Slashdot Mirror
Browsing Privacy - Off With Your Headers!
andyo writes: "Incredible assertion in this Wired article that 'Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of their e-mail correspondents, or the addresses of Web pages they visit.' Cites two senators who I'd thought to be more clueful (Orrin Hatch and Chuck Schumer)." Sure, the FBI should be able to check out every URL I visit without a warrant. They'll never abuse that power.
We've got to beat them at thier own game. I started a mailing list after reading the "Slashdot in Politics" thread. I'm wanting to get involved, to change the system. Anyone want to help? We've got to do it open source style. Each person works on a small chunk, ending up with a massive effort.
Follow the link in my sig to sign up for the newsletter. We can't just stand by and let this happen.
-- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
"where is the part in the constitution that says you have the right to be anonymous."
1st and 9th amendments. See also McIntyre (sp?!) v. Ohio Election Commission
"I understand the right of free speech, and general "freedoms" granted"
The constitution does not grant freedoms. It acknowledges that the gov't will not take them away.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
[stock rant on the subject]
There have been several postings already that point out that the First Amendment does, or does not in fact, protect anonymous speech.
There is a confusion about what 'anonymity' means. Courts have ruled specifically about two aspects of anonymity, and have ruled that one form is protected, and one form is not protected. Others tend to think that anonymity is related to privacy. To lump them all under 'anonymity' is to ensure further confusion.
There is a First Amendment right to 'unsigned' expression. You can CHOOSE not to put your name on something you write, because you have the right to express yourself how you wish to express yourself, and to COMPELL an author or artist or whistleblower or witness to SIGN their own expressions is a blow against freedom of self-expression, and has a chilling effect on expression.
There are regulatory exceptions: the post office usually does not reject to unsigned envelopes, but sometimes does reject unsigned packages.
However, there is no right of 'unaccountability'. That is, if a third party is able to prove that you were the responsible author/artist/whistleblower/witness, then this fact is admissible, and you are able to be prosecuted if your expression is libelous, slanderous, or in some other way breaks existing laws. You are always accountable for your actions, including expression.
The Internet makes it easy to elude obvious signatures, but most ISPs keep enough logs to ensure some modicum of accountability. It is because of this linkage, and because of the confusion over the use of 'anonymity' that the courts are beginning to form guidelines, and the law enforcement community is interested in shaping that process to favor the availability of latent evidence.
The guidelines describe what standards must be followed to force ISPs to divulge private records to turn 'unsigned' expressions into 'accountable' expressions. In short, the courts seem to say that the specific expressions must be shown specifically to have a strong case for illegal forms of expression: again, libel, slander, or other legally disallowed forms of expression. This hurdle must be met BEFORE the ISPs are required to divulge private information.
[end of stock rant]
[