Rhode Island Says Police Can Decloak Anonymous People Online If They Find Them Offensive
from the anonymity-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment dept
We've been noticing a trend of various states attempting to pass laws against being a jerk online -- with a particular distaste for anonymous jerks. But it seems that Rhode Island is taking it to new levels. Via Copycense, we learn that Rhode Island is pushing forward with a broadly written law (for the children, of course!), which would let police get names and other identifying information from service providers for online speech that they find to be "offensive" or harassing, without requiring that it go through a judge for a warrant first. Technically, the bill allows for law enforcement to issue an "administrative subpoena" on such issues, rather than having to get a judge-approved warrant. While much of the bill is targeted at uncovering those involved in child porn, it uses that fact to mask the broad powers this gives to law enforcement to uncover who's behind all kinds of anonymous speech, without any consideration for the First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. This kind of law seems ripe for abuse by law enforcement, and the ACLU notes that Rhode Island law enforcement has already been known to seek this kind of info under questionable reasons:Fears about the scope of this bill are not exaggerated. In the past year, there have been two highly publicized incidents of police seeking to track down the posters of comments posted online about political figures. Last fall, the Rhode Island ACLU called on Narragansett's Police Chief to drop criminal �cyberstalking� charges lodged against two town residents in separate incidents. Under this bill, police could unilaterally issue subpoenas to obtain the information.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, free speech, offensive, rhode island
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Two can play...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Real classy.
You really are one gigantic, hypocritical douchebag, aren't you Masnick?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Private entities can stifle speech they host. The Government, on the other hand, is bound by the First Amendment.
This ios why you can be permabanned from forums, such as RPGNet, without them being liable to First Amendment issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here's a simple 3 step process on how to avoid all this:
1) Sell your soul to Satan
2) Apply to become a police officer
3) promise you will arrest innocent people for random reasons
And there you have it. With those 3 simple steps, you can make your life so much more pleasant. Sure you'll be hated by everyone, but your govt will love you, give you promotions and raises. How can you lose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
5) Profit !!111
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I find your lack of imagination disturbing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
these guys are so clueless....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
who me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Real classy.
You really are one gigantic, hypocritical douchebag, aren't you Masnick?"
Everyone else let you off way too light on this one.
Listen douchetard. The first amendment speech protections apply to the GOVERNMENT not being able to restrict (or create a law that does) your speech. When you go to a privately owned place, say a club or restaurant or a blog where you can leave comments, there is no such obligation. Sorry, thats just how it is. Dont like it? Go away then, or go to another country that has a first amendment-like protections on speech in private places. Oh thats right, there isnt any. Tough shit for you then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just goes to show..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Firstt Amendment Anonymity
In fact, laws banning investigation and "outing" should themselves be unconstitutional under the first amendment. You have the right to try to be anonymous, but everyone else has the right to try to find out who you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I believe you're confused. First, as a private site, I am free to do what I want concerning those issues. The First Amendment only concerns governments compelling people to reveal such info.
Second, I have not dropped any pretension about anonymity. Odd that you claim it's "Buck Lateral," because the comment you're talking about yesterday was done by someone who did not use that name. And, yet, it appears that you were able to figure out who posted it without viewing the information or the IP address... just like everyone else.
Here's a hint: if everyone can figure out that someone is the same person by their choice of words, saying who that person is is not revealing any private information.
Finally, I did not, in any way, threaten to drop his anonymity or reveal his identity or employment. He's the one who's been bragging about his own employment, and I have no idea who he works for anyway.
What I did do was note that he said he doesn't believe encryption should be legal for anything other than logins and financial data, so he seemed to be giving permission to unsalt the hash on his IP address, since he didn't think it should be legal to encrypt it. I'm not going to do that, of course, because I do respect his privacy. I was just pointing out, by way of example, one more way in which he might appreciate encryption.
I would think that if you could put two separate concepts together in your head at one time, you might be able to recognize that this was not a threat to reveal anything, but a demonstration of why he was wrong.
Thinking: it's not so hard once you try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just goes to show..
From "The Brotherhood of Biochemistry: Its Implications for a Police Career," by Kevin M. Gilmartin, Ph.D., Published in Understanding Human Behavior for Effective Police Work, H.E. Russell and A. Beigel, Third Edition, 1990, Basic Books, Inc., New York
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Two can play...
Agreed. 7 billion of us and 1 million of them. Eventually someone will create a wikileaks style directory of PII and their actions for oppressive law enforcement types and politicians. We already see this exposing of peoples id's for the lutz, from Anonymous and Lutzsec. What would happen if the estimated million Anonymous types actually got it into their collective heads to do this to lobbyists, politicians, three letter law enforcement types, **AA, and corporate heads? What if they also added all the wrongs these people have committed?
It would be a true nightmare for those exposed of wrong doing and on the receiving end. And if they have nothing to hide ... then they shouldn't be worried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: who me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just goes to show..
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
She ran to her trashy forum and ranted that I "outed" "her" IP # (and that I "threatened" her, thus informing me that what I suspected was true - it was her making the post.
It was an IP from a proxy out of China.
You trolls really need to learn a simple lesson my 3rd grade teacher taught me: Think before you speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Two can play...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pig F**king
[ link to this | view in thread ]
demonocracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will all that be outlawed?
Proxies, VPN's and other things that can not be controlled by that jurisdiction will need to be outlawed?
Will they force people to register first to use any service?
I don't see how that law can be reasonably enforced outside a police state(i.e. like Iran and China and even then it would be difficult).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Police Chief
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Filming cops
The other side was it would make us look bad. You will look bad if you are acting like a jerk and abusing your position.
There have been a number of cases the cop was absolved of charges against them because the video showed how big of a jerk the person the cop was trying to arrest was acting.
My take is if the reason you get warrants from an outside party is the second opinion that stops bad cops. It also stops lazy cops that get the feeling the rules don't apply to them. Most little rules don't apply to them like speeding so that list for some cops gets longer and longer.
On the free speech that only applies to Government and political speech. You are not free to stand in your neighborhood at 2 AM or really any other time and scream at the top of your lungs for hours or scream Fire in a theater.
If you come in my house and I don't care for your conversation I can kick you out. This or any other private site can do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Filming cops
The other side was it would make us look bad. You will look bad if you are acting like a jerk and abusing your position.
There have been a number of cases the cop was absolved of charges against them because the video showed how big of a jerk the person the cop was trying to arrest was acting.
My take is if the reason you get warrants from an outside party is the second opinion that stops bad cops. It also stops lazy cops that get the feeling the rules don't apply to them. Most little rules don't apply to them like speeding so that list for some cops gets longer and longer.
On the free speech that only applies to Government and political speech. You are not free to stand in your neighborhood at 2 AM or really any other time and scream at the top of your lungs for hours or scream Fire in a theater.
If you come in my house and I don't care for your conversation I can kick you out. This or any other private site can do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm a frayed knot :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]