Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
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.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication, both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous Internet communications system.
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
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.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication, both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools, we hope to maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
WRONG. It is free of one particular consequence: The government can't arrest you for speaking out. Which is what the government just did, and thus violated 1st Amendment rights. They will, hopefully, get their heads handed to her on a platter by just Court. I look forward to the multi-million dollar judgement against the cops with a stern reprimand to never do it again.
Most police investigations deserve all the interference possible with them. We have incarcerated hundreds of thousands for non-crimes. Isn't it time to fire the damn boys in blue? Do you get it yet that they are a threat to you, me and every law abiding Constitution loving citizen in this nation? That it is in fact, not a far stretch, to call them the very standing Army the Founding Fathers despised? That a police state is possible only because of the police? And many times a *secret* police? Out them all, all the time.
Yeah, he so good an undercover officer a twinkie with a blog and a camera outed him easily and trivially. He deserves death by Darwinian stupidity in his choice of career.
Or maybe, just maybe, the damn cops shouldn't be doing undercover drug operations....
Has it ever occured to you that obstructing the police is a good thing? That more of us should do it routinely, until the jack-boot boys in blue return to being peace officers instead of "law enforcement" officers?
Yes we do. In that we are different than the rest of the world. The government has no fucking reason to do all the things it does and I for one support, welcome and endorse total surveillance of all public officials and officers in an effort to undo the unconstitutional over-reach since the New Deal to today.
Frankly, I view most police officers today as jack-boot thugs who have a long way to go in proving to me that they perform the long-forgotten function of peace officer instead of law enforcement officer. In the modern day world people see the two expressions as synoymous, and they are not.
That's exactly right. The jack-boot thugs, which is what these folks are, need to be arrested for harrassing a woman excersizing First Amendment rights.
No -- the purpose of a judge is to secure my rights. THAT is his function, THAT is what they are supposed to do, THAT is the piece that you weren't supposed to miss in civics class -- the government is not here to make me safe, it is here "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" and judges are there to secure rights -- and the LAW is the primary violator and what I am supposed to be guarded against.
Yes, it is the judges fault. ANY law that is found to be self-contradictory IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. The complete lack of common sense in judges, especially this twit Patel, who for some reason keeps getting these case, and is completely incapable of making the right choice, ie -- tossing this law out -- drives me to apoplexy.
No. Governments got off the gold supply so they could deficit finance. And look how that turned out. All the criticisms of the Gold Standard came from folks that wanted to escape fiscal responsibility and spend via inflation and deficit financing. At any given level of the money supply, including a gold one, the prices adjust to allow both profit and expansion. In other words, the primary criticism, that the gold supply limits growth, is chimera, the only growth it ever limited was the confiscation of wealth by governments via inflation.
No -- it's the artificial premium they think that he is delivering to them when gold is valued in FRN's. The REALITY is he is paying them the face value of what used to be proper (gold/silver) dollars. This debate only exists because of the fake fiat money called the Federal Reserve Note with an alleged face value of dollar. Never mind in real terms the dollar has fallen well over 90% since the inception of the federal reserve.
And properly, everyone and your mother included, ignore this IRS barter "other forms of compensation" bullshit.
If you think about it, everyone working for labor has no profit because they trade a zero-sum --- time for money. The value of their time is in fact their wage, and thus there is no profit technically. Only the IRS with it's absurd nonsense of "standard deductions" forces a minimalist time valuation on you and taxes the difference.
And they do have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies because it IS legal tender and there are several cases where this has happened much to the chagrin of the officials involved.
It is the End of the Age of Authority, which is the only thing that is good from the Obama election.
Actually.. it does. It is never the general market that sets the price but the transaction involved. It doesn't matter what the hypothetical resale value is only what it actually sold at -- houses are the prime example, cars ditto. It's only in the topsy turvy world of the IRS that bullshit like what you said above has any meaning.
The IRS is fundamentally an illegal unconstitutional organization that should be disbanded as soon as possible. Along with the FDA, DEA, BATF and OSHA for starters and we can work from there.
No. Wikipedia article is WRONG. Free markets categorically DO NOT require (1) rationality (2) perfect information. They only require that the actors ACT on the PRICE and that they are reasonably free of third-party coercion.
This DOES in fact give the the free-market maxima and it is down-hill the moment you slide to the left with too little law for property rights and when you slide to the right using coercion.
Sheesh. Did anyone properly pay attention to the writing of Von Mises and all the other Austrian economists?
Again, it doesn't matter. It is a violation of rights and I'm surprised none of you see this.
Speed limits exist solely because of the fuel crisis of the 1970's when some idiot bureaucrat thought slowing down travel and commerce was a "good idea" to "conserve fuel". Morons.
I should be able to drive 100mph on LA-LasVegas across the Mojave. I can't because of morons out there that think that speed kills when it clearly doesn't. This nanny statism micromanagement is absurd and you sheep that think that every.gov idea "for safety or for the children" is good need to get a 2x4 to the side of the head.
No, I categorically object to non-conscious mechanism controlling my driving and my control functions of my vehicle. It's a recipe for disaster and I will not stand for it.
You can rest assured that if this device is forcibly installed on my car, it will be forcibly deinstalled 20 minutes later.
It is called freedom. Something y'all need to relearn quick.
ONE ABSTRACTION LAYER. Singular not plural. With a large coder to manager ratio. I used to manage a dozen projects across some 20 programmers at one point. Hard? yes. Doable? Yes. Necessary? Yes. This white collar hoax nonsense drives me insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
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.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication, both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous Internet communications system.
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
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.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication, both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools, we hope to maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
Well you are just plain wrong about that. You might want to visit the extensive cites available online at places like EFF
WRONG. It is free of one particular consequence: The government can't arrest you for speaking out. Which is what the government just did, and thus violated 1st Amendment rights. They will, hopefully, get their heads handed to her on a platter by just Court. I look forward to the multi-million dollar judgement against the cops with a stern reprimand to never do it again.
Most police investigations deserve all the interference possible with them. We have incarcerated hundreds of thousands for non-crimes. Isn't it time to fire the damn boys in blue? Do you get it yet that they are a threat to you, me and every law abiding Constitution loving citizen in this nation? That it is in fact, not a far stretch, to call them the very standing Army the Founding Fathers despised? That a police state is possible only because of the police? And many times a *secret* police? Out them all, all the time.
Yeah, he so good an undercover officer a twinkie with a blog and a camera outed him easily and trivially. He deserves death by Darwinian stupidity in his choice of career.
Or maybe, just maybe, the damn cops shouldn't be doing undercover drug operations....
Yes it is. They might act with more responsibility and stop enforcing police state unconstitutional law.
Has it ever occured to you that obstructing the police is a good thing? That more of us should do it routinely, until the jack-boot boys in blue return to being peace officers instead of "law enforcement" officers?
Yes we do. In that we are different than the rest of the world. The government has no fucking reason to do all the things it does and I for one support, welcome and endorse total surveillance of all public officials and officers in an effort to undo the unconstitutional over-reach since the New Deal to today.
Frankly, I view most police officers today as jack-boot thugs who have a long way to go in proving to me that they perform the long-forgotten function of peace officer instead of law enforcement officer. In the modern day world people see the two expressions as synoymous, and they are not.
That's exactly right. The jack-boot thugs, which is what these folks are, need to be arrested for harrassing a woman excersizing First Amendment rights.
No -- the purpose of a judge is to secure my rights. THAT is his function, THAT is what they are supposed to do, THAT is the piece that you weren't supposed to miss in civics class -- the government is not here to make me safe, it is here "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" and judges are there to secure rights -- and the LAW is the primary violator and what I am supposed to be guarded against.
Yes, it is the judges fault. ANY law that is found to be self-contradictory IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. The complete lack of common sense in judges, especially this twit Patel, who for some reason keeps getting these case, and is completely incapable of making the right choice, ie -- tossing this law out -- drives me to apoplexy.
No. Governments got off the gold supply so they could deficit finance. And look how that turned out. All the criticisms of the Gold Standard came from folks that wanted to escape fiscal responsibility and spend via inflation and deficit financing. At any given level of the money supply, including a gold one, the prices adjust to allow both profit and expansion. In other words, the primary criticism, that the gold supply limits growth, is chimera, the only growth it ever limited was the confiscation of wealth by governments via inflation.
Another dufus who can't read clear English. It is implied, in forcing the States to only use gold and silver, that gold and silver are legal tender.
No -- it's the artificial premium they think that he is delivering to them when gold is valued in FRN's. The REALITY is he is paying them the face value of what used to be proper (gold/silver) dollars. This debate only exists because of the fake fiat money called the Federal Reserve Note with an alleged face value of dollar. Never mind in real terms the dollar has fallen well over 90% since the inception of the federal reserve.
And properly, everyone and your mother included, ignore this IRS barter "other forms of compensation" bullshit.
If you think about it, everyone working for labor has no profit because they trade a zero-sum --- time for money. The value of their time is in fact their wage, and thus there is no profit technically. Only the IRS with it's absurd nonsense of "standard deductions" forces a minimalist time valuation on you and taxes the difference.
And they do have the right to pay their traffic fine in pennies because it IS legal tender and there are several cases where this has happened much to the chagrin of the officials involved.
It is the End of the Age of Authority, which is the only thing that is good from the Obama election.
Twelve Visions -- Here we come
Actually .. it does. It is never the general market that sets the price but the transaction involved. It doesn't matter what the hypothetical resale value is only what it actually sold at -- houses are the prime example, cars ditto. It's only in the topsy turvy world of the IRS that bullshit like what you said above has any meaning.
The IRS is fundamentally an illegal unconstitutional organization that should be disbanded as soon as possible. Along with the FDA, DEA, BATF and OSHA for starters and we can work from there.
Twelve Visions Party -- here we come!
Uh no -- Learn to read -- No State shall make ***...***BUT*** gold and silver etc
Which means that the Feds have the power to prevent the States from issuing FIAT currency.
Never mind that noone was threatened.....
No. Wikipedia article is WRONG. Free markets categorically DO NOT require (1) rationality (2) perfect information. They only require that the actors ACT on the PRICE and that they are reasonably free of third-party coercion.
This DOES in fact give the the free-market maxima and it is down-hill the moment you slide to the left with too little law for property rights and when you slide to the right using coercion.
Sheesh. Did anyone properly pay attention to the writing of Von Mises and all the other Austrian economists?
Again, it doesn't matter. It is a violation of rights and I'm surprised none of you see this.
Speed limits exist solely because of the fuel crisis of the 1970's when some idiot bureaucrat thought slowing down travel and commerce was a "good idea" to "conserve fuel". Morons.
I should be able to drive 100mph on LA-LasVegas across the Mojave. I can't because of morons out there that think that speed kills when it clearly doesn't. This nanny statism micromanagement is absurd and you sheep that think that every .gov idea "for safety or for the children" is good need to get a 2x4 to the side of the head.
No, I categorically object to non-conscious mechanism controlling my driving and my control functions of my vehicle. It's a recipe for disaster and I will not stand for it.
You can rest assured that if this device is forcibly installed on my car, it will be forcibly deinstalled 20 minutes later.
It is called freedom. Something y'all need to relearn quick.
Obama is a Right-Wing fascist only in North Korea. It is you who don't understand the meaning of the words you use.
The article simply describes a marketing failure.
Unsurprisingly, until marketing unites with Internet, the small labels will suffer.
ONE ABSTRACTION LAYER. Singular not plural. With a large coder to manager ratio. I used to manage a dozen projects across some 20 programmers at one point. Hard? yes. Doable? Yes. Necessary? Yes. This white collar hoax nonsense drives me insane.