Actually, his post was kind of funny, or at least from an atheist's point of view.
No, his post was kind of redundant, or at least in a in Soviet Russia..., does it run Linux, I for welcome..., I'd like to see a beowulf cluster of those, or does it run quake kind of way. It's been done. It's over. Find another way to bash those that don't share the same views as yourself. Find a new way to display your bigotry. This one is old and tired.
Is it really worth pouring more money into this idiotville if every bit of scientific progress they make is practically public knowledge soon after? Just shut the stupid place down!
I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it were not already shut down as a research facility and now only exists as a huge honeypot. Well, with all the stuff that's been going on there, I HOPE that is the case.
I'm wasting a mod point doing this, but something occured to me. If images of violence prompt violent behaviour, wouldn't we WANT people to become desensitized to it, so that it is less likely to trigger an actual violent response?
I see where you are coming from, but the problem is that when we see something horrific, it registers a negative response. We get the same response when we think of doing something horrific ourselves. If we become desensitized to seeing violence, we also become desensitized to committing those same acts.
"So I put a cap in his ass. I see people get caps in their asses every day. Whats the big deal?"
To pull an equally reasonable hypothesis out of my ass, maybe that region of the brain is used for the purpose of AVOIDING violence. As people are exposed to violent images in media, they start to become clearer and clearer on the difference between pretend and real violence, thus having the effect that we get less violent kids the more they are exposed to violent images in the media. Heck, the dropping rate of youth violence even supports this hypothesis.
Well since we are removing stuff from our rectums...
Maybe there is a drop in violence because these kids are too busy playing GTA to actually go out a beat up some ho's. I'm willing to bet you will find a similar correlation with the decrease in the number of kids playing pick up football and the releases of Madden.
I could be mistaken, but you're making a huge leap from violent media creating a stimulus in the brain to video games turning children into killers.
I never said that. All I really said it is not obvious to some people that those who are see violence often tend to become desensitized to violence.
Let's take your average undertaker. The first few mangled bodies that come into the morgue are probably going to make him sick. However, after about 10 years on the job, that mangled heap of body parts is just another customer. Sure, some of the more hideous bodies will always affect him, like children, for example, but not like it did that first day.
I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. the line I meant to paste in there was this one:
Alcohol has proven, objectively demonstratable harmful effects. Video games do not, as every single judge in these cases has noted. According to this, and several other studies I linked to later in that discussion, he was wrong.
I agree with you that your average meeky mouse type person is not going to play a round of GTA and then suddenly go shoot up a mall. But as I mentioned in another post, for those that are right on the edge, this may be enough to push them over it.
I'd like to make a distinction between violent games causing a specific area in a brain to lit up or dim, and violent games turning kids into sociopathic mass murderers.
Normally, I'd agree. But since we are talking about the part of the brain that is "responsible for suppressing inappropriate or unwarranted aggressive behaviors", I think they may be on to something. If a kid is a bit depressed, just lost his job at McDonalds and got dumped by his GF a couple of weeks ago, he might not be so put off by the idea of going down to the mall and shooting up a few Christmas shoppers as a way to go out in a "blaze of glory". This kid might sit at home and blow his head out in private, the way God intended! (BTW, I'm not saying the Omaha kid was an avid gamer... I don't know, but the Columbine kids were)
I always thought that was the real meat of the discussion, not whether playing Burn Out causes me to think about ramming cars into the railing during my next commute. The difference between fantasy and reality, you know?
The problem is that the lines are blurred more and more as the games get more realistic. When I played the original Postal and tossed a single molotov cocktail to knock out the entire marching band, I thought it was hilarious. But when I played Postal2 and wacked off some chicks head with a shovel, it got me sick to my stomach (it was also shortly after seeing Nick Berg get his head sawed off in Iraq.) Of course, Hollywood has had it down for a while now, so I don't expect something like video games to make that much more of a difference.
Now I don't think playing Burn Out is going to make you ram cars, but if you already have issues with road rage, it might be enough to push you over the edge.
So passing a visual stimulus that is interpreted by the brain as violent affects the corresponding area of the brain...? Who would have guessed that...
Evidently, not many people who read/. Go back and read any of the summaries that deal with violent video games and look at all the people who say that video games have no effect on the minds of children. Take THIS one for example:
Firstly, the ratings are knee-jerk reactionary mostly meaningless bullshit. kids aren't as stupid as we make out, and know the difference between cartoon and computer game versus real life violence. Or THIS one:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=275887&cid=20322901 And finally, THIS one and it's response:
There are exactly zero, none, studies/experiments/research papers that have been able to support the theory that violent video games have an adverse affect on children. I'm afraid it's not quite as obvious as you would think.
Hell, its considered distasteful to even show things like "The Miracle of Life" without it being in a highly academic context.
Well, there is a difference between "The Miracle of Life" and Ross dogging Rachel from behind while she gives him a "Reach-Under" with Chandler screaming, "Could that BE any freakier?".
Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: [...] 6. Inhabitants of a NON-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. So any Afghani or Iraqi toting an AK-47 around and fighting U.S. forces was a lawful combatant, no? No. I'd say that both Iraq and Afghanistan are fully occupied territories. Afghanistan has been occupied since late 2001, Iraq since 2003. Since they are not lawful combatants, the rest of your argument falls apart.
I know this because I was a soldier myself. Regardless of what you hear in the media, the military does not like to waste resources. Wasting money is bad. It will get you in trouble. Wasting some other's soldier's time is a HUGE No-No! Wasting someone's time who is not really military that belongs to some organization with three initials like CIA or NSA.... well, you just don't do that.
Really? Australia had 2 detainees in Gitmo, one released without charge, the other was given a 6 month sentence for training with the Taliban.
Then you have the British detainees who were released without charge.
First, I have to ask, why were these guys in Afghanistan? I know it's not illegal to be over there, but unless they are working for the Red Cross or in the military, why were they there? When you dealing with intelligence, you have to ask questions like that. We know that at least one was training with the Taliban... you know, the group that harbored Bin Laden... the guy who led Al Qaeda when they pulled off 9-11. Yeah, THAT Taliban! I think it's safe to say that this guy is a terrorist at least. More likely a traitor, guilty of Treason for fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan (Afghanistan is NATO operation after all, which Australia is a member). Now what were the other two doing there? (I noticed you didn't mention Johnny Walker Lindt... he was an American FIGHTING with the Taliban).
Released is not the term I would use here. Handed over to their respected government would be more accurate. This is what happens to ALL detainees that are released. Now as to what those governments do with them, who knows? What I find especially sad is that many of these guys don't want to be released to their governments because they know that they will be treated much worse at home than they are at Gitmo.
So, Go push your terrorist apologetics rubbish elsewhere.
Are these the same "irregulars" who are actually dirt farmers turned in by a stranger or a feuding neighbor for the reward equal to an Afghani life savings? Yeah, I didn't think you knew the answer to that.
I do. These guys are usually interrogated locally and released or handed over to Afghan authorities. Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge. Our soldiers are not going to send some poor farmer to Gitmo just because his neighbor said he was a bad guy. Our soldiers are not morons. Besides, that would be an incredibly waste of resources to ship every one of these people to Gitmo and interrogate them for hours only to have them confess to something that never happened. Gitmo would be overflowing and the largest MOS of the US military would be interrogator! Think about this stuff before you bother posting it.
You need to stop making up stories in your head and assuming that they are true simply because they match your political views.
You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.
I find it very telling that someone who is defending the "rights" of those found actively fighting American forces in Afghanistan would threaten an American because they used their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. You're the type of logical prodigy that would beat up a counter protector at a peace march!
God help anyone who has an opinion different than your own because you're likely to simply bludgeon them. Do you ever wonder why people like me call people like you Brownshirts? And you guys call Bush a Nazi? Look in the mirror, brownshirt.
The power is not granted to the United States by the Constitution, hence the United States does not have this power.
The Constitution does not give the United States (and therefor, not the states) the power to put up red lights, stop signs, street lights or airports, and yet they are there. Should we start taking them all down as they are inherently Unconstitutional?
Actually, I believe this was challenged all the time when someone decided not to pay their taxes because the IRS is not in the Constitution. They always seem to lose.
Great! The guy that says "fuck you, the Constitution says, 'reserved to the states'" is modded insightful. I point out that this is a local issue, not federal, so it falls under "reserved to the states" I get modded "troll".
Amendment IV (and probably V) -> implied right to privacy -> implied right to anonymity
Of course, each link in that chain has been, is, and will be argued in the courts, with varying degrees of agreement on their validity.
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Since we are talking about posts in a public forum, I don't see how the fourth would apply, unless Google was refusing to give up this person's ID, then a warrant would probably be required. But being posted in a public forum, nothing is being searched or tapped. Now if they were seeking access to this guy's email or other form of perceived private communication, then I think the fourth would definitely apply. But this was a public posting. There is no perception or expectation of privacy when speaking in a public forum.
As for the fifth, how could a person be held for anything at all if anonymity is a Constitutionally guaranteed right? Also, in this case, no charges have been filed, no one has been indicted and no one has been held to answer for anything. Finally, no one is claiming a capital of infamous crime.
I think what may apply is this one:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Since there is no right to anonymity in this case, there is nothing to prevent a state or local government from seeking this poster's ID. This power is not forbidden to the United States by the Constitution.
What's the difference between a privately-owned LAN-only BBS and a privately-owned internet-accessible one when it comes to the government making demands?
The owner.
If Google refused to give up the data without a warrant, then they are within their rights. Google owns the data, not the individual making the post.
Also, the Internet is not privately owned. Google may own the servers that hold the data, but not the Internet itself.
Oh, I got it. That's why I don't understand what the Bill of Rights has to do with this case. No one has been able to tell me how anonymity is a right. If anything, Amendment X, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people allows a local government to seek the ID of this person, since seeking someone's ID is not prohibited, then it is reserved to the states (or in this case, a local government).
The "Bill of Rights" is the name given to the Amendments to The Constitution. If another Amendment is passed, it too will be placed on the Bill of Rights.
Uh, The Bill of Rights is the name given to the FIRST TEN Amendments to the Constitution. The fact that you did not know that pretty much nullifies anything you have to say on the subject. I would explain how powers not specified to the Federal Government are delegated to the states or the people and how it relates to this case (local government), but I don't want to jump to far ahead. Get back to me when you've invested the "mental effort" to understand the principles.
Please, make sure you are knowledgeable on a given subject before you try to insult someone. You don't want to be the one holding a knife at a gun fight. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
As said above, there is no explicit right to anonymity, but I think there's a definitely a case for one, and one should be implicit.
The original post bitched that all of our rights were being stripped away. Personally, and maybe I'm wrong here, I never knew we had a right to anonymity. I looked it up, but couldn't find it in the Constitution (as I said). If we do have the right to anonymity, then I need to go rip my name off my mail box and my license plate off my car! If the fourth amendment means that I can post speech in a public forum anonymously, then my name should not be in the county records as the owner of my address (take that property tax man!!). My marriage license should read "the bearer of this document is married to the other bearer of this document...". I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am!
Assuming that anonymity is a right opens a big-ass can of worms that our system is not ready for. Everything from our jobs and homes and bank accounts to our credit scores and criminal records are tied to our identities. If we have a right to anonymity, then all of this goes away. How can I claim that I am the person who owns my home or that I am the parent of my child after someone sues the government to remove all names from public records? Having an identity is the complete opposite of anonymity. Identity is used to guarantee rights and protect property.
The Constitution is not about listing the "Freedoms" a citizen has.
The People have ALL the Freedoms. Inherently.
The Constitution defines under what conditions the government can infringe upon those Freedoms.
With that clue, it looks like you get what you pay for!
Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights? If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house? If I have free speech, Inherently, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? What's the point?
Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!
Then why do we even have the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is full of "Congress shall make no law...", why bother? Why not a "Bill of Government Rights" full of "Congress shall..." and "Congress may..."
Also, it is a local government seeking this guy's ID, not the Feds. So, I think this would fall under reserved to the States . Your words, not mine.
maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
What's to search and seize? They were posted on a public forum. If this were an email or other "private" communication, the 4'th Amendment would apply, but he/she made this post with the knowledge and intent that it would posted for all the public to see.
Read the Constitution and Bill of rights again. Fourth Amendment - the right to be SECURE in *PERSON*, PROPERTY, and PAPERS.
And how does knowing who he is NOT make him secure. There is nothing about anonymity. If he wanted to make these post on his personal, LAN only BBS, then great! No one should have access to it without a warrant. But when he makes a public post, he is doing so PUBLICLY.
Slashdot Mirror
What a coincidence. My preacher gets death threats every day for saying homosexuality and abortion is wrong.
Actually, his post was kind of funny, or at least from an atheist's point of view.
No, his post was kind of redundant, or at least in a in Soviet Russia..., does it run Linux, I for welcome..., I'd like to see a beowulf cluster of those, or does it run quake kind of way. It's been done. It's over. Find another way to bash those that don't share the same views as yourself. Find a new way to display your bigotry. This one is old and tired.
Is it really worth pouring more money into this idiotville if every bit of scientific progress they make is practically public knowledge soon after? Just shut the stupid place down!
I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it were not already shut down as a research facility and now only exists as a huge honeypot. Well, with all the stuff that's been going on there, I HOPE that is the case.
I'm wasting a mod point doing this, but something occured to me. If images of violence prompt violent behaviour, wouldn't we WANT people to become desensitized to it, so that it is less likely to trigger an actual violent response?
I see where you are coming from, but the problem is that when we see something horrific, it registers a negative response. We get the same response when we think of doing something horrific ourselves. If we become desensitized to seeing violence, we also become desensitized to committing those same acts.
"So I put a cap in his ass. I see people get caps in their asses every day. Whats the big deal?"
If we can push out a space delivery system that is "good enough" in such a short time, why bother with Orion?
To pull an equally reasonable hypothesis out of my ass, maybe that region of the brain is used for the purpose of AVOIDING violence. As people are exposed to violent images in media, they start to become clearer and clearer on the difference between pretend and real violence, thus having the effect that we get less violent kids the more they are exposed to violent images in the media. Heck, the dropping rate of youth violence even supports this hypothesis.
Well since we are removing stuff from our rectums...
Maybe there is a drop in violence because these kids are too busy playing GTA to actually go out a beat up some ho's. I'm willing to bet you will find a similar correlation with the decrease in the number of kids playing pick up football and the releases of Madden.
I never said that. All I really said it is not obvious to some people that those who are see violence often tend to become desensitized to violence.
Let's take your average undertaker. The first few mangled bodies that come into the morgue are probably going to make him sick. However, after about 10 years on the job, that mangled heap of body parts is just another customer. Sure, some of the more hideous bodies will always affect him, like children, for example, but not like it did that first day.
I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.
the line I meant to paste in there was this one: Alcohol has proven, objectively demonstratable harmful effects. Video games do not, as every single judge in these cases has noted. According to this, and several other studies I linked to later in that discussion, he was wrong.
I agree with you that your average meeky mouse type person is not going to play a round of GTA and then suddenly go shoot up a mall. But as I mentioned in another post, for those that are right on the edge, this may be enough to push them over it.
I'd like to make a distinction between violent games causing a specific area in a brain to lit up or dim, and violent games turning kids into sociopathic mass murderers.
Normally, I'd agree. But since we are talking about the part of the brain that is "responsible for suppressing inappropriate or unwarranted aggressive behaviors", I think they may be on to something. If a kid is a bit depressed, just lost his job at McDonalds and got dumped by his GF a couple of weeks ago, he might not be so put off by the idea of going down to the mall and shooting up a few Christmas shoppers as a way to go out in a "blaze of glory". This kid might sit at home and blow his head out in private, the way God intended! (BTW, I'm not saying the Omaha kid was an avid gamer... I don't know, but the Columbine kids were)
I always thought that was the real meat of the discussion, not whether playing Burn Out causes me to think about ramming cars into the railing during my next commute. The difference between fantasy and reality, you know?
The problem is that the lines are blurred more and more as the games get more realistic. When I played the original Postal and tossed a single molotov cocktail to knock out the entire marching band, I thought it was hilarious. But when I played Postal2 and wacked off some chicks head with a shovel, it got me sick to my stomach (it was also shortly after seeing Nick Berg get his head sawed off in Iraq.) Of course, Hollywood has had it down for a while now, so I don't expect something like video games to make that much more of a difference.
Now I don't think playing Burn Out is going to make you ram cars, but if you already have issues with road rage, it might be enough to push you over the edge.
Evidently, not many people who read
Hell, its considered distasteful to even show things like "The Miracle of Life" without it being in a highly academic context.
Well, there is a difference between "The Miracle of Life" and Ross dogging Rachel from behind while she gives him a "Reach-Under" with Chandler screaming, "Could that BE any freakier?".
Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: [...] 6. Inhabitants of a NON-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. So any Afghani or Iraqi toting an AK-47 around and fighting U.S. forces was a lawful combatant, no? No. I'd say that both Iraq and Afghanistan are fully occupied territories. Afghanistan has been occupied since late 2001, Iraq since 2003. Since they are not lawful combatants, the rest of your argument falls apart.
And you know this how?
I know this because I was a soldier myself. Regardless of what you hear in the media, the military does not like to waste resources. Wasting money is bad. It will get you in trouble. Wasting some other's soldier's time is a HUGE No-No! Wasting someone's time who is not really military that belongs to some organization with three initials like CIA or NSA.... well, you just don't do that.
Really? Australia had 2 detainees in Gitmo, one released without charge, the other was given a 6 month sentence for training with the Taliban.
Then you have the British detainees who were released without charge.
First, I have to ask, why were these guys in Afghanistan? I know it's not illegal to be over there, but unless they are working for the Red Cross or in the military, why were they there? When you dealing with intelligence, you have to ask questions like that. We know that at least one was training with the Taliban... you know, the group that harbored Bin Laden... the guy who led Al Qaeda when they pulled off 9-11. Yeah, THAT Taliban! I think it's safe to say that this guy is a terrorist at least. More likely a traitor, guilty of Treason for fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan (Afghanistan is NATO operation after all, which Australia is a member). Now what were the other two doing there? (I noticed you didn't mention Johnny Walker Lindt... he was an American FIGHTING with the Taliban).
Released is not the term I would use here. Handed over to their respected government would be more accurate. This is what happens to ALL detainees that are released. Now as to what those governments do with them, who knows? What I find especially sad is that many of these guys don't want to be released to their governments because they know that they will be treated much worse at home than they are at Gitmo.
So, Go push your terrorist apologetics rubbish elsewhere.
Are these the same "irregulars" who are actually dirt farmers turned in by a stranger or a feuding neighbor for the reward equal to an Afghani life savings? Yeah, I didn't think you knew the answer to that.
I do. These guys are usually interrogated locally and released or handed over to Afghan authorities. Gitmo is the place where the worst of the worst are kept. These are the guys that are found actively fighting American forces or the local population or those that are known to have information that they are not willing to divulge. Our soldiers are not going to send some poor farmer to Gitmo just because his neighbor said he was a bad guy. Our soldiers are not morons. Besides, that would be an incredibly waste of resources to ship every one of these people to Gitmo and interrogate them for hours only to have them confess to something that never happened. Gitmo would be overflowing and the largest MOS of the US military would be interrogator! Think about this stuff before you bother posting it.
You need to stop making up stories in your head and assuming that they are true simply because they match your political views.
You probably voted for Bush. Twice. You'd better hope I don't meet you some day as my fists get a little uncontrollable when I hear people proudly claim they did that. You have no idea how people like you piss me off. Short-bus riding window-lickers, all of you.
I find it very telling that someone who is defending the "rights" of those found actively fighting American forces in Afghanistan would threaten an American because they used their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. You're the type of logical prodigy that would beat up a counter protector at a peace march!
God help anyone who has an opinion different than your own because you're likely to simply bludgeon them. Do you ever wonder why people like me call people like you Brownshirts? And you guys call Bush a Nazi? Look in the mirror, brownshirt.
The power is not granted to the United States by the Constitution, hence the United States does not have this power.
The Constitution does not give the United States (and therefor, not the states) the power to put up red lights, stop signs, street lights or airports, and yet they are there. Should we start taking them all down as they are inherently Unconstitutional?
Actually, I believe this was challenged all the time when someone decided not to pay their taxes because the IRS is not in the Constitution. They always seem to lose.
Great! The guy that says "fuck you, the Constitution says, 'reserved to the states'" is modded insightful. I point out that this is a local issue, not federal, so it falls under "reserved to the states" I get modded "troll".
Yeah, the mods are fair.
Amendment IV (and probably V) -> implied right to privacy -> implied right to anonymity
Of course, each link in that chain has been, is, and will be argued in the courts,
with varying degrees of agreement on their validity. Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Since we are talking about posts in a public forum, I don't see how the fourth would apply, unless Google was refusing to give up this person's ID, then a warrant would probably be required. But being posted in a public forum, nothing is being searched or tapped. Now if they were seeking access to this guy's email or other form of perceived private communication, then I think the fourth would definitely apply. But this was a public posting. There is no perception or expectation of privacy when speaking in a public forum.
As for the fifth, how could a person be held for anything at all if anonymity is a Constitutionally guaranteed right? Also, in this case, no charges have been filed, no one has been indicted and no one has been held to answer for anything. Finally, no one is claiming a capital of infamous crime.
I think what may apply is this one: Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Since there is no right to anonymity in this case, there is nothing to prevent a state or local government from seeking this poster's ID. This power is not forbidden to the United States by the Constitution.
What's the difference between a privately-owned LAN-only BBS and a privately-owned internet-accessible one when it comes to the government making demands?
The owner.
If Google refused to give up the data without a warrant, then they are within their rights. Google owns the data, not the individual making the post.
Also, the Internet is not privately owned. Google may own the servers that hold the data, but not the Internet itself.
Clear enough?
Oh, I got it. That's why I don't understand what the Bill of Rights has to do with this case. No one has been able to tell me how anonymity is a right. If anything, Amendment X, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people allows a local government to seek the ID of this person, since seeking someone's ID is not prohibited, then it is reserved to the states (or in this case, a local government).
The "Bill of Rights" is the name given to the Amendments to The Constitution. If another Amendment is passed, it too will be placed on the Bill of Rights.
Uh, The Bill of Rights is the name given to the FIRST TEN Amendments to the Constitution. The fact that you did not know that pretty much nullifies anything you have to say on the subject. I would explain how powers not specified to the Federal Government are delegated to the states or the people and how it relates to this case (local government), but I don't want to jump to far ahead. Get back to me when you've invested the "mental effort" to understand the principles.
Please, make sure you are knowledgeable on a given subject before you try to insult someone. You don't want to be the one holding a knife at a gun fight. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
As said above, there is no explicit right to anonymity, but I think there's a definitely a case for one, and one should be implicit.
The original post bitched that all of our rights were being stripped away. Personally, and maybe I'm wrong here, I never knew we had a right to anonymity. I looked it up, but couldn't find it in the Constitution (as I said). If we do have the right to anonymity, then I need to go rip my name off my mail box and my license plate off my car! If the fourth amendment means that I can post speech in a public forum anonymously, then my name should not be in the county records as the owner of my address (take that property tax man!!). My marriage license should read "the bearer of this document is married to the other bearer of this document...". I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am!
Assuming that anonymity is a right opens a big-ass can of worms that our system is not ready for. Everything from our jobs and homes and bank accounts to our credit scores and criminal records are tied to our identities. If we have a right to anonymity, then all of this goes away. How can I claim that I am the person who owns my home or that I am the parent of my child after someone sues the government to remove all names from public records? Having an identity is the complete opposite of anonymity. Identity is used to guarantee rights and protect property.
Here's a free clue.
The Constitution is not about listing the "Freedoms" a citizen has.
The People have ALL the Freedoms. Inherently.
The Constitution defines under what conditions the government can infringe upon those Freedoms.
With that clue, it looks like you get what you pay for!
Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights? If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house? If I have free speech, Inherently, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? What's the point?
Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!
Then why do we even have the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is full of "Congress shall make no law...", why bother? Why not a "Bill of Government Rights" full of "Congress shall..." and "Congress may..."
Also, it is a local government seeking this guy's ID, not the Feds. So, I think this would fall under reserved to the States . Your words, not mine.
maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"
What's to search and seize? They were posted on a public forum. If this were an email or other "private" communication, the 4'th Amendment would apply, but he/she made this post with the knowledge and intent that it would posted for all the public to see.
Read the Constitution and Bill of rights again. Fourth Amendment - the right to be SECURE in *PERSON*, PROPERTY, and PAPERS.
And how does knowing who he is NOT make him secure. There is nothing about anonymity. If he wanted to make these post on his personal, LAN only BBS, then great! No one should have access to it without a warrant. But when he makes a public post, he is doing so PUBLICLY.