Slashdot Mirror
NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums
An anonymous reader writes "The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require operators of public forums to collect users' legal names and addresses, and effectively disallow anonymous speech on online forums. This raises some serious issues, such as to what extent local and state governments can go in enacting and enforcing Internet legislation."
First post! (Soon to be illegal)
Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi: Come off it, Mr. Coward! You can't stand in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square indefinitely! This law for the information superhighway has got to be built, and it's going to be built!
Anonymous Coward: Why's it got to be built?
Biondi: What do you mean "why"? It's a law! You've got to pass laws! You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time, you know.
Anonymous Coward: Appropriate time?! The first I knew about it was when you pre-filed Assembly Bill No. 1327, the cops showed up and they said they were ready to come and take me away!
Biondi: Have you any idea how much damage the government would suffer if we just let the law roll straight over you?
Anonymous Coward: No, how much?
Biondi: None at all.
Vogon: Apathetic bloody citizenry. I've no sympathy at all.
"In other news, roads became congested today as a wave of trucks was seen hauling piles of servers across the New Jersey state line..."
Beautiful Blueberries
An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
/>
Comes a vacuum, as posters retreat who aren't criminals but have reasonable fears of retribution, and a clear need for anonymity...
<grrr
And this will be enforced... how?
...unless it can be enforced.
My fear about unenforceable laws such as this one is the true power behind the law. Sure, it will be hard to enforce, but the powers the State will request to try to enforce it will play directly into the hands of those willing to finance the system.
Anonymous posting is harmless, yet un criminalizing it I can easily see how it can play into the hands of the RIAA and the MPAA -- giving them (and others) greater power in their cartels.
So you have to get proof of ID? Nice. Now, how do you do that? By sending a copy of your passport to a forum admin? Great, thanks for opening a new and interesting opportunity for Nigeria scammers. Don't have to send lengthy mails around, all you need now is his bank account, you already got the harder to get part.
Will I provide my real name if no such proof of ID is required? Hardly. And who would take it upon himself to prove that I am really myself? Hell, you can register DNS entries with fake IDs, do you really think your neighborhood forum admin will go to greater lengths than companies making some bucks with holding databases of their users?
But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board. Now, ain't this great? Sure, you can't shut people up, first amendment and all that. But you can make sure nobody dares to offer services that would allow you to execute said right. No board, no discussion, no dissent.
Less direct than China, but by no means less efficient. You can't shut them up per se, but cover them in enough red tape that they can't go to the lengths required to stay out of harm's way and shut up "voluntarily". Either you can sink enough money into the identification process of your users to make SURE they are who they claim to be, or you can just as well shut down your board because you can't afford the lawsuits that just might spring up when someone dares to say a word someone important doesn't enjoy hearing.
Yes, yes, I can understand that it's not cool to hear slander and libel on boards. But the tools to get the person under your thumb are already here. IP logs exist, trace them to their source and you got who you need. Case closed.
So what for do you need the poster ID?
*sigh*
Let's hope our clever and very smart politicians never find out something like the usenet even exists.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Instead of anonymous users, you'll have:
Name: Hugh Jass.
Address: 123 Fake Street.
Email: yourmomma@home.com
Brilliant idea!
Many of them posted handbills - anonymously - at public places.
...
Some of them posted scurious tracts arguing for Common Sense and other radical ideas, many using pen names (the same as anonymous postings).
I for one welcome our Thought Police Masters and bow to them in the East five times a day
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
As a law, it's unenforcable. New Jersey doesn't control the internet outside the state lines. And within the state lines, how can a forum operator ensure that all his/her users give accurate information? Even if this law passes, it won't survive the first time it gets enforced.
of America flushing itself down the toilet of total fucking irrelevance.
I was skiing this week with a friend of mine who manages a half-billion dollar investment fund. His skepticism about the US was withering. It will not be very long before the world economy interprets America, with its spaghetti of ludicrous, paranoiac IT legislation, DMCA bullshit and general hostility towards 'the other', as damage, and routes around it.
Maybe the last person in the US with a job which does not involve burgers could turn out the lights.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
...that more people aren't posting as Anonymous Cowards under this topic.
First criminal!
Between the risks of identity theft and crackdowns on anon speach, it seems like a pretty good idea for everone to have a backup-ID of their own; in case their primary ID is stolen or if they need to speak anonymously.
Apple vs. Doe 2: Jersey strikes back
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
Let's say you post on some forum and you're trying to pick up some 11 yr-old. Now, if they catch you, not only can they charge you with soliticing a minor (or whatever it's called) but they can also charge you with posting anonymously or with a fake ID. I'm sure posting with a "fake ID" will become illegal under that law if it's passed.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Might want to remind the New Jersey legislature that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
At least with the First Amendment, they can get out of it by saying "It says "CONGRESS" shall make no law, not New Jersey."
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I don't think they'd be happy.
I personally can't wait for the nasty replies to enforcement efforts to be posted on the Pirate Bay's ``legal threat" pages. . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca-sub/faq.cgi#QI D508
Anonymous pamphleteering is protected under the first ammendment. There are a number of cases that set a precident for this. For this NJ law to stand would fundamentally change the law of the land.
RFID, banning anonymity--what next, random searches on the street and in your home?
I hate politicians.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
So, only people whose IP says they are from NJ will be forced to register.
The result?
- People in NJ who want to remain anonymous to do obnoxious postings will use a proxy
- The people who will be hassled and thus pissed off? The people who live in NJ and are not doing obnoxious postings.
Way to bring home the vote fellas - by pissing off all your constitients.
This is silly. The New Jersey Supreme Court has already decided that citizens of New Jersey enjoy a strong First Amendment right to anonymity in their online postings.
I doubt this bill even gets out of committee, let alone gets passed by the NJ Assembly so that it can be immediately struck down by a NJ judge. As for why, then, a hopeless, pointless bill was introduced by Assemblyman Biondi -- mmmm, maybe he's got an election coming up? Needs to do a little grandstanding?
Now, I Am Not An American Politician Nor Am I An American Lawyer, but isnt something of this scope -completely- out of the scope of a state? How are you going to keep people from other states from posting anonymously in a forum? How are you going to keep people in your state from posting in other states' forums anonymously? It sounds almost completely unenforcable to me.
~ Wizardry Dragon
1. Misleading headline.
... collect users' legal names and addresses, and effectively disallow anonymous speech on online forums.
Every Slashdot user who read that headline probably thought immediatley of "anonymous coward" posts on Slashdot -- but this isn't about posting without a handle, it's about posting without your legal name and address on file! I'm not logged in, to make a point about New Jersey (I just pointed my cantenna across the state line to NJ - good thing I live on the eighth floor), but if I were logged in, I would still be making an "anonymous post".
2.
I do not think this word means what the submitter thinks it means.
Quite simple (in the head of the many pesky bugs (aka poly-ticks)):
You, as the board admin, are liable for everything that happens on your board. If you don't find someone to blame other than yourself, you're hanging for it.
So they shift the burden of proof to the ones running the boards. Can't prove that it's someone else? Ok, we'll take you instead.
The net effect will most likely be, that people who run their boards in NJ move out of the state. If more states pass that law, it will move out of the US.
And even if services like this have to run in some land that ends on -stan, they will keep running. The question is only, which country will get the tax generated that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I own a website with forums, and, while I don't accept anonymous posts at all, I do have a userbase from the entire world. If I'm in Tennessee, and my server is in Atlanta, how would this affect me? Would I have to collect everyone's information to comply with this law (that only affects NJ)? Would I have to collect names and addresses of only New Jersey residents? Would I have to do anything at all, since I am not in New Jersey? This scares me, because it makes it sound like if I do have to collect these addresses, if someone says "Screw you [insert name here]" and that person sues me, if I don't have the legitimate info to pass off to them, it becomes me who's in the frying pan.
This TERRIFIES me. I should not be held responsible for someone else's stupidity, or this country's obsession with lawsuits.
First up, does anyone have the background to the reasoning behind this? Was there some big case in New Jersey that was predicated on an anonymous post? Or was this the result of a crack-fueled late night in the NJ legislative chamber?
Secondly, if they expect this to pass, how do they expect it to apply? I've heard of the MPAA sending DMCA takedown notices to Swedish websites and such, but how do they expect this legislation to be enforced? Is there method to their madness?
Will they expect any 'internet forum' sites hosted in NJ to require this data? Or US-based sites that [potentially?] cater to NJ users to do this? Or are they ignorant and exepct everyone to follow it? I can see the first and the last being possible explanations, but still...
Regardless, this is an opportunity to send a clear message saying that yes, we actually do want some privacy and anonymity. If it is resoundingly struck down and that its rejection is so reported then other policymakers elsewhere might take the hint. Just maybe.
And if it does pass... well then I'm just glad my hosted websites are located in sunny California!
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
Of course, the Court's membership isn't the same as it was in 1960. The President can appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court. So, who'd you vote for, for president, in 2004?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Or are most of the state and federal elected officials pushing for a point of 'Violent Citizen Uprising' ???
....
/to lazy to see if its to late
Granted this is at state level, and not federal, but when I see one 'asshat' politician thinking this is someway somehow 'representative of what their states people want', I think it is time for that politicians tenure* in office to be up.
The 'day' anything like this EVER gets passed in the U.S. (state or federal), is a day I become a ghost on the Internet.
So long 'Anonymous Coward'! I knew thee well
Should take a leaf from the British MP who suggested that the answer to email spam was to require everybody to have their zip code as part of their email address.
Pining for the fjords
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's not unenforceable, it's just unconstitutional, and therefore will not happen.
You may be thinking that New Jersey has no jurisdiction over people who live in other states. Not true. New Jersey asserts jurisdiction over everyone who lives in New Jersey and also everyone who does business in New Jersey, or who materially affects a citizen of New Jersey or the general interests of the citizens of New Jersey.
Hence, if you, Joe Citizen of any U.S. state other than NJ, or even a citizen of another country, do something over the 'net that affects someone in NJ, and is illegal under NJ law, then a NJ court will have no problem issuing a warrant for your arrest. The governor of NJ (or rather one of his underlings in law enforcement) would then issue a request for extradition to your state or country. If that request is granted, then your home state or country arrests you as a courtesy to NJ and (if necessary by force) sends you to NJ to stand trial.
How often is extradition granted? Depends. Between the states of the United States, or between countries of the EU, almost always. For credible accusations of traditional crimes of violence, like murder, rape, arson, or robbery, then again almost always. For nonviolent crimes, and crimes where public policy differs widely, like fraud, child custody violations, or Internet crime such as this one -- all bets are off.
So in this case, you're almost certainly right -- if New Jersey criminalized anonymous posting, I doubt very much if most states in the Union, let alone most Western countries, would honor an extradition request. But as a general rule, you do not escape a state's jurisdiction merely because you don't live there.
My Name is Al Gore, and I live at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, Washington, DC. Happy now?
What happens if I anonymously post on a New Jersey forum from Illinois?
For that matter, what makes it a New Jersey forum? The physical location of the server? The physical location of the forum admins?
And if another state supports anonymous posting, but the anonymous posting happens to be on a NJ server...
Isn't this why the federal government controls interstate relations (i.e., currency)?
Actually, if you're an adult capable of bearing arms, you are a member of the militia. As far as the 1st amendment goes (or the rest of the Bill of Rights for that matter), they are extended to the states through the 14th amendment. Wow, that 1st degree in Political Science, was actually worth something!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Is speech really so dangerous? Why are so many people so hellbent on preventing other people from speaking their minds? Libel, slander? That's bullshit. There is no slander so damaging that NJ needs to restrict freedom of speech like this, which would possibly be the largest restriction on speech ever in U.S. history.
Anyone who supports this legislation should be hung. I'm not even kidding.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You would have before?
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
Invite-only. So it's no longer "Public".
Thanks, Google...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Some users commit libel/slander, harass, break copyright law, etc. and law enforcement needs a way to be able to get these users.
The same can be said of anonymous pamphlets. The same has been done with anonymous pamphlets.
And yet, anonymous pamphlets have been very specifically ruled to be constititonally protected by the Supreme Court.
The cops' "need" to find people does not supersede the people's right to free expression, even anonymously.
I thought most boards on the net already log your IP address. Your IP address can be traced back to your ISP, and your ISP can usually provide your info in such a case where it's actually appropriate to disclose it. I don't see why enacting a law for this is even necessary.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"A well-educated populace being necessary to a nation, the right of citizens to read shall not be infringed."
Using your interpretation of the second amendment, the above sentence would prohibit anyone who isn't well-educated from reading. Also, as the other poster pointed out, "militia" as it is used in the Constitution is a much broader term than you seem to think.
FYI, just about everything can be filed under interstate commerce if the Feds twist logic hard enough.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Because that's who the 2nd Ammendment gives the right to bear arms to.
No really, read it again.
The enemies of Democracy are
'Tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright!
yr. svnt.
Poor Richard
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Part of me being a good New Jerseyan, requires that I know AT ALL TIMES, where are good places to "dispose" of a body This law would clearly infrige upon the rights of a select few people, and thus prevent us from being able to pursue our livelyhood, and is there clearly unconstitutional.
Later, Franky "The bulldog"
..........FULL STOP.
I'm the Commanding Officer of the House Where I Live Militia.
I'm also the Inspector General and Sergeant at Arms. We have very loose naming, but our regulations are otherwise quite strict. Since our membership highly exclusive, our discipline has so far been perfect.
So come get my gun if you want it. Oh, but find me first.
Which is the point: anonymous posting and gun ownership are two sides of the same coin. One is the pen, the other the sword. If New Jersey or Congress try to take away one, they will suffer defeat by the other.
Sure, the regular users of the forum won't see your name and address, but it's on file somewhere. Probably on some computer connected to the Internet, and probably the same server as the forum. What are the odds that some of the moderators can view it? What are the odds that an automated attack for common forum types will be published?
And what are the odds that some law enforcement officers will abuse this? Would you honestly be surprised by a US president from any party having the NSA or FBI tap a political opponent's phone? Would this be any different?
I run a site with a web forum and maintain a database. We only require City, State and even allow the user to hide that info. It is none of my business to know the actual physical address of the person. One of the best ways to ensure information is private is to not collect it in the first place so I don't.
This bill attempts to require maintaining records that are not currently maintained. It is obsurd.
It just doesn't seem fair to make people actually admit that they're from New Jersey. Isn't this persection? I mean, think of some poor guy, sitting there of an evening, trying to pick up online, maybe a little bit of troll-on-orc action, when *bam*, the person on the other end figures out that he's from Newark. That guy's just never going to get cyber-ass again.
Man I would loved to see the thread that pissed this politician off enough to make this big of a fool out of himself.
Somebody must have reemed him a new one... looking at the way this bill is written it sounds like he was a troll on some boards in his day. funny little rant he posted.. shame he is trying to post it to law instead of a forum.
Ever wonder what would happen if your local politicaian would troll your boards... now you know.
Politics = from the greek poli meaning many, tics meaning blood sucking insects.
New and improved Guilt. Now its alcohol soluble!
Why do you think people with a clue are so against the super big media cooperations owning ALL the media? So what if your an independent reporter trying to get the truth out. No need to kill him off, just make sure nobody distributes his story.
The internet was the great revolution in that respect. Virtually anyone can get his/her story out with the big media having no control over it. Trust corrupt/insane goverments to try to ruin it. Oh and trust us to vote them into power time and time again.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Did these lawmakers even consult anyone who has used a computer and posted on a forum before? What is wrong with these people. This legislation will be completely unenforcable and will also probably be overturned by the Supreme Court. The reason it would be turned over is not because it breaks any constitutional rights per se but because it is useless.
Seriously. They read the crap you send them. They might not heed any advice, but at least they read it and add it to the different piles of "yay" or "nay" emails regarding different subjects. You have a voice, use it! Here's the "honorable" legislators email page: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/RepEmail.asp
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
No, it doesn't. Thats what the right wingers claim to try and define their way around gun control laws, but it doesn't make it true.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
the way gov'ts work now cannot continue in the face of complete communication. this is another example of a long string we'll see where the Internet is curtailed. Lots and lots of people all talking and figuring out the truth about what governements really do is a BAD THING for those in power. Expect to see more and more of this.
Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.
Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Nope, I'm not. As for draft- they can claim whatever they want. If they try I'll either get to Canada in time or go to jail, either way I will not become a hired murderer.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I'm an adult, physically capable of bearing arms. I am not now, nor will I ever be, a member of a militia- I do not own a gun, I have never fired a gun (outside of a water gun), and I have no wish to train to be a professional killer. I find the very idea insulting and abhorrent. So no, try again.
Actually, I think it just means that you aren't a particularly useful member of the militia. It's sort of like being a member of the citizenry -- just because somebody doesn't vote or participate politically doesn't mean they suddenly stop being a citizen.
Simple Solution: Every forum admin, everywhere, needs to blacklist NJ IP addresses. Just drop 'em at the router, whether they're coming to the site to use the forums or not. Hell, even if you don't have a forum...just block NJ. Just for, say, 1 - 3 days. Just a little this is what you can expect if this bill passes notice. If being unable to access any webpage on the 'net which happens to have a forum (and maybe even some that don't) doesn't encourage the citizens of that state to start an uproar, nothing will.
Unpleasantries.
There was this most famous forum, called SMTH, hosted by a university and in the Chinese Education and Reseach Network (CERNET), forced to collect users' real names by the university administration. Almost all of the users protested by boycotting the site, and deleting their accounts and posts. Number of concurrent users on line was dropped from 30,000 to 900. Soon after that, a forking site, called NewSMTH, was built in the public network ChinaNET. It is still running, without real names being collected.
Almost at the same time, another famous forum also hosted in the CERNET was stopped, because of the same reason. Users donated and set up the new server in the US. I really hope the server is not NJ.
Another stupid bill that has essentially zero chance of passing, but which will generate a huge amount of outrage.
Whenever I see a story like this, I always wonder what it is they are trying to distract people away from.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Would it then also be illegal in New Jersey for me to walk into a park, stand on a soap box (let's update it, milk crate [I mean, who's ever seen a soap box?]), and discuss my political beliefs with a bunch of strangers without providing my name and address to each of them, and collecting all of their contact information?
I think it might already be. Aside from the bold warnings on the side of every milk crate that it is like felony theft to remove it from the store, I believe I am required to carry proof of ID at all times in case a police officer comes and asks me to "show my papers".
I really don't like the way this is headed. When I started hearing laws that require one to carry positive proof of ID and produce it at any request from law enforcement, I started worrying. This isn't that different, and it's even more worrisome.
I like music
Like we should rename New Jersey to New China.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Actually, you are. Look up the definition of Militia as defined in the dictionary and also by United States law.
Well, how about they do away with anonymous voting? Because if the voters are voting well, and they are not voting for any evildoers (like writing in Osama bin Laden's name), then they have nothing to hide!
Signature.
The only thing that's worse for civil rights than a Republican government is a Democratic one. For all the failings of Republicans, I find Democrats are far more often found running around like little busybodies trying to protect everybody from themselves. So we either get Jesus shoved up our butts or well-intentioned hand-wringers trying to stop us from running with scissors. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
...your posts ID you!
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Maybe this is their new plan for increasing revenue.
(Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where they have first-aid supplies in the company vending machine...)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The militia is any group of able bodied adults.
"Well Regulated" simply means that the militia isn't going around looting, or hanging people without trial, etc.
Have you ever seen an anonymous letter stapled to a telephone pole, slandering someone? You'd like to be able to sue for defamation, but you can't. That's life, it sucks, deal with it. You can't just tack on the words "on the internet" and change things. Of course, that's what this bill is trying to do -- impose an affirmative duty to watch each and every telephone pole and identify the posters by legal name and address.
Now although it's not the main issue, economics should be addressed. Sure, the cost is spread out over all the website operators and not consolidated in the phone company, but the same cost is being imposed nonetheless. Every website operator will now have to 'hire guards' (databases, coding special HTML pages, access restrictions, etc). This makes hosting a public forum more expensive. You might even call it a 'tax' on free speech.
Both from a rights perspective and an economic perspective, this bill stinks.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Seriously. They obviously have NO fucking clue what the founders stood for and what makes (made?) this country great. Politicians who even try to get this kind of anti first amendment nonsense into the system should be tarred, feathered, and kicked the hell out for being traitors who violated their oaths to defend the constitution.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
IANAL, but you are free to ignore any law that is plainly unconstitutional, per the constitution. If you are an officer of the law or military, you are free to ignore and protest against orders that clearly conflict with the constitution, again per the constitution. Courts are very sympathetic to citizens who are brought before them by the order of "unlawful laws" or unconstitutional laws. So don't worry too much.
Wait ... what?
I got something about a camel, and a tent, and campaign financing. Can you run that metaphor by me again?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Back in the 90s, California passed a law requiring all gun owners to register their guns. Eventually, the supreme court decided that convicted felons were not required to register since to do so would violate their 5th amendments rights (they're not legally allowed to have guns; registering one would be an admission of guilt).
Maybe it's true (As someone said, "There are two things which are infinite in this world, time and human stupidity and I'm not sure about time.") but to me, that seems like a misapplication of the 5th amendment. I mean, tax forms still have a section for listing illegal income so they could bring in gangsters, right?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Oh Wait! There won't be any! Seriously how can this be enforced? Its not like the person running the forums has much control where they are hosted anymore. I host many forums. All of them in another state. Now how can a state I don't pay taxes in impose its will on me?
The Poetry of Google Voice is very strange.
gv-poetry.com
Is Anyone In Here A Lawyer? (answering may effect your posting privledges-BANNED!)
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
Speaking in person generally isn't anonymous. And "speech" generally doesn't refer to speaking in person.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
... which effectively anonymizes whatever scandalous legislation they're enacting, I'll believe they're serious about ending anonymity.
Dog is my co-pilot.
1. Private information is power and control over those individuals to whom that information directly applies.
2. All private information relinquished to the public domain will be used and for whatever purpose and at whatever time as the collector sees fit. The likelihood of that information being used increases the more ardently the collector states that it will not be used. The likelihood of that information being used for nefarious or damaging purposes increases the more ardently the collector states that it will not be used for nefarious or damaging purposes.
3. Private information made public may be rendered inaccurate or irrelevant (by moving, changing phone number, etc.) but may never be assumed to be destroyed.
With these three rules in hand, it is easy to see why governmental authority wishes to have more of your personally identifiable information available at every point where anonymity might be possible: Censure and threat. There is no easier way to make people step and fetch than if you intimate that their words may be used against them. There is no better way to coerce rebellious elements of the society into cowed silence than by taking away their anonymous avenues to lambasting the status quo. Of course, most people don't realize that this sort of law won't protect politicians from remarks such as these. It is a long established precedent that public figures, especially those in the elected service to the people are not protected equally from libel or slanderous speech as private citizens.
Actually, gun control in America was invented by the Klu Klux Klan... they wanted to be able to kill black people without black people being able to fight back, so they pressed for a gun licencing scheme which would exclude blacks, by charging a licence fee too expensive for most of the former-slaves to afford, and just general intimidation in the licencing process.
You see, in history, every oppressed minority, or enslaved group has been denied the right to possess weapons. Traditionaly only the upper classes and ruling classes had been allowed to own weapons and be trained in their use. That is why people many diverse people such as Mohandas Ghandi, George Orwell, Malcom X, all felt that citizens should be allowed to be armed.
The "left" in America is really a politically correct version of the "Right". The reason they want all Americans disarmed, is because they know that every oppressed minority and enslaved group was not allowed to own weapons. They intend to make the citizens slaves while the upper class and the ruling class run our lives from above.
Citizen disarmament is the fundamental first step in despotism and totalitarianism, and no person can be against slavery, genocide, and oppression and support gun control. Citizen disarmenet is the universal first step to facism.
You are a facist and totalitarian... you are either just too smart to admit it, or too dumb to understand it.
No-one creating value? Just look at the $600M value that NTP created recently!
OK, OK, so $600M is going to be worth about 3 kopeks in 12 months, but it's the effort that counts.
K.
The bill, as written, is meaningless. As a user of a public forum, all I have to do is enter
Name: George W. Bush
Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC
and I can use the forum and the operator is safe. After all, that is theoretically a legal name and address. Of course, it's not my legal name and address....
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
if there were an easy way to obtain and verify identity information, there would be many sites already offering such a community. however at this time it is fairly prohibitive to obtain and verify identity information from someone wanting to make a post on an internet website.
MORTAR COMBAT!
To prove it, I'll post my real name & address on Slashdot:
First Name: Cro
Last Name: Magnon
Address: 1234 Inna Cave Dr.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Well from what I can see this could be a very good law however this is something that would have to be adopted world wide becuase the NJ can't go around ploiceing this world wide. reasons why it is good. 1.) slander lawsuites if you have ever been a victum slander you know what I mean. 2.) poeple do confess to doing illegal things on fourms sum of those people really should be held acountable (Script kiddys and the dumb-dumb programer that made their software) reasons why it is bad. 1.) unless the site you sign up with is respectable they may sell your personal information 2.) There are not may respectable sites on the net that would keep your information between them and you. 3.) goverment abuse of this new found information. however I do belive the good out ways the bad. I have never posted on slashdot I believed it was not worth my time to post here. However this topic is something that poeple really need to needs to be won by the law makers becuase its important.
well then, as a "conscientious objector" you can be a stretcher bearer or corpsman...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Sounds like the government wants people to take responsibility for what they say.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
I'd be more willing to listen to proposals such as this were the same transparency policies applied to the government as well. Every law, every bill, every proposal, every act accompanied by irrefutable evidence as to who was involved, and when. "National secrets? Sorry, Uncle Sam. If YOU get to keep secrets from your citizens, we get to keep secrets, too. What do I have to hide? Well, if YOU'RE not breaking the law, either, what are you hiding? See? You just made my point for me. There are secrets worth keeping that have nothing to do with hiding criminal activity." And then I woke up from my little nap.
And a bunch of black-suited Secret Service agents come flying out of AC's monitor, yelling and screaming unintelligibly as they haul him (or her) off to who knows where for safe keeping.
Jeez! Didn't you learn anything from that SNL skit that taught everyone the dangers of threatening the prez?
(Or was that MAD TV?)
This space unintentionally left blank.
I would imagine that web hosting facility owners (ie those who do colocation and hosting) in New Jersey are going to be pissed, because nobody will want to operate public servers there any more.
it's like forbidding cows to shit in the pasture
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is not clear. Therefore, the presumption that it protects "the people" is incorrect (and not how the Supreme Court has decided on laws violating the 2nd amendment to the Consitution).
You can anonymously submit for publication any text you wish and get it distributed if the distributor so desires. This means that you can print up your view, never sign it with a name, and pass it out in a legal method (handing it out on the street, hanging it on doorknobs, etc, depending on local laws) and that's perfectly legal. Posting online should have the same protections -- if it's allowed by the forum operator for you to post something on a forum, then you should be able to do so without providing any more information than the site operator desires. On my forums, all I ask for is a valid e-mail address and some name that complies with a few basic rules.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
So you would be in favor of allowing anyone who wishes to build their own nuclear bombs? I mean, they have the right to bear arms. Yes? Then you're a moron- there's no good reason for a citizen to have a nuke- eventually either some nutcase will use it, or someone won't be careful and we'll have a major environmental catastrophe. No? Then you're pro-weapon control. Now we just need to decide exactly where the line is drawn.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Yes. In overturning portions of the Communications Decency Act, the Supreme Court overturned some restrictions on online activity as restricting the first amendment right of freedom of speech. See Reno v. ACLU
... and I'll say it again
Fucking Jersey.
Just cant let that continue. People feeling safe to speak their minds, well its just so anti-establishment... Cant allow that now can we?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I mean, let's suppose Mr. Jass did want to register on the board listing the address of his vacation home on Fake Street instead of his actual residence on Streetname Avenue. If he gives my mother's e-mail address as his contact e-mail, he won't get his confirmation e-mail and therefore won't be able to complete registration! And home.com is in Japanese - as we all know, the Japanese are all honorable, respectful people and would never hack a server in their own homeland in order to get access to someone else's email - and no one from another country would be able to hack in Japanese.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
The US was founded on anonymous and pseudonymous speech.
Brutus
Publius
The Federal Farmer
A Pennsylvanian
etc...
Anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets and letters to newspapers were a favorite mode of expression for the Founding Fathers.*
*(Not that I would compare normal forum twaddle to The Federalist Papers but the point holds regardless; this is unamerican)
>We refuse to publically finance elections.
Only a quibble, about an insightful post. There is some public financing. That's where the $1 checkoff on the top of your tax return goes. Your point stands that most elections are too often decided by private donors.
Second quibble, "public" financing likely means government financing, which would take a lot of care to get right. One obvious failure mode would be for the two largest parties to starve out funding to "fringe candidates", meaning anyone who might challenge their duopoly.
Keep it public and do automatic email confirmations. We have enough circlejerk communities.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
On beahalf of NJ Citizens that can read, I appologize that yet another out of touch elected official is wasting tax dollars, and Slashdot bandwidth with this stupidity.
Yea, there are a bunch of rulings that makes this pretty obivious that it has no legal standing...
but that's how our state's government works. Lawmakers write stupid laws, and debate them forever.... the process allows them to look productive and use tax money. Only lawmakers win at this game... the rest of us just get higher taxes, and more problems.
For a period it's Democrats, then it becomes Republicans, then it switches back... each does it, and the other claims to be the cure. The reality is it's all NJ politicians.
I love it that people who want to ban firearms always talk about nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are not a weapon in any conventional sense of the word.
But in regards to nuclear weapons, I support complete nuclear disarmament... If private citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons, then I think governments should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons either. That would avoid any problems of having an "upper class" of the nuclear armed, and a "lower class" of those without nuclear weapons. Since most of the governments on the planet do not have nuclear weapons, and they have only ever been used in war once and it was generally considered a bad idea, there is no reason to believe that nuclear disarmament isn't possible. But even if we accepted the unlikely and a bit silly situation that people would want or could even afford privately owned nuclear weapons, do you think that is some how more dangerous than Bush and Putin having nuclear weapons?
However, I don't see how it would be practicle, or desirable, to eliminate firearms. Firearms are useful for law enforcement, protecting national borders, defense against wild animals, personal defense against criminals, armed revolution against facist governments, sport and hunting, etc., etc... Since we need firearms, they should not be controlled only by an elite ruling class, they should be the property of all the people. An armed population can replace a professional army, and eliminate the danger that a defensive military can be used for imperialism and agression. An armed population can also be the final defense against despotism or government sponsered genocide - if the people are armed, you can have a people's revolution and overthrow the government.
So, my views on weapons, the Constitution, and the views of great advocates of freedom (such as the ones I gave, Ghandi, Malcom X, George Orwell, who were all against gun control), are all very consistant. Gun control, and disarmament of the people is not only reasonable and safe... it is not only completly consistant with the idea that people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but it is the most important right of all - because an armed population is the final guardian off all democracy and all other rights.
Like I said, those who are for gun control, are for totalitarianism. They are either too smart to admit it, or too stupid to understand it.
Right.
And if the server is in Finland? Or UK? Or Seeland? Or China? Or India? Or Germany? Since when does New Jersey law trump that of another SOUVEREIGN NATION?
One of these days, these butt-licking fascist freeeeks are going to figure out that America Doesn't Own the Internet, and certainly some halfwit from Somerset certainly doesn't have the capacity to change its social operations.
Geeez. What a fucktard.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I suppose the author of this bill got tired of "anonymous coward" smacking him down...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Short letters are more likely to be read- I'll include brief arguments: - economic: will move tech business out of NJ - privacy: users data at risk of theft from tiny staffless web sites - freedom: founders often wrote anonymously
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but our country was founded in part by the reaction to anonymous letters printed in the Colonial newspapers by our Founding Fathers. So banning anonymous speech is utterly unamerican.
Well, the chances of that happening are extremly unlikely, so stop using your irrational fear of the poor and working class as an excuse for your facist politics. You are thousands of times more likely to get killed at the intersection by a soccor mom and her SUV than anyone shooting you.
I have spent a good part of today deliberating on this story and have constructed a carefully reasoned and highly cogent argument against the bill. It follows in the next paragraph.
Fuck that noise.
I feel that my reasoning is plain and does not require explanation.
For those with questions I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the Colonial Revolution of 1776.
But in regards to nuclear weapons, I support complete nuclear disarmament... If private citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons, then I think governments should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons either.
I REALLY like this argument. It takes all of the specious nonsense of the nuclear weapon argument and turns it on it's head.
Regards,
Ross
Various forum software will some with provisions to block NJ from access.
http://outcampaign.org/
There really should be a list of politicians who have submitted such bills; that way we can be sure that we don't vote for the police state mongers.. at least not a second time.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
I am not a violent person... However, news like that support my theory that things are getting out of control and the only way to protect youself is to ensure that you can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and get a gun (or a dozen).
This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about keeping our government in check every so often. According to the Supreme Court, it is okay if a company takes over my property in order to build high-valued condos. Abortion is getting banned. A religious city is being built in Florida and kids cannot learn about evolution in Kansas. On top of that we have a foreign state-run company that aims to operate our ports. What the hell is going on here? Is this the end of the world?
Unless U.S. citizens take their heads our of their asses, we will end up with North Korean state of affairs by 2010.
Sounds like NJ might be overstepping its bounds of jurisdiction. I thought anything that had to do with interstate telecommunications in the United States had to go through the federal government? And the internet is international, not just interstate....
It is no coincidence that the GOP leader of the New Jersey Assembly introduced this law. It goes right back to the 2002 lawsuit (Donato v. Moldow) against EyeOnEmerson.com in which four Republicans LOST their libel suit against the website over anonymous comments they disliked.
N.J. judge dismisses lawsuit over anonymous Web site criticism
New Jersey Court of Appeals rules for EyeOnEmerson website
"It is far from over," said Jack Darakjy, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. "We will appeal the decision. If we need to, our clients are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."
Or, if you are politically connected in New Jersey, maybe you just go to your party and get them to take up your crusade.
Unlike 1984, this reminds me of the line from "A New Hope" in which Princess Leia says to Grand Moff Tarkin, "the more you tighten your grip, the more sand will slip through your fingers..." I can't help thinking two thoughts: a) how will NJ enforce this, and b) how many people will register as "Mickey Mouse", "Elvis Presley", or "Albert Einstein"? Honestly, if the state wants to prohibit anonymous posting, I hope they have a way to pay for it, especially in light of budget deficits. I think things were better with Governor McGreevy laundering money to his boyfriend.
Generally such info is needed for law enforcement issues. One does not need a publicly-viewable name for such, only a way to trace back to the originator of the content IF there is a legal problem. For example, if an email address can be traced back to a real person upon subpena's, that should be good enough. The email address does not need to have the person's name.
Table-ized A.I.
Please?
Oh, never mind.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
That's because those types of gun laws are unconstitutional.
If it has to be permitted by the state, then it isn't a right!
Libertas in infinitum
I would say that they are pre-Teddy Roosevelt. IMO, he was the president that started us on the path away from our original idea of "trade with all, entanglement with none"
Libertas in infinitum
...it would not surprise me to learn that it's some sort of new tax.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Once again, Jersey proves itself to be nothing more than a province of PA.
The Best Damn Tech Show, Period infotechment podcast includes 3 techies talking about consumer technology, the internet
I propose "Brandon's Law"...
As an online discussion of anything privacy-related grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving RIAA or the MPAA approaches 1.
See also Godwin's Law...
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
who is responsible for the anthrax letters?
Who kill JFK, Marilin Monrow, etc...
in excahnge for no more anominity?
(1) IN GENERAL.--It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection (b).
So kids can post anonymously, but once you're over 13, its the slammer for you, if the server (or you) are in Jersey? Thank you, Mommy State
-- My Sig is a P228.
Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi, what are you thinking?! This law is unconstitutional! In fact, it is really blatantly unconstitutional. Other posters (orthogonal) have articulated well why this law is plainly unconstitutional. To put it simply anonymous speech is strongly protected by the 14th and 1st Amendments to the US Constitution. In 1960 is one Supreme Court case (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)) that made it abundantly clear.
For those who are unfamiliar with the US Federal system, a state such as New Jersey cannot have laws that conflict with federal (US) laws or the US Constitution. (See Marbury v. Madison in 1803.) When a state does pass a law that conflicts with the US Constitution or Federal laws that law must first be challenged by a regular person in court and then a court may rule the law is unconstitutional. I am skipping a ton of details here, but that is the general idea. This law if passed would not survive.
P.S. I am not a lawyer.
P.P.S. I strongly doubt the governor of New Jersey would sign this bill in the unlikely event it makes it through the state legislature.
By today's definitions, the founding fathers of the USA would have been terrorists, or at the least, insurgents. This legislation is designed to suppress anonyous writing, which may cause people to Think Too Much, which is going to be outlawed soon.
But, if you think about it, these folks are trying to help protect us. The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So, take away the freedoms, you take away the reason for the terrorists to hate us. You take away their reason to be terrorists.
All this is part of the brilliant War On Terror.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Guy Fawkes day isn't until November.
Also, as the other poster pointed out, "militia" as it is used in the Constitution is a much broader term than you seem to think.
Absolutely. Thomas Jefferson loathed the idea of a standing army; he figured that'd be the fastest way for a person to take over the government. At the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, the "militia" was pretty much every able-bodied male over the age of twelve. The concept was simple; should America ever need to field an army, it would be obvious to the populace, and all would answer the call.
I am a screaming liberal. I will defend my right to speak freely with my right to bear arms, because I am a responsible, free individual, who enjoys liberty and a good beer.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It's no surprise this bill is coming out of New Jersey. NJ has host to two major Internet speech cases in the past 2 years: E merson, NJ city council members sue EyeOnEmerson.com over anonymous postings [freedomforum.org] (note: the council members lost their case) Troy Hills Village, (Parsippany, NJ) vs. John & Jane Doe users of ApartmentRatings.com [nytimes.com] (note: case still in progress)
Can we prohibit New Jersey from posting on forums?
Now for a completely off-topic rant. Actually, I worked in a call center and talked to lots of people from New Jersey. Overall, I'd have to say they were a nice bunch even when I couldn't resolve their problems. On the other hand those in the 917 area code just across the Hudson River on Manhattan Isle have a special place in hell reserved for them. Bar none, they were the worst customers I dealt with. They were arrogant, rude, demanding, and pushy and those were the nice ones. People in Boston were second worst. A distant third and fourth were two distint foreign ethnic groups from opposite ends of Asia that were also pretty bad. Upstate New York people and those on Long Island were OK. Canadians, well they weren't bad either. Just peculiar, eh.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Obviously Biondi knows its not gonna pass. He is probably trying for a chilling effect on a local issue.
s et_county/ For those of you unfamiliar with the case, Provenzano is accused of charging the county for cleaning his uniforms!
My guess is that he is upset over the smear campaign against fellow Republican Somerset county Sheriff Provenzano and is trying to help.http://politics.nexcess.net/insideedge/somer
In most places, this would be derided as silly, but Somerset country, the home of rogue DA Nick Bissell, is hypersensistive to such charges. Provenzano's career is probably ruined.
I do not know Povenzano personally, but I do know Somerset county law enforcers, and just want to state that they are the finest and most professional group of law enforcers in the nation. They don't deserve this, and should be protected.
This kind of smear campaign destroying the life of a 37 year veteran law enforcement officer is certainly is a good provocation for some sort of law to protect against internet smears.
Now, how is every 1GB-hosted forum on the net going to have the resources to verify every single identity of every participant? In this day of identity theft, half the time the damn *bank* can't get it straight who's who (and I've had the checks stolen from me and falsely signed and cashed to prove it!), show me the Internet ID mechanism that could not possibly be faked or fooled.
Actually, it's clear that the Supreme Court of old recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. Strangely enough, the most famous example of this occurs in the Dred Scott case of 1857.
The Dred Scott ruling concluded (unfortunately) that slaves were property and could be "carried" into a free territory without the enslaved individual gaining his or her freedom. The ruling also established (again, unfortunately) that those descended from africans were not U.S. citizens. Now, putting those distasteful notions in their historical context for a moment, the reason the court was horrified at the idea of blacks being citizens was because of the rights this would entail.
The thought that blacks -- as citizens -- would have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went" was just too much for the racist whites of the time; but it clearly illustrates the fact that the Supreme Court recognized the Second Amendment as being an individual right.
One can of course criticize the racism, but that aspect of the case has nothing to do with the gun issue.
I think it's fair to say that the Second Amendment established the right of the individual, and that that right has been and is being whittled away by "reinterpretations" of the language of the Second Amendment and willful ignoring of the right by courts and lawmakers.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Why should the moral equivalent not apply also to LAWS?
SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
Lawsuit
Law
What's the difference, morally, in this case?
What alternative do you have? Hanging or shooting, where's the difference?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Guess I was wrong...
Your bullshit about the Libertarian party being less extreme is just that, bullshit. You're using some really disengenuous arguments to support that stance. And your statements are not all true. The U.S. did not invade with support from both parties - while technically yes, not really. Both parties gave tentative support, assuming the president wasn't a lying shiteater, which it turns out he was. The diplomatic approach was a ruse.
And fucking christ man, less evil is less evil. Just stop with that bullshit about "wholeheartedly endorsing" either parties' ideals. I don't, and noone I know does, wholeheartedly support any political party, period. In the case of the last election, it would have saved this country a lot of grief, IMO anyway, had Bush lost to Kerry. You make the world out to be black and white; it's not. Sometimes you have to compromise. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.
The Libertarian party will gain no traction as long as it remains so focused on ideals. Learn some fucking pragmatism.
I agree that the Republicrats need to be deposed. But, being rational and pragmatic about it, I'd like to do it in a non-destructive manner. Letting Bush win the last election was not an option. Luckily for me, I don't live in a swing state, so I could not influence the outcome with my vote, so I voted for who I supported the most. Unfortuneately, roughly 50% of this godforsaken turd of a country are stupid enough to believe that mouth-breathing piece of shit GWB. That has been a huge loss for us, and indeed, the world as a whole. Less evil would have been far, far more palatable in this instance.
For the record, I am most accurately labeled as a left-leaning Libertarian. I like to refer to myself as a pragmatist, and avoid the Libertarian label so avoid being thought of as a raving fucking lunatic the way people see you "real" Libertarians.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You can anonymously submit for publication any text you wish and get it distributed if the distributor so desires.
Yes, but that's not speaking *in person* (ie, face-to-face). I wholeheartedly agree that posting online should have the same protections as placing a flyer in public or publishing a pamphlet.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
blah blah blah avoid the lameness filter blah blah blah yes i know i am lame blah blah blah blah blah blah lame lame lame blah blah blah blah what percentage of a post has to be non-caps to pass the lame lameness filter blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I saw this crap likely to happen many years ago, so before Yahoo and others went to "must have a valid email address to set up free email", I set up free email accounts with them (and a few others) via a web proxy. These addresses are only used via a proxy, and since that time, I have set up other email accounts elsewhere via proxied access, with those original accounts being the "valid email address". I check these accounts (proxied again) on an regular basis, and make new ones - so I always have a source of anon email addresses - when and if I need them for whatever purpose. I will concede they aren't perfectly anonymous, but they are anonymous enough, since I use proxies in other countries to access them, they would be somewhat of a PITA for LE to track through...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Umm... YES. Yes I do think that's a hell of a lot more dangerous. Bush and Putin at least have checks placed upon them. If Average Joe could have nuclear weapons.. well. That's "end times" right there. Not so much than the not-so-great times under Bush and Putin.
Mod parent up. It's also a violation, IMHO, of the First, Fourth (right to privacy) and 14th Ammendmants to the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).
I have long been of the opinion that we need to add an explicit right to anonymity to the constitution, to include both intellectual anonymity [e.g. the right to post anonymously on the internet, or the right to send anonymous SMTP traffic, or the right to publish books or other works under a pseudonym], but also to include a right to practical anonymity: The right to cross state borders anonymously, the right to drive a car anonymously [without e.g mandated big-brother toll-road RFID shiznat], the right to a non-traceable currency [such as classical, NON-RFID'ed paper bills and metal coins, as opposed to traceable VISA/Mastercard/Discover transactions], the right to send mail [or packages] anonymously, etc etc etc.
Hell, I'd go so far as a right to give birth anonymously: Did you know that nowadays little newborn babies "have" to get SSID#s? What the fuck does a newborn baby need an SSID# for?
It's enough to make you want to move to the wilds of Montana and go completely off-grid. Just disappear from "mainstream" society altogether. Give birth to little babies and never even register them with the state. Homeschool. Conveniently forget to file income taxes. Tell the state to go fuck itself.
Hell, that's basically what all these Mexican illegals are doing, and if 40 million of them can do it, then why can't I?
Why wait? Go now.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I admit I am at least partially talking out of my backside here, but there is something to be said for the idea that if you are planning on leaving as soon as your country starts wanting something back from you, you should leave now.
I don't know if I said that very well, but I hope you get my idea.
I am not really trying to rip on you (OK, maybe a little), but I am trying to understand.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.