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.'"

47 of 522 comments (clear)

  1. Death of Slashdot? by Talderas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re: Death of Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That politician's mouth is in Illinois. Can we get a kill switch for attention-seeking asshats who want to take away our rights?

    2. Re:Death of Slashdot? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hardly. Unless your servers are located in Illinois the bill is meaningless.

      EVEN if the servers are located in Illinois this law would be unconstitutional. Its unconstitutional even under the State Constitution.
      It goes nowhere, and if it succeeds in getting passed, it gets bitchslapped by the courts.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Death of Slashdot? by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How gutless would /. have to be to let that happen? Far better would be to proactively cut off all Illinois users from /. and instead give a message crediting Ira Silverstein with plenty of contact information. Let the citizens of Illinois thank Silverstein for his protection if they feel that is appropriate, or have them let him know that they are not pleased. Do this before the bill is voted on, so that the Illinois users can have an impact on the way the bill goes.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    4. Re:Death of Slashdot? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily; it'll only get "bitchslapped" if the courts do their jobs properly. 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 (if you don't believe me, try carrying $100K in cash around and get yourself searched by the cops, or even just go through airport security with it).

    5. Re:Death of Slashdot? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cops: Why are you carrying $100K in cash?
      You: I'm going to the Apple store.
      Cops: Carry on.

    6. Re:Death of Slashdot? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...You hope.

      I've got more faith in a supreme pizza than I do the supreme court...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re: Death of Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Illinois politicians are about as far left and as corrupt (not suggesting the two are related) as it gets in the US. Nobody that lives here could be at-all surprised by this.

    8. Re: Death of Slashdot? by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, there's a grand mixture of fools and thieves from both parties, governors, senators, mayors, lots of convictions. Not far left. Big mixture there.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    9. Re: Death of Slashdot? by jimh69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have one. It's called an election. Sadly it has been broken for some time.

    10. Re: Death of Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but Democrats aren't far-left. They're a center-right pro-big-business party.

      They only appear to be far-left to far-right extremists.

    11. Re: Death of Slashdot? by HippopotamusX · · Score: 5, Informative
      Senator Ira Silversteen, the man behind the bill, is the Illinois majority caucus whip - effectively third in line in the IL senate. He shared an office suite with Obama.

      They were close colleagues. This is from the New Yorker in 2010:

      As a rising politician with Ivy League connections, Obama had financial backing from all over, including from a class of young black entrepreneurs. But he has had Jewish mentors throughout his career. Philanthropists like Bettylu Saltzman, Penny Pritzker, and Lester Crown were crucial to his campaigns. His friend and neighbor the late Arnold Jacob Wolf was a rabbi. Michelle Obama’s cousin Capers C. Funnye, Jr., is the first African-American member of the Chicago Board of Rabbis and the spiritual leader of Beth Shalom, a congregation on the South Side. One of Obama’s closest colleagues in Springfield was Ira Silverstein, an Orthodox Jew, with whom he shared an office suite in the Capitol building; Obama acted as Silverstein’s shabbos goy, turning on lights and pushing elevator buttons for him on Saturdays.

      Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/29/100329taco_talk_remnick#ixzz2LZl8gLSJ [newyorker.com]

    12. Re:Death of Slashdot? by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no debt until after a sale. A business can refuse to make a cash sale in the first place, and that's legal.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Death of Slashdot? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are there specific limitations on how much companies can accept by cash, by law?

      No, there are not. However, there are PATRIOT act rules that require them to verify your identity to prove they aren't doing business with a "terrorist." Those rules are not technically cash-only, but cash is basically the only way to make a purchase that does not also involve officially identifying yourself - so you will get that bit of hassle.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re: Death of Slashdot? by SampleFish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cheers! The green party is farther left than the Democrats.

      "The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the Independents."

    15. Re: Death of Slashdot? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no constitutional clause that says "freedom of speech, after you provide your legal name and address". It infringes on freedom of speech,

      Just wondering if you apply the same reasoning to the second amendment? Background checks/registration is a requirement to provide legal name and address...

    16. Re: Death of Slashdot? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course they don't want censorship in principle. That would require having principles.

  2. Re:today's politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (cough)Democrat(Cough)

  3. Re:today's politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Both sides do this equally. It is just a matter of who is paying the bills today.

  4. Re:today's politicians by msauve · · Score: 3, Funny

    I call myself Publius, but I'm really James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or John Jay (take your pick).

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  5. Re:WTF... by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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".

  6. freenet = 100% lack of censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Re:WTF... by medcalf · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  8. Re:WTF... by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative
    We have this thing called a Constitution, which conveniently defines treason for us:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  9. Time to furlough the politicians. by Rougement · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Where Is that Completely Guaranteed? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:How Are They Going To Enforce It? by servognome · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  12. Re:WTF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  13. Another omitted (D) by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  14. Meaningless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Meaningless? by nabsltd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      The wording of this proposed law is such that almost every post on Slashdot and every other forum (even ones that supposedly require real names like Facebook) would be considered "anonymous".

      Even though I am a registered user, Slashdot does not have my "legal name and home address" as required by this law. Almost no sites that I frequent have my "legal name", despite the fact that they might have what most people would consider is my "real name". And, pretty much the only sites that have my home address are stores that ship me stuff, but I know many people where even that isn't true, as they ship to their work and use a P.O. Box for their credit card billing address.

    2. Re:Meaningless? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      Maybe that is the game... Your freedom of speech is only valid if you are presented as you? As in, how do I know there is even a person behind that statement? If there isn't, then it can be terminated! Just thinking from the other side

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Meaningless? by Technician · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I take exception to the anonymous by default is invisible on slashdot. Nicknames with no real ID is OK on Slashdot. My RL and Slashdot life are only loosly connected so what is said in truth on Slashdot does not fill my inbox in RL with takedown notices and threats of legal action for what I say. Did I mention hardware I own is mine to modify and repair? Did I mention anything else someone would like to suppress by legal threats and or action?

      I have an account. It does not contain my real name, address, or phone number. It does contain my old email address, but that is not publicly revealed. If it was, I am no longer at the address where I was when it was opened. It would take quite a bit of investigation to connect my Slashdot ID with my RL ID, unlike Facebook.

      Because Facebook uses RL info, I post very little on it. It is only family and circle of friends stuff and never used to discuss copyright and other News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.

      I don't post on Slashdot that I enjoyed a relative's birthday party. I don't post on Facebook what I think about the RIAA or BSA. (Not the scouts)

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    4. Re:Meaningless? by master5o1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also with some people, if they put their legal name then when Facebook asks their friends if their name is correct then they'll most probably say no because it isn't one they recognise.

      --
      signature is pants
    5. Re:Meaningless? by CrashPoint · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NO company OR politician should be allowed to suggest that people's anonymity be prohibited.

      You realize that's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as forbidding anonymity, right?

    6. Re:Meaningless? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The constitution guarantees your freedom of speech, as long as you're wiling to let the jackbooted thugs know which door you sleep behind, so that they can kick it in during the night.

      That's not quite how I read the story of the revolution, and it's not quite how I read the constitution.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Meaningless? by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll stick with the following interpretation, courtesy of the Supreme Court, thanks...

      https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

      Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

      Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

    8. Re:Meaningless? by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, and despite him being able to Google, it doesn't change the fact that I am still "anonymous" according to the proposed law. Even if the information was part of my signature and appeared in every post, it still wouldn't be enough for the proposed law.

      I also suspect that he might be seeing some "troll" mods for what most would consider a breach of etiquette.

  15. Re:With all that's going on... by gaudior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Cash seizures by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Cash seizures by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most money has traces of drugs on it. If someone has a big stack of bills, and they are a not freshly printed a dog is basically guaranteed to find some trace of drugs.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Cash seizures by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not misleading at all. Where did your money come from? If it passed through the hands of a drug dealer or user at ANY point in the life of the bills prior to your coming into it (from the bank or grocery store, whatever), are you now perfectly OK with the cops seizing it?

      If you rent a UHaul, and someone else moved drugs in it, are you OK with being drug charges being brought against you?

      How is it that the activities of someone else magically translate in your mind into your own property loss?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Cash seizures by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the related news from the Louisiana Supreme Court is even more hilarious:

      In his affidavit, Trooper Mire testified the money was bundled with rubber bands, sealed in plastic shrink wrapping, and hidden in the vehicle's floor compartment. He stated based on his experience, such packaging indicates a "substantial connection between the questionable currency and narcotics transactions." The claimants presented no evidence to contradict these statements made by Trooper Mire in his affidavit.

      Relying on the reasoning of the court of appeal, the claimants contend the dog's alert is not reliable evidence of criminal activity because 96% of currency in circulation may contain trace amounts of narcotic residue. (...) Even if the claimants had shown a large percentage of currency in circulation contains trace amounts of narcotic residue, they did not show these trace amounts of narcotics would cause a trained police dog to alert.

      Trooper Mire's affidavit also implies Tina Beers was traveling on a route commonly used to transport drug money.

      Other factors to consider are Tina Beers' nervousness upon being stopped and her initial denial of ownership of the money. The claimants contend these facts do not prove the money was drug-related. While these facts alone do not prove the money is drug-related, they may be considered under the totality of circumstances to determine if there was probable cause for forfeiture.

      That pretty much sums up their arguments. So we have a trooper saying drug users often hide their cash and drive this road, but there's absolutely zero evidence of any drug relation except the narcotics dog they brought in to sniff the cash at the police station alerted them. That the dog alerted them is considered proof that it is drug related and the government will do nothing to test the reliability of their dogs, they are faultless until you provide evidence to the contrary. Oh yeah and she was nervous, I guess lots of people carrying drug cash is nervous so that's slam dunk evidence it's drug related.

      And this was at the state Supreme Court level, last year. Not that I generally carry $100k+ in cash, but sounds more like an arbitrary seizure of cash than anything that belongs in a civilized society. I mean really, all you need is a dog that can alert when its owner wants it to, have a police officer make some ominous claims on where the money might be coming from and all presumption of innocence is thrown out the window, you have to prove to the court beyond any probable cause that the money is really yours or it will be forfeit.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  17. Re:How Are They Going To Enforce It? by lobotomy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was going to use:
    Elwood Blues
    1060 W. Addison Ave.
    Chicago

  18. Much of the Second, also. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  19. Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  20. Violated his oath, Kick him out by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.