Re: OT: A blow against modem cowardice...

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:24:35 -0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>> The only grey area Constitutionally, as I see it, as that they did
>not
>> explicitly define "annoy", as the article pointed out. Otherwise, I
>> do not have a problem with this.
>>
>> You want free speech? No problem. No hiding while you are "free
>> speaking", though.
>
>What matters -- all that matters -- is what I say.
>Not my name.
>
>If I were to spread vile rumours that you like to gift people
>beetle-infested cigars, would it really matter what name I use?

Yes, it would, Alex. You are a respected member of this community. If
some 'newb' showed up making that accusation, it would carry far less
weight.

>BTW, I also foresee serious problems for chatrooms and the like if
>they ever get serious about enforcing this law. Are they going to
>call the cops down on some Valley teenager for using "qtgrrl567" in a
>teenie band chatroom? What will they do when three, five or ten
>people try to register at a site under their real name which just so
>happens to be "James Smith"? A quick Peoplesearch threw up 464 people
>in the US with your name, James -- will you now have to use your
>unique Social Security number before you can register anywhere?

The Internet is great.... you can track anyone, if you really want
to. No matter who they say they are online. They would have to do a
whole lot of other 'identity changing' to really throw off
authorities.

And speaking of identities... ever heard of identity theft? Huge,
huge problem in this technological age of ours. There might be a
solution to this problem, or at least some protection, in this law.

You know what this entire debate will most likely boil down to? Some
philosphical discussion on "controlling the uncontrollable", "taming
the untameable", etc. Because that is what the Internet is to a lot
of people... this infinite space out there where the rules are all
grey and very little is defined. Someplace where, perhaps, they think
there are no repercussions for what they say/do?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Porn, abuse, depravity - and how they plan to stop it
    ... Posted in Law, ... associate with internet policing - the Internet Watch Foundation ... creation of the IWF, which was founded in 1996 by the ISPA, the trade ... police in order to align their standards with what the law says. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Monitoring of email in America
    ... The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old ... law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications ... airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Oh please oh please oh pleeeease
    ... They don't pay a copyright lawyer hundreds of dollars ... whether or not it complies with actual law. ... But it does mean they give me good, informed legal advice - something you won't find on the Internet. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • OT: Annoying someone via Internet now a Federal Crime
    ... A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, ... Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple ... If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: US: Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
    ... > A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, ... must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. ... That's the ultimate question," Fein said. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)