Trying to be anonymous on the Internet can attract more attention

by John Naughton

The Observer

When searching for an adjective to describe our comprehensively surveilled networked world — the one bookmarked by the NSA at one end and by Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Co. at the other — “Orwellian” is the word that people generally reach for.

But “Kafkaesque” seems more appropriate. The term is conventionally defined as “having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre or illogical quality,” but Frederick Karl, Franz Kafka’s most assiduous biographer, regarded that as missing the point. “What’s Kafkaesque,” he once told the New York Times, “is when you enter a surreal world in which all your control patterns, all your plans, the whole way in which you have configured your own behavior, begins to fall to pieces, when you find yourself against a force that does not lend itself to the way you perceive the world.”

A vivid description of this was provided recently by Janet Vertesi, a sociologist at Princeton University. She gave a talk at a conference describing her experience of trying to keep her pregnancy secret from marketers. Her report is particularly pertinent because pregnant women are regarded by online advertisers as one of the most valuable entities on the Internet. You and I are worth, on average, only 10 cents each. But a pregnant woman is valued at $1.50 because she is about to embark on a series of purchasing decisions stretching well into her child’s lifetime.

Vertesi’s story is about big data, but from the bottom up. It’s a gripping personal account of what it takes to avoid being collected, tracked and entered into databases.

First — and most obviously — she determined that there would be absolutely no mention of her new state on social media. She phoned or wrote individually to friends and family members to give them the good news, and asked them not to mention it on Facebook. But an uncle in Australia sent her a congratulatory message via Facebook. “I then did,” she said, “what any rational person would do. I deleted the thread of all our conversations and unfriended him.” He replied plaintively: “But I didn’t put it on your wall,” apparently unaware that chats and other messages aren’t private in the sense that he assumed.

In preparing for the birth of her child, Vertesi was nothing if not thorough. Instead of using a web browser in the normal way — i.e. leaving a trail of cookies and other digital tracks, she used the online service Tor to visit babycenter.com anonymously. She shopped offline whenever she could and paid in cash. On the occasions when she had to use Amazon, she set up a new Amazon account linked to an email address on a personal server, had all packages delivered to a local locker and made sure only to pay with Amazon gift cards that had been purchased with cash.

The really significant moment came when she came to buy a big-ticket item — an expensive stroller that was the urbanite’s equivalent of an SUV. Her husband tried to buy $500 of Amazon gift vouchers with cash, only to discover that this triggered a warning: retailers have to report people buying large numbers of gift vouchers with cash because, well, you know, they’re obviously money launderers.

At this point, some sobering thoughts begin to surface. The first is Melvin Kranzberg’s observation that “technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” Our technologies have values built into them, which is why Vertesi in her talk cites someone’s observation that “the iPod is a tool to make us moral” (because it encourages people to buy music rather than download it illicitly) and philosophers argue about whether surveillance encourages moral — i.e. socially approved — behavior (think speed cameras).

Even more sobering, though, are the implications of Vertesi’s decision to use Tor as a way of ensuring the anonymity of her web-browsing activities. She had a perfectly reasonable reason for doing this — to ensure that, as a mother-to-be, she was not tracked and targeted by online marketers.

But we know from the Edward Snowden disclosures and other sources that Tor users are automatically regarded with suspicion by the NSA et al. on the grounds that people who do not wish to leave a digital trail are obviously up to no good. The same goes for people who encrypt their emails.

This is why the industry response to protests about tracking is so inadequate. The market will fix the problem, the companies say, because if people don’t like being tracked then they can opt not to be. But the Vertesi experiment shows that if you take measures to avoid being tracked, then you increase the probability that you will be. Which is truly Kafkaesque.

  • GBR48

    The iPod isn’t a tool to make you moral and it doesn’t encourage you to buy music. It is a tool to exploit your gullibility as it encourages you to rent access to music. If you want to ‘buy’ music, get a CD. You can sell a second-hand CD.

    Using Tor doesn’t mean you are a criminal, it just means that there is a higher probability that you are a criminal, as you are actively making an effort to hide something online. Consequently, concentrating on Tor users would be one of the few sensible things that governments could be doing to reduce the billions in public funds that they waste in their incessant control-freakery.

    The problem here is not the technology, but the extent to which the commercial sector are legally allowed to mine data in their quest to make money. This permission is granted by (often computer-illiterate) politicians catering to their rich chums in the commercial sector, at the expense of the general public.

    And that, ultimately, is the fault of the general public. The definition of a democracy is ‘a nation that gets what it deserves’.

    Although universal surveillance has a dark side, there is an element here of ‘first world problems’. There are plenty of people in the world who would love to have the luxury of worrying about whether their purchase of an expensive pram was being traded as data. Instead they must face a daily battle to ensure that their family have food, fresh water and a roof over their heads. $500 would pay for a lot more than a pram for most expectant mothers.

    Now that is a sobering thought.