zlacker

>>walter+(OP)
Were we ever supposed to be anon on the internet?

>>2OEH8e+Bm
Yes. Implicitly.

Ex Wikipedia: Over 186 constitutions mention the right to privacy

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy

Oh, and sniper: because the right to privacy will be defended by a number of individuals with radical violence, as you should know if you ever visited the world, so evidently I should not even need to proceed from «Yes. Implicitly».

So contextually: if it were not anonymous, it would not be used (but by a specific class of entities).

>>mdp202+Kq
I don't know if this applies to US law, but privacy and anonymity are often different and unrelated concepts.

>>marcos+es
In the relevant cases privacy and anonymity converge: to be part of your private sphere, your access to information must be anonymous.

>>mdp202+5v
Anonymity is about your conversation peers not having access to your identity, while privacy is about unrelated parties not having access to your conversation.

In legal matters, those two rarely converge. On technical matters both are usually abstracted as "keeping information secret", but even then they often require widely different techniques to be preserved.