There is the assumption of anonymity on the Internet. When you surf alone in a room you might be inclined to think no one knows what you do or what sites you visit. To the surprise of many, there are so many subpoenas coming to today’s ISPs and search engines that these companies have subpoena management departments to deal with the influx of requests for information. Here is an excellent account on how privacy on the Internet is nonexistent.

Yet, many people still feel that the Internet is anonymous and don’t realize that law enforcement officials are able to find who is doing what and use this information to arrest and convict criminals. More recently many have become worried that the government may be acquiring information on the surfing habits of innocent people as well and this why there has been a surge in interest in Internet privacy tools and techniques.

What may be surprising is how many times ISPs and other companies actually reject requests for information due to the broad nature of such requests or when it deems an agency does not have jurisdiction to request certain information.

But while many are concerned about essential freedoms in the US and hope that our government will focus on ensuring the privacy of innocent people, our lawmakers are instead looking to China and giving America‘s tech companies grief for caving to the demands of the Chinese government. In my opinion if our government is so interested in China and how it treats its citizens, it needs to take it up with China and not the likes of Cisco and Google. After all, these companies can easily be replaced in China and don’t have a lock on the market. You might argue that it is very difficult to clone a Pentium processor but it is relatively simple to clone search engines and routers.

Requests for information have become so common that most big Internet companies, as well as telephone companies, have a formal process for what is often called subpoena management. Most of the information sought about users is basic, but very personal: their names, where they live, when they were last online – and, if a court issues a search warrant, what they are writing and reading in their e-mail. (Not surprisingly, the interpretation of voluminous computer records can be error-prone, and instances of mistaken identity have also come to light.)

For example, in investigating a bomb threat at a Canadian high school in 2002, Mr. Ohm approached the operator of a message board in California on which the threats were placed. He asked to review the log monitoring each user’s activities, which showed the Internet Protocol address of the person who left the threatening message. Mr. Ohm used that address in turn to determine the suspect’s Internet service provider, who identified a teenager who had posted the message. (As a minor, he was not prosecuted.)