Slashdot Mirror
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?"
They've finally decided to fall in line with China's views on internet policy. Pretty soon all the major world governments will look pretty much the same.
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. Now, the analogy they give - a car analogy no less - is good. Today we have the "IP Address" which is finally becoming well known as the identifier of an account with an ISP and not as an identifier of a specific person (much like a mailbox is shared between all occupants of a house). The license plate, in the same fashion, denotes what vehicle (in most cases) was involved but likewise does not identify an individual. So I would say we ALREADY have internet parity with the license plate (except for the state getting a "registration" fee). Just like you can have spoofed IP addresses, you can have fake or stolen license plates. True story - last year I went to leave work and noticed that the year sticker on my car's license plate wasn't correct and that drew my eye to the plate number AND IT WAS NOT MY PLATE. Someone had stolen a car, taken the rear plate off and switched it with mine (the front plate was still my correct number). I guess they didn't want to get pulled over for driving a stolen car. Fortunately I reported it, the police came and picked up the stolen plate, marked mine as stolen, and the DMV issued me new plates the next day. But this is JUST LIKE A SPOOFED IP ADDRESS. Same thing. We already have parity with the license plate on the internet Mr. Homeland Security Theater...
Correct, and the courts upheld anonymity of super PAC donors so if money is speech (and I agree that it is, because money is used to buy media time to promote a message) then the Internet is speech, because internet is money that is used to build and maintain this media that is used for speech.
You can't handle the truth.
But you know, in a lot of states that doesn't prevent traffic cameras from being used to fine the owners of cars even if they weren't the drivers of the cars.
Fortunately in Minnesota, the state supreme court ruled them unconstitutional because they shift the burden of proof from the state to the vehicle owner.
Joke from communists times:
An American goes to Moscow and eventually gets into discussion with a commoner about human rights and free speech. The American says "Look, I can go in front of the White House and shout that the American president is shit and nothing will happen to me". The Russian guy thinks a bit and says "Well, I can too go in front of Kremlin and shout that the American president is shit and nothing will happen to me".
Here comes the depressing part. Today I think the American will be arrested for shouting in front of the White House and charged for terrorism. And this post of mine is already recorded as it contains the T word and also has "American president is shit" phrase. Welcome to Guantanamo...
Because they need to name the department with phrasing that makes it seem like it's job is to do something tremendously good while it really has a nefarious purpose. So something like: The Department of Freedom Protection. They "protect" freedom by locking it away where nobody can use it sort of like how a toy collector locks a toy away to keep it in mint condition.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Why do we continue to put up with this from our Governments? There are a great many of us that see the harm that these types of laws cause our freedoms, but the unwashed masses don't. How do you wake these people up that their security does not have to come at the cost of freedom. They still think they are free and I'm sure the Germans thought they where free during WW2 just as long as you didn't disagree or say anything against the Government. They also call people who can and do voice their concerns on this slow decent to fascism, alarmists or anarchists. Most of those that I work with just don't care about these types of laws. All they care about is whats on TV tonight and make sure they can download their music and TV. After that they just don't care. It's just to much work to have to think. Maybe this is why my blood pressure is to high. I should stop caring also.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
I know what you're getting at, but it's probably not a good idea to throw the word fascism around at things that aren't, because you dilute the word to mean things that it doesn't, thus its harder to expose real fascists when they come around. (Which by the way, Europe really IS seeing a rise in fascism lately, with countries like Denmark and France seeing upwards of 28% of the vote going towards actual fascists.)
Fascism, which started in Italy and whose name was coined by Benito Mussolini (NOT Hitler, as most people think) means a strong national unity governed by a strong central government where individual identity is thrown out entirely. Mussolini also didn't want racism (he saw it as a diversion; besides, his wife was Jewish and was a major influence in the beginning of the first fascist uprising.) Hitler's fascism incorporated racial purity as part of the whole national identity thing. A lot of other European countries adopted fascism (including Greece and others, who were enemies of both Italy and Germany in WWII) that didn't include either the expansionist ideals of Italy and Germany, or the racial purity aspects of Germany. Another element of fascism is socialism (socialism being the government owns the means of production, NOT welfare, another distinction that people have forgotten over time.)
That said, the US has never had anything truly fascist about it, nor is it likely any time soon. 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.)
The problem isn't Homeland Security. There job is to find threats, and see if they can have solutions to solve them.
When you work security the tyrannical solution is often the easiest one.
You want your PC secure from hackers. Unplug it from the network, cant do that make sure your firewall has 0 outside ports and the inside ports are setup for talking to only the servers each system needs to talk to. Such IT security is hard, because the End users are rapidly changing what they want and the cost to build such a secure system isn't worth the expense.
Law enforcement and security would have an easier job without civil liberties, not because they have nefarious purposes, but because it will make their job easier.
Our jobs as citizens is to let our officials know that we value our freedoms and what we are willing to give up for security, and what security we are willing to risk not having to keep our freedoms. It isn't cut and dry but these department report to a higher political offices, who will need to take their recommendations and decide to accept or reject them. These political office need to be elected by the citizenry. If we refuse to be involved citizens then the easiest path will soon follow.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.