The Anonymity Experiment

During a week of attempting to cloak every aspect of daily life, our correspondent found that in an information age, leaving no trace is nearly impossible
The Anonymity Experiment: Photo by Aaron Goodman

In 2006, David Holtzman decided to do an experiment. Holtzman, a security consultant and former intelligence analyst, was working on a book about privacy, and he wanted to see how much he could find out about himself from sources available to any tenacious stalker. So he did background checks. He pulled his credit file. He looked at Amazon.com transactions and his credit-card and telephone bills. He got his DNA analyzed and kept a log of all the people he called and e-mailed, along with the Web sites he visited. When he put the information together, he was able to discover so much about himself—from detailed financial information to the fact that he was circumcised—that his publisher, concerned about his privacy, didn’t let him include it all in the book.

I’m no intelligence analyst, but stories like Holtzman’s freak me out. So do statistics like this one: Last year, 127 million sensitive electronic and paper records (those containing Social Security numbers and the like) were hacked or lost—a nearly 650 percent increase in data breaches from the previous year. Also last year, news broke that hackers had stolen somewhere between 45 million and 94 million credit- and debit-card numbers from the databases of the retail company TJX, in one of the biggest data breaches in history. Last November, the British government admitted losing computer discs containing personal data for 25 million people, which is almost half the country’s population. Meanwhile, some privacy advocates worry that the looming merger between Google and the Internet ad company DoubleClick presages an era in which corporations regularly eavesdrop on our e-mail and phone calls so they can personalize ads with creepy precision. Facebook’s ill-fated Beacon feature, which notifies users when their friends buy things from Facebook affiliates, shows that in the information age, even our shopping habits are fit for public broadcast. Facebook made Beacon an opt-in service after outraged users demanded it do so, but the company didn’t drop it completely.

Then we have Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of National Intelligence, who proclaimed in a speech last October that “protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won.” Privacy-minded people have long warned of a world in which an individual’s every action leaves a trace, in which corporations and governments can peer at will into your life with a few keystrokes on a computer. Now one of the people in charge of information-gathering for the U.S. government says, essentially, that such a world has arrived.

So when this magazine suggested I try my own privacy experiment, I eagerly agreed. We decided that I would spend a week trying to be as anonymous as possible while still living a normal life. I would attempt what many believe is now impossible: to hide in plain sight.

A Gallup poll of approximately 1,000 Americans taken in February 1999 found that 70 percent of them believed that the Constitution “guarantees citizens the right to privacy.” Wrong. The Constitution doesn’t even contain the word. And in a fully wired world, that’s an unnerving fact.

A number of amendments protect privacy implicitly, as do certain state and federal laws, the most significant of which is the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits disclosure of some federal records that contain information about individuals (1). Unfortunately, the law is full of exceptions. As Beth Givens, founder and director of the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, put it, the Privacy Act has “so many limitations that it can barely be called a privacy act with a straight face.”

Notes:

1. California, where I live, leads the nation in privacy protection. If I’d conducted my experiment elsewhere in the U.S., it would have been even more difficult. Back to text

Page 1 of 8 12345678next ›last »

26 Comments

Comments

Dave Adams
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Anonymity has never existed -- in the distant past or in recent US history.

I read George Orwell’s “1984” and understand the concern about Big Brother.
But I also read The Scarlet Letter and know that lack of privacy has always existed and existed less in the past – especially in the times of small tribal villages.
While it may be unnerving to know that heartless machines (computers & cameras) are watching us, a person has nothing to fear from those machines as long as A] the person remains a moral and forthright citizen who could proudly walk down a neighborhood street and B] legal controls remain to prevent abuse a la Big Brother.
----------------------------
Cell Phones:
Can’t buy a cell phone anonymously ----50 years ago, you could have a phone only if Ma Bell came into your house and placed it there. And the phone and its operation were in their control.
Cell phone location tracking ---- Phone tracking always existed. In the past Ma Bell knew you were using their phone in your kitchen.
Call tracing ---- Not only were calls traced previously, they were individually and personally connect by an operator – an operator who could, at her discretion, listen or record the call.
Cell phones are not secure ---- Party lines were less secure.

Surveillance
Security cameras identify people in public ---- Previously people walked past (and waved to) permanent neighbors every day. People noticed who was new on the street or who was shopping in the bricks-&-mortar store.
Internet
ISP tracking ---- 50 to 100 years ago, the telephone operator personally placed everyone’s calls and knew every one you IM’d with.

Criminal Activity
Ex-criminals decry publication of their addresses ---- In earlier societies and small towns, moving away from a checkered past was not possible

Anonymity
Address disclosure ---- In earlier times address disclosure also meant disclosure of what kind of underwear you hung upon the clothesline. Everything you did outside of your house was public knowledge.
On-line services track surfing ---- In a small community, everyone knew where you shopped and what you bought. The merchant may have been your neighbor or your school teacher’s brother.
Credit reports ---- In earlier societies, your credit worthiness & general reputation were public knowledge.
Records disclosure ---- Marriages and legal contracts have been posted in public notices an newspapers since before the revolution.

7 out of 8 people found this comment helpful
k_d
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Dave is right. Anonymity is a complete myth. Just ask anyone who lives in a small town why they want to leave. "Everyone knows what I am doing!"

You also have one item wrong, I believe. If I am not mistaken, the stalker who killed Rebecca Shaefer (sp) did not access DMV records on his own - ironically, he used the services of a private investigator. Not only was that completely legal then, it was also made legal today through one of the 13 exemptions in the "shaefer" law.

Personally, I'm offended that a stalker like him was memorialized via that law. After all, the word "stalker" implies that he's following his "prey" about. So it doesn't really matter if he/she can look up his prey's address in a phone book or Internet or wherever. More likely than not, he's hanging out in a car across the street from wherever that person works. The stalker will eventually find out where his prey lives because he's ... wait for this! ...STALKING him or her!!

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
beerdrinker2005
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Nice update on state-of-the-art technologies and policies used against citizens. It's always entertaining to hear police state apologists claim that innocent people have nothing to hide, ignoring the fact that with no civil or criminal statues to protect people, we are on our own to safeguard our privacy from exploitation.

For the next experiment, how about a challenge to Chinese hackers to see how long it would take them to publicly reveal the detailed personal finances of all US presidential candidates and their family members. Throwing in airline ticket, cellphone, and license plate tracking would be a nice touch also.

1 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
gattsuru
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

A few quick things. First, it's possible to spoof your MAC address, and thus switch it to a random MAC address each time you . SMAC would be the most obvious tool for this purpose.

IPv6 is actually intended to be user-switchable, so that's a rather overstated issue, especially since it's so similar to MAC address systems in that regard.

RFID chips can be broken rather easily; the most simple methods would be through the use of a large electromagnetic pulse (attach a capacitor such as those found in disposable cameras to coiled wire) or simply microwaving the device. I expect such things to be rather common.

As for my primary comment : if you think you're paranoid now, wait until you start actually looking deeper down the rabbit hole. Think about what a single, exposed and compromised router close to you could send to a lucky hacker. Think about upcoming technologies that give glimpses into someone's life by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone else had a camera.

Big camera systems have shown themselves to be nearly worthless on a city-scale, as you might be able to watch an entire gang unload bullets on a helpless bystander yet lose track of them completely fifteen steps away. This data becomes even more meaningless when you have to sift through thousands of cameras for data that may well not be there. Now, when several thousand concerned citizens individually and simultaneously decide to cameraphone the creepy guy with the hat and glasses, you've got more of a problem.

And that's not even getting into near-future technology or paranoid conspiracy theory like tracking dollar bills by serial number or thermal tracking, or certain new technologies like the upcoming quantum computing trend (assume four years before government- and experimental-available 30+ qubit quantum computers become available and reliable, assume twenty years before such things are common place; each one will result in the complete destruction of many encryption techniques).

What's worse, though, is that many of the things you've done only made wide-area searches for suspicious activity *easier*. An adult wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap strikes me as a bit odd. Seeing sudden streams of purely encrypted text coming from a residential house? Seeing out-of-place access from a house when it normally gets nothing? Hell, even updating your virus scanner or firewall tells ClamWin or Kaspersky your general location and operating system.

The simple and ugly truth is that there isn't, and never was, and basic human right to privacy. It doesn't take a government or a nasty person (but I repeat myself) to violate any created right; it takes your actions, and most of your actions will cause it to be violated. That's as true in the 1800s, when the old fart at the counter remembered every item you purchased since you were five years old, as today when it's replaced by a computer. It's more present now, but only because we rely on transactions like it so much more.

The more you rely on them, the harder and more expensive and more stringent any laws or contractual agreements to protect your privacy will need to be.

I say this as a network technician, whose local security is set to "0 privacy".

1 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
Casper
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Fear..... can come in many different forms.

Fear of identity theft is relatively new to us all. This fear has been invoked and perpetuated by those mysterious "bankers" who are in charge of us all, as to make us more in favor of the RF-ID chips to be planted in us all.

Just say no to the RFID chip implant.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
ultraaman
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

I'm not afraid to yield my privacy when I choose it. I also understand that being in public means everything I say and do is, well, public. I further don't mind that the government is looking out for me by monitoring some communications that might actually include my own.

What I do mind is when someone sells my information and I don't: A) get final say to approve or decline the sale; and B) I don't get compensation. I further don't approve of my government deciding to monitor activity without a justifiable cause that falls within the boundary of law. I'm also pissed off that the law hasn't caught up with technology that has been around for AT LEAST 10 YEARS!

As for RFIC chips, I'll happily buy a device to render them useless on items I buy. I have to admit thought that while I'm not a religious person even I find this technology eerily close to the Mark of the Beast

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
cybishop
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Interesting article. I had a few comments/quibbles/whatever.

As for going online anonymously, did you consider an Internet café? Most I've been to will let you pay with cash and won't need any information to create an account that couldn't be faked. Maybe that wouldn't have worked for you — I don't know if there's one near where you live, I don't know how much you use a computer or what else you use it for besides writing, and so on — and in any event, Internet cafés probably have surveillance cameras. Still, finding one of those was my first thought.

As for the Do Not Call registry, why did you need that? With everything you did, it sounds like you wouldn't have generated any new information in telemarketers' databases. And getting calls based on information gathered before the start of your experiment doesn't seem like it would violate the spirit of things.

And as for the camera in the hats of British police officers, that actually sounds like a good idea to me. At least, at first glance. Everything the camera is capturing, there's a police officer watching it anyway, but the camera DOES create a record of everything the officer says and does. The watchmen are already watching you; the camera is also watching the watchmen. (In theory. Assuming everything is recorded and saved, and the officer can't easily turn the camera off or obscure it, or if it is turned off any evidence gathered then is considered suspect, and so on.)

I get the basic point, that it would have made your experiment much harder if those police were around here. But unlike most of the surveillance state changes, I would be cautiously optimistic about something like a camera on all policemen.

0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful
majortom30
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

inst that funny, Since this experment was in californa I was supprised I did not see anything about the fact that you have to have a "card" to get the discount at any of the Major Grocery stores out here which is just another way of tracking every single thing you buy at every store. So did you buy food that week?

0 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
0v3rdr1v3
Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

I must congratulate you, for going through the motions of "disappearing" or "falling off the grid" as it were... doing so gives the author good insight into the mind of someone that relies on this anonymity as a way of life.

cybishop brings up a good point, insofar as the "head mounted cameras could be used both ways" for police, but a hat can be easily removed, misplaced, crushed, forgotten, or otherwise be unused by said officer. placing it in a more... necessary peice of equipment would make more sense. something like a kevlar vest equipped with an audio/video array would make the best logical sense.

there remains some criticism about this article, on my end. to start off in a dense urban area like San Fransisco, where too many people see each other on a daily basis, isn't my idea of the best way to do this for two reasons:
1) They already know you live in said area.
2) Too many cameras have already filmed you.

start off by renting a hotel room under a pseudonym, in a small-ish town, something local, scenic, maybe even tourist friendly. pay by cash. watch nothing on tv, and wear said disguise as often as possible. you don't want them remembering the real you, only the John R. Smith that rode into town a few days ago and left without so much of a word.

buy a car from someone, an old beater preferably, as a "gift" for a relative.

move yourself into another destination, keeping up the disguise and/or moniker as long as humanly possible. pay your new landlord in cash. get a job somewhere where you aren't required to use your social insurance number, or use banking information. if you "need" to have a bank account, make one, but when your pay arrives, on that day, remove your money from said bank account. from the teller in the store, and not from the ATMs (they have cameras)

The cellphone segment is a good one, using pre-paid airtime can get lost in the "traffic" or all other pre-paid users. Avoid calls to call centers as they are recording all conversations "for training and feedback purposes"

It is possible to live a life of complete anonymity, but it's hard work. it requires diligence and steadfastness that, in this day and age, is hard for most people to grasp.

Taking different routes to places (mapquest loves me) is also essential, to avoid being followed/tracked. you can find city maps at your local municipal office and they don't usually put up too much of a fuss if you're looking to make some photocopies.

The essential is to understand how you can be tracked. support local and independent merchants, as they will be some of the last ones to implement RFID chips. Walmart's openly stated a few years ago that they were included in over 65% of their products. There is no record of it or linkable admittance to it, obviously, but we've all known it.

The step that most people who want to undertake this kind of experiment are remiss to take is the complete and total uprooting of their lives as they know it.

To truly cloak every aspect of daily life, one must begin an alternate life, adhere to it, and put away the past life. sever all connections with the people you knew, and start making new friends who know you under your alias.

This message was posted from someone on a laptop using a commercial and freely available WiFi connection, and said laptop will be formatted, it's MAC address changed, and logging for the router's been disabled, it's logs cleaned. (this company needs to stop hiring teenagers for their computer techs...)

I've fallen "off the grid" in my country for well over 9 years now, and I've enjoyed a careful freedom that none of the other people I knew then have now.

2 out of 2 people found this comment helpful
Stevie

from Port Orchard, WA

Article Rating:
1
2
3
4
5

Going through AT&T was a mistake. Using a smaller Prepaid carier would be better. I've used Virgin Mobile off and on for several years. All you have to do is buy a phone ("disposable phone") and register online. You can use any address and any name. You can even get a different area code by using the right address, so if anybody was looking for you they would be looking in the wrong area. This will work with many other cariers too.

1 out of 1 people found this comment helpful
Page 1 of 3 123next ›last »

Popular Tags

Regular Features

POPSCI'S 21ST ANNUAL BEST OF WHAT'S NEW


Every year, PopSci honors the top 100 innovations in categories such as consumer products, medical tech and engineering.

Learn more and submit your product or technology today at popsci.com/enter.

PPX: The PopSci Predictions Exchange

RSS Link

SciTech

Ready to bet on the future? Start here!

Subscribe for 2 free issues!

may2008_cover.jpg