Slashdot Mirror
Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger
An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court. A preliminary ruling was issued in which a court indicated that the slander the blogger was accused of probably rose to the level of a criminal violation. Google Israel then made a deal with the plaintiffs, local city councilmen whom the blogger had been attacking for a year. Google disclosed the IP address only to the court, which posted a message (Google says the anonymous blogger got it) inviting him/her to contest the ruling anonymously. When no response was received within 3 days, Google turned over the IP address to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
...in contrast to Google's vow to protect its users' privacy early last year. Although this is a very different situation...criminal libel instead of general aggregate use data. Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
"Do no evil"?
Do no evil + IPO = Public company
IPO = Public company
Google is just as good, bad, or ugly as the next public company. They're trying to balance the interests of their shareholders and their belief in doing no evil. In the end, the interests of shareholders will win every time. If they can keep clear of any illegal insider trading, mistreatment of employees, or other b.s. that affects so many public companies, that'll be a "good" outcome. Believing that somehow Google is different because it thinks it is different is pure fantasy.
It's 2007, folks. The Cult of the Shareholder rules.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm not sure that I fully understand the situation, but if Google had waited until the final ruling to release the IP would that have actually prevented the blogger in question from fighting the ruling? If that is the case then short of simply defying a court order (which is something that should be considered on a case by case basis) this would seem to have been the best thing Google could have done. Had they waited they would have been allowing the plaintiff to "pull an RIAA" on the guy (or girl). If, on the other hand, that is not the case then shame on Google (a bit anyway - I still think Yahoo's games with the guy in China were much worse, but that doesn't excuse this).
mindlessly defending how this is not "evil".
Wow! So I'm to take it that from this one article you now have all the information you need to call anyone that disagrees with you "mindless"!
Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!
Well that is specious reasoning. I'm not grandparent, a Republican, or anything else for that matter but not only did you misrepresent grandparent's quote but then you attack him by calling him narrow-minded, then you accuse him of being a Republican with the implication that all Republicans are narrow-minded!
It does not bode well for your case when you treat your enemy worse than they treat you. Learn some respect for other people's opinions (even if they are criticizing mindless Google-lovers), for narrow-minded people, for Republicans, and for Evil-Baby-Crushing-Google.
Otherwise it's just sensationalist nonsense. Google is a company with an aim to generate income. However much of it's business deals are driven by the knowledge that google works in "good faith" with it's partners. (Many companies won't partner with Microsoft on new technologies because they don't want to be the next SGI/Fahrenheit sucker.)
Companies, universities and investors would not embrace google if it's practices were unfair on it's users. From reading the article we can see that Google actually made a decent decision and gave the anonymous user options before eventually releasing the details.
Google needs to appear as a reasonable entity to the courts. If google fights the courts to the last frontier in every case it is presented, it would not only be costly to the company, but give google a damaging litigious image. Instead google chooses it's battles wisely for the betterment of it's users allowing it to defend more important legal issues with success..
According to the article, Google released the blogger's identity when he failed to respond within 72 hours. That is MUCH too fast. Even if he dropped what he was doing and acted immediately, it would still take longer than that to figure out what's going on, get a lawyer, and draft a response. That's ignoring the fact that he probably didn't receive the message immediately (subtract 24 hours), probably had other things on his plate (subtract another 24 hours) and may not have even realized that the notice was legit. (An e-mail is not a legitimate court summon. If you receive one which claims to be, it is probably a scam.)
Would you also review your patronage of companies that do business with Saudi Arabia, which forbids any exercise of non-Muslim religion? Israel isn't perfect, but it does have non-Jewish citizens, and allows the exercise of other religions. It does discriminate, but it goes both ways. Non Jewish citizens aren't usually forced to serve in the military, although they can volunteer.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Following due process is important and Google should have done so. Releasing info without court demand is as bad as searching without a warrant.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Freedom of speech is not always a licence to defame others.
Fact: someone who's been wronged has a right to pursue the person responsible. No argument there. The fact that the person responsible is attempting to hide his identity doesn't change that. The problem with the RIAA's tactics is that they want the identity before proving they've been wronged. In this case the councilmen did the right thing: went into court, convinced a judge that the words as written did in fact qualify as something legally actionable, then asked for the identity of the responsible party. It might be technically more correct to wait until a final ruling, but I doubt the final ruling would be significantly different from the preliminary one. Judges don't just fire from the hip when making a preliminary ruling, it's more like "This will be how I rule, unless someone fairly quickly comes up with something that hasn't been even hinted at yet that's major enough to counter everything I've seen so far.".
Sorry, guys, but contrary to popular belief the right to remain anonymous is not a shield against being held responsible for your statements and actions. It just means that the other party should have to prove that your statements or actions were in fact legally actionable before stripping you of your anonymity.
Stirring the hornets nest? Sure, by simply existing. Israel has tried everything they could to bring peace with their neighbors. Their last attempt was giving up huge amounts of land they had taken in a war, thus pissing off lots of their own citizens. The result? Terrorists used the new lands to launch rockets at civilians.
In the middle east, which countries can you openly practice your religion no matter what it is? Only one country, Israel. Which countries have full equal rights for women? Again, only Israel. Which countries have open and honest elections? Only Israel. Which countries are perfect? Ha, a trick question. Not a single one.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I think that this is just a case of responsibility, for the individual to be held accountable for what they say.
Then you clearly don't know what anonymous means.
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
dunno. i am of the opinion that it should be pretty much impossible for an anonymous person to slander on the internet -- at least, it would sort of make sense that if you are being told something by someone you don't know you shouldn't consider it fact very easily.
Very good point, but there are two reasons I think the concept of slander would still be valid:
a) The cases where anonymous message reveals information that only a reliable source would have, such as a passcode.
b) Even if people *shouldn't* accept self-serving unverifiable statements at face value, they do, and thus slander can wrongfully harm someone.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
it is probably better for people to check their sources rather than pretend that it is safe to assume what you hear is true. i personally believe that the freedom to lie should not be restricted, even though lying is certainly a bad thing. this is partially because of how awkward cases for slander and libel and defamation can be.
So take the Internet out of the equation.
It's cool for me to post unsigned flyers around your neighborhood, with your photo, full name, and address, claiming that "This man raped my daughter", because people should assume that it's not safe to trust anonymous flyers?
Saying "the person being slandered" begs the question of whether slander has been committed.
If a court determines slander has been committed, the court will order the owner of the IP to be revealed, and presumably punished. Any "damages" can then be pursued in a civil suit. You seem to be arguing that you should have the right to demand the identity of anyone who you claim to have slandered you without regard for any standards of proof.
In the U.S. the constitution protects the right to free speech and not the right to anonymity. Google did not turn over data such as emails or documents - they effectively just "fingered" an "anonymous coward". Your post made me realize that my knee-jerk reaction that everyone who posts anonymously is a coward is a luxury I can afford because I live in the U.S. and that "free speech", which we Americans cherish so deeply, is intrinsically connected with anonymity in many parts of the world.
What about the notion that words and language have a use and a power beyond communication?
If all that language did was communicate fact or opinion, then it would be easy to say "Don't trust anonymous sources," "Verify your data," etc.
But language does more than communicate information -- every act of speech is also inherently creative. When I say "The Duke lacrosse team beat and raped me," I am doing more than communicating a fact (true or false). I am calling into existence an instance of "rape" in the minds of all those whom my language datum reaches. I am creating it there, bringing with it connotations and associations of powerlessness, abuse, degradation, patriarchy; I am calling up emotional responses of horror, righteous anger, shock, etc. Further, I am associating all of this with 'the Duke lacrosse team.'
Even if we eventually learn that the informational content of the message is false, the human mind is still subject to its associative effect -- particularly if we are exposed to the message many times over. Witness the pairing of the words "9/11" and "Iraq" in the run-up to the current war. Witness the pairing of sexuality and product in every other ad.
The associative effect of the creative power of language is inevitable -- it's this effect that allows us a learning process to take place in the human mind. It's an inherently human effect, one that makes the human mind qualitatively different from binary circuits. It cannot be avoided or brushed off to "stupid people." It affects "us," as in "all of us," not "them," as in "the others, the evil and/or dumb ones."
I think a recognition of this, the metacommunicative power of language, places a heavy responsibility on all of us who would use it. However, I agree that the twin problems of lying and bullshitting (slander surely falls into one or the other) are not easily solved by legal measures -- nor do they properly belong in the realm of law. They seem, rather, to be two issues of personal ethics -- ones that we should take seriously, and foremost within ourselves.