Rann’s sledgehammer too big for online nuts

Eno says:

05:58pm | 02/02/10

LOL! I too operate under a “false” name - but only the one of them so I can talk to people I know from this forum.. I feel sorry for the people that feel that saying the same things 17 times under the same name feel they have a life..

..we won’t mention the paid offsiders in this thread though shall we??

notmyrealname says:

05:59pm | 02/02/10

This law is a real disgrace. Will they next require that you have a license to setup a blog or webpage? Maybe they should actually harness this new technology, like asking for anonymous comments on policy ideas.

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:14pm | 02/02/10

ALP Staffers, Liberal Party Staffers, National Civic Council campaigners, astroturfers for big business, you find them all here at the Punch. I credit australians with a high ability to detect “a spiel” to use bush jargon, when they hear one. Of course, with the kind of crap coming from both party leaders, this is pretty much all the time.

Bob says:

06:15pm | 02/02/10

Michael Atkinson puts small furry animals up his backside.

Go on Michael, come and get me.

The stupidity of this is that none of these real names and postcodes can be verified and it is a simple task to spoof IP addresses or go via a proxy. Unenforceable legislation that displays the governments total ignorance of technology as well as civil rights.

Eric says:

06:38pm | 02/02/10

One of the main problems with commenting on The Punch as it exists now, is that there is no software to verify identity. Any commenter can choose to appear under any screen name, and the only way to discern impostors is by IP address - which is only available to moderators, and even then only if they take the time to check. Even that can be spoofed.

Consequently, commenter identities can be tampered with. That’s one of the reasons I don’t use my real name. If I did, it would be trivial for an enemy to post a comment designed to discredit me, by falsifying my name. I’ve seen this happen before.

One way to mitigate this problem is to provide user accounts, which are unique and consistent. That’s pretty common on many websites, and doesn’t violate anonymity. It doesn’t fix all the problems, but it does help.

V says:

06:57pm | 02/02/10

I think the manifesto at this website elegantly explains why we must protect anonymous speech. http://www.zerohedge.com/about

Particularly this bit:
“like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn’t.”

Roy Crabb says:

08:09pm | 02/02/10

It seems that a certain opposition party’s supporters are the ones who are the most calling foul.  But then they are the ones who like to hide behind a false name, to gutless to use their own.  Newspapers have required true names during elections, whats the diference?

Lynda Dingle says:

08:34pm | 02/02/10

PS. I should have added that although Michael Atkinson refers to the AdelaideNow website as ‘just a sewer…......” he contributes to the site on a regular basis. Implication by association? Well, we are all in this sewer together, it’s just that some are more on the nose than others!!??

Steve Smith, 2100 says:

08:42pm | 02/02/10

In the whole scheme of things Bill-Roger-Judith-Connie is not worth the bother. A moderator for each blog/website should more than suffice for the obvious reasons you have mentioned.

Apart from the obvious censorship issues, what about the waste of time in enforcing this law? Will we have people analysing data from The Punch etc, to confirm that S.Smith who wrote: “The Rann Government are wasting time and resources” at 2:40pm, postcode matches his IP address? As long as it does, can J.Smith say what he likes? And Internet is not confined to a state, what if S.Smith lives in 2100? What a waste of time!

I really should mention the tens of thousands tweets and facebook status updates that happen every hour that dwarf the daily activity of online sites as mentioned in the article, but that’s too obvious.

fluffy (aka you guess ) says:

08:59pm | 02/02/10

i just couldnt be bothered changing my ip anymore…. although that too isnt too hard.. just cant be bovered. ( why does six seconds take so long? )

i know im only semi anonymous..  at best.. but no way im ever going to give out my personal details to every website i get the urge to post comment on.

its the spontaneous anonymity.. youll be called a retard faster on line.. than you could ever hope for in real life in the pub.. people are rude crude and to the point.. 

without social consequences, such as a punch in the nose.. people say what they really feel..

for better or worse.. i wouldnt have it any other way..

if the attorney general cant handle the heat.. GTFO teh kitchen n00b!

Robert Smissen says:

09:06pm | 02/02/10

I’d like to see the “honorable” Mr. Atkinson back up some of his outrageous claims. His claim that “Adelaide Now website is a “Sewer of criminal defamation” could stand some examination, after all he himself is not above posting himself. Also Adelaide Now edits the comments, so surely they would allow any defamatory comments to be published would they? ?

Bob ( not my real name) says:

10:34pm | 02/02/10

It’s a disgrace . I might “know a teacher” who is employed by the SA Government and therefore who is bound by clauses that gag him/her except if spoken behind an Education Union position or medium. This person has nowhere to go to express free speech really under these circumstances. It is not as if the SA Government does much but fight and burden the rank and file teacher, and who will be able to voice dissent from poor, undemocratically developed policy?

Five Foot Nothing says:

11:28pm | 02/02/10

The South Australian government have forgotten one tiny flaw in their quest for internet censorship - people can still fake their postcodes!

Nick says:

01:32am | 03/02/10

They’ve apparently backed down.

Now if Conroy would do the same, and apologise for being an idiot, I might reconsider my vote.

Davy says:

03:22am | 03/02/10

It intrigues me why you think that a bald bloke with socks and sandals, who lives with his mum, would be on the side of no climate change. Doesnt sound like the sort of guy who works for big oil or coal.
A very interesting attempt to discredit followers of climate scepticism.
Surely if you search a little you will be able to spot the opposite, somebody who sends in multiple entries about how the world is going to burn and we will all be sucked into the firy pit of environmental eternal condemnation as our children are scorched by the toxic fumes like CO2.

Let me guess….This guy will be wearing a long white robe made of hemp fibre (might as well use the whole plant). He wont be wearing any sandals because he doesnt quite know what to make them from. (cant use oil products or animal products).
He will live with his 5 wives and 17 children on a multiple occupancy at Nimbin. All paid for of course by centrelink.
The only way he will post is on the centrelink computer on the day he collects his dole check from Lismore. This is how you will find him as all his posts will be on the same day and within 1 hr of each other.

Craig Lambie says:

08:02am | 03/02/10

Although I don’t really care who people are, I often read posts by the same people across several different Punch posts, and I appreciate the intelligence of some posters over other more ranty types.
The only real way to determine which posts are genuine would be to publish the IP address of people, that way we can all see if the ID of the person is the same or not.
Another option might be to have people vote on comments, like on Facebook; Like… and maybe dislike.  It is quite common on a few sites I read (not blogs) and it then puts the comments highest ranked at the top, which would be nice, as I like to read comments, but when there is more than 4-5 I often skip over them all, as unimportant…

So my challenge to Punch, is to make your comments system a little more democratic.

Bob says:

08:21am | 03/02/10

All this crap about fake emails and using fake names is just that crap If you want do do that its just as simple as displaying a fake ip so simple to do. When the news sites wont post a political comment just send it to the minister I do that often no big deal we are entilted to go the sorce and bypass the media if you want if you have something to say and the news sites wont post it sent it to the minister

Liz, yes my real name! says:

08:39am | 03/02/10

Atkinson is a dead loss but we know him.You just can’t make those assumptions about anonymous posters, all your prejudices are showing mate!
We supposedly have democracy in this country and can go straight to the Minister which I often do.Our pollies are more accessible than any in the world.If you want something fixed don’t whinge and moan go straight to whoever can fix it.
Censorship is always a thorny one but Atkinson is out of line.

Ben says:

08:39am | 03/02/10

Does it really matter if people use false names, nom de plume, or pseudonym? There is obviously a fairly longstanding history of their use and it would seem that the ideas are the important things to get at.
It seems that many want to verify identity so that they can ‘pidgeon hole’ the author and dismiss their ideas on the basis of that person’s alleged ‘bias’.

This is typical of the relativist world we live in where the person is more important than the idea. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to many people that everyone has live experiences and beliefs that consciously or sub-consciously influence their intellectual responses. Does this mean that these ideas should immediately dismissed? Obviously not.

For instance, personally I find the posts of the ‘eric’ to be mind boggling repetitive, mostly disagreeable and entirely counter productive to the cause he so passiontely espouses, but there is no denying that he gets me thinking about even if only to mutter to myself about what a lunatic he is!

However, it would be equally undesirable if people started posting under the pseudonym of a certain mustachioed Australian corporal and teutonic political leader or other similarly offensive poses which serve no subtantive purpose.

The solution is simply for the administrators of blogs to be vigilant in blocking posts which on balance do not further the discussion.

Paul says:

09:05am | 03/02/10

@eric you still banging on about the harmlessness of a piece of sedition legislation that has blood all over the origins of it in Victorian England? The acid test is:  Howard bothering to meddle with an ancient obscure piece of sedition legislation - for no particular reason - (and Labor supporting it by default) -is the intention pro or anti- freespeech? And precisely how does Howard modified Sedition legislation benefit a modern 21st century democracy Eric?  Also, someone needs to tell Chairman Rann that George Orwell’s 1984 book was supposed to be fiction not a documentary.

E says:

10:18am | 03/02/10

It would be interesting to get a list of names from the same IP, so we could piece together the spin matrix, can the Punch provide this service? Obviously keep the IP’s anonymous, but group the names which share the same one.

E is my real name, really, it is.

Grant says:

10:29am | 03/02/10

I am glad hat the Punch has taken an interest in this long developing issue of censorship in Australia.

This particular restriction is a subversive form of censorship parading as a way to keep people honest. 

The Rann Labor Government has crossed the line of what is considered a unviersal right to free specch in a western democracy, it represents an intolerable restriction on freedom of expression; and we simply cannot accept the censorship of the free exchange of ideas.

Some people will feel uncomfortable posting political comments as they might work in the public service or political sphere, or in an area where political opinion is sensitive or do not want people at their workplace knowing their political persuasions.

And even to the extent where a person might be concerned about another person taking offence with their point of view and easily using their full name and postcode to obtain an address from google.

Anonymity allows people to post their true opinions on an issue without fear of reprisal.

The State Labor Rann Government and in particular SA Attorney General Micahael Atkinson has sought to censor political comment, and also passed legislation on the censorship of covers on R18 movies in video stores by blacking them out.  In addition, rejecting an R18 rating scheme for interactive media (computer games).

sam says:

11:02am | 03/02/10

You could require that commenters confirm their email address through a link (can be bypassed by setting up more email accounts but would make it a pain in the ass), or force registration before commenting (# of comments would decrease), or publish the IP address like wikipedia does (again, it can be circumvented but it makes it a pain in the ass).
Or the voting on comment quality by other users is a good idea too.

Trude says:

11:12am | 03/02/10

The sad thing is that Atkinson like all of those who can’t handle criticism (many politicians in this group) is missing out on a great tool to get a feel for how the public actually think.

Yes there are trolls making comments, but they are few. Atkinson and other politicians could be using this tool to guide them on where ‘Jo Public’ wants them to go, instead Atkinson has taken insult at comments and tried to dictate to everyone just so he could get revenge on the few who hurt his feelings.

The safety of innocent people could’ve been endangered, such as victims of crime who are now silent voters, giving their real name and postcode could’ve helped their abusers find them. And of course the weirdos who insist that everyone else should think as they do would’ve been able to track down those who don’t think the same as them and harass or even harm them.

Personally after seeing this irresponsible, petty, mean, dictatoral behaviour I would like Mr Atkinson to stand down from his position. He is not mature or balanced enough to hold such a responsible position.

Mark says:

11:13am | 03/02/10

I have to agree with Lej - I love tinned asparagus!

Jay says:

11:43am | 03/02/10

Why cant part of the IP just be displayed to avoid mutliple fake users? Although you can get IP hiding programs out anyway but these can usually be detected as fake anyway….there are several democratic alternatives to what the government proposed

Don says:

12:29pm | 03/02/10

Erratum:  The Punch did in fact recognise the SA AGs change - though no readers appeared to note the update.

mike j says:

12:36pm | 03/02/10

Sockpuppets are nothing new to the internet, and nor are they particularly concerning in anonymous blogs, which always have a biased response sample anyway. If someone wants to waste their time spreading their message over a dozen posts, let them… it’s not going to make their opinion any more valid, or me any more inclined to agree with them.

NotMichaelAtkinson says:

01:57pm | 03/02/10

Pseudonyms are part of the cultural fabric of the internet and have been used since day dot.  Using your real name can open you up to phishing and other security attacks was well as data mining from advertising companies.

john says:

01:59pm | 03/02/10

Whats interesting is that the ferocity in which the media attacked SA labor over these new laws yet the majority of the major press in Australia have ignored Kevin Rudds internet censorship laws which are a far worse.

Seth Brundle says:

02:16pm | 03/02/10

Does anyone really think that comments posted on pages liike this are actually taken seriously by anyone?  Are they afraid the election results could be changed because “Ben Dover” posted lots of negative remarks?  It’s just entertainment.

Eric says:

03:31pm | 03/02/10

Paul, please name those people who have been prosecuted under this amendment to sedition legislation. Provide links to the details.

You can’t, can you?

That’s the acid test, and you fail it.

Brendan says:

03:53pm | 03/02/10

I find it very worrying that Atkinson admits to searching the electoral roll for the supposed non existant blogger. Why did he do that? Someone was critical of him so he goes searching for him? This is very threatening behaviour from an Attorney General. The fact that his search was completely half arsed and incompetent is a telling point but his lack off success lead directly to his reasoning for this legislation.

This S.A. government is addicted to the taxpayer funded defamation lawsuit and the fear that brings to the average punter. Who is likely to blog/write anything even remotely defamatory or critical of these asshats if they legally force any writer/commentator to identify themselves.

Jay says:

10:41pm | 03/02/10

I hope the Federal government is paying attention.  They are trying to slip in some sort of expandable censorship mechanism under the guise of “protecting the children”.  But the suspicion is they they really want get something in place “just in case”.  Their Labor colleague has basically let the cat out of the bag.  Should we trust the Federal Government any more than a state Labor government?

Cameron Price-Austin says:

12:20pm | 04/02/10

It essentially comes down to privacy. If I were to post a pro-choice comment on an abortion piece with my name and postcode, I’m leaving myself vulnerable to every nut job armed with a white pages and a firebomb.

Davido says:

11:40pm | 04/02/10

Firstly, I am against censorship and generally supportive of retaining privacy.

Secondly, there is no right to privacy under OZ law. That is black and white law. There IS a derivative (i.e. implied) right to a freedom of political communication. But I would not be putting your mortgage on a court protecting that right.

The Vic Human Rights charter will hopefully help protect your privacy from the acts of the government and its’ various bodies. Unfortunately that is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

Finally, most of the arguments others make above are valuable: YET, I do not think you should be allowed to make ANY comments and hide behind another identity.

For instance, should we allow people to defame and damage the lives of others simply so they can cower behind a shield of anonymity?

Should someone be able to make terrible statements using an identity that could be confused with yours?

Of course not. Unlimited anonymity would allow child molesters and the like to use the internet as their candy stores.

Rod Freeman says:

02:51pm | 05/02/10

So what, big deal if people have to put their name to their own words. Anonymous comments aren’t worth a pinch of salt. Those that think we have “free” speech in Australia after that Fredrick Toben matter are fooling themselves.

Unfortunately we have ‘conditional’ speech in Australia.
You may speak, but only on the condition you don’t offend anyone.

Free speech would the freedom for Winston to say 2+2=4

“It’s a funny thing about free speech: It can’t be just for your political friends. If freedom means anything, it is the one valuable gift you have to give to your worst enemies, in order to keep it for yourself.” Douglas Christie

Rod Freeman

Jason says:

12:28pm | 06/02/10

I was asked by the Punch (after my first post) to use my real name and obliged.  Probably the only place online I would do that, but it seems well moderated and has some of the most entertaining discussions I’ve found.  It’s fun, and it’s stimulating and it gives lots of people a voice in a well read forum…(no I don’t work for the Punch)

I do believe there is no shortage of “PR professionals” posting on popular news and blog sites, attempting to sway the public perception of issues by posing as the general population, but there are also plenty of pretty smart people with strong convictions who argue for what they believe without monetary or political reward.  Spend long enough reading the blogs and you figure out who is who.