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

Basically no

[maroberts]

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

Re:Basically no

[postbigbang]

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

Re:Basically no

[Thud457]

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.



[*]I would like to visit there one day, hear it is nice.

Re:Basically no

[roman_mir]

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.

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"

Re:Basically no

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:Basically no

[kilfarsnar]

.... 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.

Re:Basically no

[Joce640k]

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.

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!

Re:Basically no

[ArmoredDragon]

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.)

Re:Basically no

[cayenne8]

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.

Absolutely.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Who knew?

[OzPeter]

Bad car analogy guy works for the DHS

Finally!

[amiga3D]

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.

Free speech is anonymous speech

[penguinoid]

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.

Re:Free speech is anonymous speech

[Evtim]

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...

License plates

[110010001000]

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

Re:License plates

[swb]

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.

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."

Why?

[Urban Nightmare]

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.

Stay involved citizens.

[jellomizer]

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.