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.
I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.
Amen to that, brother! For far too long we noble citizens have been paying way to much for our domes. It's high time we made them free! Dome lovers of the world, Unite(d Center)!
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
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.
However, it is also a sort of case where giving the poster a chance to respond before outing him seems to be critical -- maybe what you think is insider info had already leaked out, or never was much of a secret. E.g., his response might be to cite pg 27 of the Wall Street Journal the day before he posted, or something like "I am not a corporate officer and do not have inside information about sales. My posts were based on the observed, public facts that sales have been falling for two years and the company still hasn't come up with a new product that will keep working throughout a sales demonstration, therefore sales are going to continue dropping."
It knows who you are. If you moderate and then post anonymously(via the checkbox) in the same thread, your moderation is undone.
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.
if I were setting up a posting scheme, I'd hash the IP address using a cryptographic
;^)
;^)
hash and post it so I could tell anonymous posters apart...
Or at least if a poster with a real name was using anonymous posting to try to make a
not-so-clever post that bombed so bad they didn't want it attributed to them...
Oh wait, sorry
Yeah right. Like you have some RIGHT to post anonymously to MY server. The case tested the right to defend anonymous postings from being exposed due to court order, not everybody's right to post everywhere anonymously. RTFA.
m00.
m00.
Simple. In all the cases that protected anonymous postings, none of them have given total protection. What they've said is that you wouldn't be able to force the revelation of the poster's identity just because you made an allegation, you have to prove that the posting was, for example, libel first. So you protect yourself by sueing John Doe for libel and proving he did libel you, then ask the court to force the message board to reveal his actual identity now that you've proved he did commit libel. And if you can't prove he committed libel, you've no legal grounds for demanding that he sign his name to it.
As for the ISP, you can get it removed by proving that the material itself is defamatory. You don't need to know who posted it to do that.
Try working for them and you'll have a different perspective.
Don't mention that perspective in your email or telephone conversations, though, or it'll be in management's hands momentarily.
I'm have Pre-Paid Legal and I've found it to be well worth the $25/month. I call my lawyers practically every week on some issue and have thrice had nice letters with a two-inch letterhead sent to companies who immediately fixed my problems.
I've yet to actually be sued and use my primary coveraged, but as far as I'm concerned it is a good deal. But I'd be interested in knowing what problems other people are having.
I tried searching Yahoo but I end up with a bunch of categories and can't seem to find a place to search posting or wherever these complaints took place.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.
Please focus your venom on the problems, not on the country as a whole.
My interpretation of this: If you've got an account, there's the account data to be subpoenad. (Spelling?) I think the only thing you have to give that's _real_ when setting up the account is the e-mail address. There are ways of making that hard to trace, but the FBI has sometimes been able to force "anonymous" services into giving up their users. Or they could put a tracer into /. so that the next time you open it, it will record the IP address, etc. Cmdr Taco might not be overly cooperative with this, but maybe they've got a decent hacker on their side...
If you're an anonymous coward (and you can log out and become one anytime), then apparently the only thing identifying you is a cookie and a log that's erased every 48 hours or less. So if you want to make sure you remain anonymous, use an anonymizer, erase cookies afterwards, and try to keep it low-key enough that they won't react within 48 hours.
Of course, I'll give a scurrilous attack by someone unwilling to even put his screen name behind it the weight it deserves...
I believe that in the US, it's illegal to send spam without meeting certain restrictions (providing a valid removal address to prevent future spamming, for example), though I'm prepared to stand corrected on that one.
Start standing; that bill never passed either house of Congress.
Whether or not information should be free is a different question.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
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?
As a respectable communist child-molesting telemarketer, I take GREAT offense at being called a scientologist! My law firm, Cheatem, Screwem and Lye, will be contacting you shortly.
I bid you good day.
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.
Now I can keep recieving anonymous spam!!
Damn double-edged swords.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Although not IRON CLAD the anonymous server I run can stop almost everyone from Finding out who the originator of the message was. Including me! Although a lot of this lies on how the user uses the site. This is do to the fact that the server uses encryption and can use chaining to bounce e-mail or usenet posts through several remailers before the destination is reached. I have been asked by LEO's , AG's, and DA's (Asked being a nice way to put it.) for logs. As I do not have logs for more than about 4 days, there are no logs to turn over. Even the logs I have do not show where the messages came from or where they were going they simply show incoming and outgoing mail. There are no laws that require a site or business to maintain logs of people who look at there site or use the sites services.
The courts have also ruled dictionaries and spell-checkers are completely legal, Taco. :)
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Ah, but the problem here is not an ethical one, but a logistic one. Priests and doctors keep confidences in order to preserve their clients' privacy. Even if a priest is bound by his faith not to disclose a confession of an illegal act, I don't think there is any priest out there who would work to try to get his confessee to turn himself in.
On the other hand, lawyers do this to preserve their client's 'innocence' in front of a court, even if that person actually has done what they're being accused of. In many cases this is essential to a client's privacy and safety, but in many cases, both criminal and civil lawyers are required to ignore facts in order to best represent their client.
I had a conversation recently with a friend from high school who got in pretty serious trouble with the law while I was away at college. He told me that his defense attorney told him not to tell him if he had done what he was accused of or not. While this 'suspension' of ethics is professionally responsible, my opinion is that an ethical attorney would have instead advised his (guilty) client to pleade guilty and then try to get him off with as light a sentance as possible.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Electronic bulletin boards are an easy way to voice your opinion on any topic. In the dead-tree version, you can leave your name off the submission. Why should electronic bulletin boards be any different?
At first this seems like a victory for anonymous speech, but then you begin to realize that instead of suing the poster, they will just sue the message board provider for creating an anonymous forum for defamation in the first place.
If some people have the right to post anonymously, then I want to have a tag inserted in that post so I can automaticly shit-can such posts. That includes e-mail. My philosophy is that if you have something to say to me, then you should be open to responses. An anonymous post (e-mail) cannot be replied to if there is no return address. Just my $0.02 worth.
"Note: This is not a message board."
...it's yet another reason that we can't believe anything posted anywhere. Now anyone with a grudge is free to say "Joe Blow of Joe's Carpentry shop talks to lima beans and eats babies". Anonymous speech is great, but accountability has its virtues too.
Last post!
Isn't that really what makes the web what it is? Think about it.
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.
...but who cares.
i've been checking google, but have come up empty so far.
does anyone know what exactly "exercising their First Amendment right to criticize the company" means? what were these people saying to incite defamation lawsuits?
if their right to anonymous free speech is so protected, where have all the records of it gone?
a friend of mine is involved with this company, and it really sounds sketchy to me...as most MLM-type things do. i'd love to be able to cite some links though.
to all you karma whores out there, here's a chance to modded up.
But, I really feel to have true freedom of speech, you need the freedom to be anonoymous.
PS: Taco, I'm all for Freedome, but we need much more freedom before we can fight the freedome war
where does one get one of these free domes anyways?
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
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!
- Sometimes, an expediant avenue of information transfer is through a human being.
- Sometimes, that human being acknowledges the fact that transfering the information may have consequences to their own person.
- If, however, that person has no other reason to prevent the information flow, and they can evade the consequences, they may transfer the information.
- Anonymity is an excellent evasion for most specified consequences of information transfer.
- Therefore, if somebody knows something, and they can propigate those data, but will only do so if they can escape retribution (for example) for the propigation, and they reasonably can conceal their identity, then anonymity serves the flow of information.
In the long view, the datum of a person's identity is usually much smaller that the data they with to convey. People are screwy, and they mandate this sort of information for information sacrifice.Furthermore, anonymity lifted once discourages future human data avenues from transmitting in the future, since they have a reason to expect that the anonymity is a farce.
In a similar way, priviledge of information encourages it's freedom, since the priviledged party can adjudicate the transmittal of collatoral information that might never have flowed overwise.
Lastly, strict adherence to the "All Information wants to be perfectly free" credo doesn't typify white hat anything. A white hat cracker doesn't distribute your credit card data, out of respect for personal property.
"Information wants to be free" is more properly an axiom than a motto, IMO, anyway. It describes how data behaves; sometimes it's behavior is desirable (for instance, new product releases, security hole updates) and sometimes it is not desirable (any data-based security mechanism), and when it is desired, you get it free, otherwise, be prepared for vigilance.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
An interesting thing happened at a former job. I used to work for a company that provided capital markets trading services. Someone found a post on a very popular web forum which included information that was *clearly* insider trading information. This is information that could only have come from *inside* the company, and released like this put the entire company in jeopardy with the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and the SEC (Security & Exchange Commission).
We were under SEC & OCC requirements to track down who posted this thing, or potentially shut down all of our operations. But that wasn't the only pressure. We had an ethical obligation to track this down. A crime was being committed. The ability of this person to continue to post to this forum, enabled them to perpetrate a fraud and steal money from our investors. At the time there was not a single reason that I could think not to try and get this person's identity, and I can't think of a reason now, either. Failure to do so meant that someone (potentially lots of people) lost money (potentially *LOTS* of money).
So, we checked our firewall logs, and found a couple of *possible* leads, but nothing conclusive. After checking as many internal logs as we could find, we came to the conclusion that we had to get the web forums to give us the email address of the person who registered the account. We called the web site, explained that a crime was being committed and politely asked them to provide the identity of the person who posted the comment. They declined, citing their privacy policy.
This is the point where I no longer have first hand experience with what happened. But as I understand it, our attorneys drafted a letter to the web site stating that this information was absolutely required. Eventually, the web site backed down, provided the information. The person who allegedly posted the information was arrested.
I post this here because there seems to be a huge number of folks who seem to think that under every circumstance internet anononymity should be retained... and most of the time I agree. But sometimes it can enable crimes and I think we have to be careful about how far we take the demands for internet privacy.
$.02.
Please, commence with the karma draining moderation.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Anonymous! It had to be said.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Ok, assume you are the in charge of your company's webboard. Maybe this web board is for people to post questions, get answers, provide feedback on products, etc. What if someone annonymously starts posting rumors and lies about the company on the web board? What do you do?
Duh! You give the truth and clear up the rumors yourself. Unless, of course, what is said is the truth. *tongue in cheek* Then you should obviously prosecute those anonymous posters *tongue out of cheek*
Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
Someone spending some time to summerize could make the lawsuit backfire, not only do they go unrevealed, their opinions are spread everywhere...
Does this mean that boards that force you to register must let you post anonymously if you want that option? It could mean deep trouble and changes in the works for them. It could also be a catalyst for renewed flamewars via AC's all over the net.
Yup.. the message board web site owners.
He does it on purpose you know.. *Nobody* can spell *that* bad.
Hee jist deos it too git a reeacshus out of yoo al.
air and light and time and space
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.
Let's say that someone, anonymously posts criticizing a company. THat company then sues for defamation, trying to get the court to order the ISP to reveal who the anonymous poster was. THey find out, they drop the charges, then fire the employee who posted the comments.
It's an abuse of the legal system; they have no intention of actually suing anyone; they are just trying to find a way to force the ISP to give up the users anonymity.
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?
The key thing here, as far as I can see, is whether the company could go after people who might have defamed the company, violated trade secrets, or whatnot. PPL wanted to get the names before proving any damage was done; and the court rightly stopped them.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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!
"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.) "
A lawyer friend of mine told me that the BEST way to protect my users, and my site (which is a radio message board, which draws a lot of ire from supporters of Clear Channel Communications) is to NOT keep such information.
I delete IP logs. I do not KEEP such information on record. The best defense is to not keep information around to be subpoened or discovered.
It's unfortunate that more sites don't take the same stance. But, Yahoo!, et all, RELY on tracking their users for marketing purposes, which removes protection from users.
BTW, since Slashcode is GPL software, all it would take is an examination of the source code to find out if any such "secret tracking" of anonymous cowards exists in the code. I'm not a programmer, unfortunately, so I can't do this.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
You don't need to know who the person is to determine if something is a trade secret. This might be similar to the standard for a anti-SLAPP
If you file a libel claim against me, you have to show that the statements made are libelous, before you pull off my mask.
Fight Spammers!
Ok moderators... let me see if I understand. The original article is about anonymous posting. An AC posts, rejoicing his protection and permission to stay anonymous. How does that get modded to "offtopic"? Someone didn't have their Penguin Mints today.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
A trial court's ruling has negligible precedential value (at least in the state court system-federal is different). It does not get published. It doesn't bind anyone. Trial court judges in the state courts here in a busy county like Santa Clara frequently have a dozen or more rulings such as this one to make a week. In addition, they might have 30 or more other less significant motions to rule on. So they don't have time to pay as much attention to the legal issues as an appellate court judge does. As a result, reversal on appeal is a definite possibility. Furthermore, this ruling is going to be very fact specific, as it most likely relies on what was posted and the company's motivation for going after the poster. That is, if someone posts something like "Company X sucks. Their products are horrible," Company X has a hard time arguing that its lawsuit is anything other than a screen to subpoena the identity of the poster. But if the post is "Company X CEO John Doe has been convicted of bestiality," the court is much more likely to let John Doe subpoena the identity of the poster.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
1. Pretty much all of those spam mails you receive every day are illegal, but you all know better than to reply to the "remove" address. (UK residents may now snipe at our Euro-MP who voted for an "opt-out" policy.)
I'm thinking back to the ones I received today, and with the exception of the single cable descrambler one, I can't think of another one that's illegal. Could you please give some examples?
OK, so as a starting principle, let's suppose that anonymity is a Good Thing. It lets people post what they like, without fear of reprisal. Clearly this has benefits, particularly for people living or working under oppressive regimes.
But now, stop and think objectively for a minute, please. How many of the big problems with the internet are a direct result of anonymity? Let me offer some suggestions.
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?)
So, while I support the notion of anonymity from the general public, I think it's equally important that lawful authorities can always identify someone using the internet to effect, encourage or facilitate illegal activities. Of course, that runs the risk of encountering downright unreasonable or abusive authorities, but you get that all the time in real life, too. It's a small price to pay for the many benefits that come from letting the police and courts identify someone on-line in cases where it's necessary to achieve the right result.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fight Spammers!
It violates the "Information Wants To Be Free" concept. As does the decision of the court. After all, if you support "Information wants to be free!" then you have to oppose anonymity. If the poster is anonymous, then the information about his identity is being withheld, and is not free.
Best Slashdot Co
You know, I've often wanted that option on our message board myself. (Hey, dethro! How hard would it be to add this option in for the redesign?) A lot of our boards require that you be logged in to post, but anybody can read them. I can understand wanting to keep out the random troll, but once in a while I wish I could reply to someone without having to explain myself or start a war...not that I don't want to accept responsibility for what I say, but sometimes it helps to be anonymous. People are often more likely to listen to the opinion of an 'unbiased stranger' rather than the same advice from someone they know. Strange but true.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series