Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the internet-license-and-internet-registration-please dept.

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?"

14 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. Basically no by maroberts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because of the First Amendment, including the right to say things anonymously which has been upheld by the courts numerous times,

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Basically no by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      .... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Basically no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is funny how people forget that the constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It is there to tell the government what rights it has. Anything not specified is left to the states or the people. I do not recall "tracking everyone" being listed as an enumerated power.

    3. Re:Basically no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Living inside a home or other shelter is a privilege and not a right, much like driving an automobile. As such it can be regulated and you can be required to live in the wilds 24/7/365. This is well within the government's purview.

    4. Re:Basically no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      .... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?

      What, Homeland security is not fascist enough for your taste ? The program is all in the name. It has the same sound as committe for state security. You know, the whole keep the fatherland safe mantra.

    5. Re:Basically no by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?

      What, Homeland security is not fascist enough for your taste ? The program is all in the name. It has the same sound as committe for state security. You know, the whole keep the fatherland safe mantra.

      When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:Basically no by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a rational world[*] people who openly advocate blatant contempt of the Constitution would never be able to find a job in Government ever again.

      What happened to freedom of speech? He can say whatever he wants to.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Basically no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's comforting to know I'm not the only one who felt this way.

    8. Re:Basically no by wyHunter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's because a Democrat is in power. When the Republicans are in power, the Democrats argue for civil liberties. When a Democrat is in power, they trample all over the constitution and none of them care. Republicans, for some truly bizarre reason, don't seem to care.

    9. Re:Basically no by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason why is because our culture is so focused on individual identity, we don't like the idea of a central government being too powerful, and we also seem to have a big distaste for socialism (again, actual socialism, not welfare.)

      But these traits you describe, are rising more and MORE in the US, accelerating at an alarming rate as viewed by a number of folks.

      The Federal Govt IS becoming too powerful and centralized, the Fed is overtaking the power of the states left and right (where constitutionally power is supposed to reside).

      The pride and promotion of individualism is being diluted left and right...the "social justice" is a component of that, everyone is equal...everyone gets a trophy for just participating, let's not praise Johnny for excellence, as that it might cause self esteem issues for Julie....it starts off little, but we're seeing the promotion of the individual in not only something not really to be promoted, but in some ways actually shunned.

      And we have a full blown, self-proclaimned socialist Bernie Sanders, gaining popularity in the poles, and a recent poll of liberal Democrat voters in Iowa self identifying as socialist, not capitalists.

      Frankly, I think Obama leans much more in this direction, which is why many think his motives ARE to fundamentally move the US away from its former ideals and societal fundamentals.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. So the 2nd largest spying org... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is against making it any more difficult to spy on people. You shouldn't be surprised by this. Also, he should get fucked. We have freedoms, and it's not our patriotic duty to help anyone take them.

  3. Absolutely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's really no different than the way you are required to wear visible identification when walking on the sidewalk, or how you are legally obligated to put a return address label on all correspondence that passes through the postal system. Oh, wait...

    You see? I can select my analogies to support my viewpoint too.

  4. Free speech is anonymous speech by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only way to have truly free speech is to speak anonymously. Otherwise, you have "free speech" but there will be "consequences". Like how in Soviet Russia you were "free" to say anything you liked, but there might be "consequences" like getting sent to Siberia.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. License plates by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    License plates don't even identify the driver of the vehicle. Think about it for 5 minutes.