Canadian Court Orders Site To ID Anonymous Posters

An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian court has ordered the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The required information includes email and IP addresses. The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada."

Comments

Rock and hard place.

[B5_geek]

Canada has always been stuck between a rock and a hard place (US & UK). We are kind of like the retarded step-brother, very polite but not taken seriously on our own (we have a nasty habit of tagging along to our 'Big Brothers'.)

I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us. I wonder if there are any jobs in the Netherlands for an english-speaking computer-geek Canuck. They look like the only safe haven from insanity that is infecting this planet.

Re:Rock and hard place.

[c6gunner]

I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us

REACH us? Buddy, we've pioneered so many forms of insanity that the yanks would have to rewrite their constitution in order to catch up to us.

We have no separation of church and state. We have no right to free speech. We can be prosecuted for thought crimes and "hate speech" in courts which do not follow any traditional legal structures, where you are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, and where truth is no defense. We have no right to defend our homes. We have no right to own and employ firearms in self defense. We don't even have the equivalent of the fifth amendment, let alone the Posse Comitatus!

If you think the US is bad, you haven't been paying much attention to what's going on at home.

Re:Rock and hard place.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

There's got to be some way to score that post higher than 5. Like maybe 50.

To add to c6gunner's list there is this: the Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accused is entitled to a defense, but not necessarily the best defence that could be mounted if the court allowed it. The reason given in that particular case was that it might discourage people similar to the purported victim from making complaints about other people similar to the accused (but not proven guilty) if the accused in this case were allowed the most effective defense available and he was therefore denied access to information that might have exonerated him.

In other words, "it's ok if we falsely convict you, and do it despite it being preventable, because it furthers the interests of a group whose members we like better than you."

Shame

[Aladrin]

Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.

And shame on the government for this ruling.

Re:Shame

[jsse]

Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.

And shame on the government for this ruling.

If a post violate a local law (e.g. child porn, bomb threats...) and the site owner failed to provide evidence that it was sent by outsider, it's very high chance the prosecutor would put a charge on the site owner.

Therefore, unless you live in a place where no law is in place to regulate Internet content, otherwise you'd better keep some tracks for your defense.

What does /. do with the IPs of Anonymous Cowards?

[PhotoBoy]

If I were to post this anonymously, would /. keep a record that I used my /. account to post it, even though outwardly it's anonymous? Do they also keep a record of the IP I used to post?

I looked briefly at the privacy T&Cs linked at the bottom of the page and it makes various noises about keeping non-identifiable aggregate information for stats, but it's not clear what is done with the data or what would happen if they received a legal requirement to reveal all data held about an anonymous poster.

More shame on Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth is going on in Canada? As George Galloway said after being denied entry earlier this week don't they know Bush is no longer the US president and no one has to implement Bush type polices anymore?

http://www.therespectparty.org/breakingnews.php?id=555

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech

[Attila Dimedici]

You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"

Re:Good luck

[phoenix321]

Well then the court orders them to KEEP logs next time. Which will just as effectively cripple free speech as going directly after the posters in the first place.

Oh and of course, not obeying a court order is spiked with a jail sentence. And they order you to not disclose the new logging ordinance to the visitors or you'll also go to jail.

The only thing you can do is take down the site and protect the first group of posters. If you setup another site, they'll dock you for not having logs on the first incident, because you should've learned the first time.

Either way, the goal is to create fear, uncertainty and doubt among anonymous posters. Which is quite the same as posters in China feel right now.

Re:Good luck

[Threni]

> Well then the court orders them to KEEP logs next time. Which will just as effectively cripple free speech as going directly after the posters in the first place.

If sites are ordered to keep logs "next time" then this time we're ok. Perhaps they'll like to specify where the logs are kept, for how long, whether they need to be encrypted (for the visitors security) - oh, and if the passwords go missing by accident, presumably no charges will follow. Perhaps the forum info can be stored in the US, to take advantage of freedom of speech, but the login credentials/logs kept elsewhere, away from the prying eyes of the courts.

I just can't see sites being required to keep logs - not in a way which will stand up in court. Not IP addresses and so on, anyway. If they want to require you create an account called 'Daffy Duck' and just report that 'Daffy Duck' logged on 13 times last month, perhaps that's a compromise.

But perhaps it'd be better to just design a forum using TOR or P2P principles (perhaps both) so that logging just makes no sense.

Re:Anonymous speak Free speech

[Rary]

You are right that the headline is not accurate, since Canada doesn't have free speech.
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." -Canadian Human Rights Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"

Mr. Steacy is wrong. Free speech is in our Constitution — specifically section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, there is the somewhat controversial "limitation clause", but to say that free speech is "an American concept" is just flat out wrong.

Re:Good luck

[Quothz]

You see, examples are like cars. A car is an example, but the only example is not the car.

Blech, I mean to write "... demanded emails from the White House." My point being that my post's parent was implying a double standard that makes no sense. It wasn't an example, unless it was an example of that AC not understanding jurisdiction. If an American court had demanded information, or if the Canadian government had "lost" those emails, it'd be different.

But trying to say Canadian courts have a double standard because they didn't smack down the White House is pretty stupid.

Re:Good luck

[BaronHethorSamedi]

You may have freedom from the government, but you can never be free from judgement by your peers. Posting anonymously has long been the best way to spread uncomfortable truths without facing the public backlash that inevitably leads to self-censorship.

Yeah, there's a name for speaking up in the face of inevitable judgment by your peers. It's called "having the courage of your convictions."

Free speech guarantees should prevent interference by the government in public discourse. (Even those guarantees aren't absolute, but that's another matter.) They should not (and indeed cannot) shield you from having your words judged or reacted to by other speakers.

If you have serious cause to believe that the state is going to jail and/or kill you for what you say, then post anonymously, by all means--there's a strong moral reason for doing so. If you're just worried that someone else might call you out to account for what you say, then anonymity isn't going to add much weight to your message. There's a reason we call them "anonymous cowards."

Re:What does /. do with the IPs of Anonymous Cowar

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, you cant moderate your AC posts