My bank requires me to jump through some extra hoops to absolutely establish my identity before they grant access to my account. This is not censorship. This is not a violation of the 4A. The proposal is to create a substructure of the Internet that similarly requires such absolute ID in order to voluntarily participate if he wants to be fully identified and if he wants all whom he deals with to be fully identified. That is not censorship. That is not a violation of the 4A.
Personally, I think the idea is silly and that BGs will find a way to abuse it anyway. That does not mean that the idea is not worth exploring. Just as silly is the hyperbole of calling this idea a "violation of the 4A" or "censorship." The wild-west Internet will continue to exist. A voluntary subset will also exist. Don't like it? Don't use it! That is true Liberty: The right to choose not to exercise a right!
Not all of the internet is "banking". Nobody is talking about account security and the like. Just remember, every piece of software is dependent upon other pieces of software, right down to the firmware embedded on peripheral devices.
The breaches into Sonys networks were done with a simple SQL injection. One of the most outdated and trivial of "crack" attacks. Also, one of the easiest to prevent against as well. These are the people you entrust your credit card info to. Similarly, the sites affected by lulzsec that were child sites of the FBI, or one of their highly reputable "whitehat" partners (A whitehat is a hacker, or hacking group and/or company dedicated to peacefully test outside entities, usually by contract, for security risks to their IS infrastructure.), supposedly whitehats of such reputability that hacking their own systems should have been a nightmarish task for hackers/crackers/phishers to breach. These are the people you trust your security to.
Determining what media, or content, is being passed back and forth between a client computer on a given ISP, is actually a little more dynamic than what many people think is possible.
The ability to transfer information over the internet comes to us by segmenting information into little bits of code called "packets". A packet, in layman terms, is nothing more than say, taking a document, and cutting it up into little bits of "data" with a bit of fault tolerance to check the following packets data consistency (TCP/IP transmissions anyways), until eventually the other end is looking at the same document you sent to them, piece by itty-bitty tiny piece.
Intercepting these documents should be, certainly, a violation of the 4th Amendment.
We can talk about cybersecurity all we want, but so long as there is software, and so long as there are millions of routing paths, leading to millions upon millions of lines of code, you should be careful about what you submit over the internet.
If you guys want to see some serious stuff, look up the Narus STA 6400.
It's what the FBI and Homeland Security use in conjunction with the Patriot Act to compromise your privacy.
