Anonymity on the web and off: Is it a right?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
your assumption here (and one that i don't agree with) are that rights are enumerated in the bill of rights. since i don't agree with it i believe that anonymity should be chosen by whoever is doing the speaking. of course i weigh the opinions of those that say what they have to say in public, out in the open generally higher than those doing so anonymously. the tech is there to trace IPs and whatnot, so its hard to be anonymous, and on a private board like this one they can choose that no user can be truely anonymous, which i think is also within their rights. the only way to be completely anonymous is send a letter through the mail.

Let me just point out that I never said our rights were only those enumerated in the BoR. In fact, in other threads on this board I've pointed out that they are far from it, and have explained what the Ninth Amendment means.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Kjazlaw
usually people who go nuts over being anonymous are doing something shady or something they would be ashamed about. either that or they are paranoid schizophrenic.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that comment. Why must it be said that anyone who asks for privacy must have something to hide? Would you be ok with everyone knowing your sexual preference? Or how about if everyone knew where you sleep, and what you eat, what you like to do for fun? Where do you draw the line? Should any and all information on a person's life be public domain?

Knowing who you are and attaching your name to your words and actions is far from people knowing details about your private life. Anonymity in only but one area of privacy. I did not question others.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: ElFenix
your assumption here (and one that i don't agree with) are that rights are enumerated in the bill of rights.

Are you saying that that you don't beleive it's there are you don't believe in freedom of speech, assemply, property and gov't intrusion into religion (ie, rights)?

No, he's saying the rights enumerated in the BoR are not our only rights. And he's correct.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I've got VERY mixed feelings on it.

The internet can be both very imaginary and very real. It can be used for fun, and it can be used for entertainment and legitmate purposes, but it can also be used for criminal purposes. The internet is growing more and more "real" by the day.

People do business over the internet.
People meet each other over the internet.
People check bank accounts and statements over the internet.

The more that these things are abused, I personally feel that anonymity is one step closer to being eliminated by businesses and politicians.

Priests have been busted for preying on minors over the internet, people have been arrested for comments made on chat rooms, trolls have been slapped with felonies for theft on the internet.

It's a moral dilema of which is more important - defending the perceived notion that we are anonymous, or taking steps(right or wrong) to eliminate the growing number of very real criminal issues on the 'net.

This has been my thoughts as well. Anonymity will become a VERY big issue not very long in the future, and the Internet will be the driving force behind it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
<<snip>>
Let me just point out that I never said our rights were only those enumerated in the BoR. In fact, in other threads on this board I've pointed out that they are far from it, and have explained what the Ninth Amendment means.

oh. ok, you have me confused by constantly pointing at the BoR.

Are you saying that that you don't beleive it's there are you don't believe in freedom of speech, assemply, property and gov't intrusion into religion (ie, rights)?

what i'm saying (and perhaps it would be clearer had i added the word "only") is that the BoR contains rights, but they're not the only ones worth protecting. its not an all inclusive list. and i believe that madison intended the constitution to be read strictly, while the BoR is not. he (and the other federalists) feared that people would look on the BoR as the only rights, rather than just a few of them which were intended to placate the anti-federalists.

 

[Amused]

The Ninth Amendment: (and why the Bill of Rights are not the only rights we have, or should have)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
<<snip>>
Let me just point out that I never said our rights were only those enumerated in the BoR. In fact, in other threads on this board I've pointed out that they are far from it, and have explained what the Ninth Amendment means.

oh. ok, you have me confused by constantly pointing at the BoR.

Are you saying that that you don't beleive it's there are you don't believe in freedom of speech, assemply, property and gov't intrusion into religion (ie, rights)?

what i'm saying (and perhaps it would be clearer had i added the word "only") is that the BoR contains rights, but they're not the only ones worth protecting. its not an all inclusive list. and i believe that madison intended the constitution to be read strictly, while the BoR is not. he (and the other federalists) feared that people would look on the BoR as the only rights, rather than just a few of them which were intended to placate the anti-federalists.

Too bad the Anti-Federalists were right in this case. Enumerating rights has made only those rights sacred. The rest are fair game for every knee-jerk reactionism and nanny-state ruling.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Anonymous just to blabber about, yes. But if making a purchase, entering into a legal contract, making threats to someone, etc., no, then the person should be identifiable.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Anonymous just to blabber about, yes. But if making a purchase, entering into a legal contract, making threats to someone, etc., no, then the person should be identifiable.

entering a contract isn't speech, and i'm pretty sure that threats of violence against specific people isn't either. at least, it isn't protected speech. saying that a violent revolution will come when the proletariat rises up at some non-specific future date is protected.