Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Nj Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts On Forums


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,490 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:06:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 12:12 PM

This bill would require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I1.HTM
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 tg1911

tg1911

    Lord Spam Magnet


  • Members
  • 19,274 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Louisiana
  • Local time:04:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 02:03 PM

There goes, another right. :thumbsup:
MOBO: GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P, CPU: Phenom II X4 955 Deneb BE, HS/F: CoolerMaster V8, RAM: 2 x 1G Kingston HyperX DDR2 800, VGA: ECS GeForce Black GTX 560, PSU: Antec TruePower Modular 750W, Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, Case: CoolerMaster COSMOS 1000, Storage: Internal - 2 x Seagate 250GB SATA, 2 x WD 1TB SATA; External - Seagate 500GB USB, WD 640GB eSATA, 3 x WD 1TB eSATA

Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

#3 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 02:12 PM

But it's FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#4 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,734 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:05:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 02:39 PM

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is quite common already. Most BBS's require a real name and valid email address before allowing a new member to post.

My ISP certainly required a valid name and address before turning on my account.
Derfram
~~~~~~

#5 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor

  • Topic Starter

  • Global Moderator
  • 51,490 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:06:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 02:45 PM

From what Paul posted in the staff forum at CCSP, it also means that any forum owner would have to have the legal right to member information such as social security to ensure members are who they say they are.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#6 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Bleeping Diva


  • Members
  • 7,479 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)
  • Local time:05:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 02:49 PM

Social Security #? Don't like the sound of that, at all.
Posted Image

#7 boopme

boopme

    To Insanity and Beyond


  • Global Moderator
  • 73,331 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ USA
  • Local time:06:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 03:15 PM

I used to really love NJ. Now it's just becoming too liberal. It's beginning to look a lot like it's time for a tea party.
How do I get help? Who is helping me?For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear....Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

#8 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 04:15 PM

I don't see the problem. No one is forcing them to post the opinion. No one is forcing them to use these forums. What it appears to be happening is an attempt to hold the author accountable for what they post.
I do believe this is a vane effort. It takes no effort to submit false information and circumvent requirements, in the purposed law.
If you are not willing to identify yourself and allow the subject of you opinion to respond directly to you, may be you should keep your opinion to your self.
It is far to easy to slander or defame with no way to challenge such media.
I could post to a site causing problems and am never qualify my statement. Rumor are as damaging as fact is most cases, and should be challenged. The only way to challenge the truthfulness of a statement is to know who the accuser is. I have posted my opinion dozens of time in my local news paper, and everytime I was required to also publish my address. Now I had a choice to not provide my address and they had a choice not to publish my opinion. I just do not see the problem with it being a law. Especially since most see the internet as untouchable.
Thos eof you who do not think this is a problem, I have a challenge. POST the YOU are a sex offender on a local website. Wait a couple of months and come out and say it was a joke. Your reputation will be damaged beyond repair. It will not matter that you can prove you are not. You will be on lists all over the internet, and as of now have no recourse.
When you sit on the side lines or play by the rules it does not to affect you. But if you are the person harmed you will have wished there were some rule to protect you from such attacks.

IMHO
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#9 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor

  • Topic Starter

  • Global Moderator
  • 51,490 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:06:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 05:30 PM

What it appears to be happening is an attempt to hold the author accountable for what they post.

The inside political scope I heard is that the author of this bill was smeared by an anonymous poster on some website. Probably a political opponent and his bill appears to be a retaliatory response.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#10 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 06:05 PM

What it appears to be happening is an attempt to hold the author accountable for what they post.

The inside political scope I heard is that the author of this bill was smeared by an anonymous poster on some website. Probably a political opponent and his bill appears to be a retaliatory response.


Would it be a " retaliatory response", or just an effort by a law maker to prempt future attacks? He happens to be a victim. Why should a coward be able to hide behind the vale of the internet? If it is so important you indentity be consealed keep your mouth, and computer connection closed.
quiteman7 help me out here. Quote exactly what rights the accused have to comfront the accuser. It's not a legal proceeding, but if it were to go to court how would the injuried confront the offending party?
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#11 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor

  • Topic Starter

  • Global Moderator
  • 51,490 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:06:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:24 PM

Would it be a " retaliatory response", or just an effort by a law maker to prempt future attacks?

Not knowing anything about this particular politician its hard to say one way or the other. His action could even be a combination of both retaliation and premption.

exactly what rights the accused have to comfront the accuser...if it were to go to court how would the injuried confront the offending party

That's part of the problem. The victim could not seek damages for libel without naming an offender that would be subject to prosecution. To complicate the case further would be the matter of establishing jurisdiction since the alleged offense is talking place on a web site.

Further, the courts have ruled that there is a much higher standard for public figures seeking redress of grievances through litigation since negative statements about them are generally protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. That's why political activists and campaigns can engage in smear tactics and misinformation against an opponent. The courts consider all this as political discourse.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#12 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:48 AM

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:42 PM

Further, the courts have ruled that there is a much higher standard for public figures seeking redress of grievances through litigation since negative statements about them are generally protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. That's why political activists and campaigns can engage in smear tactics and misinformation against an opponent. The courts consider all this as political discourse.


Lets ratchet it back abit. What about the common person who has no political exposer. A child logs in and accuses a teacher of molesting her. Once a teacher is accused that person could have a career destroyed, even if you could proved he never commited the act. That was an example. Fill in the blanks with accused and accuser.
"The courts consider all this as political discourse". Discourse or not a lie is a lie. No one should be allowed to tell untruthful information about anyone.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#13 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:01:48 PM

Posted 08 March 2006 - 07:03 AM

I agree! From the NJ.com board:

thief, plain and simple,

That's what we get for voting Republican.

and other more colorful comments that aren't fit for a family site, can't be allowed! Just because the guy stole $5000 of public money to pay for his dry cleaning shouldn't stop him from suing for punitive damages and attorney's fees when somebody starts to publicly speculate as to his personal habits and possible ancestry.

Or that the chief of police spends two hours of his on duty time in the department gym isn't a topic fit for public discussion either.

Edited by Mr Alpha, 08 March 2006 - 07:05 AM.

"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#14 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor

  • Topic Starter

  • Global Moderator
  • 51,490 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:06:48 AM

Posted 08 March 2006 - 07:13 AM

Lets ratchet it back abit. What about the common person who has no political exposer.

That's a different scenario altogether since it does not involve political discourse and there is recourse for litigation if the offending party can be identified. The bill would seem to make that identification possible. However, the matter of jurisdiction would still need to be established before proceeding with prosecution.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#15 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:48 AM

Posted 08 March 2006 - 08:28 AM

The jurisdiction issue has been worked out by every state. There is not a state that has not successfully prosecuted persons for crimes against juveniles on the internet. That may have been an issue several years back but I do not see the problem today. If it was a problem that should not stop law enforcement from attempting to establish a proceedure to stop the offenders.
Why should the internet be left untouchable where in other part of our life it would not be tolorated.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users