Slashdot Mirror
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."
I'm behind 7 proxies
Can you imagine the political rhetoric if they found 4chan.
They should be ashamed of themselves, posting anonymously.
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.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
I noticed the blogger doesn't mention anything about the case itself. I wonder how knowing the particulars of the case might effect the response of slashdot posters.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Shame on any site that accepts 'anonymous' comments and then tracks email and IP.
And shame on the government for this ruling.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/motion_decision.pdf
Worth a read, especially moments like request for "Any and all documents relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the website, freedominion.ca, by the Fournier Defendants, such as, but not limited to, hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant name(s)."
Now, if the purpose of the motion is to acquire documents that will help to establish the identities of the posters - how the hell is the hosting agreement/billing details/etc relevant? Or is this a case of "let's collect all the paperwork we can, relevant or not, and then see what we can make of it"?
"Well, we see that you've established the site in 1991, and have been paying $ 39.99/month for hosting. CLEARLY, this proves... um... actually, I'm not sure WHAT it proves... Hang on."
Charlie didn't ask for ID when I fought at La Choy, and Chun King. I saw my best friend's head explode at Margaret Cho.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
I wonder what then the court considers to be a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Sorry, here or anywhere else, when I click the "post anonymously" button I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now what they happen to log etc I can understand, but there's an expectation of at least a measure of privacy. If Joe Troll emails /. asking for my IP I expect them to say get lost. But if they get a subpoena I expect them to get the IP. That's where "reasonable" lies in my opinion.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Anonymity has a higher purpose than being used only for hiding behind while making threats/posting illegal activity.
It is one of the foundations of freedom of speech and democracy, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and opinions without fear of prosecution or ridicule.
It reminds us to place principles before personalities, allowing logic to take precedent over emotions.
P.S. It's a bit ironic to hear an admonition to "be brave for once and say what you want in the open" - from an Anonymous Coward. LOL. Good job. Alanis Morrisette would be proud.
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Common Sense would indicate otherwise.
The U.S. Supreme Court, has recognized the importance of ensuring that average citizens have the right to use false names and publish anonymously. In its 1960 decision in Talley v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that a law forbidding individuals from distributing handbills without identifying their identity unconstitutionally infringed on the First Amendment's guarantee to free speech. The Court declared: Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. . . . Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts . . .. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
Just because someone writes on an electronic medium does not preclude to free speach.
anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
anonymous
Function:
adjective
Date:
1631
1 : not named or identified
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
Merriam-Webster
I am a bit fuzzy on the difference between free speech and the right to stay anonymous.
It would seem to me that anonymity is not a requirement for free speech, online or otherwise.
What's to stop the internet-equivalent of standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?
Anonymity, IMHO, is actually detrimental to civil discourse - it gives individuals the idea that there are no consequences to what is said in a public forum. What we say in public life always has consequences - why should the internet be different?
Visiting most online discussions is like watching the monkeys at the zoo, and the risk of being hit with a lump of flying feces is just as high.
I must disagree:
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech
Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.
however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".
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.
Of course, it does.
In some places wearing a mask would be illegal -- precisely because people are not supposed to expect privacy there.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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?"
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I must disagree: western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech; however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
You are wrong.
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
The Supreme Court found that a law that prohibited anonymous handbills was void. Anonymous speech was specifically cited as having a role in free societies.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
While there is lots of bullshit in the US today, this isn't it. Anonymous speech is particularly protected in the US. Please leave us out of it.
Canada doesn't have a right to free speech in the same way as America (I know, it could be debated that Americans have it any more but that's a different discussion). Lots of Canadians think we have that right because we think many of the things that apply to our American neighbours also applies to us but they are incorrect. For those interested in the subtle difference, I refer you to the ever-helpful Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada ). Short version - we have a right to free speech "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In other words, our "right" to free speech can be withdrawn...
I know it makes for a sensational headline but it's inaccurate.
What this says to me is that anyone running a service, anonymous or not, needs to be thoughtful about their own data retention policies.
For instance, I might want to keep finer-grained detail for a short while, to assist in troubleshooting or incident handling.
Otherwise, it's probably just fine to keep more terse logs for a longer period of time. My understanding is that you can't be forced to divulge information you simply don't keep, if regular log rotation is part of your usual business process. The point is, it should probably be part of your usual business process, as it's too late to delete once the lawyers are involved.
Canada does have free speech, according to Section 2(b) of the Constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982):
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes
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.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
This judgement has no effect on free speech in any case, merely on the right to anonymity, a different question entirely. On the topic of free speech, Oliver Wendell Holmes (an American Supreme Court Judge) put it very well. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater". Not even in the United States is the right to free speech absolute - nor would any sane person want it to be.
It sounds like Canada must be married to Australia with this nonsense court ruling. Must we all now go to a public library or internet cafe in order to be able to post anonymously? Somebody should act up and get rude and loud until governments get the message. Freedom of communications is not in the hands of governments to regulate. This freedom belongs only to individuals not to states.
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
American political philosophy is not the same as Western political philosophy. While they do have a lot of common points, at times they differ wildly.
Just compare "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in U.S. to "peace, order and good government" in Canada to see what I mean.
yes, you cant moderate your AC posts
Due to the fact that rights tend to overlap, rights always have limitations. The old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" comes to mind.
Free speech, therefore, has limitations. This is even true in the United States. For example: slander.
We do have a constitutional right to free speech within the legal limitations, just as the Americans have a constitutional right to free speech within their legal limitations. Yes, we have more limitations than the Americans do, and yes I believe that Canadian law goes too far with its limitations on speech. However, this doesn't change the fact that Mr. Steacy's assertion that free speech is "an American concept" and that "Canada doesn't have free speech" is incorrect.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
We don't have a constitution. Please turn in your passport...
Uh, yes we do. Please attend a Canadian History class. Or at least do some trivial research.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
No doubt. Try moderating and then posting as anonymous. Your mods will be reverted.
GPG 0x1B479C78
If I'm reading the case correctly, it appears that a jury decided that the anonymous poster:
1) posted deflamatory remarks, and
2) posted IP-protected material (copyright violation, whatever)
And now at the jury has decided this, they're summoning the website to hand over the logs so they can procecute.
I'm not sure what I see wrong with that. When someone breaks the law, they broke the law.
A different issue is whether the website should be keeping those logs, but that's not what this is aboot, eh?
-David
...just to save time, in the interest of transparency, here's my IP address:
127.0.0.1
Cheers
A. Coward.