Slashdot Mirror
Right to Post Anonymously Protected
JudTaylor writes " ZDNet has an article decribing a decision by a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge allowing Yahoo to protect the privacy of posters to message boards.
Lee Tien, an white hat attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, stated "This is a great victory for anonymous speech. I believe Judge Cabrinha's ruling will signal to other companies that judges will not permit corporate executives to abuse the courts in ferreting out their critics." Critics of Pre-Paid Legal Services had posted messages disparaging the company on Yahoo boards. Representatives of the company had no immediate comment." I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.
Might this have had a negative impact on Slashdot if the decision had been against Yahoo? Perhaps even as far as banning AC posts?
The reason we see US courts so sympathetic to anonymous speech is because of the Federalist Papers which written in the late 1780s (or so) to create support for adopting the US Constitution. It turned out the anonymous authors were Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
I've always wondered if Slashdot's "Post Anonymously" button that appears in the post dialog for a logged-in, registered user truly anonymizes the post, or does slashdot track the actual poster internally.
If someone's lawyers attacked, would slashdot's database record the actual poster's ID, or does the act of checking the button completely sever the poster's real id? For that matter, is the data truly anonymous (whether the box is checked, or it is posted from a non-logged in person) or does it track your IP address and other data (browser info, whatever.)
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
IMHO, anonymous comments should have less protection from censorship/moderation. How else could I persuade an ISP to remove defamatory material from their site, when no-one is willing to defend it?
Are we saying that the "Information Wants To Be Free" includes my personal medical information? My personal legal information (the status of divorce proceedings should be public???) My consumer habits/profile information should also be free?
I think this is one of those "free as in beer" distinctions that we have to draw. The "Information" that wants to be free are ideas, methods, processes, software, things that Slashdotters believe should not be patented or owned, but shared by all. My doctor/lawyer/marketing information should NOT be part of this "information"
So getting back to the initial thread, lawyers who decide to defend our individual liberties and rights to privacy do deserve the "White Hat" moniker. Attorney/Client priviledge should have nothing to do with this.
Benbox
You can now write anonymous messages on the web, not just brick walls and bathroom stalls.
Seems like a silly comparison, but think about it. Without anonymity on the web, where else can you express a thought when you have concerns for your safety or future?
Perhaps those that argue no one should have the "right" to speak anonymously due to liable risks should re-think their priorities and think through where this will lead us. It is only natural that people will attribute more veracity to attributable news than it ever will to anonymous postings. Nothing wrong with that. This is a good thing.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
I think this brings up an important ethical question for anyone designing public forums (fora?) on the web -- if you allow anonymous postings, you must make it clear to users if you save any item of information that could lead to disclosure of their identity -- IP address, referer, username, etc.
Until there are enough of these encouraging court cases to set an iron-clad precendent, people must be told if information about their identity is going to get stored with an 'anonymous' post.
Of course, the truly paranoid (hello, slashdot readers!) already know to go through anonymizing services to prevent this kind of backtracing. But average users will appreciate knowing whether or not it is even possible to reconstruct their identity from saved information about an anonymous post.
Maybe it would even be possible to sue a site that claimed full anonymity for deceptive practices if they saved an IP address, etc.
A customer service representative will be with me shortly.
From the post: white hat attorney
So we're dividing shyst^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers into 'White-hat' and 'Black-hat' categories now, like cowboys or crackrs? I knew a description would come along that would suddenly make legal proceedings make sense.
Wait a second... if ethics are what we use to divide any group into 'Black' and 'White' categories, how can any group that holds holy the concept of client-attourney privalege be anything but 'Black Hat'?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
What does it say about a company that sells legal services if they can't even win a case in court?
Yup.. the message board web site owners.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/08/14/ studentrights.ap/index.html
Quoth the court: "Just don't abuse it too much."
So I guess this kinda cancels out that "victory for freedom" you mentioned.
I'm not going to disagree with you, but this brings up some questions for me:
What would happen if the insider posted it via a truly anonymous distribution mechanism? Example:a web board that doesn't keep track of the email address, or an anonymous newspaper ad.
In the above cases, would it be right to shut down the message board or the newspaper? Or would the govt. step in and require filtering? And why would anyone believe anonymous information like this? If I post that company X is laying off 500 workers tomorrow, am I in trouble? Is Slashdot?
Basically, this all comes down to crime. Anonymity lets criminals -- quite literally -- get away with murder. (Yes, really -- remember the site listing doctors in the US prepared to carry out abortions, who were systematically being bumped off?)
This is a flaw in logic. Although it can be used for crime it can also be used for great good. The person (Anonymously) reporting discrimination at the work place. The person (Anonymously) reporting his boss, spouse, brother, cousin, etc for illegal acts. The list goes on. The above statement is like saying that GUNS allow criminals to murder, steal, and escape. With out admitting that it is the person that commits the act not the tool. Anonymity is just a tool. Criminals can and will be anonymous with or with out a law making it illegal!