first the came? i think we re well past that.

we increasing close to "and there was no one left to speak up for me"

Just a few points on this. The only significant point is no 1. However it is already impossible to blog anonymously so is a moot point. You have to provide details to the blog hosts one of which is a legit email address and that can be shared with any number of private, public or government organisations.

No 2 is actually entirely fair and protected already in the UK by libel laws. As we have already seen roll out with several blog spats going openly and viciously legal.

The rest of the points are voluntary and unenforceable unless IPs and blog providers go along with it. Which they would not. The same applies to no 1.

You should note how long it has taken the media industry to grapple with voluntary codes of conduct over copyright infringement and they are still only partially through negotiating with governments and ISPs. If and when they succeed then you should be worried.

If this EU ruling is not enforced then it will be able to get in through the back door of the private sector's creation and use member states own laws to prosecute a blogger for any issue it sees fit.

In short: it's irrelevant.

There is a long and admirable history of political posts being made anonymously. Ben Franklin did it.

When the EU seeks to make illegal the acts of Franklin, you have a big, big problem.

>> It is the beginning of the end for freedom for bloggers <<

Which freedoms?

The freedom to blog or post anonymously?
This restriction is already in place, and by banning certain individuals you have used it.

The freedom to bar someone from replying to criticism of him on a blog?
This deserves to be curtailed.

How about big old corporations Phantom? Or do you suppose that the (mostly US) corporate media moguls chasing down individuals and passing up their details does not require a curtailment of freedoms.

Joe,

" However it is already impossible to blog anonymously so is a moot point."

Untrue. It's not impossible but it's technically difficult. So few people care to do it, just as so few people care to use cash, that it's very easy for governments to say we need to stop it in the name of TERROR! (or stopping paeodophiles).

There's a fair few systems that have been designed, e.g. Ross Anderson's 'Eternity' system is designed to be decentralised, uncensorable, anonymous and part of its design spec is to withstand attacks from governments. There was even a commercial outfit (zero knowledge systems) that sold high grade easy to use anonymity.

It shut its doors around Sep 11 as I recall.

There is a technology for digital payments that is untraceable and anonymous - essentially digital cash, and that is all you need to do a lot of interesting things.

A group called the cypherpunks pioneered most of this stuff. This is a good intro:
http://www2.pro-ns.net/~crypto/cyphernomicon.html

..written by a guy whose signature used to go like this:

Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments.

Joe

That's another, valid, issue.

I am only talking about the ability to blog anonymously on political and similar issues

This is especially relevant in areas where local political and who knows what else powers might not like people talking freely.

Like in parts of Ireland, like in parts of every country.

This is an effort to limit speech.

" Bloggers would be forced to give a right to reply to persons that are criticized in a blog post. "

There already is a right of reply, start your own blog.

Is there anyone in favour of full blogging freedom who doesn't think all slander and libel laws should be scrapped?

BTW, Frank, is it possible for a state to curtail access to certain foreign sites for users not using the kind of anonymous software you mention?
How does China do it?

'fraid that's not a right of reply, Ross.

The "right of reply" is also an attempt to limit speech, especially in political contexts - and consciously so.

If I criticize a public figure in my blog, why the hell does he have the right to my megaphone to reply? Enforcing this would entail bureaucracy and lawsuits.

There used to be similar laws in the US as respects political speech on radio and TV- the Equal Time provision or something. It resulted in very little political speech on the air at the time. It was an immense hassle, and meant that it was easier just not to deal with the issue by avoiding tough issues entirely

Unless I'm libeling or slandering someone- the government's job is to stay the hell out of this issue. They simply have no moral standing to be involved.

Let everyone speak, as they choose - subject to the laws of libel and slander, and harassment. If you're not doing one of those three bad things, the government has no right to even begin a discussion on this.

well the internet/blogging is getting powerful if its scaring these guys.
Power to the People

It is getting powerful indeed. This is not an attempt to curtail abuse, it is an attempt to control. Take this threat seriously. Someone with kind, rational sounding words could take away significant freedoms when few are looking.

And sites like this, Balrog and Gates of Vienna will be the first to suffer the consequences.

Fight this and fight it hard.

"Making it impossible to blog anonymously, and making significant bloggers declare their interests."

Great. Some psycho dosn't like what you post (despite, so-called free speech) they can hunt you down and "ahem" terminate you.

"Bloggers should be pressed to voluntarily publish their “aims and background.”"

1) BACKGROUND ........Msg. U.S.M.C. sniper

2) AIM:...............Between the eyes!

Phantom, re Franklin, also the Federalists Papers were published anon. by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. They were the political bloggers of their day. This is a very good example why we declared Independence in 1776.

Thats the last thing the EU wants- more Hamiltons or Jeffersons or Franklins declaring independence from Brussels

This is an attempt to curtail free speech and you people better start fighting for your freedom. These bureaucrats are steadily putting up the sides of the pen while you placidly eat the "free" social programs they dish up. Wake up!

The serious European bloggers won't be stopped, they'll just start hosting at American domains. I've already had two approach me with "what if - would you" shield my blog proposals.

Daphne,

ATW may yet put down roots in Texas!

I've got your back David, just say the word.

Did the EU call for any investigation of France 2 for the Al-Durah blood libel it spread?

Noel,

"BTW, Frank, is it possible for a state to curtail access to certain foreign sites for users not using the kind of anonymous software you mention?"

To some extent it is...but they would need to automate it so that means blocking sites or only allowing permitted sites, or searching the content and categorising it.

Technically it is basically the same problem that companies have when they want to stop employees surfing porn or downloading viruses etc. There is software and network appliances that will do it, but not all that well.

"How does China do it?"

I don't know but I would guess by mandating that the ISPs do it using the same stuff corporations use. The great firewall of china. And google is also notorious for giving in to pressure to modify their search results. Probably the other search engines do also.

I know that somebody released a program to allow people outside china to proxy requests for people inside. That basically works but it is a bit of a hostage to fortune for whoever runs it, as if they start surfing child porn or whatnot, it's your door the cops will kick down. Same problem with running open wireless points. It shouldn't be that way, there shouldn't be an assumption that traffic from your IP originates with you, for just those reasons.

Probably there will be a resurgence of interest in this kind of technology if the record industry get too aggressive and then people apply it to the problem of sharing songs etc. At that point they will probably use that as an excuse to try to make anonymity illegal, and hopefully fail.

People in the UK could consider supporting this organisation:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/