Because it’s very difficult to lock up anyone as a “nut” in in the USA, due to extensive abuse of the practice in the period 1900-1970, often directed at women. In Oregon it is not possible at all. It is probably just as well the state or family cannot arbitrarily deprive anyone of their freedom, but I do wish it was possible to do so after a trial of some sort.

I am sure about masks having been banned in Elizabethan England—and I believe it is still against the law to wear them routinely, but I may be wrong. Obviously, this is something that is going to be enforced in a sporadic manner.

I believe that changing ones’ “handle” name or password periodically is not necessarily something done with malicious intent, but rather for reasons of safety. It is not the same as posting flattering comments one one’s own blog under an assumed name—or writing a book review of one’s own work while pretending to be someone else.

In fact until recently in the US, ordinary citizens have always had the right to change their names and start over, no questions asked. This is the country of fresh beginnings, after all.

No I wouldn’t. Covering your hair is not the same as covering your face.

‘In Muslim countries women are not encouraged to go out unescorted,’

Depends what you’re counting as a Muslim country. Its not true of the country where I live which is majority Muslim in terms of population but politically and administratively secular.

Hardly anywhere, really. There was some fun maybe 2 years ago with these new zippered hooded sweatshirts that zip up over the head, upward between the eyes, so that the face is covered with this light fabric that you can’t very well see into but can be seen out of, more or less. Very cute idea. I thought the ones with generic smiley faces on the mask fabric were especially inspired. Anyway, the kids (adolescent) who’d normally wear dragon-design tee shirts were completely thrilled by this. About half of the wearers were this group of kids (who frankly wouldn’t know how to create trouble without a networked computer), not quite half were genuine violent-to-property troublemakers, and a few were kids who wore the mask-jackets just because they were itching to be told to not wear them. About a dozen in all, out of a population of +/- 500.

Our school district required hoods-down while in school (equivalent to “no masks in school”) and the requirement was upheld in a challenge to the policy (one of the kids just itching to feel oppressed was the challenger). However, you’d see kids in these things out in public all the time, no problem. The sheriff admitted there was nothing illegal about wearing them, even if the kids were just rummaging about town stirring up trouble, but laughed off his own irritation: “there’s no better way for them to get my attention” and scrutiny, he said, “it’s like wearing a hovering billboard that says WATCH ME floating over your head” (probably not his exact words, but my memory of the mixed metaphor is intact).

I think there might’ve been some talk of considering the masks a sign of gang participation after the group of hooligans trashed a flush toilet in the local Subway and no particular one of them took the blame. There was this idea floating around that maybe the whole group could be charged with criminal conspiracy, but given that the entire group was allegedly witnessed all crowded into the one-person stall at the time of the incident, I don’t think their wearing of masks would be necessary to prove group responsibility. Everyone knew who they were from their incessant bragging about it for weeks afterward.

Anyway, no permit required to wear a mask, etc. I’d bet local jurisdictions differ wildly, so generalizing US policy would be impossible.

I think it is illegal in the US to go about masked, but an exception is made during Holloween (and parades with permits?). You would think the muslim veil would fall under this category in the West. In Muslim countries women are not encouraged to go out unescorted, so the problem of someone committing a crime while veiled (or disguised as a veiled woman) doesn’t arise so much, I imagine. It did arise during the Algerian uprising (I am just riffing).

If I went to MySpace and brute-forced my way into Quiggen’s account, I would have unauthorized access. But if I go to MySpace and register an account in Quiggen’s name, MySpace has authorized my access although I have acted fraudulently.

There are so few laws covering the use of e-technology and, even before the Drew case, users could be prosecuted, as pointed out above, using clever application of broad and archaic legislation. New legislation is aimed more at ‘cyber bullying’, which may give some protection to users, even sock puppeteers who are bullied or harassed online.

I also think it is important to keep the Unabomber case in mind for those who think imprisoning terrorists without trial was a Bush innovation.