk
www.demos.co.uk
Charity number 1042046
This project was supported by GCHQ
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, this work would not have been
possible without the support of GCHQ, whose
expertise we were privileged to draw on in writing
this report.
This report owes a great debt to those who have
generously taken time to share their knowledge,
and help shape the authors understanding of
the philosophical, technical and social aspects
of anonymity. In particular, thanks are due to
Alfred Moore, Hany Farid and John Naughton,
whose thinking, technical expertise and patient
conversation were invaluable to the formation of this
report.
At Demos, this work would not have been possible
without the invaluable conversations, arguments
and brainstroming sessions held within and without
CASM, with particular thanks to Alex Krasodomski
for his formative input and clarity of thought, and
the ever guiding hand of Carl Miller. Thanks to
Maeve Thompson and Josh Tapper, who helped
shape the report into the document you hold before
you now, to Izzy Little for her design genius, to
Stanley Phillipson Brown for his thoughtful input and
tireless proofreading, and to the entire Demos team
for their support and bonhomie.
As ever, all mistakes and ommission remain the
authors’ own.
Josh Smith
Elliot Jones
Ellen Judson
April 2020
3
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Policymakers and other public gures are
increasingly vocal on the importance of balancing
the benets and drawbacks of online anonymity. In
our efforts to build a better Internet, we require clear
and consensual understanding of the language,
concepts and infrastructures of anonymity. Drawing
on legal, philosophical and historical evidence and
interviews, this paper clearly articulates how online
anonymity should be understood. It presents a
model through which future settlements on online
anonymity can be tested, presented in a way
that we hope is useful to both technologists and
policymakers.
Anonymity is a concept with an inherent tension at
its heart. It is valuable because it enables expression
free from repercussions; it is destructive for precisely
the same reason. Discussions of anonymity online
have often ignored this complexity, lacking clarity,
evidence or agreement. This has slowed progress
towards a better settlement. Historically, liberal
democracies have aimed to strike a balance
between the value and threats of anonymity.
This balance has been destabilised by the digital
commons. This paper shows how it might be re-
established.
Three questions underpin the concept of anonymity:
• Can our actions be connected to us?
• How are our actions and identities connected?
• Who is able to make those connections?
We believe anonymity should be understood as a
relational concept. One can only be anonymous to
some other individual or organisation. Anonymity in
the future should be discussed in the context of who
or what is a user anonymous from?
As such, we propose a three-fold test for how
anonymity should function online in liberal
democracies. Future solutions must:
1. Protect internet users’ ability to choose
anonymity online, and emphasise its importance
in preserving freedom of expression.
2. Allow accountable institutions tasked with
preserving security under a democratic mandate
to exercise their powers effectively.
3. Ensure users are able to provide meaningful
consent to any deanonymisation by third-parties.
Current approaches fail all three tests. Public debate
tends to reject anonymity online, presenting it as
little more than a mask for crime, ‘trolling’ and
abuse, rather than a fundamental and important
freedom. Current infrastructure hinders security
services from carrying out their democratically
mandated roles in protecting society. And internet
users are woefully unable to give consent to the
data collection and proling practices that underpin
the majority of online services.
In line with these principles, we propose one
solution to the problem of balancing online
anonymity and identity: creating an alternative
independent identity authentication body, at an
arm’s length from both the private sector and the
central state. Possible approaches include a BBC-
style royal charter, with some mixture of state and
user-based funding. We also propose short-term
xes that could be made by stakeholders in this
space.
“There is a dilemma at the heart of anonymity. It is
valuable because it enables expression free from
repercussions, but anonymity is also destructive for
precisely the same reason.”
4
In this report, we examine two identity systems -
those of the Government Digital Service’s ‘Verify’
program, and Facebook. Any attempt at identity
provision needs to learn lessons from these systems.
In particular, it needs to recognise the signicant
challenges these examples highlight, in terms of
preventing exploitation, serving users’ needs, and
securing sensitive data, among others.
SOLUTIONS TO THE ANONYMITY PARADOX
We believe that successfully balancing the benets and challenges of anonymity online will require a
system to allow for three possible answers to the question below.
Can I connect your behaviour in a space to your identity?
Yes,
with a warrant or
court order
Yes,
with my consent
Anonymity should be
publicly defended as a right
of internet users against
knee-jerk responses to its
worst excesses and abuses.
In the interests of security
and safeguarding,
government agencies
and law enforcement
should have the ability to
deanonymise users given
warrantry and judicial
oversight.
Internet users should
be able to meaningfully
understand and consent
for their behaviour to
be connected to their
identity, in contrast to
the existing abuses of
data protection carried
out by data aggregators
and meaningless ‘tickbox’
consent.
No
5
