homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.74.67
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Community Building and User Generated Content
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: rogerd

Community Building and User Generated Content Forum

This 43 message thread spans 2 pages: 43 ( [1] 2 > >     
State looking to ban Anonymous Forum Postings
Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal
Demaestro




msg:3596594
 6:57 pm on Mar 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Source:
[wtvq.com...]


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.

I really hope this falls on it's face. I can see the benefits of it however making it work and the steps to do so are what really have me worried.

Once they provide we must ensure that user's are registered before allowing them to post, the next step will be make sure we validate the user. I don't know how they think making someone create an account with some fake name will make postings less anonymous.

Mickey Mouse posted....
Good thing I had signed up for this account so you know who wrote this.

 

LifeinAsia




msg:3596621
 7:18 pm on Mar 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.

Oh, ya think?!

maximillianos




msg:3596836
 9:57 pm on Mar 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

There is 2 sides to every coin. Do they really think posting full names is going to cut down on bullying? It will probably increase stalking and real crimes as folks will now be able to actually find the person they are pissed at...

Plus, the logistics behind requiring every website to validate a person's identity is nearly impossible to ensure accuracy, at least in a reasonable scenario that scales to the size of a site like eBay for instance.

This is not the first time this was tried. It does not stand a chance...

Duskrider




msg:3596851
 10:16 pm on Mar 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

*sigh*

Time to go find out how to specifically ban IP ranges that come from Kentucky...

Swanny007




msg:3596893
 11:08 pm on Mar 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

The government is trying to weasel their way into too much on the Internet. C'mon! There should be less regulations, not more!

bill




msg:3597206
 8:31 am on Mar 11, 2008 (gmt 0)

They tried the same thing in China in 2006 [webmasterworld.com]. Guess what happened? They had to give up on enforcement. There were too many loopholes to get around the requirements, like posting outside China, etc. Also the Chinese Internet users weren't going to have any of it. They complained heavily.

How would KY succeed where China, with all of its state sponsored censorship systems in place, failed?

sonjay




msg:3597343
 12:06 pm on Mar 11, 2008 (gmt 0)

Bill, my first reaction to this news was "geez, that sounds like something they'd do in China!" I didn't know China had already tried it.

I'm glad to hear that even China failed when they tried it.

Practical considerations aside, it's unbelievable that a state legislator would be unaware of the United States' illustrious history of anonymous postings. I guess Rep. Tim Couch has never heard of a fellow called "publius."

httpwebwitch




msg:3599747
 5:49 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

silly politician making meaningless noise.

Does this bill apply to websites operated in Kentucky, or websites accessed and viewed by users from Kentucky?

4string




msg:3599759
 6:04 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

This would be a dream come true for marketers and spam. Think of the data mining possibilities matching real names to everything you do.

WiseWebDude




msg:3599784
 6:26 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

He really looks foolish making a silly bill like that. I REFUSE to allow personal info on ANY of my sites and remove it if they do and ban them if they do it again. It is TOO dangerous! Imagine...kids would have to as well? Boy, the pervs would LOVE that too! DURR! I mean that is a big, big DURRR. LOL.

-- signed, Bugs Bunny

bwnbwn




msg:3599785
 6:27 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just a bunch of political garbage no way it will ever work just another waste of time and money. Most likely spent 10k just in writing the thing up.

Hmm I wonder I have a google blog and the post are on my server and the comments comments are really on google's server and not on my server so really I am not hosting the comments Google is so I wonder who is responsible for the post me or Google?

FourDegreez




msg:3599793
 6:51 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Reminds me of New Jersey seeking to regulate dating sites. Except that law actually passed.

It makes no sense for individual states to pass laws like this. I hope we aren't seeing the start of a trend.

koan




msg:3599809
 7:00 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

So the point is to simply not host with a company in Kentucky?

I believe it's Drew Curtis of the Fark fame (who lives in Kentucky) that simply said the politician was being a d**chebag, in response to a journalist question.

jsinger




msg:3599810
 7:05 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

No more "client #9" stuff

Korea wouldn't try this. Heard that 20% of the people have the family name of Park.

LifeinAsia




msg:3599821
 7:15 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Korea wouldn't try this.

You got that right. You should have seen the chaos (and carnage) about 15 years ago when the government decided to go to a real-name system for all financial transactions.

I mean, come on- how dare the governemnt make people use their real names on bank accounts! Don't they know how difficult that makes it for people to hide millions of dollars?

Heard that 20% of the people have the family name of Park.

Nope- there are about 6 times as many Kims as Parks (Kims make up around 25-30% of the population).

But getting back on topic, a lot of Korean sites require (or used to require) registration with the person's Korean ID number. I believe it is/was mostly for e-commerce sites, but some community sites required it as well. So even if a person didn't use their real name as their screen name, it could still be traced back to a real person. (Unless that person used someone else's ID number to register.)

[edited by: LifeinAsia at 7:21 pm (utc) on Mar. 13, 2008]

cocacolafun




msg:3599827
 7:16 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Posts in most forums are not anonymous.

I think what they mean by anonymous is for the webmaster to not save any information about the user.

In my case, I always save a timestamp and the IP address.

incrediBILL




msg:3599835
 7:22 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just use a proxy site from a foreign country and you're still anonymous and way out of their jurisdiction.

Besides, this so-called bill is unconstitutional and will never fly.

solidcore




msg:3599874
 7:59 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

this bill would not work unless ISP offered a way for web operators to check the identity of the users and all proxies were made illegal to use.

Clark




msg:3599886
 8:05 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Now I know why they call it KY Jelly!

[edited by: Clark at 8:05 pm (utc) on Mar. 13, 2008]

cmarshall




msg:3599900
 8:17 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Oh, Kewl! This way, I can force all those Polish and Romanian comment spammers to give me their mailing addresses and full names, instead of "pndxtr".

trinorthlighting




msg:3599921
 8:49 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

That sounds like the law that is attempting to be passed in New York forcing all internet retailers to collect sales taxes for all New York customer. Of course, the governer who was pushing that law has resigned.

ember




msg:3599927
 8:53 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

The government is telling us what kind of TV to watch starting in 2/09 and what kind of lightbulbs we will have to buy. Government regulation is getting out of hand.

bwnbwn




msg:3599937
 9:01 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

"Of course, the governer who was pushing that law has resigned."
I guess he needed the extra tax revenue for the "extra activity"

swa66




msg:3599970
 9:37 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

If they can provide a world-wide system where I can authenticate users, against a government guarantee the ID is known, unique and non-reputable, I'm all for having this.

It'll cut down my anti-spam effort by a lot.

cmendla




msg:3599980
 9:48 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Somebody needs to buy Representative Slouch... er Couch a globe and point out the 90% of it is NOT the United states and 99% of it is not Kentucky.

What is he going to do, try to penalize sites with .pl .uk .ru and other TLDs.? I thought the Luddites disappeared prior to the end of the 19th century.. He probably wrote the bill on his Selectric.

henry0




msg:3600003
 10:19 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

Not to mention site-owner that does not have the knowledge (or cash at hand) to mod its reg system
Furthermore how many will know how to verify an ID is a real one… more conn to gov central DBs and as a direct result more chances of hacking in the DBs

walkman




msg:3600065
 11:57 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)

not really the state, more of a (comment withheld) small time lawmaker. Just defending this in court would cost them millions (loser pays I belive in these cases.)

beavis




msg:3600090
 12:27 am on Mar 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

This dude must just now be getting his first Radio Shack TRS-80. Hasn't he heard of the time-honored tradition of the fake name for online registrations?

trinorthlighting




msg:3600165
 2:22 am on Mar 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

It is still in the tax bill that is in the process of being passed. Amazon has already geared up for the fight. This issue is similar and I am suprised some messageboards or very large social websites are not gearing up for a fight for this as well.

Stalking and harassment are one issue where laws cover issues like that, but freedom of speech is also a right of every American.

skibum




msg:3600203
 3:28 am on Mar 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Could it be a well financed social networking site looking doing a little lobbying to raise the legal bar to make it harder for other sites to get started?

This 43 message thread spans 2 pages: 43 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Community Building and User Generated Content
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved