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."
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.
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.
On the contrary, the right to privacy and anonymity is one of the base requirements for the existence of free speech. Without a guarantee of privacy, much speech which dissents from the mainstream, identifies graft and corruption, or identifies wrong-doers would be stifled if there were consequences for the speaker. Whether it's a bully stealing lunch money, a contractor putting beach sand in concrete for a building, a tip line for identifying/finding criminals, or a Governor selling a senate seat - the implications of telling the truth which is detrimental to a powerful individual can be a personal risk which is just not tenable.
Yes, privacy can be used for evil; however it is critical that is be available.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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
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
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.
...just to save time, in the interest of transparency, here's my IP address:
127.0.0.1
Cheers
A. Coward.