It is not possible to stay 100% anonymous over the internet?

1. Why “100%” is a different question from “practical anonymity”

“100% anonymous” implies zero chance of linkage between online actions and an individual, a standard that most experts call unreachable because every network action leaves traces—IP addresses, timestamps, DNS requests, browser fingerprints, and third‑party logs—that can be correlated by parties with resources and access ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Tools that get close — and their real limits

Tools touted for anonymity—Tor, VPNs, Signal, privacy‑focused browsers and encrypted email—significantly reduce visibility and are essential for strong privacy, but each has limits: VPNs mask IPs but may log or leak data and don't hide browser fingerprinting, Tor protects routing but can be compromised at exit nodes or by correlation attacks, and messaging apps minimize content exposure but cannot fully erase metadata risks ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

3. The adversary matters: casual trackers vs. nation‑state capabilities

How anonymous one can be depends on the opponent: blocking advertisers and basic trackers is achievable for most users with good tools, but the “most determined adversaries with sufficient resources”—intelligence agencies, large corporations with aggregated datasets, or well‑funded attackers—can often piece together identities from cross‑correlated logs, subpoenas to providers, or advanced fingerprinting ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

4. Non‑technical leaks: behavior, accounts, and real‑world links

Even when technical protections are strong, human and behavioral signals betray anonymity: reusing language patterns, linking an anonymous account to an email or phone number, or interacting with services that require identity establishes connections; some personal data (government records, registrations) also cannot be erased and can anchor investigations ^{[7] [8] [3]}.

5. Mobile devices and the weakest links

Smartphones pose particular challenges: persistent identifiers (IMEI, MAC), embedded vendor services, and app ecosystems make true anonymity harder on mobile than desktop, meaning full‑device operational security is required for stronger guarantees—a high bar for most people ^{[6] [9]}.

6. Disagreement and fringe claims — “possible” in theory, impractical in reality

A minority of sources or commentators argue that total anonymity is achievable with exhaustive discipline and tooling, pointing to examples of long‑hidden identities; others call those cases exceptional or dependent on narrow threat models ^{[6] [9] [10]}. The mainstream consensus across security reporting is that while extraordinary measures can make attribution extremely difficult, claiming 100% anonymity is misleading because new correlation techniques and legal or technical powers can eventually pierce layers of protection ^{[5] [2] [11]}.

7. Practical guidance and the right expectations

The pragmatic stance: treat anonymity as a sliding scale—decide what level of risk is acceptable, deploy layered defenses (secure devices, Tor or vetted VPNs, privacy browsers, compartmentalized identities, minimal metadata), and assume that absolute guarantees do not exist; for most users this risk‑management approach achieves effective privacy without chasing the impossible ^{[4] [12] [13]}.

8. Limits of this reporting

The conclusion synthesizes widely reported technical and operational consensus across the cited sources; this review does not include classified counterintelligence analyses or proprietary vendor logs that could further quantify real‑world deanonymization rates, and therefore cannot measure precise probabilities against specific adversaries beyond the general expert assertions cited ^{[1] [2]}.