6 ms·

> Yes, it is legal. It saddens me that this needed to be clarified, that anyone would wonder whether putting a page on the internet without going through the "

• lotsofcows 14y ago
  He's also wrong - it is illegal. Oh, hang on, which jurisdictions does he fall under? And sdf.org? And the various Tor relays? And, dear reader, you?
• weinzierl 14y ago
  This depends on your jurisdiction. It might surprise you that even in western countries like Germany it is not possible to legally have an anonymous web page. I don't have a reference in English, but http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressumspflicht http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressumspflicht (in German) is very clear about it.
  • aw3c2 14y ago
    No, it is not clear as you present it. It says that for personal use this is not required. However, what is personal is hard to say.
  • icambron 14y ago
    That it is actually illegal in some jurisdictions doesn't make it any less sad that people have to wonder about it.
  • mjn 14y ago
    There's a short description in English here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressum
  • blauwbilgorgel 14y ago
    Wie sich aus § 55 Abs. 1 RStV ergibt, trifft einen Anbieter somit nur dann keine Impressumspflicht, und er kann seine Webseite völlig anonym ins Internet stellen, wenn sein Angebot ausschließlich persönlichen oder familiären Zwecken dient. Doesn't this say it is allowed to anonymously put a website online, if it is a purely personal/family page? I don't think she is running a business or has any commercial goals.
    • yk 14y ago
      IANAL, but perhaps. The following paragraph actually states, that if all your content is password protected and you only give this password to personal acquaintances, then you clearly don't need an impressum. ( Along with two other examples, which also not very helpfill.) The problem with this law is, that is says something about a page with some baby pictures ( so that grandma can see her grandchildren), and something about media corporations. However it simply does not address the case of a private blog, were the audience is not personally related to the author, but the author does also not try to make money with it.
    • ElongatedTowel 14y ago
      If you publish anything that might concern anyone outside of your family you are already required to add an imprint. A complete address is required information. A blog, a portfolio, bookmarks, dotfiles or even a simple memorial (if it's for someone outside of family) is enough. I have not added one to anything I have ever put online nor do I intent to. I neither host in my country nor do I publish in my mother tongue. I think it is ridiculous to be forced to divulge information that allows people to knock on my door.
• CoryG89 14y ago
  It may be illegal, but it's impossible to prevent. It forever will be and always has been difficult, but not impossible, to publish to the Internet in a manner that is approaching pure anonymity. The reason people will wonder if it is legal is because of the negative connotations that anonymity itself brings (ie. the mindset that people with something to hide are usually doing something wrong). Nations may try to outlaw such a thing, however, it will forever be a stop-gap measure, doomed to perpetual failure. The Internet knows no legal jurisdictions. The very idea that posting something 100% anonymously is illegal is oxymoronic anyway. How can you charge someone with posting something anonymously on the Internet if you were able to figure out who they were in order to charge them? Obviously their method wasn't very anonymous.
  • nooneelse 14y ago
    The law and courts can specify, recognize, and decide things based on judgements of intent.
• javert 14y ago
  Not for long. For example, what if a corporation set up the page? Oh, we can't let corporations have free speech, according to popular sentiment (which is packaged up as "campaign finance laws"). So, we had better make sure we know who says everything, to make sure it's not a corporation. In a society that hates freedom, freedom dies. We live in that society.
  • wpietri 14y ago
    I can't tell if your comment is subtle parody. But on the theory that you're really not kidding: I have never heard of a campaign finance law that would prevent a corporation from putting up a web page. Have you? If so, please post a link to the text of the law. I'd be fascinated to read it. Heck, even if it's just a proposed law, that'd be interesting, so you can just put up a link to the bill.
    • bcoates 14y ago
      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ155/html/PLAW-107publ155.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ155/html/PLAW-107pu... The infamous McCain-Feingold Act made it unlawful to, among other things, publicly criticize a politician within months of an election, unless you were on a list of exceptions that did not include ordinary corporations. It was the law for nearly a decade until recently being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It's a little ambiguous if a mere webpage would count because the rules for internet communications are even less clear than those for traditional media.
      • wpietri 14y ago
        Could you point me to the specific section that you believe outlaws publishing a web page? As far as I could tell, it only outlawed broadcast advertising, which is a very different thing.
    • javert 14y ago
      My point isn't about specific legal "switch statements" (to use programming terminology). It's about the fact that the _principle_ of free speech is being actively attacked in this country. I'm quite surprised that, as a brother/sister comment to this one pointed out, a law such as the one you described actually did (does?) exist.
• Fuxy 14y ago
  Who care's if it's legal laws can be wrong. Hell they usually are. (they are made by people to control other people most of the time) Is it right? Yes!