Melanie McGreevey: If someone is doing something illegal, then they don't deserve privacy anywhere.
this is all silly anyway, don't post BS if you're not willing to be "real" too many people hide behind "nicknames" to talk trash, stalk, bully, and commit crimes online. I have stated my opinion (ad nauseam), time to move on.
You have changed your position. This law means you have no privacy even if you haven't committed a crime.
You know it isn't the most sensible thing in the world to post your real details online. Sure, the escapist may be a good community but venture out further and you could get into deep shit if they dox you.
Melanie McGreevey: let me add one last thing. If you think a site would sell your info, or plaster it all over the net, DON'T USE THAT SITE!
So how do we know that? I doubt they'll put it on their front page. Besides, you don't need somebody purposefully doing that - one compromised database and you have an attacker that has all the information for lots of people to do as they please with. Let's face it, how much security would a website have? How much would they invest in it? Sony handled way more sensitive data and one would assume that it was safe, but it wasn't. Even Steam got compromised. Should we just stop using websites, then? That seems like a logical conclusion if that law is passed.
Melanie McGreevey: If someone is doing something illegal, then they don't deserve privacy anywhere.
this is all silly anyway, don't post BS if you're not willing to be "real" too many people hide behind "nicknames" to talk trash, stalk, bully, and commit crimes online. I have stated my opinion (ad nauseam), time to move on.
let me add one last thing. If you think a site would sell your info, or plaster it all over the net, DON'T USE THAT SITE!
Except this isn't talking about selling information or punishing. This is talking about removing the alias system used by the net, requiring you to attach your name, IP and home address to your activities, regardless of content. That's dangerous territory no matter how you slice it.
Melanie McGreevey: If someone is doing something illegal, then they don't deserve privacy anywhere.
this is all silly anyway, don't post BS if you're not willing to be "real" too many people hide behind "nicknames" to talk trash, stalk, bully, and commit crimes online. I have stated my opinion (ad nauseam), time to move on.
let me add one last thing. If you think a site would sell your info, or plaster it all over the net, DON'T USE THAT SITE!
The bill doesn't require it to be something illegal, only that somebody, somewhere, dislikes what you say.
As to detecting a proxy, yes, there are various methods with varying levels of efficacy. The very simplest (and least effective) is to check for a certain HTTP header. There are lists of known proxies, known TOR exit nodes, probably lists of IP ranges used by VPN services. These rely on prior knowledge. I could (and have) set up a proxy on my hosting account, and it would not be on any list in existence.
This bill is entirely unnecessary and will be entirely ineffective at its goal, and will also have numerous negative effects on users and websites. It reeks of being created by a naif with no idea what he's legislating.
let me add one last thing. If you think a site would sell your info, or plaster it all over the net, DON'T USE THAT SITE!
So now we are meant to know the intentions of a website instead of... I don't know... not having to give up our privacy to post online.
Not every dodgy website has giant banner ads saying "OMG U BE DA 10000000000000000000000000 VSIITOR CLICK HER 4 FRE ISLAND".
I would HOPE if you know how to use the net, you wouldn't be DUMB enough to click a flashy banner ad.
ok i DO have a question;
"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless..blah blah blah..."
Upon request of who? the government?
also;
"...would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post - and verify - their legal name, their IP address, and their home address..."
Subject to removal, BUT where does it say websites HAVE to ask for all this info..sounds like only if someone posts something the government (in the above example) doesn't like or thinks is suspicious, they are required to give out the info or their post MAY be deleted. I really don't see the issue.
You go onto a site looking for a place to discuss governmental overthrow or something, red flag goes up, government or policing agency looks into it... no "real" info, it gets taken down. no hard no foul. I just don't see why it's an issue.
The whole thing with living with people you may not trust/know/whatever... that's not an issue, as i said (for me yes), but have log ons on the pcs in the house, password on the router, use the said info if need be, but really just be careful who uses your net. simple.
I wouldn't click on the ads but people do and this law could punish them for that, do you think that is right?
It says that that you cannot comment without giving them this information.
You go onto a site looking for a place to discuss governmental overthrow or something, red flag goes up, government or policing agency looks into it... no "real" info, it gets taken down. no hard no foul. I just don't see why it's an issue.
You don't see the bloody issue? What you said there is censorship, pure and simple and that is horribly wrong.
I can't believe you are in support of a law that removes people's rights and doesn't benefit them whatsoever.
Matthew94: I can't believe you are in support of a law that removes people's rights and doesn't benefit them whatsoever.
Eh, i am at the bottom of the list to "get rights" anyway :P
/sarcasm off
If it prevents another 9-11 i am for it. I missed the you can't post without info i saw if you didn't give info you COULD be subject to being removed.
Care to read what you posted?
would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post - and verify - their legal name, their IP address, and their home address...
If you don't post and verify the info they remove the posts.
I do find this to be a great irony. You fight for your own rights and seek to deprive others of theirs. It's really quite shocking.
It wasn't the internet that let 9/11 happen. It was lax security and the American Foreign Policy.
Matthew94: I can't believe you are in support of a law that removes people's rights and doesn't benefit them whatsoever.
Eh, i am at the bottom of the list to "get rights" anyway :P
/sarcasm off
If it prevents another 9-11 i am for it. I missed the you can't post without info i saw if you didn't give info you COULD be subject to being removed.
It wouldn't be worth making it a law if it was by request. "The government don't like the shit you posted. Please fill out the form below." Yeah no chance. There would be a ton of "Phil McCrackin at 69 butt fucker lane" from 13 year olds.
I think you should have the right to be anonymous if they really want to force identities on someone with reasonable cause they have a warrant for that.. just forcing everyone out into the open is a BAD idea.. kinda destroys the privacy act then.
It sounds to me that if they don't LIKE what you said, and you didnt give your info, they can remove it, it doesn't sound like you HAVE to give that info just to post.
No, you don't explicitly have to give it but you essentially do. If you don't you are censored or approved by the government and if you do websites have all your details.
Do you not see how bad that is? You have a choice, lose your freedom of speech or lose your privacy.
Do you not see how dangerous that is?
Melanie McGreevey: I fight for my own rights? HA! how/ i voted for against prop 8 (even though it didn't effect me (at the time), and it passed. Leave things up to the masses and they ruin things.
Well you clearly aren't for the people this time. This is 100% censorship and you are for it. Were you for SOPA as well?
Melanie McGreevey: As i said entirely too long ago, i stated my feelings on this, and i have nothing else to say. To me this is obvious, and it seems fair. If you're going to offend, be subversive, or an ass, don't post it.
It seems fair to give up your rights?
Great, why don't we make it so all phone lines are tapped and all letters are checked by the state? I mean, what would you have to hide?
It's completely fair, I mean if you have nothing to hide why not give up all those freedoms.
Melanie McGreevey: I think it's a great idea, too many people hide behind an alias on line to do and say stuff they never would if they were face to face to a person.
Because knowing a Troll's true name lets you banish them, or something.PHA+QmVjYXVzZSBrbm93aW5nIGEgVHJvbGwncyB0cnVlIG5hbWUgbGV0cyB5b3UgYmFuaXNoIHRoZW0sIG9yIHNvbWV0aGluZy48L3A+CjxwPjxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vdi5jZG4uY2FkLWNvbWljLmNvbS9jb21pY3MvY2FkLTIwMTAwNzA3LTYxNDcxLmpwZyIgYWx0PSJpbWFnZSIvPjwvcD4KPHA+WSdrbm93LCBsaWtlIGRlbW9ucy48L3A+
Simply put, having your name and address published online changes nothing unless something sinister is afoot. You demonstrate it yourself by (as far as I can tell) having your real name as your username. The only ways it could make a difference to find out where a poster lives is if:
A. Someone was the kind of psychopath who will travel long distances to create a physical confrontation over something which happend online
B. They were a criminal who uses your online information for a prelimary attempt at casing you or your home
C. A government decides to start keeping track on otherwise anonymous information
Now C might sound alright, but if someone was really trying to organise illegal activities online, they really wouldn't do in a way that would be succestible to this law. Terrorists probably aren't going to be posting on regular message boards. So they'd only be able to track people who aren't very careful about online security, and I don't suppose they'll be doing much online that needs to be looked into. Except, perhaps, posting on webistes that they'd rather keep anonymous purely because they don't want to be unfairly judged by others...
I'm just saying, nothing is being gained here.
Melanie McGreevey: As i said entirely too long ago, i stated my feelings on this, and i have nothing else to say. To me this is obvious, and it seems fair. If you're going to offend, be subversive, or an ass, don't post it.
I also hate it when people challenge my assertions.
Considering how much of the internet gets archived this would lead the internet from being the most private place to the least private place. Everyone could know everything you've ever posted if they wanted to. You might as well never post anything because at any moment an employer could pull up all of the posts you made when you were 13, or anyone for that matter.
Matthew94: Well you clearly aren't for the people this time. This is 100% censorship and you are for it. Were you for SOPA as well?
People invoking SOPA makes Hitler sad
Makes him believe that is a new spin on Godwin's law.
Thing is, this bill is pretty much SOPA-but-only-for-fora. It allows anyone to demand removal of any comment they don't like for any reason. Heck, it's worse, the comment doesn't even have to be illegal, link to anything illegal, or even look like it might be illegal.
Imagine, if you will, that the Escapist fora are hosted in New York and this law has passed and become effective. You start a thread declaring the virtues of cake over pie. I, or anyone else, could come along and demand you either attach your real name and address or have your comment removed. The Escapist would have little choice but to comply. Likely, you would allow your post to be removed, because a cake vs. pie debate is simply not worth dropping your docs over.
Is this right at all?
Now imagine it's something much more important. Imagine facing the choice of being silenced, or forced to drop your docs, which, once posted, can never, ever be expunged from the internet. Any number of hostile parties could potentially access your real life information. (Hell on Youtube the DMCA is abused in just this fashion by people who can't take criticism)
Melanie McGreevey: As i said entirely too long ago, i stated my feelings on this, and i have nothing else to say. To me this is obvious, and it seems fair. If you're going to offend, be subversive, or an ass, don't post it.
It seems fair to give up your rights?
Great, why don't we make it so all phone lines are tapped and all letters are checked by the state? I mean, what would you have to hide?
It's completely fair, I mean if you have nothing to hide why not give up all those freedoms.
Aren't all phone lines already monitored, i assumed they were. I don't have anything to hide, i don't break the law, i don't do anything subversive.
"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" amirite?
I really hate it when people say that. It makes me worry for the future of liberty.
z121231211: Considering how much of the internet gets archived this would lead the internet from being the most private place to the least private place. Everyone could know everything you've ever posted if they wanted to. You might as well never post anything because at any moment an employer could pull up all of the posts you made when you were 13, or anyone for that matter.
yep, and i have never posted something i am ashamed of. And i am pretty sure the internet didn't exist when i was 13. :P
You can keep repeating that this makes no difference to you, but that seems like a narrow view point to take both in terms of other people's situations and potential situations in the future.
Melanie McGreevey: yep, i have nothing to fear from the internet that's for sure. Someone gets my address so what? If they mean to kill me, then it was my time.
Okay... What the heck.
"This law could potentially facilitate murder!" "Meh, fine by me."
You're not even trying to explain why these issues aren't important or dangerous, you're just ignoring them.
Melanie McGreevey: If someone is doing something illegal, then they don't deserve privacy anywhere.
this is all silly anyway, don't post BS if you're not willing to be "real" too many people hide behind "nicknames" to talk trash, stalk, bully, and commit crimes online. I have stated my opinion (ad nauseam), time to move on.
And what if the issue is actually the opposite? That people cannot be real in RL due to social norms/values and appreciate the ability to actually be real thanks to anonymity?
There are a lot of things people do not dare to say in RL (beside trash talk and other obscure things) that they can say on the net because their social environment can use it against them. And it can be silly things such as holding an opinion that is "controversial" in their social environment.
Melanie McGreevey: yep, i have nothing to fear from the internet that's for sure. Someone gets my address so what? If they mean to kill me, then it was my time.
Okay... What the heck.
"This law could potentially facilitate murder!" "Meh, fine by me."
You're not even trying to explain why these issues aren't important or dangerous, you're just ignoring them.
Melanie McGreevey: If someone is doing something illegal, then they don't deserve privacy anywhere.
this is all silly anyway, don't post BS if you're not willing to be "real" too many people hide behind "nicknames" to talk trash, stalk, bully, and commit crimes online. I have stated my opinion (ad nauseam), time to move on.
And what if the issue is actually the opposite? That people cannot be real in RL due to social norms/values and appreciate the ability to actually be real thanks to anonymity?
There are a lot of things people do not dare to say in RL (beside trash talk and other obscure things) that they can say on the net because their social environment can use it against them. And it can be silly things such as holding an opinion that is "controversial" in their social environment.
"Social norms"? Can expand on that JUST a bit... not sure what you mean. I think i do, i just was wondering.
Well for example, being an open atheist might not be socially acceptable in a strongly religious community. Or being a socialist in a strongly libertarian environment. Many opinions can be shunned by ones environment's values (i guess i should have used values instead of norms as it encompasses more).
Melanie McGreevey: yep, i have nothing to fear from the internet that's for sure. Someone gets my address so what? If they mean to kill me, then it was my time.
Okay... What the heck.
"This law could potentially facilitate murder!" "Meh, fine by me."
You're not even trying to explain why these issues aren't important or dangerous, you're just ignoring them.
I agree.
Pass the popcorn. All I've left to do is laugh.
Hey, you really shouldn't think that way. If you ignore the opportunity to discuss important issues then-
Melanie McGreevey: If it doesn't effect me, why do i care? or should i care? If others do something to raise a red flag, that's on them. Yes, if someone travels across the country to kill me, it was my time, plain and simple. That is how life (in my view) is, fragile. I have explained why they are not important TO ME.
You have changed your position. This law means you have no privacy even if you haven't committed a crime.
You know it isn't the most sensible thing in the world to post your real details online. Sure, the escapist may be a good community but venture out further and you could get into deep shit if they dox you.