"Most of us now are happy, for example, to tolerate facial recognition technology at stadiums, and to proffer our driver's licenses at frequent car, truck and airport checkpoints. We no longer can travel anonymously, and that may be acceptable given the risks we now face. But while the ability to travel namelessly may be a prerogative we can sacrifice, what about the right to speak anonymously?" [...] "Finally, to consider some more dramatic possibilities, the government could launch a denial of service attack on any remaining anonymous remailers, which guarantee the privacy of both the sender and receiver of e-mail. It could also simply shut Anonymizer.com down, purportedly in the interest of national security, or legislate any similar services away." [...] "Finally, even if the Court did recognize a First Amendment right to anonymity that extended to private Internet communications, it is important to remember that First Amendment-protected speech could be curtailed, given a compelling government interest and a sufficiently narrowly tailored government measure. And the compelling quality of the interest in fighting terror is a given. " [...] http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/columns/fl.hilden.online.first.11.29/index.ht...