NO MORE ANONYMOUS POSTING!! How a Kentucky lawmaker wants this to be true

[Josh]

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

 Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Source

[tinjaw]

Why do people (I call them idiots) seem to think this Inkertubes thing is any different that what we have had for hundreds of years. We had ink and paper. We had telegraphs. We had phones. We had postcards. We had packages.

I can call you from a pay phone.
I can send you a letter without a return address. (Or a fake one)
I can pay the newspaper with cash to post an ad in the paper.
Etc.
Etc.

But we all know that it is because these people (idiots) *most likely* think AOL == Internet and all they do "on the computer" is get email from their grandkids.

[Rhutobello]

Anyway....if such law was to be accepted.....who would have capacity to enforce it?

All honest people would live by the law, and do what they always do..post honest and behave.

All those who do behave in a "criminal" way would laugh from such a law, find solution to "steal other id's" ,which they already do, and put their connections true a conglomerate of IP's....and if first a law has been made...this way to do thing will only increase, either by sale of info on how to do it, or by finding new creative ways.

But for the government there is on big benefactor: the ability to tax the industry/people for the service 

[nite_monkey]

ok, that is just pointless, I don't care what the names of the people who sign up on my website forums are, or where they live! All I need is their display name, and anything else that THEY WANT to put on their profile.

[Renegade]

Did you say... "Kentucky?"

[wreckedcarzz]

Isn't this kind of pushing privacy a bit too far? I personally will post 90-100% of my personal info on a site/forum when I join, and I don't have an issue with that. But when I am FORCED to, that kind of, how do you say (politely)...pisses me off?

[Deozaan]

I can understand the reasons: anonymous threats, trolling, griefing, etc., whatever you want to call it.

And to be honest at first thought it sounds like a good idea to have your real name somewhere, to track down abusers. But to make it mandatory for everyone to see who you are? Not good.

I'm for anonymous posting, but it would be nice if there were better ways to track down the people who do stupid stuff like terrorize or threaten others. I remember a certain incident with Kathy Sierra where tracking down and punishing the jerks who threatened her would have been really useful.

But there's a great quote (which I can't remember exactly) that's been spread around a lot since the Patriot Act came to town, something along the lines of: "Those who give up personal liberties for the feeling of security deserve neither."

[tinjaw]

But there's a great quote (which I can't remember exactly) that's been spread around a lot since the Patriot Act came to town, something along the lines of: "Those who give up personal liberties for the feeling of security deserve neither."

-Deozaan (March 10, 2008, 06:10 PM)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

More Info

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

http://en.wikiquote....ki/Benjamin_Franklin

[Cpilot]

Just one question, where in the first amendment does it say free speech is an anonymous right?
It's one thing to affirm it's the nature of the web and yadda,yadda, but to wrap up hateful and harassing speech into something as noble as "free speech" is a bit of a stretch.
If free speech is such a noble human right then why be afraid to claim ownership of it?
The founding fathers of the United States signed their name to the constitution before the revolutionary war, they would have been executed if we had lost, and yet still took ownership of the document as a stand for free speech.
Russian dissidents wrote against the excesses of the U.S.S.R. and signed their names, and were imprisioned or executed for their expression of free speech.
But then again these folks could be proud of what they said and stood for, an "inalienable right" has responsibilities attached to it.
Or maybe everyone on the web is all about rights without responsibility?
Pretty shallow stance IMO.

[Deozaan]

Just one question, where in the first amendment does it say free speech is an anonymous right?
It's one thing to affirm it's the nature of the web and yadda,yadda, but to wrap up hateful and harassing speech into something as noble as "free speech" is a bit of a stretch.
If free speech is such a noble human right then why be afraid to claim ownership of it?

Or maybe everyone on the web is all about rights without responsibility?
Pretty shallow stance IMO.

-Cpilot (March 10, 2008, 09:46 PM)

That's part of what I was originally trying to say: In a way, I think it would be good to require your real name, just like most sites require a real e-mail address. But I also don't like the idea of everyone everywhere knowing my name. I'd rather it be hidden from everyone, also like most sites that require a real e-mail address.

Then again, if John Q. Public makes a fan website with a little forum about how great Xbox is, I don't see the point in it requiring real information from me. Just like when I go to a store and buy something, I don't need to tell them my name and address and phone number.

A lot of stores these days will ask for your phone number for some reason. I just tell them they can't have it. Obviously if I'm buying something with a credit/debit card, the card will contain information leading back to who I am. But that's all done through my bank. The store doesn't keep a record of my card number and bank details, and therefore have no direct way of knowing who I am.

I don't really need to be anonymous, but in the information age where any idiot/wacko/criminal who knows how to run Google can find nearly any bit of information, I'd rather keep most of my personally identifying information private. I'll gladly attribute anything I say to my username, but I don't want just anybody to find out who I am or where I live.

The world is smaller than it was when the Declaration of Independence was signed. There are a lot more people in our lives than there were then. That means a lot more idiots and wackos out there who might do something stupid just because they disagree with me. In the old small-town lifestyle, criminals and wackos were basically run out of town. These days they are protected. I say keep my information away from them!

[Cpilot]

The world is smaller than it was when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Can't really get much more severe than execution, no matter what size the world.

[Renegade]

It's just too much power to give to the government. There's no good reason for any government to "listen in on me." It's only ushering in Big Brother in the most blatant and insane way imaginable.

When I get drunk and rant about how assassination is a legitimate political tool (I think Machiavelli would agree), there's no reason for the government to hear that, or throw me in jail, or execute me, or whatever.

It's just dangerous to allow that kind of power to a government. Period.

The Russian example is proof enough.

[Cpilot]

It's just too much power to give to the government. There's no good reason for any government to "listen in on me." It's only ushering in Big Brother in the most blatant and insane way imaginable.

When I get drunk and rant about how assassination is a legitimate political tool (I think Machiavelli would agree), there's no reason for the government to hear that, or throw me in jail, or execute me, or whatever.

It's just dangerous to allow that kind of power to a government. Period.

The Russian example is proof enough.

-Renegade (March 10, 2008, 10:45 PM)

If someone makes harassing and threatening phone calls to someone else or writes them harassing or threatening letters the government can step in and find the perpetrator and charge him with a crime.
Do you agree that those things are a crime and not protected speech?
Why should people be allowed to do the same thing on the internet anonymously and not be charged with a crime?

[Renegade]

If someone makes harassing and threatening phone calls to someone else or writes them harassing or threatening letters the government can step in and find the perpetrator and charge him with a crime.
Do you agree that those things are a crime and not protected speech?
Why should people be allowed to do the same thing on the internet anonymously and not be charged with a crime?

-Cpilot (March 10, 2008, 11:24 PM)

Criminal behaviour is one thing. Treating me like a criminal when I'm not is another thing.

To those that would treat the innocent like criminals, I have only two words. One starts with "F" and the other with "O".

Most people are good people and don't engauge in that kind of behaviour. It is not necessary to monitor them.

Most people are not capable of doing things anonymously on the Internet. To do that, you need some kind of real obfuscation to cover your tracks. e.g. Anonymous proxy, TOR, etc.

The Internet is already wide open now. There is no sense in trying to pass a completely insane law that is equally technically insane. How could it possibly be implemented? Nuts. Sheer, complete, total, utter, unabashed insanity. The only reason to do it would be to restrict freedoms and bring the world yet one step closer to Big Brother.

Then again, the US, Canada and the UK governments have been whittling down and diluting freedoms so much over the past few decades that nobody sees it when it happens anymore. It's shameful.

[jgpaiva]

Even though that doesn't seem like the way to go, i think the websites should be foced to record the IPs of the people who post content on them, and be forced to release those to the authorities when necessary.

Darwin: an annonymous letter, etc, is completelly different, as that is only something that is sent to you directly, and not everyone else.

My father has recently been involved in problems like this, where someone posted very bad (and false) things about him on a known website (and the website owner didn't delete it), and now he's having trouble finding that person to be able to sue him to prove he was lying.  I know that recording the IP wouldn't be a perfect solution, but would at least give some of these cases a chance.

[nosh]

This will KILL the Internets! (on paper.)

[Cpilot]

Criminal behaviour is one thing. Treating me like a criminal when I'm not is another thing.

So if someone engages in criminal behaviour on the internet everyone should just take their word that it's not?

This will KILL the Internets! (on paper.)

-nosh (March 11, 2008, 05:29 AM)

I doubt very seriously that this has any chance of being implemented, the guy is just trying to point out a problem that does exist.
There are abusers on the internet and they hide behind anonymity.

[Renegade]

Criminal behaviour is one thing. Treating me like a criminal when I'm not is another thing.

So if someone engages in criminal behaviour on the internet everyone should just take their word that it's not?

-Cpilot (March 11, 2008, 10:53 AM)

That just doesn't make sense. I was referring to the vast majority of people that are not criminals. Why should anyone need to prove their innocence for no reason? Why treat good people like criminals?

The counter argument is usually, "Good people have nothing to hide." That doesn't cut it for reasons outlined above (see the Russian example).