Discourse.net

Unfortunately, due to technical reasons, Concurring Opinions is unfriendly to anonymous comments.

Specifically, comments there require appear to require javascript. (They may also require cookies—not sure on exact details.) As I expect you're aware, enabling javascript is a significant threat to anonymity.

I'd encourage you to just boycott any discussion of online anonymity at Concurring Opinions. They're entitled to lock anonymous contributors out of their one-sided discussion, but please don't lend them your reputation. That venue doesn't deserve serious consideration.

I don't think comments here are all that anonymous either. My blog software logs your IP number, and I'm sure Dreamhost keeps extensive logs too. I don't think of this as an app that would justify the extra cost to find a host that didn't...

I don't think comments here are all that anonymous either.

But your blog doesn't throw technical roadblocks in front of people.

I wouldn't go so far as say that Solove & Co. are knowingly cooperating with repressive regimes. But Solove & Co. are actually aiding evil regimes.

You're not.

There's a slight moral difference.

michael-
Did you see slashdot article today discussing federal sentencing guidelines amplified by 25% where computer crime committed using anonymous proxy? Opinion? Why is this happening under Obama? I thought he was supposed to be tech literate?

Isn't the Sentencing Commission an independent agency? In which case it's unlikely Obama has had a chance to appoint anyone to it yet.

Judges that I've met -- especially the older ones -- often seem irrationally afraid of or angry at "hackers". This seems to feed on that attitude.

Of course one way to interpret the recommendation is the government's recognition that proxies serve a valuable public purpose, and their abuse by criminal actors is especially heinous. Ha, ha, yeah right.

Being Anonymous is a bit.. ch.