You don't need to look as far afield as Australia or the EU. Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. ———— 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:39 +1000, "Stephen Wilson" <swilson@lockstep.com.au> wrote: Oh for gods sake Rutkowski, it's a long way *further* than your bombastic assertion that "In law, there is no such network based right [to anonymity]". The Australian Privacy Act requires any private business turning over more than $3M p.a. to comply with the 10 NPPs including NPP 8 cited above. Nobody ever said privacy is unconditional. Steve Wilson. On 2/08/2011 9:32 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote: That is a long way from: Please provide a citation to a provision that conveys such a right unconditionally over electronic networks. -tony On 8/1/2011 10:14 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote: See [1]http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6 583#npp8 Australian National Privacy Principle NPP 8 "Wherever it is lawful and practicable, individuals must have the option of not identifying themselves when entering transactions with an organisation". _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community References 1. http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6583#npp8 Robin Wilton +44 (0)705 005 2931