In a stunning but obviously not unprecedented example of politicians not having anything resembling a clue regarding the value of new technologies and the way that they function, a bill has been proposed in New Jersey that would require all open forums on the whole (frickin'!) internet to demand ID from everybody, you know, to keep tabs on who's saying what. Is this 1984 knocking at our door, or just tech-phobia taken to a ludicrous extreme? Maybe a bit of both.
Derek Slater posts at the EFF Site
A proposed New Jersey bill would eliminate online anonymous speech by requiring every Internet service provider, blog, and website that allows reader comments or provides open forums to demand user identification from every participant. Assemblyman Peter Biondi's A1327 would also require that service providers record your "legal name," and reveal your identity to anyone claiming to have been defamed, on pain of crippling liability. A similar bill, A2623, sponsored by Assemblymen Wilfredo Caraballo and Upendra J. Chivukula, would require ISPs to disclose user identities, as well as allow anyone to demand removal of published content, based on a mere defamation allegation. Not only are these bills bad policy, but they're also clearly prevented by the New Jersey and US Constitutions as well as federal law.
That's right kids, despite that pernicious public paranoia about your getting kidnapped by some perv the second you log on to MySpace, it's for some reason important, at least to New Jersey Assembly-persons, that you have all your information made as public as possible - this bill would solve the terrible problem of anonymous journaling by making private information more readily available to not only Big Brother, but also to any spammer or psychopath that may want it. Thank god someone is there to protect us from ourselves.
How this would work out, on a practical level, has left me a little befuddled - an idea like this put in to practice would require some sort of verification process every time someone wanted to start a blog - maybe make sure to vet it with the authorities - oh, and no anonymous commenting of course. So much for democratized media! Bills like this are obviously suggested by people whose conception of the way message boards, blogs, and any other sort of online media function in general is about ziltch. It's a crappy, knee jerk reaction by politicians who are still trying to figure out where the punch-card reader is on their new computer.
Slater continues:
These new bills present "cures" that are far worse than the disease. Whistleblowers revealing corporate malfeasance, citizens complaining about political figures, assault victims seeking support groups, patients asking about controversial medical information – in these and many more instances, people need assurances that speaking online won't open them up to harassment.
So he's a little less paranoid that I am on this one, but puts it pretty succinctly - instituting this kind of law to keep people from saying mean things to each other online opens up a whole world of other potential real-life problems - and there's of course the fundemental free speech issue - when I'm walking down the street and ask someone if they're enjoying the beautiful spring weather, do I have to show them ID to make sure that everything is in order? That I am really who I claim I am? Oh, to be a fly on the wall when impractical and pointless legislation like these bills are drafted - I think it was Homer Simpson who said, "The internet? They have that on computers these days?"
