Senior Homeland Security Official Says Internet Anonymity Should Be Outlawed (dailydot.com)

Patrick O'Neill writes: A senior Homeland Security official recently argued that Internet anonymity should outlawed in the same way that driving a car without a license plate is against the law. "When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate," Erik Barnett, an assistant deputy director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attache to the European Union at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote. "The license plate's identifiers are ignored most of the time by law enforcement. Law enforcement will use the identifiers, though, to determine the driver's identity if the car is involved in a legal infraction or otherwise becomes a matter of public interest. Similarly, should not every individual be required to display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"

Comments

Re:Basically no

[EricTDuckman1414]

I'm sorry - the first amendment lets you say what you want but has no guarantee implicit within it of any anonymity. The courts likewise have not granted anonymity; they say that you are responsible for your speech.

The supreme court disagrees: https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority"

Fourth Amendment

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

The Fourth Amendment should already be telling the "track everyone" guys to fuck off unless they have a warrant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Re:Basically no

[Maxo-Texas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!