Illinois state senator pushes anti-anonymity bill

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
So when do we get back to good ol' fashioned book burning by every author in history who has written under a pen name?




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


I live in IL too. Moved to three other states wth my job and then moved back unfortunately. Sadly most of the politicians are idiots. I have talked politics with many older folks here and the amazing thing is they have always voted Republican or Democrat. When asked why the response was always "thats how my parents always voted". When asked what part of their platform they agreed with there was no answer. It is amazing how many people in this nation just follow instead of making their own choices.....simple minds make simple choices.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   


This stories content concerns me a great deal and I hope everyone takes a moment to read and understands just what this could mean to our internet use and it's future...
reply to post by wutz4tom
 

Actually, thank YOU for your input. If more people were like you, perhaps the politicians wouldn't dare try to limit free speech. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that many of the people in this country are one step away from being brain dead. The more technological toys we provide them with, the less they think.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritusIf one of these ever passes, more will follow, and sites like ATS will look like an Old West Ghost Town.


If one of these ever passes, myself and a lot of other people out there will do everything they can to teach people how to hack wifi. Someone elses internet connection and a random name/number/address from a phone book will be all you need. That will defeat the law for awhile.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Well if this passes I don't see what the big deal is, I mean what CAN possibly go wrong?

I mean it's not like there are mentally unstable people out there that would seek out and kill someone over thier opinion. *sarcasm off*


Edit: Blah, I should have read a few more responses, someone said something similar. *sigh*

edit on 23-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: typo
edit on 23-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: Edit
edit on 23-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: punctuation



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Solution: move your servers outside of the state or the US. Done.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
While I understand the outrage and inherent danger in this sort of control -

It wouldn't effect me one way or another. I don't post things that I'm not willing to stand behind. What's more, I'm not afraid to say I'm sorry when I'm wrong or own up to a mistake.

I'd have no problem putting my real self behind the name of my posts. Unfortunately, that's dangerous. And that is not what these lawmakers are considering.

On sites of political, religious, and fringe topics - the unstable abound. There are plenty of people on these sites who WOULDN'T and couldn't step up and say, hey that's my post and I'm so and so from here. The very nasty nature of some posters show this. It would also create a target on anyone's back who is so unfortunate as to attract a sociopath's attention.

No, it's a flawed concept, that could cause more backlash than good. I don't think this is a good direction to be taking internet security. Not at all.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
While I understand the outrage and inherent danger in this sort of control -

It wouldn't effect me one way or another. I don't post things that I'm not willing to stand behind. What's more, I'm not afraid to say I'm sorry when I'm wrong or own up to a mistake.

I'd have no problem putting my real self behind the name of my posts. Unfortunately, that's dangerous. And that is not what these lawmakers are considering.


It isn't so much that many are not willing to put their name behind what they say, but more to the fact that as a free people, we have the choice to voice our opinions anonymously. Writers of pamphlets, books, and other forms of expression are afforded anonymity; why wouldn't this forum or media be given the same? As you said, it is a flawed concept that is aimed at control over a medium that they have long sought to regulate and so far, have met stiff resistance from all angles.


I don't think this is a good direction to be taking internet security. Not at all.


This has nothing to do with internet security. It has everything to do with control.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
The question really is:

Can you yell 'Fire!' in a crowded chatroom?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CryHavoc
The question really is:

Can you yell 'Fire!' in a crowded chatroom?


No it really isn't and I am not sure where you are trying to draw some logical deep insight with this. An attempt at wit? Expand this some more so we can discuss as you may have a good point but as of now, it is a non-sequitor.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I don't disagree with your position. But I have to play devil's advocate. Just so we get a basis for where these lawmakers may be coming from. I just don't believe there is deviltry in every move our state representatives make. I just think their are different stances you can take in dealing with developing problems in regards to the internet.

That being said, I try to understand things from their position also. I understand that dangerous and inappropriate behavior is observed and resulting of the internet. The internet isn't all roses and sunshine. There are several things that happen in the internet that are downright disturbing. Harassment, stalking, and outright lies is one nefarious use of social media. Another is social groupings of deviants such as child molesters. The complete lifting of one's intellectual work and taken and spun to belong to another person, simply because they are in the good fortune to know how to turn an idea into something is rampant. But the original germ of that idea, and the person who had it, remains anonymous. If and when they discover that their idea posted on some obscure site in an oddball web forum was stolen, well it's their word against the other. Isn't it? If one had to identify themselves and be responsible for their behavior and their contributions on the internet - a lot of the hatred and slander and copy-write infringement would end.

But I also understand people's need for privacy. But then, if you put yourself and ideas out on a public forum - are you really a private person? If you want your word out there in the world, why not the name and face to go with it? Why shouldn't people be responsible for how they act and what they print on the internet? Just like in the real world?

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
I don't disagree with your position. But I have to play devil's advocate. Just so we get a basis for where these lawmakers may be coming from. I just don't believe there is deviltry in every move our state representatives make. I just think their are different stances you can take in dealing with developing problems in regards to the internet.


Agreed, I am not one to say that all legislatures are out to impose their control either and I approve of your advocacy, even if it is devilish.


That being said, I try to understand things from their position also. I understand that dangerous and inappropriate behavior is observed and resulting of the internet.


Forgive me if breaking up your argument is tedious but I think it is pertinent. Dangerous and inappropriate behavior can be subjective. While the vast majority would say "murder" is such, what would you define as "dangerous and inappropriate" behavior in regards to internet postings?


The internet isn't all roses and sunshine. There are several things that happen in the internet that are downright disturbing. Harassment, stalking, and outright lies is one nefarious use of social media. Another is social groupings of deviants such as child molesters.


All of these happen in the real world, absent of the virtual one. What is your point? Each has their laws associated with them that transcend the medium they occur in. Harassment, regardless of how or where it is engaged in, is harassment. The same with stalking and "lies" (we cannot legislate lies unless it is done under Oath; see the recent Supreme Court ruling on this one.) Free association is typically acceptable and only can become problematic if such an association can be proven to be detrimental to the public safety of an area.


The complete lifting of one's intellectual work and taken and spun to belong to another person, simply because they are in the good fortune to know how to turn an idea into something is rampant. But the original germ of that idea, and the person who had it, remains anonymous.


If one where to claim their works, because they want to lay claim to it, they should. Anonymous works have been around since time began because some feel their words have no owner and that is their Right to do so. If such works are being misconstrued and manipulated, it is the author's responsibility to correct such actions.


But I also understand people's need for privacy. But then, if you put yourself and ideas out on a public forum - are you really a private person? If you want your word out there in the world, why not the name and face to go with it? Why shouldn't people be responsible for how they act and what they print on the internet? Just like in the real world?


Why did James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton use Publius in the Federalist Papers? Why did Dewitt use Brutus in the Anti-Federalist papers? Each of those documents were significant beyond anything we post here yet they chose anonymity over praise or attachment. Sometimes, separating one self is more important than the message itself.

In any case, I am enjoying this discussion with you by the way.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by CryHavoc
The question really is:

Can you yell 'Fire!' in a crowded chatroom?


No it really isn't and I am not sure where you are trying to draw some logical deep insight with this. An attempt at wit? Expand this some more so we can discuss as you may have a good point but as of now, it is a non-sequitor.

Of course it was a play on 'yelling Fire! in a crowded room'. Don't you get arrested if you yell Fire! when there isn't a fire? How can the Police arrest you if you do that and you're anonymous?

What happens in the real world if the Police stop you and ask you for ID? What happens if you don't have any?

The owner of a website (and the authorities) should have the right to know who you really are if you cause trouble. Your real name doesn't have to be public knowledge. Just available if legitimately needed.

The ones screaming for this anonymity are the ones that want to get away with causing trouble.

Sorry, the Internet is a privilege, not a right.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CryHavoc
Of course it was a play on 'yelling Fire! in a crowded room'. Don't you get arrested if you yell Fire! when there isn't a fire? How can the Police arrest you if you do that and you're anonymous?


To play devil's advocate here: what would you be charged on? Yelling "fire" or something else? The answer is crucial here in this discussion.



What happens in the real world if the Police stop you and ask you for ID? What happens if you don't have any?


All depends. It is not illegal for you to not have an ID on you. You do know that right? Walking down the street you don't need your papers; this isn't Russia or China or Nazi Germany; yet. You tell the officer your name that is all. Lets say they "bust" you for not producing that ID; what will they charge you with? Failure to maintain on your persons at all time a sanctioned form of ID?


The owner of a website (and the authorities) should have the right to know who you really are if you cause trouble. Your real name doesn't have to be public knowledge. Just available if legitimately needed.


I half agree with you here. The owner of the website does have that Right and if they offer a service to users, they can demand anything within the law. Users that agree, are subjected to those terms; as you did when you signed up for this site.

Authorities? Not at all. What is the difference if I make a pamphlet (a mini book; I am sensing you are very young and naive) that calls the Government fascist and tell the people they need to wake up to the fact. But instead of signing my name, I use a pseudonym for fear of that very Government you says has the authority to have the "right" to know who I am?


The ones screaming for this anonymity are the ones that want to get away with causing trouble.

Sorry, the Internet is a privilege, not a right.


No and no. I am not here to cause trouble. I am here to facilitate and spread the open and free trade of ideas ( the very thing that we do outside our digital lives) and if you think that is "causing" trouble then I suppose you should run to your "authorities" to inform them about me. PM me and I will give you my full name and address so you can do that. Trouble....grow up.
edit on 24-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Well played, my friend. There is nothing further I can add to your well-thought out response to CryHavoc.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by CryHavoc
Of course it was a play on 'yelling Fire! in a crowded room'. Don't you get arrested if you yell Fire! when there isn't a fire? How can the Police arrest you if you do that and you're anonymous?


To play devil's advocate here: what would you be charged on? Yelling "fire" or something else? The answer is crucial here in this discussion.

Someone who yells Fire! in a crowded room when there is no fire is usually charged with either 'inciting to riot', 'reckless endangerment', or 'creating a public panic'. It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech. 'Free speech' does not mean you can just say anything.

This is where the phrase became famous:

en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by CryHavoc
What happens in the real world if the Police stop you and ask you for ID? What happens if you don't have any?


All depends. It is not illegal for you to not have an ID on you. You do know that right? Walking down the street you don't need your papers; this isn't Russia or China or Nazi Germany; yet. You tell the officer your name that is all. Lets say they "bust" you for not producing that ID; what will they charge you with? Failure to maintain on your persons at all time a sanctioned form of ID?


In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place.

Hiibel was arrested after not producing ID.

en.wikipedia.org...

Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2012, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws.

www.flexyourrights.org...

By the way, I'm 43 years old and a US Navy veteran. I'm not sure what country you live in.
edit on 24-2-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I've been busted for not having my ID. Of course, I was in the military and in the military you ALWAYS have your ID on you. Needless to say, I kept my ID close at all times, even when in the pool. Thousands of squats in my bathing suit was not an ideal punishment for leaving my ID in the barracks! It was very embarrassing.

But all in all, I don't disagree with you. These issues do happen in real time. But here's the rub. When they do happen in real time life, and not online - the perpetrator is right there in front of you to deal with. Not, who knows where in Timbuktu. If you are being harassed and threatened by a bully in life, you can point out that bully and have the necessary recourse to do something about it! That isn't so on the internet. You have no idea who is out to cause you mental anguish and you have no recourse except to be run off.

Take ATS for example. There are about a handful of people, I'd love to know where to find, just so I can shove their own hatefulness back down their own throats. I wouldn't hurt them, of course, but I'd give them the spanking their mom and pops didn't. Why? Because they are that mean, and somehow in their head, they feel justified in being so nasty and hateful to another poster, based on suppositions! People assume another is lying and then all the bullies gang up on that person and are downright diabolical in their efforts to demoralize that person. It needs to stop.

Which is why bills like the one being discussed comes up for review so often. There is a very huge problem with people and egoism.

It's that out of control in my opinion, with everyone so concerned about "free speech" they cannot even recognize "hate speech". Heck, a lot of people don't even realize they are participating in "hate speech", and just jump on the bandwagon for the thrill. To bad, that thrill, just might effect another person in such a way, they might not wake up to take a breath the next morning. All because some punks, needed to feel their ego inflated, and spewed out their attack on someone who most likely, never deserved it. Only in the bully's mind, is it deserved.

I had an acquaintance who committed suicide, because of online predatory bullying. She was wiccan and interested in spirituality. She was a bit depressed, but sweet. I wasn't friends with her, but knew her because we often frequented the same circles. She joined an online community. Hoping to find friends or like minded people, I'm thinking. Instead, posters were actually telling her she was worthless, and should just take herself out of the world and do everyone a favor. I know that a lot of this came from fundamentalists. Well she did. Take herself out of the picture that is. Permanently. I guess that's just one less delusional nobody to have to worry about. For the fundamentalists, it was one less fallen to lead others astray, I guess.

This was a decade or more ago. She was from Michigan and the case made the news. I doubt anyone would remember it though. But it's cases like these, that give me pause. People should be responsible for their words.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Well played, my friend. There is nothing further I can add to your well-thought out response to CryHavoc.


He sure showed me...

that he lives in FantasyLand.

When he can post legal precedent to back up what he says instead of urban myth, I'll listen.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   


It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech.
reply to post by CryHavoc
 

Nobody is talking about yelling fire in a theater, other than you. Of course, everyone knows that is an insane act, unless there is a fire. The thread I created is about anonymity, not inflammatory speech. You're harping on a point that no one contests. The issue comes down to being able to express VIEWS, without worrying about whether they will hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with Homeland Security taking you away, as a "terrorist". Don't tell me it couldn't happen here.It could. Between the Patriot Act and the NDAA, and the Presidential "executive orders" abused by all the recent presidents, it very well could happen. Nixon had an "enemies list", and Obama has a kill list, and no one is allowed to know who is on it, so anything goes.
Let's stick to the point of the OP, namely the anti-anonymity bill. BTW, your vote is supposed to be anonymous, so why shouldn't your opinions be? This issue is especially important with the current POTUS, since he is a narcissist of the first degree, who cannot take criticism, so there is every reason to believe he would be vindictive. He is extremely thin skinned.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus



It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech.
reply to post by CryHavoc
 

Nobody is talking about yelling fire in a theater, other than you.

You might want to talk to the person who asked me to elaborate. But it's interesting to note that you can't tell it's related to anonymous speech.


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The issue comes down to being able to express VIEWS, without worrying about whether they will hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with Homeland Security taking you away, as a "terrorist".

So write to a newspaper using a fake name. That's what a Free Press is for. The Internet is a privilege, not a right.

You can write a book, but the publisher will know your name.

Are you serious that you think Homeland Security is going to come knocking on your door because of something you spouted off about on the Internet?

Hey, look, you're paranoia is showing.

Besides, nobody wants to deal with some moron with no manners and less common sense spouting off their manifesto of life and who they are going to screw over, cowardly hiding behind an anonymous name.

Unless it's good comedy.
edit on 24-2-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join