Anonymous Member Banned By Court From Using His Real Name Online

The other thing that tickled me was (this is from the Forbes article):

"A 17-year-old student who cannot be named for legal reasons"

Yeah, I appreciate why that is and why it makes sense, but it doesn't make it any less ironic that somebody from 'Anonymous' can't be named in the coverage of this case.

This seems like a sort of failed attempt to apply the "released but cannot associate with [previous associates]" bail condition to the internet. The first attempt was: can use the internet, but can't post on social networks; and then that was narrowed to, can post on social networks, but can't post with your 'normal' identity to your existing networks.

At last, the court has discovered the deadly weakness of hackers to being forced to use their legal names!

Wait, what?

The decision makes a very, very sad statement about the court's understanding of the issues at hand.

Better link (and actual source...): http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/09/07/court-lets...

Oh no! That means he can't use Google +!

Does this mean he's barred from making purchases online with credit cards taken out in his name?

What self respecting hacker would use his real name online?

-M0rpheus

I'm not going to read the article so I can continue to believe this is little Bobby Tables: http://xkcd.com/327/