rigorousintuition.ca

Lawmaker: Criminalize Anonymous Internet Posts

Monday March 10th, 2008 12:13 PM by BHDC Staff
Filed under: Internet, Tim Couch

Kentucky Rep. Tim Couch has filed a bill aimed at making anonymous commenting on Web sites illegal.

“The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site,” according to press reports. “Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.”

A Web site owner would have to pay a fine if someone posted anonymously on their site, if the bill were to become law. A first-offense fine would be five-hundred dollars. The Web site owner would have to pay one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Couch said he hopes to cut down online bullying.

Link

Couch said he hopes to cut down online bullying.

...by MAKING PEOPLE PUT THEIR REAL NAMES ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

Good thinking there Tim.

Hahahaha
You just made my day, orz. Brilliant.

orz wrote:

Couch said he hopes to cut down online bullying.

...by MAKING PEOPLE PUT THEIR REAL NAMES ALL OVER THE INTERNET.

Good thinking there Tim.

I'm actually agreeing with orz here. Totally.
(but not with my real name)

As if the TPTB weren't already tracking people down using their IP addresses for years now.

Reminder: This whole week there are a USG cyber-wargames going on which include "injects" meaning inserting stories into the media to track response.

er..... does america have jurisdiction over the internet? just asking

Yes, it does. Internet is a DARPA network originally, for scientific and military use.

Today Internet is governed by ICANN:
http://www.icann.org/
The Joint Project Agreement (JPA) is between the United States government and ICANN for the purpose of transitioning the Internet domain name and addressing system to a private sector multi-stakeholder model of leadership. This agreement is in the process of a mid-term review for which the NTIA is currently receiving comments. ICANN urges all interested parties to review the documents ICANN has submitted in response to this review.

Other countries have demanded for shared governing, but USA refused. It was discussed just last year.

Thou root DNS node servers are in many countries today - there are 13 in all, but all nodes are split across several servers that show up as one. So actually there are at least 200 or so actual root DNS server complexes, for redundancy.

Consider just SOME of the innane, hypocritical implications:

This bill ostensibly intended to hold web-posters accountable for their comments specif. to eliminate bullying is being put before the SAME Congress (well, some different people thru the years, but the same mindset) that has consistently compromised on principle and hid their more contemptable, controversial decisions behind an anonymous 'voice' vote, have repeatedly allowed themselves to be intimidated, browbeaten, and bullied by a virulent and increasingly self-aggrandizing Bush Executive Office into passing repressive and fiscally-irresponsible legislation ranging from an illegal grant of war-declaring authority to the President on the basis of outright lies, fabrications, exaggerations and distortions, approved the Patriot Act without even reading let alone debating it, consistently approved funding for the illegal war-crime conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, failed to censure or otherwise discipline chief Administration officials for their failure to appear and testify before duly constituted Congressional Committees investigating alleged malfeasance, obstruction of justice, unauthorized disclosure of classified information and other crimes, to refusal to hold Pentagon, Justice and Telecom officials responsible for complicity in illegal spying on Americans and covering-up evidence of the crime, and so on and so forth.

Besides -- Aren't there already mechanisms in place to address the issue of inappropriate or abusive comments? Namely, oversight provided for specific websites where monitors will arbitrate, censure or ban a poster for violating the site's terms of use?

I can see this kind of repressive, impractical measure being framed as an example of 'liberal' nanny-state legislation, where the state is interfering with free speech to protect and defend the poor, helpless and inept average web-surfer against the big, bad cruel world of bullies and opportunists. When actually, this bill would primarily benefit the rightwing PTB elites by seriously reducing the web's potential for political/economic criticism and public debate on their many crimes, frauds and abuses.

But I can't imagine this bill would ever get out of committee in the form given -- it's much too impractical, unworkable and controversial. I can imagine a huge vocal and outraged backlash as website owners/managers grapple with the impossible task of ensuring all registered users' names and addresses and email addys provided are accurate and up-to-date. And besides, without well-defined criteria of what constitutes 'bullying' and a process to abitrate disputes, what would be the value of requiring posters use their real full name? So, there's another level of oversight bureaucracy that will be required which SOMEONE will have to pay for (unless it gets funded through the website fines?)

I can imagine the development of a whole new cyber-industry of Web-poster registration-guarantee services, if not just websites requiring user-fees to pay the cost of staffing registration-verification. I can also imagine booming litigation by victims seeking damages for claimed bullying incidents. Consider the possible implications of arguing or defending that "Damn, but is that a stupid idea!" is not bullying, but "Gosh, are you ever stupid!" is;

But: would the US have authority to require foreign-owned websites' compliance and levy fines? If not, what about Canada and Mexico, or could they be covered by special agreement between the nation's leaders? If the US didn't have total internet authority, I'd expect the foreign website-hosting business to expand. If the US DID have worldwide internet oversight, I'd expect creative, resourceful web-owners and managers to create and make use of cost-effective alternatives, ie. setting their sites up on anonymous servers, through dummy-front shells and via insulated peer-networks.

But yeah, I'd have to go-along with shaking my head in *shocked!* disbelief at the proposed 'solution' to bullying by requiring everyone to post their 'real' names on the web.

I betcha some neocon genious will propose this would also be an invaluable boon in fighting the Global Warrr on Terrrror.

"In the interest of public safety we propose that this is what you can do to better let us help you help us keep you safe."

Well, goddamnit.

Time for the torches and clubs. Where do those Congressfolk meet, nowadays?

When I first read the thread title I thought it had to be satire.

brainpanhandler said:

When I first read the thread title I thought it had to be satire.

Not quite satire, more of a dirty joke. But we're not the ones laughing.

The legislation doesn't really make any sense. Even the PTB would only benefit in a very indirect fashion. [they are already spying on you, they already know who you are...]

I suppose it could slow down internet free speech, but I mean really, how many of us think that none of this [THIS] in in our permanent file?

and my cell phone conversations, my library records [damn], my movement history, my tax records, my employment drug-test results, what movies I get from netflicks, what sorts of food I eat and what pornography I prefer...

I have no problem with saying this under my real name. Its not YOU people I wish to avoid.

They are already tracking us, they know who we are, where we live, what websites we visit, and what we say in blog comments and forums.

This is not about tracking who we are, this is about shutting us up. How many people will stop making fiery anti-gov't postings if they have to put their real names on it?

Lots of them probably.

My point is that if you really mean it, you aren't going to let that stop you.

my name is Daniel, btw.

Who'm I gonna hurt? My family? Shit, they're more aggressive about this than I am.

Hi daniel.

Nice shirt you're wearing.