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."

14 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm behind 7 proxies

    1. Re:Good luck by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you need to post anonymously, you didn't have free speech in the first place.

      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. Someone with your sig ought to know, unless you're just a poser.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. Oh dear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you imagine the political rhetoric if they found 4chan.

  3. Damn anonymous cowards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should be ashamed of themselves, posting anonymously.

  4. Something interseting by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Shame by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  6. PDF of the motion, high lulz-to-content ratio by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  7. Re:Anonymous speak Free speech by Yamamato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Free speech? by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Anonymous speak Free speech by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.

    Common Sense would indicate otherwise.

  10. silly court decision, no free speach in Canada by stuartjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. What does /. do with the IPs of Anonymous Cowards? by PhotoBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. Free Speech by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Rock and hard place. by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.