Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Posting Not Protected
jconley writes: "Excite News is carrying this story that indicates that anonymous posting on the Internet is not protected, and subpeonas can be issued to ISPs to expose the poster. Just one of a lot of cases, but still scary." Courts aren't very good at seeing any value in anonymity.
I am not a lawyer, but only those who are arrested have a "right to remain silent". Anybody can be called into court as a witness to testify and remaining silent would fall under the catch-all of contempt of court.
The President, Bill Clinton, is a bumbling idiot and should die. No, I'm not going to do it, but someone should.
I don't think this is such a huge problem.
*thinks malicious threats*
I just don't see where the scandal lies.
--------------------------------------------
Computers are like air conditioners.
I don't know if /. in particular remembers who posted an AC story if they're logged in, or if they preserve usage logs which would tell the story. I suspect the latter is entirely possible, but the former is unlikely. The whole idea of being able to post as an AC is to preserve anonymity, right?
Unless your ISP is packet sniffing, they don't know who you've connected to Irc as. Naturally, they do know what account was connected to what "modem" at what time. If you have DSL or Cable, it's even more obvious. AOL of course will know who you were in a chat room, but if you're using AOL, you probably deserve what you get anyway. Want privacy? Don't use AOL. To be fair I should probably point out that they're hardly the only people who you should have to watch out for your privacy around, and I doubt very much that they will sniff your packets, so then you mostly have to worry about anonymizing your connection.
All in all, the main point is to be smart. If you want to be anonymous, make sure that you really are. If someone's logging you somewhere along the way, you might not be. If there's a proxy server which logs in between, you certainly aren't.
If you leave fingerprints, you run the risk of being identified. This is just as true on the 'net as it is in real life.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Unless it may incriminate you, in which case you have the right to remain silent. The text is here. The way it all ends up working is basically as follows:
In other words, if they call you to the stand, and say "Did you write this book" or "Did you bomb this building" or "Did you fuck this sheep", you can plead the Fifth. In the absence of any evidence against you (Is an original manuscript in your house? Do you have residue in your bathtub from making the bomb? Is the sheep really really happy to see you?) then if justice is carried, you should be found innocent.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Although I almost never do things anonymously (I like to take credit ;) I can see where the ability would be important. You may want to protect yourself, or you might want to disassociate your work from yourself in an attempt to avoid any preconceived notions, good or bad. Both of these purposes also apply to writing a book, etc, anonymously.
Do the existing laws allow the government to determine the identity of an anonymous writer? If a person wrote a book about building a bomb, and signed it "anonymous," could the people who know he wrote it be forced to identify him? Do we have the "right to remain silent"
Interesting things to think about...
The government's willingness to put up with anonymity stops even faster when it means lost tax-revenue -- tax systems are the single greatest form of census in the world, surpassing even the constitutionally mandated Census in accuracy. If we had a per-comment surcharge, then anonymity would die even faster.
-- Anne Marie
But, you cannot determine if the person actually defamed without being able to determine the knowledge of that person. To defame, you must publish false statements with malice, recklessness, or negligence (in the case of a private figure). Now, how can you determine that level without knowing who that person is?
What about other laws that are violated? Sexual harassment, retaliation under the anti-discrimination laws, disclosure of confidential information? You can't determine all of that w/o knowing the identity of the person.
But, in the case where something is clearly opinion, the person should have that information blocked.
Maybe have some determination of being false and having damage.
Fight Spammers!
You wouldn't walk into FEDEX to send an anonymous letter, would you? Better maybe if you mailed it from a post box in the suburbs?
You want to be anonymous? Do what you have to do. Fill out that AOL CD mailer with you best friend in high-school's dog's name. Sign up for that free dialup account from [insert name of phone company here] Internet Service. Use a terminal at a branch library and be sure they know your name is Eustace P. Farnsworthy. Find a dial-in stack that doesn't have no-caller-id reject working (harder and harder).
And don't include identifying material in your posts. Like you name...
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Defamation has two absolute defenses. Both of them can be determined without knowing the identity of the anonymous posters.
The judge absolutely should have respected the anonymity of the individuals until the two absolute defenses were exhausted.
If the statements were TRUE or if the statements were not statements of fact, but of opinion, no defamation took place. The speakers should remain anonymous until they are absultely needed to stand behind their actions. The judge does not need the defendents' identities to judge the authenticity of these defenses as long as they are proffering them (through the ACLU). They are questions of fact that judges determine every hour of every day, and the identities of the accused have no bearing on the outcome.
This talk about getting people on the internet to "think about what they say" is code for silencing whistleblowers and people that speak about corporations and their leaders in unflattering, but nondefamatory and fully legal ways.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
pretty scary, eh?