By Dr. Philip Baczewski, Associate Director of Academic Computing

E-mail Privacy and Other Internet Oxymorons

Recently, a minor Internet splash was made by an incident involving a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, an E-mail message, and an Internet news/discussion site.  The reporter was Laurie Garrett, the E-mail message was her report to her close friends on her experience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January.  Through a series of natural Internet activities, the E-mail came to the attention of habitués of the MetaFilter Website who proceeded to speculate about the authenticity of its content, correct the author's grammar, and criticize the writing style.  All of this is excruciatingly documented and commented on in a posting by James Grimmelmann to Yale's LawMeme site.  

Perhaps not surprisingly, Garrett was abashed to discover that her supposedly private E-mail was being read, discussed, and dissected in detail by a little corner of the Internet community.  However, its content, a candid and casual report of her impressions of a meeting of some of the world's wealthiest and most influential people, is such that it makes interesting reading and provides a glimpse of a world that most of us don't see.  Right or wrong, it is hard to believe that such a missive once committed to E-mail could remain in private circles for long -- it's just too compelling.  At least, it's hard to believe if you've inhabited the Internet as long as I have.

Assume permanence and ubiquity

You would think that such a successful reporter and author who has her own domain name would be cognizant of the nature of Internet E-mail.  Her vow to give up E-mail belies the fact that she apparently isn't.  Faithful readers of this column will recall that in April of 1991 (OK, really faithful readers -- OK, my editor and I) I provided some basic E-mail guidelines for the then-burgeoning BITNET and the expanding Internet.  One which has always stuck with me was quoted from John Quarterman's Book "The Matrix" (well before the popular movie of the same name): "assume permanence and ubiquity."  E-mail is  permanent because you don't know how long it will exist in someone's mailbox or on a backup tape (maybe forever).  E-mail is ubiquitous because once you hit the send button, you lose control of its distribution -- whether intended or not, your E-mail could end up readable by the entire worldwide Internet.

Be careful with private correspondence

Is Internet E-mail privacy a realistic expectation?  Quarterman provided a set of ethics in addition to etiquette which included the following directive: "Be careful with private correspondence.  Do not redistribute private correspondence without permission."  Although not marked "Private and Confidential," the tone and address of Garrett's E-mail message indicated that it was intended for a closed group, but it's common practice these days to assume that E-mail is automatically in the public domain.  In most cases, it isn't. Our privacy sense is dulled, however, by the fact that our employers have total rights to any E-mail we generate at work and the same old jokes are forwarded in E-mail thousands of times every day (the ones that used to encourage Xerox abuse).

If you don't have anything nice to say . . .

Should there be Internet E-mail privacy? A truly private communication system is one which is closed and not Internet accessible (although this still doesn't guaranty that any information will remain private).  Perhaps some old advice applies to E-mail communication:  if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it (basic etiquette instruction that most mom's provide their children).  Or rather, if you are not willing or able to handle the consequences of information you commit to E-mail, then you'd better not do so.  This advice doesn't have to stifle Internet communication, but rather can make it more honest and useful. 

Who can you trust?

This issue of controlling information on the Internet is not limited to E-mail.  With the growing irrelevance of physical media as the distribution method for books, music, and video, control of information distribution is the looming battleground which will shape the future growth of the Internet.  We're only a couple years away from Microsoft's Palladium platform which will combine hardware and software to ensure that certain information can be viewed only on "trusted" computers.  Then the question will be whether we trust Microsoft as the arbiter of when and where we can access online information.

Ironically enough, the World Economic Forum meeting for 2003 was subtitled "Building Trust." Even more ironic is that one of the themes of the meeting was "Trust and Values."  Laurie Garrett has obviously lost trust in the Internet (or possibly her friends), but is that in conflict with her presumed mission as a journalist to support the free flow of information?  Can we trust information which is controlled by and available only from large and self-serving institutions?

Where there's a will, there's a way

In the movie, "Jurassic Park" (and possibly the book), Dr. Ian Malcolm (the mathematician) states "No, I am merely stating that uhh... life finds a way."  Whether or not we in the U.S. legislate ourselves into a restrictive box of trusted information, the utility of a world-wide communications network is such that it will be tough for any one country or company to close it to the free flow of information.  In the case of the Internet, Pandora's box is already open.  On the Internet, information finds a way.