

Rhode Island Says Police Can Decloak Anonymous People Online - jsherry
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/12050914769/rhode-island-says-police-can-decloak-anonymous-people-online-if-they-find-them-offensive.shtml

======
e40
_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.

~~~
sorbus
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.

~~~
Unseelie
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.

~~~
e40
That was my point. Thanks for stepping and clarifying.

~~~
sorbus
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.

------
keltex
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.

------
d0ne
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Political_speech)

[2] [http://news.cnet.com/FTC-settles-online-false-advertising-
ca...](http://news.cnet.com/FTC-settles-online-false-advertising-
cases/2100-1017_3-239828.html)

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

[4]
[http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentid=34&itemid=377...](http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentid=34&itemid=3772)

------
VladRussian
>"administrative subpoena"

trickling down of "national security letter" concept.

------
pasbesoin
Me to police: You first.

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

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

------
ltamake
That is going to be abused TO DEATH.

~~~
anamax
> 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.

