HN Explorer

20 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] thread
pavel_lishin
Does this mean he's barred from making purchases online with credit cards taken out in his name?
tedunangst
Unless his credit card only has his first name on it, no. Did you read the article?
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
tedunangst
I know his first name is the offending name. I doubt his credit card only says "Peter" on it.
catshirt
deleted for ignorant sarcasm. :)
atomicdog
Bad news for Cher if she ever joins Anonymous.
eslachance
Oh no! That means he can't use Google +!
pyre
That's ok though. This is exactly the type of riffraff that Google wants to keep out of its gated community.
bh42222
That and anyone who has a stalker, or is not out of the closet, or is a political activist in a non-democracy, etc. Google doesn't like those people.
corin_
The other thing that tickled me was (this is from the Forbes article):

"A 17-year-old student who cannot be named for legal reasons"

Yeah, I appreciate why that is and why it makes sense, but it doesn't make it any less ironic that somebody from 'Anonymous' can't be named in the coverage of this case.

troels
Well, he wouldn't be anonymous then, would he?
_delirium
This seems like a sort of failed attempt to apply the "released but cannot associate with [previous associates]" bail condition to the internet. The first attempt was: can use the internet, but can't post on social networks; and then that was narrowed to, can post on social networks, but can't post with your 'normal' identity to your existing networks.
sedev
At last, the court has discovered the deadly weakness of hackers to being forced to use their legal names!

Wait, what?

The decision makes a very, very sad statement about the court's understanding of the issues at hand.

atomicdog
What self respecting hacker would use his real name online?

-M0rpheus