Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Politician Wants a Kill Switch For Anonymous Speech Online
New submitter OhSoLaMeow writes with a story at The Daily Caller with unpleasant news from the Illinois state Senate, where a state senator has introduced a bill that "would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online." From the article (warning — obnoxious ads with sound): "The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a 'web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the 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.'"
Hardly. Unless your servers are located in Illinois the bill is meaningless.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The fact that there's even ONE politician (yeah there are more) at a state level in this country advocating for this should be setting off alarms in everyone. What the hell are these ivy league lawschool graduates being taught that makes them think like this?
> betrayal of your constituents like this
In the 21'st century a politicians constituents are the various lobby interests that give him money to run the campaigns that get them elected. "citizens" don't come into the picture except as demographics to be manipulated by the advertising campaign.
I suspect this bill was advanced directly in the interests of one of the senators "constituents".
All posts to all forums should from here on in, come from Sen. Ira Silverstein. Should be easy enough to get his address, IP, and even a few other juicy details. Make all anon. posts come from this turkey and sooner or later, he'll get the point.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/18194/ira-silverstein
Checking that page, with a guy refusing to give statement on important topics, no speeches, no nothing and still in office since 1999?! What kind of interests are behind him, considering he was an outsider when he got into office.
freenetproject.org = absolutely no one can censor (delete) anything.
Also of-course it is anonymous (more then TOR).
Downside: it's slow.
But best thing we have now for truly NO CENSORSHIP, good for online anonymity.
got 3 minutes?
For geeks only (need patience!)
- freenetproject.org grab .jar (sorry, it's java)
- java -jar thefile.jar (and -console if headless)
- http://localhost:8888/ (from separate firefox profile, block outside-localhost access by setting invalid proxy if you want, disable java/flash if you want, JS also not needed)
- in wizard set LOW or NORMAL security (you can't have HIGH unless you know >10 freeneters practically)
- later, go to Freenet Message System and install it - its 100% uncensorable board (will take hour to start up, it's normal. create id, solve captchas)
- do NOT use Freetalk (extreamly slow), but on very fast (ram/hdd=ssd) computer try Sone and WoT plugins (Twitter!)
Greetings from anons, Johny and tgs3 see you there :)
If questions ask us there and #freenet on irc2p and freenode.org
You should, perhaps, read the Constitution, which defines treason. It is not this. Something does not have to be the apex of bad to be bad. This is bad, and it's unconstitutional, but it is not treason.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
They are elected by ignorant people who find things they don't understand scary. What happens when somebody bullies a little kid online, we need a way to hold people responsible! It's important to hold website admins responsible for the trolls of D3ath2Merca.
Somebody needs to make them read the "Federalist Papers," to educate them on the importance of anonymous speech.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
If they have nothing to do except introduce bullshit bills, we should stop paying them and send them home. We could use the money to hire better teachers, fix up a crumbling bridge or something.
doesn't mean freedom of anonymity...
I don't understand why people think that anonymity is or should be an unquestionably protected given.
While I disagree with this politician's proposal, I feel like we should make it clear that not all speech should be behind an anonymous veil. It's difficult to explore and draw the line but, for instance, if you call in a bomb threat or threaten someone's life over the phone and they use the appropriate means to track you down, I don't think you should be able to say that your speech should be anonymous and by removing the anonymity you're a treasonous free speech hater. However, if I want to criticize my leaders you shouldn't be able to trace whatever communications I use to do so in order to identify me. And I think we have court systems and warrants and wiretapping laws in place (or rather we should) that make this a process that does not become abused. When your words have a large amount of weight, they shouldn't be anonymous -- I think that testifying against someone is a great example of this. Can I anonymously swear to tell the truth and call you a pedophile and will you demand that be entered into the record in a court of law?
Another recent example I can think of that annoys me is when your "anonymous free speech" is equated to hundreds of millions of dollars or campaign donations. At that point we're talking about sums that can positively or negatively affect many lives and when it hits a certain point it should simply be published. This would reduce some of the legalized bribery in this country that is parading around as "free speech."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't actually say anything about anonymity although I understand how forcing identification could amount to fear of response and future duress. So at that point you need to involve a judge in the process of determining whether identification is needed without violating the first amendment.
My work here is dung.
This places Illinois on equal footing with Syria, China, and China. I mean that sincerely: if China were advancing this bill, there'd be a huge outcry over the obvious human rights violations.
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants government the power to register or regulate all of your speech, and the first amendment explicitly states that it can't. Why do these little dictator wanna-bes keep insisting that this time it's different?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Don't do that, you'll just make somebody else's life miserable.
Rather than go random, people should just put in:
Ira I. Silverstein
2951 West Devon
Chicago, IL 60659
(773) 743-5015
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
It is far worse than no more ACs. This would affect anyone posting here, even under a name that has been registered for more than a decade (like mine). It would say that Ira Silverstein wants you to post your actual name and contact information so that any crackpot that takes offense at what you say can track you down and inflict harm on you.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It stems from something way pettier. Someone anonymous on the internet was mean to him, and he tried to found out who but couldn't, so now he's got this. The text also matches, nearly exactly, a proposed bill in NY that was absolutely trashed there as well. Here's an article with the texts as well.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/10065822029/illinois-politician-seeks-to-outlaw-anonymous-comments-allow-anonymous-gun-ownership.shtml
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1614&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=72466
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1874
Just another day in Paradise
Sorry, couldn't find not evil on the ballot.
Inconvenient Party affiliation omitted, twice in one day.
Back here we have a Democrat state senator Toni Harp from Connecticut trying to "Ban Kids From Using Arcade Guns." Now we have Democrat state senator Ira Silverstein of Illinois with another statist gem.
Could we please stop this game? When we're raging about Republicans there is no hesitation qualifying names with parties. I know it's inconvenient that all bad government isn't the fault of fundies, but pretending statists aren't a problem isn't helpful behavior.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Already, Facebook and Google+ forbid anonymous postings. Facebook's comment system is used all over the web, so you can't post anonymously anywhere it is found -- you can, of course, violate their terms of service and use a *false* ID, but in that case, again, you can lose your voice and your posts at any time. For that matter, if you're not a Facebook member, you can't post at all on a Facebook comment system, either within Facebook or used externally.
You're looking in the wrong place for the real threat. The government isn't (really) looking to curb anonymous speech, just this one asshat in Illinois; and his stupid little idea isn't going anywhere.
Commercial interests, however, have a huge stake in making sure they know who you are, and are well into the process of making it standard. even here on slashdot, we have numerous naive koolaid drinkers who will blithely tell you that anonymous speech is a bad thing.
Slashdot itself starts anonymous speech at a lower value than speech with an ID, a slight, but not subtle, nudge to get you to provide your information to the world. Basically for anyone who utilizes the mod system here, anonymous speech is by default invisible. No, you can't count on the mods to fix all the cases that need fixing, either -- not enough mods or modpoints.
Seriously people... you're fighting the wrong fight. 1, support anonymous speech, and 2, don't feed the trolls. Get off Facebook and Google+ until or unless they come around. Or else swallow and don't spit when they don't let you post anonymously.
As a life-long citizen of Illinois, I've reached the point of saturation with the asshattery that goes on in Springfield and the true ruling city of the state, Chicago. This kind of thing simply doesn't register any attention anymore. We are numb, beaten into submission.
Cash can be subject to seizure without a warrant or other cause.
Read it and weep.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He's not even bothering to say "It's to protect the children" or "Economy!"? Just straight up "Gotta limit free speech" and assume everyone is already on board?
The voters are pretty gullible. It doesn't take great salesmanship to get this through, you're just being lazy dude.
AC posts are all worthless anyway
I was going to use:
Elwood Blues
1060 W. Addison Ave.
Chicago
How are all these treasonous socipaths getting elected anyway?
It all starts with rigging elections. A wealthy corporate or private entity 'sponsors' a candidate to run for office. They foot the bill for all advertising and write the policies which the candidate stands on. They pay for the candidate's appearance to be changed and have personal advisors following the candidate around making sure that every single thing which comes out of the candidate's mouth is monitored and accounted for.
If the candidate happens to slip up, a carefully worded clarification or apology is written by the advisor(s). Generally you'll find that most elections have more than one candidate of this nature. The entities sponsoring the candidates run secret fund raising drives with other like minded wealthy people / businesses to assist in the funding of the candidate's campaign.
Sociopaths are perfect as political leaders because they have no problem with outright lying, manipulating people to meet their sponsors agenda and generally doing whatever is required to get elected. Also, they're wonderful as people whom can be easily manipulated by the wealthy. Sociopaths often have secret hobbies that would make the average person's skin crawl (paedophilia, sadomasochism, sexual sadism) and therefore their addictions are easily fed and they tow the line in order to keep their hobbies out of the public eye.
The result is that the only choice for elections are often only the candidates running on behalf of these wealthy individuals / corporations. Hence, voter turnout is quite irrelevant. The sponsor(s) of the candidate can then get their own laws passed without credence to the rights of individuals and without concern as to the ramifications of the law.
so y'all can say whatever the fuck you want about shitty ass Illinois.
Lots of stuff is unconstitutional (whether by a state constitution or the US Constitution) and is still enforced; the 4th Amendment in particular has been null and void for a long time ...
Much of the second as well. That's why you can't have machine guns, silencers, short shotguns, and a number of other guns or accessories in most states and to have them where the states don't ban them you must go through major federal hoops, (fingerprints, $200 tax per item, risk of federal prison {or a shoot the dog, stomp the cat, throw the pregnant wife against the wall and make her miscarry, raid} if the BATF {thinks} your paperwork is defective or you have something you didn't tell them about).
U.S. v. Miller (1939) said the fed could tax guns that AREN'T suitable for "militia" (military) use, in particular a short barreled ("sawed-off") shotgun (because Miller and his team weren't there to "bring to judicial notice" that they were also called "trench guns" and were an important weapon in WW I). The federal and state governments have taken that to mean they can tax any gun any amount, erect arbitrarily draconian red tape barriers, then bust anyone for screwing up the red tape or failing to pay the tax - "revenuer"/"untouchables"/Waco/Ruby Ridge style.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Have gnu, will travel.
Won't this require the entire internet to become 18+?
As it stands, most places that allow people to post are 13+, since that is the minimum age due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. However, it would seem that requiring 13-17 year olds to post their real name online and confirm their personal details is a little sketchy.
Look her up ;) He reportedly did this because his brother was the publisher and wouldn't publish him if he knew it was his brother, but...
Can someone tell me when the "liberal" party became so obsessed with passing laws that tell people what they can't do (ex: buy large sodas, post anonymously on the Internet, buy scary-looking guns, etc.)
I don't know why anyone with any sense would allow their kids to have their real name and faces on the internet on a easy searchable place.
It's pretty much like a pedophile menu, where he can choose the nearest kids, know where they go and what they do and do their thing easily.
As Ira, sure. But why would you do that to Ms. Silverstein and those poor kids? Haven't they suffered enough already? They're required to keep a log for every time they go to the fridge, so Ira never has to wonder who drank the last of the milk.
One way to do it - eliminate anonymous speech. Yes, there's a lot of vicious nastiness that internet tough guys and raging nerds say on the internet that they would never say in real life. But what about a whistleblower at a financial company? Or in a politician's office?
What happens if a citizen writes something unflattering about a politician and the politician decides to pursue a vendetta against the citizen? Politicians have a great deal of power to make that happen.
Anonymous speech is essential to lubricate the flow of information. It's something that leaders and marketplace gatekeepers have a hard time controlling. It undermines their authority and profit. Which is why we need it.
How the fuck do these psychotic dipshits ever make it into government with such a profound lack of insight? How do they not see the dangerous consequences of such ridiculous propositions?
Is it really that difficult to understand the real world analogs? Seriously, all we're asking for are the same rights and protections that the generations before us were able to take for granted, ie.:
You can send anything through the postal system without a return address and there are serious legal ramifications for anyone that opens it without specific authorization.
You can place a phone call and, with some specific exceptions, nobody can tap and listen in without a warrant (or at least that used to be the case)
They were able to enjoy protections for their communication mediums. Is it really so unreasonable for us to ask for the same thing with ours?
Oh, but wait, it's not the same because zOMG COMPUTERS!! INTERNETS!! SCARY!!
YOU (I mean USA) did not become us (Russian Federation), yet. And will not, because modern Russia slides to totalitarian state much faster. For now, I am just afraid to visit half of Internet without VPN.
Even VPN can be hacked.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
joe lieberman has already proven senators can have entire sites shut down for too much anonymous posting. wikileaks didnt need a kill switch.
godaddy.com, largest hosting provider in the world, has already agreed with things like SOPA and warrantless wiretapping.im sure if this senator just politely called up and asked a post or site to be taken down, godaddy would. the TOS for hostgator flat out says they can just stop providing service when and if ever they decide, and theyd never have to disclose the fact a politician wanted a site shuttered.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Seriously? "the Internet Posting Removal Act"
What a noob!
If you want anything to get passed it has to have a catchy name.
Taking away due process? Patriot act Getting rid of unions? Right to work Molesting pregnant women? Women's right to know.
May I suggest:
Protecting Our Most Precious Ones Under Seductive Anonymous Speech Situations
The vast majority of US politicians are attorneys. Isn't that what people generally do when they don't believe in anything and want power for its own sake? They go to law school and then run for office.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Every elected official in this country takes an oath to uphold the laws of the nation. By introducing the Internet Posting Removal Act Ira Silverstein his demonstrated his contempt for the constitution and is unfit to serve in the Illinois state senate.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.