Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/york-senate-bill-seeks-end-anonymous-internet-posting-162549128.html

Called an anti-piracy bill but in effect it is an anti-dissent bill. While the government already has ways to investigate, it would assist non-governmental investigative services to more easily target individuals by forcing them to provide information theoretically difficult for the private sector to obtain legally otherwise. Essentially it would assist any individual or institution interested in the content of your forums posts to more easily gather or pay someone else to gather as much information about you as legally possible. While I assume it's been crafted to benefit the many political organizations with millions of dollars to spare to intelligence corporations, I question whether the people behind the bill have considered similar organizations such as the Black Panthers to name one that the introducer's own party seem concerned about since they see them everywhere.

From the link:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Introduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address. From the (likely well intentioned) bill:

"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."

EDIT: Also I did a search for the story title on google and unsurprisingly it is a very popular topic on forums.

Spoiler: Google search link (click to show/hide)

Google search for this thread's title

[Moghjubar]

I certify that I am Sparticus for this comment.

Does this really have a chance?

[nenjin]

The last attempt went down in a flaming heap IIRC.

[SethCreiyd]

From the Senator's website - it would seem the impetus/excuse behind the bill is cyberbullying.

I'd love to know who gave Senator O'Hara the bribe money to introduce this little gem of legislation.

[Trapezohedron]

Since this bill isn't all H@ck3rs!!!1!1!0!, I don't think this has a chance of winning.

Unless people actually believe not being anonymous will reduce cyberbullying, in which I can attest to is bullshit, because of the many facebook posts about passive-aggressive arguments I see.

[Zrk2]

Can't we just let the internet be the internet? Y'know, like Chuck-E-Cheese but with hookers and blackjack?

[Itnetlolor]

I certify that I am Sparticus for this comment.

Does this really have a chance?

No, I'm Sparticus.

And no, too many people in the world will flood them, and I think sound retaliation (that should (have) be(en) expected) would be revealing all their information for everyone else to go nuts on them. Especially if it passes, somehow.

[lordcooper]

What if one is homeless or doesn't have a static IP address?

[Itnetlolor]

What if one is homeless or doesn't have a static IP address?

Look for a dude carrying a laptop? v v

[Knight of Fools]

Not only is it ridiculous that the lack of anonymity would reduce cyber bullying, or even hacking, but enforcement would be impossible to achieve, too. Most forums are privately owned, can be accessed by anyone and are free. The bill would only affect official government forums, really. As it stands, forum mods will just say, "Yeah, right" and ignore it. If the government imposes monetary punishments for companies that run forums, the forums will suddenly be owned by the guys who run them, not the business, and they're back to square one.

It's just stupid, and it would only affect New York. Who even uses the Internet in New York?

[Sensei]

As far as I can tell, it being a state bill would mean it would only affect hosts in new york? Seems totally pointless to me, a New York citizen can host a server with a New York clientele in Maryland very easily, or even move their server hosting easily if they're already IN New York. I can't see this having much effect other than to change discourse on government-owned sites and MAYBE drive a little server hosting money to other states if they push it.

[Neonivek]

Since this bill isn't all H@ck3rs!!!1!1!0!, I don't think this has a chance of winning.

Unless people actually believe not being anonymous will reduce cyberbullying, in which I can attest to is bullshit, because of the many facebook posts about passive-aggressive arguments I see.

Honestly even now I think Cyberbullying is sort of... stupid in it of itself and has been overblown.

But this bill is even dumber so I have no idea why they would want to try do it. Plus it is so abusable.

[jester]

Even if it did pass there is zero chance of it ever being seriously enforced.

[Neonivek]

Even if it did pass there is zero chance of it ever being seriously enforced.

A method of government enforced censorship the kind that could be used in elections not being used?

I guess I lived on mars.

This bill is FAR too useful for corrupt ends not to be used if it was passed.

[Theoboldi]

How the heck do they want to enforce this? It's like they have no idea that there actually are websites that aren't hosted in New York, or not even in America. Do those sites have to enforce it too? And the few websites that are created by people in New York can easily find ways around this. It's just another sign of the government having no idea how the internet works.