Rhode Island Says Police Can Decloak Anonymous People Online | Hacker News Reader

Rhode Island Says Police Can Decloak Anonymous People Online

techdirt.com

51 pointsjsherry14 comments

While much of the bill is targeted at uncovering those involved in child porn

Of course. And, uncovering someone as a user or creator of child pornography without having a trial... nothing could go wrong there.

What way of arresting someone so that they can be brought to trial do you propose that never uncovers their crimes? It is absolutely necessary to gather evidence and, at some point, accuse someone of a crime if they are to be brought to trial. The problem is when the identity and alleged crime of an individual are publicized before they are found guilty.

I kinda take issue with any law that allows collection of evidence without a Warrant. If you're looking for evidence, you had better have enough cause to get a warrant from a judge. Else, that's witch-hunting.

That was my point. Thanks for stepping and clarifying.

Fair enough; that makes perfect sense (and you can consider my earlier comment retracted). I suppose that I didn't get that you were using trial to indicate the process of obtaining a warrant.

Maybe not the best title, the "...if they find them offensive" is the most interesting part. Before I clicked I thought the hive mind in Rhode Island had some space age technology to identify hackers as the click of a button.

From Rhode Island: '...let police get names and other identifying information from service providers for online speech that they find to be "offensive"...'

From The Constitution: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

From The Supreme Court: "In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature. However, in Meese v. Keene,, 481 U.S. 465 (1987), the Court upheld the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, under which several Canadian films were defined as "political propaganda," requiring their sponsors to be identified."[1]

It would appear there is more case law in support of protecting the constitution however this is not a guarantee. The Rhode Island law is broad enough to be used in situations outside of the spirit it is being sold under: "Protect the Children!"

While I'm all for protecting those who can not protect themselves we as a country must start demanding that our law makers enact laws where the letters match the spirit.

If you want to pass laws to stop pedophilia then write laws that says "<insert broad law text here> where such evidence can be used only within the scope of an investigation and prosecution of crimes under <insert the section from the current pedophilia laws that define what it is>"

Is that so difficult?

The courts enjoy interrupting the 'letter of the law' and not the spirit. From my perspective this is false advertisement to each supporting law makers constituents. We have an entire government agency, the FTC, that is devoted to protecting consumers against these sort of things [2][3][4] but they only investigate private individuals and corporations.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

[2] http://news.cnet.com/FTC-settles-online-false-advertising-ca...

[3] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/07/nestle.shtm

[4] http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentid=34&itemid=377...

>"administrative subpoena"

trickling down of "national security letter" concept.

Me to police: You first.

So, how do you feel about LulzSec's recent op against Arizona?

I was thinking particularly of their resistance to recording their public interactions and activities. Also of their continued resistance in some cases to full recording/recordkeeping of interviews. And of ingrained institutional attitudes of opaqueness with respect to their own activities, even when such activities themselves apparently or clearly violate the law. E.g. the recent "blue wall" regarding the apparently unwarranted beating of protesters in Toronto.

I'll add that my concern doesn't just focus on the lower echelons of law enforcement. Why have we had so few real investigations, let alone prosecutions, of suspect behavior at higher levels of government and finance?

I don't know the details of what LS obtained or released from Arizona. But I wouldn't be surprised if the information includes a number of policies and actions that raise the ire of a significant portion of the public.

So, I'd say to law enforcement, if you are so gung ho (as it were) about "people who have nothing to hide, shouldn't worry", then you should start off by practicing it, yourselves. Otherwise, you can say whatever you want: What I observe is (yet another) hypocrite.

I try to remain mindful, though, that these institutions (in the U.S., and Canada in the case of my Toronto example) are managed by people whom we, the public, have elected. And they operate within the bounds and requirements of that election process and feedback. So... to those who focus solely on law enforcement as a problem, I'll comment that ultimately, the buck stops with the public.

Which can be discouraging. The public, in aggregate, seems to keep clamoring for more of the same.

P.S. By way of disclaimer, I'm not devoid of hypocrisy, myself. Including in commenting on a situation in which I am not directly, immediately involved other than as a member of the public.

I would prefer that police are able to principally identify as members of the community, rather than members of a fraternity. It seems to me that greater income disparity tends to break this down. For example, in terms of how they go about getting resources, and in removing them from living in the communities they police. But I can't claim any authority or correctness in this observation.

That wasn't a lulzsec op, they said that the info came from an anon, lulz just released it for them.

That is going to be abused TO DEATH.

> That is going to be abused TO DEATH.

That abuse is the intent.

Whenever someone uses the "child porn" excuse, they're trying to get something that they shouldn't have.

Disagree? Provide three counter-examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com