" . . if they realized that everyone in the world would know who they are when they do something nasty or make some rude or offensive statement."

. . . John? You think?

I think if somebody WANTS to be rude and offensive, this wont stop 'em.

Graham "Grazie" Bernard

PS: I'd be LOST without the option for "OT"s. Sometimes thinking sideways, getting "off/other topic" ideas, having input from all kinds of stuff IS another reason why I come here.

Quite a bit of this countries law is devoted to preserving your right to be anonymous, well until the government wants to find out who you are.
Either way though how is any forum admin going to enforce this?
The internet is global, (yeah I know duh but THEY don't get it), how is any law going to be enforced regarding content.

The thing that is really significant is how little our law makers understand what the internet is, by that I mean the law makers of just about every country. It was built to be without boundaries and I for one am glad it's like that, sure I wish the spam would go away but if that's the price of liberty well so be it.

Not that I should talk, still haven't worked out what this Usenet stuff is, I hear a few aren't too happy about it 'cause it cannot be turned off, must pee the Chinese off no end.

Bob.
aka Robert Grant

Fine. So I'll not sign in as "anonymous", I'll sign in as Guido Crenshaw.

And if they want positive ID, they can have it when they pry it from my cold dead hands. :-)

Just another case of a politician doing the "Hey, look! I'm doing something. Vote for me again!" thing.

This is pretty funny (and totally unenforceable). I agree, they just don’t get it. The Internet is not a US governed phenomena. In fact, most spam is disguised to look as though it is not anonymous and comes from someone you know.

Hey, maybe next they can pass a law making it illegal for sharks to byte humans. That should start reducing the number of shark attacks right way. ;-D

~jr

I believe it's already illegal for a shark to attack humans. In Utah, we have a law (no fooling) that says that elk can't eat hay belonging to ranchers, and they even funded a signage program to put up signs informing the elk that it's illegal to eat the hay they see on the ground or in bales.
Then again, in Missouri, it was not only legal, but an order of the governor to shoot all Mormons on sight, until 1976.
Somewhere, I have a book of stupid laws passed in the last 100 years. Pretty funny reading.

Thomas Paine anonymously published Common Sense in January 1776. By July we declared Independence.

Using your real name is a good method to be accountable
for what you say. (Sorry about the bad jokes over the years)

How about a DO-NOT-SPAM list? The telephone DO-NOT-CALL
has killed about 95% of the telmarketers. (except around election time)

However most of the spam we receive now is from foreign countries
where they can do just about anything.

um... doesn't this mean it's illegal for ANYONE to say ANYTHING in public while being anonymous? That means that every time you talk to someone you must start the conservation with "My name is <name-here> and I live in <home-here>. I work at <work place here> and enjoy <put enjoyments here>......"

Hey, next time the NJ senators make a public speech they hsould be jailed for not publicly stating who/what/where they are. I might not know that info & then they become anonymous. :)

I remember when the RIAA was trying to arm twist ISP's into revealing the identity of their subscribers. This legislation invites more of the same abuse.

Suppose a victim of sexual assault wants to go online seeking support and recovery resources?

Suppose a person has an illness that would get them fired if their employer were to find out and that employer were a government agency that was either now or someday allowed access to those ISP identities?

Suppose someone had an addiction and was trying to find out information from others with the same addiction regarding treatment?

I am sure it wouldn't take much more after this bill passes to pass a bill allowing access to ISP identities by employers under some equally ignorant guise. It is time to stop voting for people who work against the people instead of for them. It is embarrassing that our (R) party always seems to lead the way in the systematic destruction of freedom in the United States.

John

U.S. Constitution Amendment 1 (Bill of Rights)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

The shame of it all is that I must remind my representatives regularly of this document. Ironically enough, the Supreme Court of the United States has most recently made the most egregious assaults against the very document they swore to uphold - and there is no means of the (ordinary) people to communicate to them (besides public protest) and Congress has shown no courage to recall or impeach them for dereliction of duty.

Anonymity is a Constitutional right.

As long as men walk the earth,we will always have miscreants with us - but we may not have the Constitution if we don't protect it.

In addition to the First Amendment issue and the right to privacy that the Courts have found to be implied in the Fourth Amendment, I don't know that it's specified what Internet site providers must do in the case of business activiity, which functions on fictititous names by definition. In other words, the bill appears to be directed only to private individuals. ("We're only protecting America from child molesters."}

A thoughtful lawyer (with more time than I have) can probably also develop some pretty good arguments along the lines of burdening interstate commerce and equal protection. Sensational examples of, for example, child molestation shouldn't be used to distract from larger social issues.

For me, privacy is the big issue as a practical matter. I don't know how many times I would not have posted or explored information on a site if I had been required to provide my actual name, and/or my address. No way. I don't know who's lurking out there and I certainly don't want to provide identifying information to anyone I don't know, who would then have the capacity to harrass me or worse. I suspect this is the type of argument that will be used by the opponents of the NJ bill.

This is all sort of like the moment in the Western where the victim is waiting nervously as the clock ticks, for a rescuer to arrive while the fuse burns down on the dynamite. (Clock=November 2006 elections)

As somebody who has had his life seriously threatened by mentally ill individuals twice in a 5-year period, I'm not too eager to publish my name everywhere I post.

It's not a secret, those who really want to know can find out, but there was a time years ago when I had to take some very drastic action, and some of it remains for reasons that are perhaps becoming increasingly common. It seems the world is full of crazy people, the difference is that nowadays they're not locked up until after somebody else's funeral.

Fortunately this also serves to reduce my risk of getting hit with ID theft, which hit more than 10 million Americans last year. Now that would be something that the Congress Critters could actually do something about.

But they are busy with flag-burning amendments to make sure the country is honored, while at the same time supporting torture and locking people up in concentration camps indefinitely without trial: from short order cooks forcefully drafted by the Taliban, to friendly Afghanis sold by their personal enemies or business competitors to the U.S. for $1,000-$10,000 a piece on merely a "say-so" (according to an independent government study two weeks ago).

These bills are all scams by our (R) party to destroy checks and balances and accountability to the general public. The problem (as I argued and demonstrated in that incredibly long thread last year regarding the media) is that the flow of information to the public in the United States is in the hands of a shrinking number of large corporations who benefit from keeping the likes of what we have now in power.
Questionable legislation is never revealed to the public until after it is too late and even then they don't explain the negative impact it will have on the public at large. A good example is the Medical Malpractice legislation the House introduces every year. I watched the discussions on the floor of the House last summer as our (R) party brought out all these charts showing how horrible malpractice incidents are to a person and how they can't find a doctor to treat them after malpractice errors so they can be well again. And then they explained how the bold leadership of our party was not going to allow the public to have to suffer with this any longer. Now get this:
The way in which they were going to "help" victims of malpractice is to limit their ability to sue the doctor and shield the pharmaseutical industry as well. That way (they explained) the doctors will be more willing to admit their mistakes to the patient because they no longer have to fear large lawsuits.
In other words....."Mr Jones, I am really sorry, but when I operated on you I accidently damaged your liver looking for a quarter I dropped in there, but I'll fix it because I am soooooo relieved that you can't sue me. I just I had to confess".
The bill was yet another torte reform bill in disguise.
This stupid logic met with loud opposition from the Democrats who were immediately labeled "obstructionists", a term repeated frequently by the media we Republicans control. Needless to say it was passed by the House majority without attention from the media until AFTER it was passed.

John

It's back to the Wild West again, every man for himself.

A very much video-related problem is the extremely rapid monopolization of Internet access. The old Phone Company was split up into many smaller companies that have now like the spilled mercury of T-1000 merged into two pools, soon to be only one pool for all DSL access nationwide.

They are already asking tor the explicit right to charge customers for specific Internet use.

You want to respond to a post on the Sony Vegas Forum? That will be 25 cents.

Download a client video? That will be $5.00 extra each on your monthly bill.

Make a Skype call? That will be 10 cents per minute to us, thank you very much.

If you dont like it, you can always go to the Cable Company, huh-huh-huh.

It's exactly the same situation as with the old railroad barons. Even John D. Rockefeller couldn't get his oil to customers without suddenly paying through the nose to the railroads, and that only when they weren't blocking him because they were getting paid off by the competition.

I'm fearing a huge backlash in this country soon, with people talking about socialism and all kinds of other crap that is just a knee-jerk reaction to extreme wild west corrupt capitalism without any checks or balances. This reaction would be a terrible mistake, but I see even conservative people getting very angry with the current mismanagement of our country.

I have a great idea for an alternative use of Gitmo, don't think I need to explain.

I see two lines of reasoning being argued here.

1. The caller ID blocking argument. When caller ID appeared, there were all sorts of arguments of how ex-wives needed to call their abusive ex-spouse without revealing their whereabouts.

2. Anonymity is a Constitutional right. This is a direct quote from one of the earlier posts.

It seems that all of the arguments that stem from these two assumptions miss this basic point:

Free speech does not come for free.

When I go to a public meeting and argue an unpopular viewpoint (which none of you will be surprised to hear is something that I've been known to do), I know that there will be consequences, and not just at that moment, in that room. For instance, when I have argued against some of the dumber policies that our school has proposed, I have been fearful that some of the teachers would retaliate against my children, because this has happened in the past to other parents. As a result, some parents have refused to speak up against things that they don't like for fear of those reprisals.

The solution to this, if we are to follow the ideas being put forth here, would be to let everyone in those meetings voice their opinions anonymously. Of course the problem with this is that I could then say that teacher XYZ is smoking crack during coffee breaks. I could say this without fear of reprisal, and therefore would be FAR more likely to make accusations based on rumor, suspicions, etc. But under the protection of anonymity, the teacher would have to suffer the consequences of an investigation, and I wouldn't have anything to fear.

No, free speech is NOT free, nor should it be. Those that want to post anonymously want to have their cake and eat it to. This is not a good thing, and is one reason we have seen a skyrocketing of bizzare accusations and rumours about every aspect of life which, unfortunately, an increasing percentage of the population are actually beginning to believe.

Finally, since several people have taken to pointing to the constitution and the documents that are associated with it, let me point out that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did so at great peril, yet they went ahead and signed it, rather than sending the document anonymously. I have read many accounts, but the first hit on Google was this one Declaration Signers Fates, which is as good as any. Here is the key quote, and it tells you what free speech is really all about:

"Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War."

1. I really think that the Constitution should be taught in the schools.

Perhaps you have the incorrect information that this is already happening?

A poll quite a few years ago asked people what they thought about a number of statements (without crediting the source).

The majority said it sounded like "communist propaganda" and other things to that effect. You can guess where the statements came from.

So the Constitution isn't actually taught if it isn't understood.


2. I don't see the reason for presenting a name and social security number with everything I say.

This is not a new problem. Every time you write a Letter to the Editor of a newspaper, they give you the option to sign it as "Concerned homeowner" or whatever. But only if they have your real name and address on file.

What's important is that public statements are traceable if necessary for reasonable law enforcement etc. (slander, ...), with a bit of effort to get the source if the source would prefer to remain anonymous. Whether out of local retaliation concerns, as one might find in a school or a home or condo owner's association, or for other reasons.

Some countries in Europe have made it illegal to wear ski masks in street demonstrations. Everybody must be identifiable by "security cameras" and it won't be long before this appears here too.

Perhaps the only thing holding it back is that, so far, more police than demonstrators have been caught in illegal acts with video recorded during demonstrations.

With regard to the U.S. Constitution being taught in U.S. schools, I don't know if you've seen the news stories from the last day or two, but a recent poll found that out of 1000 adults polled, only 1, that's ONE PERSON NOT ONE PERCENT, could name all five of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, but 220 could name all five major characters on The Simpsons. Here's one of the many articles about it:

News Article

1. The caller ID blocking argument. When caller ID appeared, there were all sorts of arguments of how ex-wives needed to call their abusive ex-spouse without revealing their whereabouts.
=========
A joke. Problem was and is easily solved by the use of cell phones.
=========
When I go to a public meeting and argue an unpopular viewpoint (which none of you will be surprised to hear is something that I've been known to do), I know that there will be consequences, and not just at that moment, in that room. For instance, when I have argued against some of the dumber policies that our school has proposed, I have been fearful that some of the teachers would retaliate against my children, because this has happened in the past to other parents. As a result, some parents have refused to speak up against things that they don't like for fear of those reprisals.
==========
Lame analogy at best. People who rant on the internet, particularly when it comes to political viewpoints aren't trying to effect change. They aren't trying to get someone to do something specific. When you go to the school meetings you ARE. The objections people have to this garbage that has been going on in the last six years has to do with the erosion of what our democracy was based upon. A democracy "of the people, by the people, and for the people". NOT a democracy of certain people, by certain people, and for certain people which is what our party and this current administration firmly believes in.
Not that it is pertinent, but teachers as a rule live in fear of the parents, school boards, and the administration. Retaliation is usually heaped upon them, not the other way around in my experience.

John

I don't see the reason for presenting a name and social security number with everything I say.

Social Security number, definitely not. That concerns protection of my property (identity theft). I certainly would not argue that. But what I AM arguing is that you definitely need to be ready to take the consequences of anything you say. This provides a natural check and balance against making outrageous claims.

Every time you write a Letter to the Editor of a newspaper, they give you the option to sign it as "Concerned homeowner" or whatever.

Not all papers have this policy. Our local paper requires that I put my name to my letter, or they won't print it. Exercising the freedom to say things that not everyone will agree with is what free speech is about. This sometimes requires courage. Free speech without courage is like responsibility without accountability.

Some countries in Europe have made it illegal to wear ski masks in street demonstrations. Everybody must be identifiable by "security cameras" and it won't be long before this appears here too.

Do you really want people demonstrating in ski masks??? This is a GOOD thing? I'm not totally keen on the explosion of cameras, although 99% of the video is from corporate security cameras (in the local convenience stores, for example) and from people like us that carry camcorders around everywhere. The government camera are almost not necessary. Even if you outlawed government security cameras, virtually every public act is already recorded.

People demonstrating in ski masks instantly brings visions of the KKK photos we've all seen. This is admittedly a pretty perverse example, but those horrible people were totally anonymous, and in the public demonstrations that didn't involve actually physically harming someone (which is a whole different aspect of this topic), they were merely exercising their free speech rights. No one could tell who they were, and they were completely free to say the most despicable things, without having to worry about the consequences of their speech.

Thus, you need to think through ALL the consequences of anonymous speech.

Perhaps the only thing holding it back is that, so far, more police than demonstrators have been caught in illegal acts with video recorded during demonstrations.

While this crosses over into the discussion of actions rather than speech, it actually supports my point: People need to be held accountable for what they do. Letting them say things anonymously removes accountability. This is a very, very bad thing.

The objections people have to this garbage that has been going on in the last six years has to do with the erosion of what our democracy was based upon. A democracy "of the people, by the people, and for the people". NOT a democracy of certain people, by certain people, and for certain people which is what our party and this current administration firmly believes in.

I know this is a wide-held belief, but I have a tough time understanding why an administration with this as its agenda would have pushed for and passed:

"No child left behind" act. This is good for the elite, upper class?

Prescription drug act. This is for the upper income people?

Increased penalties for corporate scandal. Ask Martha Stuart, Ken Lay, etc. Old "Kenny Boy" was even a Bush buddy, apparently, and yet he's going down. Not exactly what I'd expect from an administration that is supposed to be cozy with the corporate elites.

Yes, taxes have been cut, and since the top 1% of income earners pay 35% of the taxes, and the top 50% pay almost 97% of all tax, any cut is going to benefit them more (you can't cut the taxes of someone that doesn't pay tax). Oh, by the way, total tax revenues have gone UP (just as it was predicted) as a result of the tax cut, and while the "rich" definitely have more money as a result of the cuts (which those with terminal class envy just can't stand), those that now have jobs that didn't have jobs during the downturn, benefited even more, unless unemployment is considered to be preferable to having a job.

Not that it is pertinent, but teachers as a rule live in fear of the parents, school boards, and the administration. Retaliation is usually heaped upon them, not the other way around in my experience.

Can't speak to your experience. Here in California, the teachers unions are as powerful as the Teamsters under Hoffa (the original Hoffa). While they may not practice the strong-arm tactics for which Hoffa was notorious, they sure as heck don't fear anyone or anything. Our local school board is scared stiff of the teachers union, as are most of the administrative officials that run each school in the district. For three years, we have been trying to remove a teacher who leaves class for fifteen minutes at a time, demonstrates bizarre, almost psychotic behavior, and grades based on her own whims, not on classroom performance. This isn't a political thing or anything based on the stuff that often makes headlines. It is a case of competence and possibly mental illness. This teacher is the only one teaching a class required by most California colleges for admission. My daughter chose to not take the class and risked not getting into the college of her choice, rather than submit to another year of the teacher's totally unpredictable behavior.

Despite all this, the parents, the administration, and the school board have been too afraid to act, because of the teachers' union.

So, at least out here, the fear factor is 180 degrees the opposite of what you say.

Free speech is indeed free. Even if there are consequences, free speech is still free. I don't have earn it. I don't have to pay a cent for it. It's mine. It's yours too. I still have it, if I sign my name or I don't

I believe you mean that free speech should not be absolute and that is true, there are limits on speech such as libel and slander. If you made a serious accussation that the teacher was smoking crack you would be suject to the laws for libel. If you just posted anonymously on a message board, how many people would believe your accusation without evidence very few.

Of course the signers of the Declaration of Independence did more than just sign the document, they were also engaged in a rebellion against Britain. Though just signing that document could result in death since they were in a society that did not free speech.

By the way, you may have just googled and found that link, but the page you point to on the Declaration of Independence signers, is on a website that is aligned with militias and seems to want to overthrow the US government because it believes we are living under a reign of American National Socialism. His speech, of course is a free and limited as mine.

"Those that want to post anonymously want to have their cake and eat it to."

You overlook probable cause.

If someone anonymously makes a direct statement about me that harms me, my family, or business I have a legal right according to the laws of the land to pursue a remedy.

I have a right to privacy. If telemarketers or anyone calling me infringe upon that right I have a right to screen or block those calls - including those who block the caller ID.

I think its fair to say there have always been bizzare rumors and accusations anywhere people congregate. It may seem like its skyrocketing - but if you ask me the same people that perpetuate the stuff are simply getting together on the internet. Its an individuals choice to listen to it.

The whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that it was the signers choice to declare himself. I have no doubt there were men that chose not to sign it even though they had opportunity. The signers suffered so that Americans could also have a choice. It's existence required signatures to validate its purpose and brave men made a hard choice.

What is the purpose of the forum? Depending on the purpose a forum should not require you to identify yourself - anymore than you should be required to announce yourself and your personal details at the entrance of a Shopping Mall or a bank. This does not mean shoplifters or bank robbers will be prosecuted any less - and so with those who break the law on the internet.

Does the retail store where I bought my washing machine need my personal phone number and information? They certainly tried to get it - but the whole purpose was for them to sell their product and when faced with the choice of taking my cash or losing the sale they decided they wanted my money more than my personal information. It's none of their business who I am - unless I make that choice.

Legally - the social security number is not supposed to be used as a form of identification. Its orginal purpose was to identify your government sponsored insurance plan (as if thats insurance). It is against the law to require it as a form of identification - yet many places do and no one is prosecuted for this. Perhaps the day is approaching where everyone gets a microchip under the skin like my dog - a fast pass into society and the notion of choice, free speech and privacy will ride off into the sunset - I hope I never see those days.