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 http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6583#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
 
Robin Wilton
+44 (0)705 005 2931