New Jersey Moves To Ban Anonymity On Web Forums

[Greg B]

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bi...00/1327_I1.HTM

This is another move in a direction either good or bad.

Basically making posters to web boards like GFY for example, to not have the option of anonymity in posting.

You may, may start to see this proposed by other countries and states as well.

Problem is it would probably crash forum and web use in many ways and cause chaos in revenue in some.

[FleshJoe2005]

I propose to ban New Jersey.

OK, seriously, they might as well legislate that they dont allow air or water.

[tungsten]

thats fuckin stupid, gotta love jersey

[Theo]

Assemblyman PETER J. BIONDI

Very smart and intelligent man. I really enjoy his positive work to the community and his efforts to save us from anonymous criminals. Just in case he is reading... Hi!

[tony286]

first how do you do that give everyone in the world a unique ip they sign up for? if it happened any kind of sharing of things that are theft music ,porn, movies ,software would be over. Also the whole age verify bullshit would be dealt with too.

[biftek]

well ip address doesn't really need to unique to each user , if you have a dynamic ip , isp's can still keep track of that address all they need is the date and time then just do a simple lookup

as it stands a poster is not really anonymous in the posting , all usernames on forums are linked to an ip adress

all that proposed legislation does , is just cuts down a few step , at present if someone wants to press charges , they need to get a court order for a forum to release the info on X user , then with the ip , they need to approach the isp with another court order to release information


they can make the law , but enforcing it is a totally different thing , are the law makers going to go from one forum to the next looking for New Jersey users

here in Australia , defamation laws have no boundaries , a case the other year opened up that , an australian resident could sue anyone in the world for defamation , the courts ruled that it is not where the post is made it is about where it is viewed

the case was a stockbroke , gutkin i think the name was against , wall street journal and a few other US paper , the US papers pleaded freedom of the press under American law , but the aussie judge told them to get fucked with your laws

[biftek]

after reading the proposed legislation , it goes one step further and takes the courts out of the action , just requires an email

seeing as it is saying public forum , what is the definition of a public forum

[SirMoby]

How can the ISP know if someone is actually providing a legal name? Someone could easily give false information and according to that legislation the ISP would be liable.

[biftek]

well seeing as you are entering into a contract , for the contract to be binding you need to 18+ (providing of course that legal age status is 18years ) , so probably photo id and the 100 point system (photo id , bills , government documents with your name and address etc)

[lchaim]

It's already illegal to post anonymous annoying messages online

Why not just outright ban all anonymous communication

NDAs should be legally shut down, no more cloak & dagger in the world. Let's ride that concept all the way into their backyard and see how well it fits.

[Rochard]

Yeah, newsflash for NJ....... I live in Arizona and GFY is hosted in Cali, so their fucking laws don't apply to me.

[stickyfingerz]

Isnt NJ mostly landfills anyways?

[nofx]

that is so fucking retarded

[reynold]

policing the internet is just so fucking stupid and a huge waste of government effort

[HairToStay]

We have a Federal law about bugging people anonymously, now we can't even TALK anonymously??

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

[Cassie]

god i have to get out of this state. i need to move back to ny.

[FIX01]

Actually read a few years ago that they were considering proposing a law at the federal level that you would have to sign onto the net biometrically. ie fingerprint or iris scan. It just bugs the shit out of fascists that run this country that people can remain anonymous on the net or anywhere else for that matter. Fucking cattle herders!

[potter]

1. There is no way the state could afford the expenses it would cost to do what they propose.

2. The rest of the internet would just ban all Jersey IP blocks.

[pr0]

i hope the state of new jersey collapses into the massive underground toxic waste dumps just below them

[Greg B]

i hope the state of new jersey collapses into the massive underground toxic waste dumps just below them

The Toxic Avenger!

[Flu]

It would be funny if ICANN just removed New Jersey from the internet right after this law got passed.

[teksonline]

You guys will believe anything these people make up to get votes.

Lol what's funny is they are using communism and other sorts of anti-freedom government to promote their own election. That alone should be a crime.

[Matt 26z]

This will never pass.

Another example of lawmakers not knowing a damn thing about the internet. The guy who wrote this can probably just barely send an email.

[RawAlex]

I think someone else hit this: The idea I think is to block the legal loophole that allows for anonymous posters to be free from legal recourse. Obliging boards to get a confirmation email, example, or to ask other useful questions (such as full name, etc) that have to be confirmed by email) would go a long way to shutting up some of the mainstream bullshitters that are out there causing havok.

Fucking around on GFY isn't important. Where this comes in is people who show up on business chat boards claiming X or Y about a company, or claiming that someone is going to get arrested or sued or something, in a manner to control stock prices and force issues. It doesn't take much to start a rumor, and they can profit from this flux.

All sorts of issues for libel and whatnot...

HOWEVER

having said that, it would only work if the law was enacted on the federal level, and required all chat board operators in the US to obliged. This patchwork bullshit state to state attempt to regular the net is dumb as shit, and makes it almost impossible for site operators to stay truly compliant.

Good luck to them... it ain't gonna work like it is.

Alex

[Krash]

Wall it up

Wall up the whole state of New Jersey and send all the fucktards who try to pass nazi police force laws concerning the internet. Start with that shitstain BUSH who wrote into law you cant ANNOY anyone on the internet. You know what now I'm ANNOYED by the fucking turdburglar who wrote that law. I'm fucking sueing!!!

[bastardsquad]

I propose to ban New Jersey.

backed...no really...

i will chip in money to help build a wall around NJ...

what is with the no left turns anyway?...

[czarina]

what a retarded move! They might as well make you put your credit card number and home address next to your nick on the chat boards.

[suesheboy]

God we are in trouble in this country

[Pornwolf]

I think someone else hit this: The idea I think is to block the legal loophole that allows for anonymous posters to be free from legal recourse. Obliging boards to get a confirmation email, example, or to ask other useful questions (such as full name, etc) that have to be confirmed by email) would go a long way to shutting up some of the mainstream bullshitters that are out there causing havok.

Fucking around on GFY isn't important. Where this comes in is people who show up on business chat boards claiming X or Y about a company, or claiming that someone is going to get arrested or sued or something, in a manner to control stock prices and force issues. It doesn't take much to start a rumor, and they can profit from this flux.

All sorts of issues for libel and whatnot...

HOWEVER

having said that, it would only work if the law was enacted on the federal level, and required all chat board operators in the US to obliged. This patchwork bullshit state to state attempt to regular the net is dumb as shit, and makes it almost impossible for site operators to stay truly compliant.

Good luck to them... it ain't gonna work like it is.

Alex

Good post. While it's true that a law like this looks stupid to us on GFY, the business boards have become a large force in stock speculation, company rumors and general inside information. It's a dangerous thing to go unregulated.

Although that should be self regulated ON THE BOARDS THEMSELVES! It's not like those boards are some informal bullcrap boards.

[Greg B]

Good post. While it's true that a law like this looks stupid to us on GFY, the business boards have become a large force in stock speculation, company rumors and general inside information. It's a dangerous thing to go unregulated.

Although that should be self regulated ON THE BOARDS THEMSELVES! It's not like those boards are some informal bullcrap boards.

Well said and exactly where this is going next. I kid you not when I say that if the lawmakers can't get posters to establish their identity, then forums will be the target of litigation and law enforcement action if a post has a threat or other criminal or civil situation.

So either the boards take a step to confirm identity or get hit with so many lawsuits they won't be able to afford to stay open.

The ONLY way around it would be boards so private that members have to apply for admission ( as what's happened to several boards I'm a member of ) or to title the boards that have the protection of several rights such as 'the Smith Family chat board' where only members of the Smith family can chat. Since everyone in the U.S. is somehow related to someone named Smith and it's a 'family' board they can post whatever the hell they want and no one can say shit about it.

[RawAlex]

Greg B, you are correct - in the long run, the move will be to take away the "innocent service provider" potential from chat boards, and make them wholely responsible for the content of their board unless they can provide the name and other personal information about the authors to the authorities.

You can expect this to also be applied to blog spaces.

People have shown that they cannot control themselves, so the government(s) of the day are certainly going to give it a shot.

Alex

[Greg B]

Alex, you can bet bloggers are next. Since the blogs are publicly accessible they're going to be the target not by government but by lawyers looking for an easy kill. Popular bloggers who are generating capital are going to go down first. That'll scare away the small time bloogers next.

[je_rome]

I propose to ban New Jersey.

OK, seriously, they might as well legislate that they dont allow air or water.

these legislators know nothing but to curtail our rights