I’m not exactly sure why someone who sits on a state legislature (where he represents about two and a half obscure rural counties out of 120 counties in the state) thinks that he can legislate what everyone in the world does, but
Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.
The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.
Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted. If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.
Ah, eastern Kentucky, home of one of this blog’s all-time favorite criminals, the Duct Tape Bandit. LOL. That probably answers my original question in this thread.
Aside from the logistics, in that it is absolutely impossible for a state legislature to legislate the behavior of everyone on the internet - no matter how hard they may try - is this a good idea?
Even though I covered the Megan Meier controversy to a great degree, I think it is a horrible idea, and I’ll tell you why.
What happened to Megan Meier was an anomaly. That poor young girl was mentally ill, as evidenced by the fact that she was prescribed not just anti-depressants, but also Geodon, an anti-psychotic. Her adult neighbor Lori Drew was well aware of this, so what she did to that child is absolutely unconscionable, whether one believes she is responsible for Megan’s death or not.
While I realize there are people who have mental illnesses on the internet - and sometimes I wonder if the majority of people posting on the internet have a mental illness - the internet is not a nanny, nor should anyone expect it to be. It is also not a place for children, or the otherwise weak at heart. It is definitely rated “R”, so no one who couldn’t get into an R-rated movie shouldn’t be here in the first place, unless they have parental guidance.
Some other parts of the internet are rated NC-17, some are rated X. With some websites, you don’t even realize you are going to an X-rated site until you are already there (another problem, but responsible internet users simply don’t click on unknown links in the first place).
I can write an article as ElfNinosGreatAuntTilley, and as long as I don’t harm anyone in the process, it is not a crime for me to do that. The right to anonymity is a basic right. It is a right which I exercise everytime I log onto this blog. It is a right which I exercise in my personal life on a fairly regular basis. The fact of the matter is that no one is entitled to know my name, in real life or on the internet. I’m not doing anything wrong, and in fact I do a lot to help others in life, but I like my privacy.
Why do I think it is important for me to post under a pseudonym? There are several reasons, all of which I feel are perfectly valid.
I used to regularly bust scammers on Quatloos, cooperating with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to get these slimeballs behind bars where they belong, and in that capacity I angered some extremely dangerous people. Once I even angered a man who was a dirty ex-NYPD cop, and a former enforcer with the Colombo crime family (yes, the mafia). He had stolen millions from people in a scam wherein he pretended to be a loan company for people who can’t get conventional loans, and he would charge them a large up-front fee. He did his best to ascertain my real identity, and made multiple threats of physical violence against me, including both murder and rape.
In a situation like that, I have two choices. I can either bust the guy under a pseudonym, and be able to sleep at night, or I can do so under my real name, and end up moving every few months. I choose to stay put.
As most of you are aware, I am a professional writer, and I write about true crime as well as criminology issues. However, I didn’t sign up for the publicity which comes with that. I have a unique name, and I don’t want people coming onto this blog to ask me the same questions I’ve been asked (and answered) a million times, and harassing my friends who visit this blog; yet I have every reason to believe they will do that, because that’s what they did when I had a professional website. I just want to be me when I’m here, and I want others to feel comfortable posting here as well.
Tim Couch may not think those are valid reasons for me to not use my real name on the internet, and he’s entitled to his opinion. At the same time, I didn’t elect him, and I don’t live in Kentucky, so his opinion could not possibly be more irrelevant to me.
The fact of the matter is that there are more than enough laws already on the books to handle any situation which might arise on the internet, regardless of whether the person is using their real name or a pseudonym. There are laws against stalking, harassment, obscenity, and other problems. Sure, it might not be easy to find the perpetrator, but it’s not always easy to find perpetrators in real life either.
There are laws to cover what Lori Drew did to Megan Meier, too, if the authorities would use their heads. She could be charged under child abuse laws, stalking laws, harassment laws … the list goes on and on. I don’t know why they decided to not charge her, but that doesn’t mean she couldn’t be charged if the prosecutor wanted to do so. Of course, now a federal grand jury is considering charges against her for wire fraud, since she used a false name on MySpace for the specific intention of stalking and harassing another person (though that’s a Catch-22, since Megan Meier also falsified her age with her mother’s permission, as she was otherwise too young to have a MySpace account). It’s not a problem to use a false name in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when someone uses a false name in order to commit a crime, which is something the vast majority of people on the internet will never do.
So, in a nutshell, I think Kentucky State Representative Tim Couch needs to worry about things which are actually under his control. He is not in a position to legislate the internet, since he is just a state legislator. He has, like a typical politician, grabbed onto a controversial issue to get publicity. Even if his law passes, he is only giving his constituents a false sense of security on the internet since the law would not apply to anyone outside that state; he’d do a far greater service to his constituents if he introduced a bill to fund a public information program about the internet, or requiring that children in his state be educated about the dangers of the internet. He knows or should know that he has no jurisdiction to legislate the internet. If he doesn’t know that, he isn’t smart enough to be making laws in the first place.
He probably found some site bashing him and couldn’t do anything about it. Whiner.
Anyway.
Like you said there are plenty of laws out there if they would use them…not to mention someones IP address that is logged as well if it came down to something that needed to be prosecuted. I have the IP address of everyone that comes to one of my websites whether they leave a comment or not. I can tell what city they are from, and even what ISP they used to access my site. Granted it is a personal website for my use only and I don’t do anything with that info since I know the people connected to those IPs and they don’t bother me, the point is that information is out there…there is no reason to pass more laws about finding that stuff out.
Besides, the only way to make sure someone was plugging in the correct information would be to check that IPs anyway, so it is kinda redundant…and to punish the website for something they can’t control…that is just plain stupid.
This is like that fat bill in Mississippi…I highly doubt it will pass because of the logistics of making it happen if not the fact that many of the people that would vote probably enjoy web anonymity as well.
Bullying is big problem and it always has been. In school, I was the kid who was usually the target for pranks & still have reoccurring physical pain due to one those “harmless” pranks. Making people give their real name will not prevent bullying. There is no way to insure they aren’t giving a fake name or the name of an innocent party.
I have worked for an ISP. It is possible to track down who is using your IPs and find out info.
No one is truly anonymous on the internet. There is always a way to track someone done if the need should arise.
This would no prevent the Megan Miers incident. I do believe that Lori Drew should at the very least be charged with injury to a child.
We see this bs problem again and again. Our legislators, judicial and executives do not have the nerve to deal with real offenders using the laws on the books. Instead, to show that ‘they are doing something’, they pass ridiculous laws like this, which only affect the good people.
It is high time that WE THE PEOPLE send these ba stards a strong message; vote them out. Not happy with the offerings at election time? Contact your party, Repub or Dem. Tell them that the donations stop until they start putting higher quality candidates out there to be elected.
If people do this, it will work. I guarantee it.
Well, I for one support this legislation. The problems with anonymity on the Web are multi-facited.
First, I’m sick of all the cowards who hide behind the anonymity offered by the web to spew hate speech toward minorities, women and those of differing religious and cultural backgrounds.
Secondly, I’m horified by the sexual preditors who likewise abuse the anonymity of the net to stalk and deceive children, luring them to illicit rendevouz for sex.
Thirdly, I’m shocked by the Lori Drew situation, and am afraid the situation could, and will, be repeated. This is a huge planet, with millions of people. To dismiss the Drew incident as ‘isolated’ is irresponsible and naive.
-Hal Walker
Hal,
If I had to post my real name on my blog & contact info I probably wouldn’t blog. Why? Because there are weirdo’s out there not because I am hiding anything. My blog is my personal blog but I have links to my professional blog. I don’t use my real email there either because of spammers. This legislation would hurt people like me while giving scammers, spammers and sickos easier access. It is possible to track down just about anyone who posts on the internet if the need arises. There is enough info between my blogs to find out who I am I just don’t want it readily available.
DH
Hi, Hal. I agree, to dismiss the Megan Meier case as “isolated” would indeed be irresponsible and naive.
Good thing I called it an “anomaly” instead.
Let me put this another way, which you might understand.
You posted on this blog as “Hal Walker”. Great, that may be your name or not, because I have no way of knowing. If I told you that my name is Regina Thompson, you have no way to know whether that’s true either. You have not listed your blog url, so I can’t go to your blog and see what your opinions are. How do I know that you are not someone just pretending to be Hal? The truth is, I don’t …. without going into your IP address, which is attached to everything you do on the internet.
From that, I know exactly where you are. I even know the address you are posting from, and where you work since you are posting from work (though I will not post that information here, obviously). I can pull up a map on google which will not only give me an aerial view of your location, but will also give me turn-by-turn directions to get there. Or, I could just call you up on the phone (I’m not going to do that either, obviously).
It is not necessary to force people to post their real names on the internet, and even if it were, there are tools which will hide someone’s true location by recording a random false IP address. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive about how the internet really works.
ENM,
Reading your comment reminded me of something I read years ago while working tech support for an internet company. A hacker went to trial and at that time he was the first hacker to go to trial. Most hackers are smart enough to take plea deals. Anyway this guy wasn’t. He had hacked to his former employer using dial up access calling terminal to terminal. They caught him with a caller ID unit. Yep, his name displayed on the unit.
As for IP addresses. It is also possible to hack through someone else’s IP and use another parties IP address. We once tracked down some hackers that went through 5 differant IPs before finding the real one.
DH
Interesting, Dee! I’m so glad to have such smart people sharing thoughts with me here, because I learn something new every day.
So if I am understanding you correctly, no matter what tool one may use to hide their IP, it can always be traced back to them anyway?
It takes a lot of digging & I was working for an ISP. So I had access to tools and resources I don’t now have. Pretty much I would say that in most cases it is possible to totally hide your IP. I know in one case we weren’t able to track something down but law enforcement officers are. It would be safe to say that no one is truly anonymous on the internet.
Well, my general rule for posting on the internet is to act like my Grandma was looking over my shoulder.
BTW, I Googled Regina Thompson. So you are either a character on General hospital, a young blond designer or a black female lawyer. LOL.
DH
That’s too funny about “Regina Thompson”, LOL. I just made it up, it’s my sis-in-law’s first name combined with my half-sister’s maiden name.
I think your rule for posting is a very good one. I usually figure that Elf and his buddies are reading. I know my brother reads because he sends me things to add from time to time (he’s “ElfNinosUncle”, and I always attribute his contributions to him by that name) and I know Elf’s buddy Chris is reading because he posts here (hi, Chris!). I therefore try not to say anything which might embarrass me in front of people who actually come to my house, LOL.
I think most people are careful about what they say online, and many protect their pseudonym’s reputation just like they would do with their real name. The bullying is fairly easy to avoid, if you’re careful where you go.
Of course, the bullying can always make its way to you. I had a guy posting bullying messages on my FAQ a month or so ago, yet I have no idea why he was posting here at all. Apparently he’s upset because I am not a frothing-at-the-mouth Republican like him, but I had never run across him online before (I tend to only post on libertarian political sites, where I am familiar with most everyone since I am a longtime contribute to Last Free Voice) so I don’t know why he chose me to bully. He seems to have read my FAQ, and become offended because I dare to admit that I am a humanist libertarian, LOL. Apparently he don’t like him none of them-thar librools.
I deleted his bullying messages and banned him from the blog, problem solved. I normally would never ban anyone, and he’s the only person ever banned from any of my blogs, but I did so in that case because he seemed to be an aggressive stalker type, and I thought I’d better nip that in the bud.
My stalker may have the right to say what he wants online, but he does not have the right to bully me on my blog.
By the way, Hal, stalker boy posts under his own name and even links to his own blog, and he still bullies people. That’s yet another reason why forcing people to post under their own name will solve nothing. Many people bully freely under their real name. How would you solve that problem? It’s not against the law to bully people, after all.
Well, gee. We don’t agree on political or religious views but I don’t feel compelled to pick on you.
I only have a party affiliation because I currently live in one of those states that requires party registration which btw I believe is unconstitutional. I did once register as a republican just to make someone mad, of course that was in a state that doesn’t require it. I really don’t like any party. I voted for Paul in the primary, yes I no he had no chance. I went to school with one of his sons and heard him speak on campus once & was impressed with what I heard.
I read blogs because I like them not because I agree with everything they say. Most of the blogs on my blog roll are friends.
We probably agree on politics more or less, if you’re a Democrat (more or less) but voted for Ron Paul. I didn’t support Dr. Paul this time around, but he is a life member of the Libertarian Party and was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. I was a staunch democrat until a few years ago, when I became a libertarian since I am 110% against the war and was furious that the Democrats we put in Congress didn’t impeach Bush.
Yep, there are liberals in the libertarian movement, believe it or not. I’m a philosophical libertarian, but I’m registered as a Democrat, and have been since I turned 18.
I used to be a very active United Methodist, and taught Sunday School as well as confirmation classes, believe it or not. I was extremely involved in the church for years, especially their youth programs and outreach programs to the homeless, and Elf was raised in the UMC. My religious views changed after my husband died six years ago, and I began to question many things I previously believed. Well, my views changed and they didn’t change. I still believe in the basic idea that we have to care for one another, which is the basis of humanism as well as the basis for the ministries of the UMC.
I think we probably have more in common than it appears at first glance. I’m glad you don’t want to pick on me, though, because I really enjoy our little discussions.
I think it’s funny that you registered as a Republican just to make someone mad, LOL
Currently, I’m registered as a republican because I wanted to vote against a certain mayoral candidate. Although, I don’t claim any part aflatition. I vote issues not parties. Growing up & living in Texas most of my life political party really wasn’t an issue. Primaries are open.
Yes, I remember Paul running as a libertarian in 1988. Our school got swamped with reporters trying to find out dirt on Paul’s son.
You know I actually thought you used Regina Thompson because she was a character from GH.
LOL - no, I had no idea there was a character with that name on television. I’ve never been one to watch the soaps, though.
Don’t really watch soaps but I do use Google.
Dear Elfinosmom,
I do, in fact, understand what you are saying. No need to get snippy. But your tone simply reinforces my earlier position… people feel free to be as rude as they want to be while on the Internet. In my opinion, this legislation would represent a first step toward reducing the amount of cyber-bullying that so frequently bares its ugly head on the web.
Yes, some individuals will continue to bully even if their identity is known… but most will not. Most people will not want racist/sexually-predatory posts linked back to their true identities. If we can save one child from molestation, wouldn’t it be worth it?
And trust me, hiding your identity on the net can, and is, done with regularity.
As a side note, when you point-out that you used the word “anomoly” instead of “isolated” I understand there is a slight difference, but mainly that’s a point of semantics. The meaning behind your words was clear, and I feel I responded appropriately.
Sincerely,
Hal
Hal,
Rude & snippy are a matter of opinion. I interpret your original response as self-righteous. ENM, was not bullying you. You came to her site and posted something. She responded in a sarcastic manner and that is ok.
However, you fail to understand that many, honest people would stop posting on the internet if they had to give their real identity. Why? Simple all of the nut cases, cons and stalkers that would misuse personal information.
If necessary it is possible to track down the real identity of almost anyone on the internet. Rather than passing laws that punishes the responsible users, make it easier for law officials to access records needed to track down the rouges.
DH
Hi again, Hal. You completely misinterpreted my intent. I didn’t mean to be “snippy” or “rude”with you. I merely pointed out that I could do those things even though you left no identifying information on this blog. My point was that despite the fact that you thought you left no identifying information, you are still not anonymous, and if I were offended by your words, I could easily track you down by your IP address.
I assure you, I have absolutely no intention of doing that. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine, and if nothing else, we can always agree to disagree.
I also assure you that what I wrote here was not rude at all, at least not by my standards. Rude is what I become when I go after a scammer who is ripping off little old ladies of their life savings. Rude works in that capacity. My “frickin’ ‘tard of the year” was eventually indicted on federal wire fraud charges, simply because I was able to get under his skin, and make him slip up enough to say the wrong things, after years of getting away with his crimes. So I assure you, I do know the difference between being rude and being blunt. With you, I was blunt. I am blunt in real life on a regular basis. That’s just my personality.
Since you consider what I said to be rude and snippy, then I now have a better insight into why you are so offended by the internet; bluntly stated, you are far more sensitive than you should be. The truth is, I’d have said that same thing to your face if you and I had started out in a friendly verbal face-to-face conversation in a coffee shop, as anyone who knows me would readily attest. Gibson who posts here knows me in real life, but is not a relative; perhaps if he reads this, he can add his impression of me and whether he thinks I was being rude or snippy toward you, which I invite him to do.
So no, I’m not acting any differently on this blog than I would act in real life, and posting my real name would make absolutely no difference in the response I gave to you. What would be different is that you would be able to see my face and hear the tone of my voice, in which case you would realize that I am not being rude at all. That is one great downside to the internet, I will admit, just as it has always been a downside to the written word when compared to personal interaction.
However, if you think anyone is ever truly anonymous on the internet, you (and most likely they, if they are doing it for nefarious purposes) are sadly mistaken. Even hackers are caught on a regular basis. Few are the hackers who can actually become invisible online, and most of those who can do that have been contracted by the government to ensure the security of their many computer systems. They’re not going to bother posting on MySpace, or on blogs, unless it involves them personally. Things of that nature bore them, which is why they turned to hacking.
The internet is just like real life. There are polite people, there are rude people, there are every type of personality all mixed together. The difference is that in real life we have far more control over those with whom we socialize, and it is easier to ascertain another’s intention since we are able to combine their words with their tone and facial expression.
Points taken, and I agree I may have misinterpreted your words. On the other hand, I note you did not address the main thrust of my argument.
Hi, Hal. I addressed the main thrust of your argument in the entry itself, or at least I thought I did. But, I’ll take it point by point, since we’re having a nice little conversation here now.
“First, I’m sick of all the cowards who hide behind the anonymity offered by the web to spew hate speech toward minorities, women and those of differing religious and cultural backgrounds.”
I’m sick of it too, so I agree with you on that. Yet do you really think they’d use their real names, even if the law required them to do so? I doubt it, and the truth of the matter is that unless they were investigated, no one would know if they were using their real name or not. Some of them would use their real names, and some of them would merely be drawn into the internet underground which encourages vile hate speech. That affiliation will only give them the courage to do what they lack the courage to do now, to become even more open with their hatred and therefore to become potentially far more dangerous than they are at present.
Also, I will note that hate speech alone, without more, is protected under the First Amendment. That’s the very first thing the underground will teach them. So rather than suppressing their disgusting behavior, in the end it will be encouraged because they will be empowered by like-minded people who have done their homework, and know exactly how far they can go without running afoul of the law.
“Secondly, I’m horified by the sexual preditors who likewise abuse the anonymity of the net to stalk and deceive children, luring them to illicit rendevouz for sex.”
I agree with you on this, too. I’m horrified by it as well. Yet many of those men already admit their real names, and still commit the crimes. Forcing them to use their names will not stop the behavior, or at least it will not stop it altogether. Those who are driven to molest children or teens but fear doing so on the internet will merely seek prey closer to home, so young girls would be in increased danger even in their own homes. The answer to this problem is better education of the at-risk population. However, as long as we have teenage girls with low self-esteem, who feel unloved - a common dilemma for teen girls - they will be prey for these monsters. So it is now, and so it has always been and will always be. We must encourage a sense of self-worth in our young women, and give them the tools to understand that they are merely prey for these men, in order to keep them safe from predators.
“Thirdly, I’m shocked by the Lori Drew situation, and am afraid the situation could, and will, be repeated. This is a huge planet, with millions of people. To dismiss the Drew incident as ‘isolated’ is irresponsible and naive.”
I was shocked by the Lori Drew situation, but only because she was an adult neighbor (which is what I found to be anomalous). I’m quite sure the same thing has happened many, many times before, but simply was not brought to light because everyone involved were children. Prior to the internet, such cruel pranks were carried out by telephone, and I’m sure some people still do carry out those pranks by telephone. However, no law will make people use their real names when pulling a “joke”, sick though it may be. People feel justified in anonymity under those circumstances, since anonymity is necessary to the “punch line”. It is unfortunate, but those people don’t see anything wrong with what they are doing.
My point is that no law will ever make people act ethically, morally, or responsibly. Look at all the laws we have in the US right now, as we speak, yet the existence of laws does nothing to stop crime. Another law won’t stop this kind of crime either. All it will really do is cause those of us, who are using pseudonyms merely for our own protection, to stop saying anything at all on the internet, thus making it an even more dangerous place for those who are at risk; there will be no one left to speak out in chat rooms, blogs, and forums to protect the innocent and naive. There will be no one left to warn the innocent and naive of scams which are so prevalent on the internet. It would cause such a suppression on the right to free speech (as the right to anonymity has been repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court as a First Amendment right) that it would only plunge us into a society where we fear to speak our minds, which is not at all what our founding fathers intended.
Education is the key to protecting people on the internet. Some of us have been educating others for years; as I stated in the article, I am a longtime volunteer contributor at Quatloos, a well-known anti-scam website, and every time someone says we kept them from being victimized by providing information, I know that there are dozens if not hundreds more my words have helped, who didn’t leave a message.
That’s what keeps me doing what I do, and that’s what keeps me using a pseudonym. I fear exposing no one who is committing crime, but I also will not place my family in danger by using my own name, when I am dealing with a dangerous criminal element.
I hope that makes my stance a bit clearer, and if any of it sounds like I’m being snippy or rude, I again assure you, that absolutely is not my intention. I’m just talking to you like I would talk to you if you were here with me, talking face to face.
ENM,
I was thinking about the whole using a handle tonight. It is quite common for radio personalities to use an on-air name. It doesn’t mean they are hiding or being a coward but rather protecting themselves and their family. When my dad was a DJ he didn’t use always his real name and he certainly didn’t use my name.
DH