Senior Homeland Security Official Says Internet Anonymity Should Be Outlawed (dailydot.com) 532
Patrick O'Neill writes: A senior Homeland Security official recently argued that Internet anonymity should outlawed in the same way that driving a car without a license plate is against the law. "When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate," Erik Barnett, an assistant deputy director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and attache to the European Union at the Department of Homeland Security, wrote. "The license plate's identifiers are ignored most of the time by law enforcement. Law enforcement will use the identifiers, though, to determine the driver's identity if the car is involved in a legal infraction or otherwise becomes a matter of public interest. Similarly, should not every individual be required to display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"
Basically no (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the First Amendment, including the right to say things anonymously which has been upheld by the courts numerous times,
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Insightful)
.... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they need to name the department with phrasing that makes it seem like it's job is to do something tremendously good while it really has a nefarious purpose. So something like: The Department of Freedom Protection. They "protect" freedom by locking it away where nobody can use it sort of like how a toy collector locks a toy away to keep it in mint condition.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the logical selection will be the Ministry of Love. We can call is MiniLuv for short.
Stay involved citizens. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't Homeland Security. There job is to find threats, and see if they can have solutions to solve them.
When you work security the tyrannical solution is often the easiest one.
You want your PC secure from hackers. Unplug it from the network, cant do that make sure your firewall has 0 outside ports and the inside ports are setup for talking to only the servers each system needs to talk to. Such IT security is hard, because the End users are rapidly changing what they want and the cost to build such a secure system isn't worth the expense.
Law enforcement and security would have an easier job without civil liberties, not because they have nefarious purposes, but because it will make their job easier.
Our jobs as citizens is to let our officials know that we value our freedoms and what we are willing to give up for security, and what security we are willing to risk not having to keep our freedoms. It isn't cut and dry but these department report to a higher political offices, who will need to take their recommendations and decide to accept or reject them. These political office need to be elected by the citizenry. If we refuse to be involved citizens then the easiest path will soon follow.
Re: (Score:3)
Erh... no.
Security is not only confidentiality. That's only the C in CIA. Your responsibility is also in integrity and, and that's going to be the problem here, availability.
Your job in security is that the people who have the right to access data, and only the people who have a right to access data, can access that data and that the data they access cannot be created, altered or deleted without knowing who did what change and, if applicable, why.
My job isn't just to shut shit down. That's easy. You don't n
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Insightful)
.... as we creep slowly-- no rapidly descend towards fascism. Why don't they rename DHS to DACL-- Department of Anti-CIvil Liberty?
What, Homeland security is not fascist enough for your taste ? The program is all in the name. It has the same sound as committe for state security. You know, the whole keep the fatherland safe mantra.
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's comforting to know I'm not the only one who felt this way.
Re: (Score:3)
Before long the country will be renamed People's Republic of America.
North America Rules. (Score:3)
As a Mexican, I take pride in being a North American.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Who ever said that Central America is a continent? It's a region with geographical and cultural commonalities, like Asia Minor or North Africa. And I've never heard it used in a derogatory manner.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you got against Homeland Security?
You're probably one of those commie bastards that is against Social Justice as well.
So, tell me about your friends, citizen.
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Interesting)
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
I know what you're getting at, but it's probably not a good idea to throw the word fascism around at things that aren't, because you dilute the word to mean things that it doesn't, thus its harder to expose real fascists when they come around. (Which by the way, Europe really IS seeing a rise in fascism lately, with countries like Denmark and France seeing upwards of 28% of the vote going towards actual fascists.)
Fascism, which started in Italy and whose name was coined by Benito Mussolini (NOT Hitler, as most people think) means a strong national unity governed by a strong central government where individual identity is thrown out entirely. Mussolini also didn't want racism (he saw it as a diversion; besides, his wife was Jewish and was a major influence in the beginning of the first fascist uprising.) Hitler's fascism incorporated racial purity as part of the whole national identity thing. A lot of other European countries adopted fascism (including Greece and others, who were enemies of both Italy and Germany in WWII) that didn't include either the expansionist ideals of Italy and Germany, or the racial purity aspects of Germany. Another element of fascism is socialism (socialism being the government owns the means of production, NOT welfare, another distinction that people have forgotten over time.)
That said, the US has never had anything truly fascist about it, nor is it likely any time soon. The reason why is because our culture is so focused on individual identity, we don't like the idea of a central government being too powerful, and we also seem to have a big distaste for socialism (again, actual socialism, not welfare.)
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Insightful)
But these traits you describe, are rising more and MORE in the US, accelerating at an alarming rate as viewed by a number of folks.
The Federal Govt IS becoming too powerful and centralized, the Fed is overtaking the power of the states left and right (where constitutionally power is supposed to reside).
The pride and promotion of individualism is being diluted left and right...the "social justice" is a component of that, everyone is equal...everyone gets a trophy for just participating, let's not praise Johnny for excellence, as that it might cause self esteem issues for Julie....it starts off little, but we're seeing the promotion of the individual in not only something not really to be promoted, but in some ways actually shunned.
And we have a full blown, self-proclaimned socialist Bernie Sanders, gaining popularity in the poles, and a recent poll of liberal Democrat voters in Iowa self identifying as socialist, not capitalists.
Frankly, I think Obama leans much more in this direction, which is why many think his motives ARE to fundamentally move the US away from its former ideals and societal fundamentals.
Re: (Score:3)
When I first heard the term "Homeland" used to describe the United States, I knew in which direction we were heading.
Calling it the HeimatSicherheitsDienst is both accurate to the organization's title and, via historical allusion, the direction it wants to take the country...
Re: (Score:3)
Vaterländischer Sicherheitsdienst (which is pretty much the German translation for "homeland security") has a nice ring to it, doesn't it.
Why is my right arm twitching?
Re: (Score:3)
Could we get Hugo Boss to make the uniforms? He did such a great job [volusion.com] last time.
Re: Basically no (Score:3)
To not actually have to do police work. They want the equivalent of automatic license plate scanners that identify you instantly and record a crime, real or imagined and issue an arrest warrant or fine and have a local agency serve you without anyone having to lift a finger, much less get off their ass.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry - the first amendment lets you say what you want but has no guarantee implicit within it of any anonymity. The courts likewise have not granted anonymity; they say that you are responsible for your speech.
The supreme court disagrees: https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... [cornell.edu] "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority"
Re:Basically no (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/... [stanford.edu]
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-... [findlaw.com]
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.
Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:
* The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
* More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
* Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
* Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/... [stanford.edu]
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-... [findlaw.com]
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.
Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/... [stanford.edu]
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-... [findlaw.com]
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:
"We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....
Next!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid First Amendment.
Why can't we be more like China and Russia and Iran? Who wouldn't want to live under a government that could track everything about you?
Or, without the sarcasm, why the fuck does Erik Barnett have a job in our government? Wouldn't opposing the First Amendment be seen as a negative during the interview process?
Re:Basically no (Score:4, Funny)
[*]I would like to visit there one day, hear it is nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the right to free speech is an *AMENDMENT* to the constitution. Therefore one could argue that the advocation of any amendment to the constitution surely displayed blatant contempt for the constitution.
Re:Basically no (Score:4, Insightful)
In a rational world[*] people who openly advocate blatant contempt of the Constitution would never be able to find a job in Government ever again.
What happened to freedom of speech? He can say whatever he wants to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct, and the courts upheld anonymity of super PAC donors so if money is speech (and I agree that it is, because money is used to buy media time to promote a message) then the Internet is speech, because internet is money that is used to build and maintain this media that is used for speech.
Re: (Score:3)
... if money is speech (and I agree that it is, because money is used to buy media time to promote a message) ...
Perhaps it is, but ideally money does not equal speech. The idea that the more money you have the more speech you have (or more specifically, political access) is counter to the idea that all men are created equal.
Re: (Score:2)
So nice that law enforcement in this country is so willing to piss and shit all over the Constitution.
A form of treason as far as I'm concerned...
Re: (Score:2)
It might be in your neck of the woods, its not in mine, thank god the internet is global.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is funny how people forget that the constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It is there to tell the government what rights it has. Anything not specified is left to the states or the people. I do not recall "tracking everyone" being listed as an enumerated power.
Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
The Fourth Amendment should already be telling the "track everyone" guys to fuck off unless they have a warrant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co... [cornell.edu]
"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."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Living inside a home or other shelter is a privilege and not a right, much like driving an automobile. As such it can be regulated and you can be required to live in the wilds 24/7/365. This is well within the government's purview.
So the 2nd largest spying org... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is against making it any more difficult to spy on people. You shouldn't be surprised by this. Also, he should get fucked. We have freedoms, and it's not our patriotic duty to help anyone take them.
Absolutely. (Score:5, Insightful)
You see? I can select my analogies to support my viewpoint too.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the children, you monster.
Any moment now we could have a horrible incident where somebody typing drunk on Facebook would make a stupid typing error, go crashing through all of the firewalls and accidentally kill five children on a Minecraft server. If that drunken-surfer was anonymous, the families might not know who to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
I might be able to get behind that visible identification idea. I forget people's names all the time and it'd be nice to just read the name tags that are required for for everyone to wear.
A little over the line (Score:3)
It's really no different than the way you are required to wear visible identification when walking on the sidewalk, or how you are legally obligated to put a return address label on all correspondence that passes through the postal system.
You can make fun of the situation, but I was arrested last year for not having ID while hiking in the woods. The cop clearly stated why I was being arrested, he said in so many words that it was illegal not to carry an ID.
The police have always crossed "just a little bit" over the line, but with the situation as it is now, "just a little bit" means our rights are completely and totally gone.
Sadly, I think he will get his wish (Score:2)
With the rise of social networks and federated authentication, I don't think we are that far off from this.
I think it is only a matter of time before we all have a private key bound to an identification card or something similar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"To the american public internet"
There fixed that for you....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think the US government would demand of it of the rest of the world to fight terrorism you're a fool.
America is pioneering the new global fascism, all while pretending to be promoting justice, liberty, and freedom.
Make no mistake, America has ceased to be about any of these things. Not for Americans, and sure as hell not for anybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew? (Score:5, Funny)
Bad car analogy guy works for the DHS
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm ... is this a corner case of Rule #34? Like gimp suits and collars for everybody?
The internet is a weird place.
Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
They've finally decided to fall in line with China's views on internet policy. Pretty soon all the major world governments will look pretty much the same.
Free speech is anonymous speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to have truly free speech is to speak anonymously. Otherwise, you have "free speech" but there will be "consequences". Like how in Soviet Russia you were "free" to say anything you liked, but there might be "consequences" like getting sent to Siberia.
Re:Free speech is anonymous speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Joke from communists times:
An American goes to Moscow and eventually gets into discussion with a commoner about human rights and free speech. The American says "Look, I can go in front of the White House and shout that the American president is shit and nothing will happen to me". The Russian guy thinks a bit and says "Well, I can too go in front of Kremlin and shout that the American president is shit and nothing will happen to me".
Here comes the depressing part. Today I think the American will be arrested for shouting in front of the White House and charged for terrorism. And this post of mine is already recorded as it contains the T word and also has "American president is shit" phrase. Welcome to Guantanamo...
Re: (Score:2)
Today I think the American will be arrested for shouting in front of the White House and charged for terrorism.
I hear you, but luckily it's not that bad yet. Back in 2011 some protesters were arrested and charged with failure to obey a lawful order. They were told to "move along" and failed to comply because they'd handcuffed themselves to the fence and couldn't. That arrest and charge had been the practice for decades, but in 2011 the government took the new step of prosecuting. Prior to that, protestors were always offered the option of posting $500 bail and forfeiting it rather than going to trial. If they did th
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous political speech is just "Common Sense".
Re: (Score:3)
That's why it's important to have the option to be anonymous. You can respond to massive criticism of your anonymous speech just as well -- and in fact better -- than if it weren't anonymous, because doing so anonymously means you are under no threat.
Now, you make a distinction between "violent" consequences and "non-violent" consequences for a man's speech. Trouble is, there is no clear distinction. "Massive criticism" can get a man evicted from his home, lose his job, denied loans, put on a watchlist of m
License plates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:License plates (Score:5, Interesting)
But you know, in a lot of states that doesn't prevent traffic cameras from being used to fine the owners of cars even if they weren't the drivers of the cars.
Fortunately in Minnesota, the state supreme court ruled them unconstitutional because they shift the burden of proof from the state to the vehicle owner.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to be the guy who collects the fees and issues the license plates to 340 million people & collects the yearly license fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He Later Said... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you can roam between cells you have all the freedom in the world...
Super-highway? (Score:2)
Super-highway? Wasn't this Bill Gates' vision of a Microsoft-controlled alternative to the Internet? I haven't heard of it since playing Space Quest 6.
So go ahead. But get away from the Internet.
Except I don't need a license plate... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure there will always be "Internet backwaters" in the New World Web... but only criminals will use those...
Clock (Score:3)
Machine Vision (Score:2)
Are automated plate scanners implemented/common yet? When they are, ALL visible plates will be queried.
I call bull (Score:2)
"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate,"
That's because cars maim and kill thousands upon thousands a year.
> 100 years of anonymous phone calls and blackmail and ransom notes via snail mail didn't ruin the planet either.
Re: (Score:2)
"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate,"
That's because cars maim and kill thousands upon thousands a year.
> 100 years of anonymous phone calls and blackmail and ransom notes via snail mail didn't ruin the planet either.
Cars don't maim and kill people! *People* maim and kill people.
Thats why license plates on cars are absurd. People should have barcodes tattooed on their foreheads at birth!
Obligatory Car Analogy (Score:2)
If digital privacy was an electric car, Homeland Security would disallow privately charging it. Instead, they'd make it mandatory to charge all electric cars from licensed diesel generators in the designated 'charge-up' stations. These generators would suffer from frequent fuel shortages.
Slippery slope (Score:2)
Horses did not require a licence plate to use public roadways.
Comment removed (Score:3)
And if you're a Jew, you get a yellow badge? (Score:2)
>> Erik Barnett, an assistant deputy director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: "...should not every individual be required to display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"
While you're at it, why not just add a little yellow badge icon to every Jew on the Internet. No harm there, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Except its not illegal (Score:2)
Its perfectly legal to drive around without a license plate. Just not on the public roadways. You can drive all over your farm in that old unlicensed pickup, or a brand new one for that matter!
Virtually none of the internet infrastructure in the US is public road way. The telco's own all of it. The government can make whatever rules they want for accessing .gov systems but they haven't any right to tell AT&T if they must or must not allow anonymous traffic to flow over their network. Well no right
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck you, asshole ... (Score:2)
When they outlaw freedom, only criminals will have freedom.
That America is beginning to forget the historical reasons why anonymous speech is a protected class of speech is scary. That America has pretty much decided all other freedoms are options is utterly terrifying.
All of these new school fascists who think the only way to protect liberty is to take away liberty, and the only way to defend your rights is to curtail them ... these asses need to be hung for treason.
That oath you took to defend and uphold
Re: (Score:3)
That America is beginning to forget the historical reasons why anonymous speech is a protected class of speech is scary. That America has pretty much decided all other freedoms are options is utterly terrifying.
Americans are not taught real history. They are taught the sanitized, approved version. Likewise they don't really think for themselves. They usually select their opinion from a menu presented by the mass media.
2016 (Score:2)
This sounds familiar (Score:2)
The license plate's identifiers are ignored ... (Score:3)
Except it isn't. All those LPRs (license plate readers) is logged, by both public and private firms and stored for god knows how long. Then the data is used to create temporal databases to know where your car goes and when, extrapolates your patterns.
Currently, the only uses of the private LPR database that I know of are for either reposessions or serving court documents, but I could clearly see private detectives finding the data useful for a multitude of other uses.
Similarly, the state (as in government) can use the traffic camera video feeds networks to identify vehicles in real-time, and find out when the last encounter was and where. The difference here is no warrant is needed, they already have the data, and they can retroactively search their database (which potentially is every second of every traffic camera feed anywhere).
The fact that data may be discarded is a fleeting one, as storage prices come down, and processing power and resolution increases, it will be considered an intelligence "failure" not to have every moment captured, recorded, stored forever, and searchable.
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we continue to put up with this from our Governments? There are a great many of us that see the harm that these types of laws cause our freedoms, but the unwashed masses don't. How do you wake these people up that their security does not have to come at the cost of freedom. They still think they are free and I'm sure the Germans thought they where free during WW2 just as long as you didn't disagree or say anything against the Government. They also call people who can and do voice their concerns on this slow decent to fascism, alarmists or anarchists. Most of those that I work with just don't care about these types of laws. All they care about is whats on TV tonight and make sure they can download their music and TV. After that they just don't care. It's just to much work to have to think. Maybe this is why my blood pressure is to high. I should stop caring also.
Of course (Score:2)
"Senior Homeland Security Official Says Internet Anonymity Should Be Outlawed"
Well, of course, did you really expect him to say anything different?
It's about as shocking a headline as, "Convicted Pedophile Says All Children Should Be Prohibited From Wearing Clothes", or "Wal-Mart Exec Says People Should Buy More Stuff From Wal-Mart."
Law officers identify themselves (Score:2)
When they work covertly, they have warrants for the precise task and duration.
So if this idea has wings at all, let's start with all legal monitoring - the equivalent of road blocks and license checks. All should be completely open and visible to the users of the highway.
Slippery Slope Fallacies are dumb, but... (Score:2)
Only on public roads (Score:2)
His opinion... (Score:3)
I think Homeland Security should be disbanded. and the rights of the american people restored.
But then I'm not hell bent on controlling people.
Libel (Score:3)
It was circa 1979 when I ran head-long into the demand to remove anonymity as a system programmer for Control Data Corporation's PLATO network:
I was directed to remove the anonymous posting option of the precursor to Usenet: PLATO Notes.
The reason? Legal liability suffered by CDC for libel due CDC's lack of "common carrier" status under the FCC law of the time. A common carrier could not be held accountable for the contents of the information it carried.
When CDC refused to go mass market with PLATO, I accepted a position with a newspaper chain that had conducted a market test of something like PLATO notes for a metro area and found a huge demand [slashdot.org]. Although they figured out that their business as a newspaper would be endangered by opening up their network to permit everyone to provide content, the rationalization of "no common carrier status" was trotted forth with great facility.
Nowadays, with Facebook routinely censoring politically incorrect content by its users, and Facebook becoming a kind of de facto recentralization of control of the network effect for the masses, Facebook is actively pursuing a course of action that basically _asks_ to be sued for libelous posts by its users. It isn't hard to project this to ISPs when people use their internet connections for damaging ends -- particularly when you now have ISPs routinely "cooperating" with government and its propaganda arm via copyright enforcement on behalf of mass media.
I did anticipate some of this in the aforelinked 1982 essay as follows:
Remind me (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
MAC address is hardly a personal identifier.... at best it identifies hardware... but it would still need to be proved that you were using that hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But a MAC address goes no further than the first L3 device. It's trivial to change and randomized by default on a VM. It's closer tot he VIN number on your car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But an IP address uniquely identifies you and can't be spoofed as easily as a MAC. But like a license plate it identifies the car (most of the time), not the driver.
Unless you go through a VPN
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is anonymous on the internet. Ok, maybe I should say most are not anonymous. The reason? Everyone has a MAC address. While it can be changed, and probably is when someone is acting nefariously, most people have no idea what it is. So, like outlawing firearms, making a law to ban "anonymous Internet access" would only hurt law abiding citizens. I will certainly add more complexity to ISPs and that will trickle down to users in some way that probably won't be pleasant.
Your MAC address goes no further than your NAT router.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh you can believe they're tracking you. Especially with license plate readers built into cop cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My IP address is 192.168.1.1 Come and get me.