I think the recent news reports regarding bloggers being outed and then fired for the content of their entirely legal publishing has made the argument that anonymous use of the internet is defensible for freedom of speech. Perhaps because the journalists have a respect for sources that are not disclosed, and protecting those sources, there is a sympathy to this story that is starting to gain momentum. The end result is that the discussion that only criminals benefit from anonymity is weakened.

It is hard for me personally to believe that anyone expects anonymity on the internet, but I have assumed the FBI had recorded all of my posts since 1992.

Ditto. I am betting xpilot was sold as parts of distributions since it first started. If he had wanted to control the usage of the software to prevent others from selling it, he should not have used the GPL. As long as you are providing source code, you are in the right. The fact that it requires someone to pay 99 dollars to bring your source code into an executible object on the iPhone is no different than saying they have to buy a computer to do so. You are, in fact giving away the code, and also charging for a distributed binary. I am pretty sure that this is entirely conventional.

More importantly, you are contributing to the iPhone developer community by letting us see how you were able to port the code. This is helpful both in allowing enhanced versions, and as a learning tool.

Thank you,

If anyone thinks this validates putting up pictures of yourself doing stupid stuff and listing your favorite sexual positions because 'hey a bank in texas' is nervous that something you PUBLISHED to the Internet is an invasion of privacy, then you are probably also one of those people who thinks because one time someone stopped on the NJ turnpike to avoid hitting a kitty, that you can walk across it at will.

Anything you are actually publishing to a publicly visible page cannot EVER be misconstrued as your private business. Any lawyer who was actually awake can pretty easily convince a jury that you were actively promoting whatever behavior it was that they are looking at. The idea that a social site gets a special privelege over any other website is like saying 'hey I was on a reality show... People are supposed to act stupid on those!'

Your employer is likely to do a credit check for goodness sake. They can make you pee into a cup. Do you really think any large company is going to risk hiring someone into a position of responsibility when they are actively promoting themselves as a drunkard, sex-addict, racist, or any other of a thousand image crushing stereotypes?

If anyone actually breathed a sigh of relief, they should suck that air back down. We are not moving towards an error were there is more privacy. This is not a bellwether. The only thing that might happen is that you will be required to sign a form saying you waive your right to privacy if you are applying for a job. And you will.