CNN and Julie Hilden on the Evil of Anonymity

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

"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.html