Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Blogger Outed By Politician
Snoskred writes with the story of a blogger who chose to remain pseudonymous, who has been outed by an Alaskan politician in his legislative newsletter. Alaska Rep. Mike Doogan had been writing bizarre emails to people who emailed him, and the Alaskan blogger "Mudflats" was one of those who called him on it. (Mudflats first began getting noticed after blogging about Sarah Palin from a local point of view.) Doogan seems to have developed a particular itch to learn who Mudflats is, and he finally found out, though he got her last name wrong, and named her in his official newsletter. The Huffington Post is one of the many outlets writing about the affair. The blogger happens to be Democrat — as is Doogan — but that is immaterial to the question of the right to anonymity in political speech. Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously? May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
pleaase don't oust me :(
please?
Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously?
Sure.
May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
Why yes. Everyone has the right to keep their identity a secret.. but no-one has the right to prevent others from discovering their secrets.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I don't recall ever seeing anything about a RIGHT to anonymity? This isn't healthcare.
You want to blog and take potshots at someone, don't be surprised if they try to find out who you are.
I'm disturbed that an American would feel that they should have to be anonymous to post political speech. There should be no threat of reprisal whatsoever; in fact the politicians should be the ones who are worried about what the electorate thinks of them.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Everybody has a right to post anonymously, not just Americans. But if somebody finds out...ooops, too bad. They too have a right to post that info. They don't a right to force anybody to reveal it though.
What?
I thought this would be about an anonymous blogger outing a politician.
He discovered her identity fair and square. Would you propose that one must pretend not to know who someone behind a publication is based on some arbitrary set of circumstances. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" and whatnot.
Is not a pre-requisite to freedom of speech. Whether you chose to shout your comments from the gallery or in front of a microphone, the right to express one's opinion -on any subject- should not be subject to persecution by any person. That is why it is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To the citizens of the burgeoning republic, there was nothing more important than the right to speak freely and without retribution.
Sig this!
How is it even breaching her privacy if the last name was wrong?
Seems more like he attempted to out her to me.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Isn't that what blogging anonymously is?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously?
Yes. And anywhere else for that matter.
May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?
No. See The Constitutional Amendment #1. Yes, that old thing is still kicking around these days.
The game.
Just exactly who is going to decide what "... a compelling state interest" is?
Let me guess? The same people that will charge you with treason or terrorism?
Yes, I think anonymous speech should be protected... until it become defamation or slander. Both are pretty difficult slopes to tread when the figure being defamed or slandered is a public figure. On another note, a political figure is both public and a part of the government. They have even less right to any privacy regarding their lives than probably anyone else. Despite the allure of any resulting tapes, Pamela Anderson has a right to expect privacy... no matter who she is fucking. A political leader... not so much.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Of course they have 'the right' to protect their secrets - as in this case, their identity. However, do they have a legal leg to stand on in trying to fight somebody who has made that secret public? I'd say they don't.
So, yes, anybody - politician or otherwise - should be perfectly allowed to blow somebody's 'anonymity' if there was no agreement between the two parties to maintain that anonymity (as in some court proceedings, witness protection program, etc. etc.).
Free speech cannot exist without the protection of anonymity. Without anonymous speech, the fear of reprisal would chill discussion. Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers published many of their seminal documents under pen names, lest they lose their heads to the King.
At the same time, the government has an interest in identifying certain publishers. Libel or slander should not be protected because it is a crime that hurts its victims. The government has to balance the interests of protecting anonymous speech against the rights of victims to seek relief. These factors have to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant government power such as subpoenas to pierce the veil of anonymity.
Here, the posts do not seem to be libel or slander. However, we do not know if any government force was used to identify the blogger. I think that it is perfectly fine if the blogger was careless or was betrayed by a friend she told. But if the politician used his office to investigate or to subpoena the information, I would be bullshit mad.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
IANAL, I believe dexmachina has it right.
"Does an American have the right to post political opinion online anonymously?"
Unquestionably YES, as long as it is opinion and not libelous (which, being about a public figure, is hard to show).
"May a government official breach that anonymity absent a compelling state interest?"
No, IF he used non-public information to do it.
The pseudonym of the blogger in question is actually AKMuckraker, who is the author of The Mudflats blog.
I mean, come on... it's only on the second paragraph of the HuffPo link you posted:
"Mudflats blogger "Alaska Muckraker" (AKM) rose to blogger fame almost instantaneously..."
*sigh*
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
If the blog system had used something like TOR, and also not forced the creation of an account with a real email address, she would have had a better chance of staying 'muddy'.
Or I guess if she'd wanted to she could have posted from random web cafes, without logging in to an account, but I guess in Alaska, not too many of those cafes, and the neighbours would be gossipin' about her strange furtiveness in the cafe.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
What is anonymity?
Everyone has a right to speak their mind. It is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The argument, "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is a rhetorical and logical fallacy on more than one count, which is why I make the distinction about free expression rather than dubious rights or entitlements. However, some of "Mudflats" blogs were put-downs, innuendos and accusations of dubious veracity and rife with unsupported opinions. A person entitled to free speech is also RESPONSIBLE for the content of that speech, and anonymity deprives the targets (assuming that the speecha targets political figures such as Sarah Palin and Mike Doogan) of their right to confront their accusers in a meaningful way. "Outing" the blogger disclosed some of the biases in her accusations.
OK, the "consider the source" argument is also a fallacious argument, but knowing a person has a bone to pick is important to evaluating their trustworthiness or objectivity.
Anonymity has its place. Whenever the speech could lead to extralegal reprisals, such as speech in China, anonymity must be protected. Also, if a person wants their arguments to be evaluated on merit, anonymity might be a good idea in order to dilute the "authority" value (plus or minus) of the author. "Adam Smith" wrote his books under a pseudonym for both reasons, I believe.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
The submitter of this story and various people in various internet forums [cough.] seem to be under the impression that this story has something to do with a possible violation of rights, online or otherwise. Even the various blog posts linked to in the summary, however, only detail Alaska State Rep. Mike Doogan's puerile tendency engage in online name-calling, and Nixonesque paranoia and obsession with the press. Doogan didn't obtain any information illegally (indeed, likely and luckily, he lacks the power to do so); he just became obsessed with the identity of blogger "Mudflats," and felt the need to "out" said blogger and complain about how unfair everyone was being in the print and internet media.
In conclusion, this story tells us that Rep. Mike Doogan is a paranoid whiner who thinks that the internet is Serious Business. There is a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, and a right to freedom of the press, but if anyone thinks that there a right to publish anonymously, even in the face of a breech of said anonymity using public information, that person is the one who lacks an understanding of the first amendment. Indeed, the (obsessive, childish, etc.) State Representative (i.e. The Man) is fully exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech in this case. It would be a dark day indeed if Rep. Mike Doogan needed a state interest, compelling or otherwise, to whine in emails about bloggers being mean to him on the interwebs.
Freedom of the press needs be expanded to include freedom of the internet.
Get with the program sheaple.
That depends on who you are. Send me your name and address, and I will send you a full explanation.
... as in voted out at the next election.
Democracy is a 2 way street when information is unlimited. Your politicians can vote you out just as easily as you vote your politicians out. Had the same thing happen with Keith Cowing. If U don't support the right agenda, don't be surprised if you're unemployed the next day.
Ooops not in there. Then again, I also grep'd Privacy, and it's not in there either.
Oh well.
An anonymous blog is like an anonymous flyer posted on a telephone pole. It's not illegal to post, and the anonymity only lasts as long as you aren't caught.
If you post too much information, you're bound to get caught. There is no right to be anonymous, only dumb luck.
And stop whining that Senator Doogan is a tattle tale.. aren't you a bit old for that?
Of course. Many SCOTUS decisions bear that out.
A more difficult question. It could depend upon how the official found out the identity of the person. It also could depend upon how that anonymity is breached. It seems inappropriate for the official to use his government position to do so. A newsletter paid for by the government should not be used, but a newsletter paid for by his political campaign fund? That might be legal, though not very moral.
this really isn't much different than something that happened up here in Canada recently. Recently the Ontario court ordered a website to disclose what personal information it has on 8 anonymous posters, information including email and ip addresses. Now while I don't necessarily agree with the decision, it is legal for a court to do so, just as it's legal for the police to look up the records of everyone who phoned you / who you phoned, etc. It's up to the poster(s) to take steps to protect their anonymity, for example throw away email addresses that would be too time consuming to track down who it belongs to, especially across international jurisdictions, use TOR to mask your IP address, etc. Things on the internet are only as private and anonymous as you make them, don't trust others to ensure your privacy.
Everyone has a right to face their accusers, american or not, politician or not. If someone chooses the internet as the ground to make accusations or critical comments then they should be ready to take whatever fair response comes from their target on the same grounds (internet). As a politician Doogan has to choose words carefully, he should participate to the point he defends his position and outlines why it's the right position, he should also consider that getting too caught up in an argument only makes him seem childish and not fit for his role. On another note, the alaskans I've met sure dont seem to the types to care if we know who they are or not, if they have something to say they are gonna say it and if we dont like it well thats our problem. LOL!
It seems to me that many Americans have become so self-centered with the constitutional rights we do have that we have started to claim rights we do not. There is no constitutional right to privacy. There is no constitutional right to having healthcare. There is no constitutional right to having a job. There is no constitutional right to an education. You want those things? You earn them. The "pursuit" has been dropped from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
In direct reflection to this story, I completely fail to see why this is even a question. Nobody ever told her while starting a blog that she would be assured of staying annonymous. Sure, she can hope for that and try to keep it but that we have to help her.
Politicians have the same right to free speech that you and I have. There may be moral or ethical questions to raise about what information they opt to disclose to further their own political careers, but not legal (excluding state secrets, libel, etc). Yes, citizens posses the right to post anonymously. And anyone who learns their true identity posses the right to oust them.
Yes, an American has the right to post anonymously.
But every American has the right to try as hard as they can to find out the identity of that person.
There is nothing wrong about trying to find out the identity of who said what. The exception is that a politician or government official should not be able to use governmental intelligence resources not normally available to the general public (i.e. CIA, NSA, FBI [certain services are available],InterPol, DOJ, etc.) and using a government position to obtain services not normally available to the general public, such as asking for confidential records from ISPs, etc.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
You have the right to post anonymously.
You don't have the right to stay anonymous.
It's quite a different game when suddenly you have to own the words you type. Suddenly, it isn't enough to just say things, you have to make sure they're credible or you lose the credibility you have. You have to own the content and the language and the demeanor you go about expressing yourself, and people will judge you for it. It's one thing if this Rep went about abusing his power to try to find out who the blogger is. But if not?
Boo fuckin hoo. Don't yap at someone's ankles and expect not to get kicked.
Using the term 'outing' as a loaded weapon is all this article is about. If someone is talking about me, then I sure as heck have the right to track down who it is. If he is smart, he is doing his best to hide from my wrath. However, it is not the governments job to protect every asshole from his own mouth. If he does not want people to know he said it, he should not say it. This covers 99% of cases (including the one in question). However, for the more anal amongst you, I do agree that there may be certain circumstances where anonymous speech is protected. Of course, now that the government is run by socialists, it will depend upon the political correctness of the speech as determined by Nancy Pelosi and her friends as to if it should be protected or not
I expect most /.ers to disagree with me, but I think it is worth keeping in mind that freedom of speech is not only not the same as a guaranteed right to speak anonymously, but it is actually intended to make anonymity irrelevant - at least when it comes to speaking your opinion about important issues of politicas, faith etc. - by giving legal protection from any persecution from the state. It is a very specific right, not meant to be a cover-all that gives anybody the right to say anything, however acrimonious, or spread rumours and snipe at people from a safe cover.
That aside - I don't know the specifics of this story. To me it seems obvious that if you have some important viewpoints and observations, you have the right to speak out about it in public and should have the courage to show your face - if you hide behind anonymity, you appear less credible, as if you are ashamed of yourself or you know that what you have to say is bullshit.
As far as I am concerned, it may be permissible to allow anonymity in some cases to protect those who might otherwise suffer unjust retaliation - eg. if they are whistleblowers, or particularly vulnerable witnesses in court - but I think it has to be limited to when there is a special need to show extra concern. I don't think this generally apllies to bloggers.
Now, go on, hate me forever and all that.
Here's the email that started this thing apparently:
Are you people nuts? You send me -- and everybody else in the legislature, from the looks of things -- Spam and then lecture me on email etiquette -- as if there were such a thing? Here's an etiquette suggestion: Abandon your phony names, do your own thinking and don't expect everybody to share your obsessions.
It was addressed to about 30 people who evidently had been emailing Doogan. After this Alaska Muckraker blogged about the email, with a list of net etiquette items.
I think to get the whole story here we need to know what emails Doogan had been getting from these people that led to his email.
I think one of the traps that people who frequent political blogs fall into is trying to get involved in politics without realizing they only have a superficial understanding of the issues, and I can't help but wonder if that was the case here. This guy is a state legislator in Alaska, he may not have any dedicated staff for managing his email, and I imagine that 30 people emailing with flavor-of-the-week issues could create more email than he's used to handling.
Since they all use pseudonyms, he has no means of responding to them other than to go to their blogs, a domain that they have total control over. Don't you think that would be more than just a bit frustrating?
Just because you wish for someone to not know you wrote something, that doesn't automatically give you the right to protect that information.
The identity of a blogger, especially a popular one, can easily be argued to be in the public interest and provided finding this information doesn't involve breaching data protection regulations (ie using a confidential database that you use as part of your job), anyone, be it the president or a blogger can talk about it.
I find it incredibly ironic for a blogger to whine about this kind of thing when bloggers themselves go out of their way to expose people granted anonymity by courts or their place of work when accused of something.
He could've abused his powers but I doubt he needed to. Reading the blog and doing some creative searching would likely provide enough clues to help average joe find out who someone is if they're willing to spend a bit of time looking. Most people who've spent a long time online will have left countless little snippets on the net that would ID them.
If there was nothing more important, why would it be in the first amendment, instead of in, say, the original constitution itself?
Because the original constitution was written on the premise that people had every right that the constitution didn't explicitly give government the power to curtail. Note the language there; the constitution grants powers to the government (which otherwise has none), not rights to the people (who otherwise have all of them). It was feared that explicitly enumerating rights might imply that such a list was exhaustive, ruling out any rights not listed.
The Bill of Rights was only added because many states only agreed to ratify the constitution once such a bill of rights was promised to be added. The ninth and tenth amendments were the compromise added to quell the fears of the list being taken as exhaustive (the ninth explicitly stating that the list of people's rights is not exhaustive, and the tenth explicitly stating that the list of the Federal government's powers is exhaustive).
And of the rights people were worried about explicitly enumerating, freedom of speech (and the press, and religion, and assembly, all bundled together) was priority #1.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
but i will say that nothing, absolutely nothing, protects you from petty local politicians, anywhere in the world
the previously anonymous can make a legal case of it, if there is grounds to proceed, but that's about your only protection
some people have this odd attitude towards the government, that as soon as you are some sort of official, you become some sort of monolithic alien "them". no, mostly the government is composed of the same amount of virtuous people and sleazy people that you encounter in the general public, with an additional dose of well-meaning but bumbling fools, because, at least in a democracy, the government IS the general public
so its not like once someone becomes a politician, they become robotic overlords of perfect constitutional expediency. no, they go right on screwing things up at the same rate before they were elected. which with some politicians can be quite spectacular, especially in the murky world of local politics. the only difference is, with us law at least, is that you might have some recourse for grievance and punitive damages in a court of law
when you deal with the feds, you'll find things to be more fair, simply because there's usually nothing personal going on at a distance, not because the feds are any more capable. meanwhile, when you deal with the local mayor, or the local police, you sometimes get the same sort of overly personal bickering and nasty and shocking abuses as you would get with two neighbors arguing over the placement of a fence or a loud barking dog
you really have to indict the abuses of the local politician, not the entire government. and this goes for any country, not just the usa. the abuses of local politicians does not reflect on the country as a whole, for the usa, canada, mexico... any country in the world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The question is "do you have a right to anonymity when making political editorials?" That's a different question than "do you have the right to make anonymous political editorials?" The answer to the latter question is "of course". The answer to the former question is "of course not".
Horseshit. The Bill of Rights exists because of anonymous free speech. Also, the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting anonymous free speech. You are entirely wrong in every point you make.
The right to anonymous speech is enshrined in the highest law of the land. Whether or not the statements are hurtful is irrelevant. Your political example is particularly clueless.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The parent poster is correct in framing this as a possible abuse of power. It is probably not illegal to reveal someone's identity. It can be illegal to use political power to discover someone's identity.
Your homework assignment (i.e. if you want to debate this without looking like a total idiot) is to prepare an argument against internet anonymity with reference to libel and slander. The links I provided should give you plenty of ammunition. Also, if you dig back through slashdot, there was a recent case in the maryland supreme court (IIRC) involving a fast food franchise trying to subpoena the identities of some critics on the internet, which may or may not have been covered in one of my links. Do note that such an argument is not relevant to the facts of TFA.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The itch of the Republicrat must always be scratched, to carve out the partisan difference, even when there is none...even when it is "immaterial".
Let me guess...if you're a Democrat, then you strongly favor bipartisanism [this year]. Yes?
uggh.
The supremes HAVE described a constitutional right to privacy (alternately, the right to be left alone) although not explicitly described in the Constitution. the case has to do with whether the govt can stick it's figurative nose into your private business (in this case, contraception)
As long as the guy didn't make public secret government files or use illegal routes, I don't see how outing someone could be considered a breach of rights. For one thing, the Internet is public, especially blogs. Maybe being anonymous shirks the responsibility of backing up what you're expressing. If Comrade Obama was secretly blogging and making political statements, I would want to know that it was him before I judged the validity of his statements. One of these days, I'm going to figure out who this "Anonymous Coward" guy is and expose him.
Followed the links to ,a href=http://www.akdemocrats.org/doogan/032709_2_doogan_in_juneau.htm target=_new>Doogan's actual post and I think it's ridiculous not only that he felt compelled to reveal this blogger's identity, but the manner in which he chose to do it. (Extra! Extra! Come on.) I emailed him letting him know I don't think this is right and I urge everyone who agrees to do the same. Maybe he'll send us a mass response!
And NOW the politicians opponents can begin the "If he's not hiding anything, why is he afraid of Good Old American Anonymous Political Commentary -- SO AFRAID he needed to launch a PRIVATE INVESTIGATION and SPY ON HER to assuage his paranoia..."
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Do we have the right to vote anonymously when pressed to start a union?
There is no "right to be anonymous".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
AKMudflats posted for thanksgiving 2008 that she was going to be away with friends and family in an isolated place (27th, http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/happy-thanksgiving/ ) the linked Flickr account ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/akmudflats/ ) has images from said isolated place, possibly Perry Island, on the 29th and 30th November 2008. I can well imagine the Rep. Doogan could just ask around if anyone knows where the pics were taken - he was apparently a journalist for 14 years he must be reasonably good at finding out who people are.
Certainly on 5 December they were in Whittier Harbour and on Perry Island. Would the harbour logs show who made such a journey?
Google shows me that Perry Island is a tiny volcanic island in Prince William sound. Flickr shows me there was one house on it in 1976.
Wasn't there a story a week or two ago, something along the lines of an Ask Slashdot, asking whether people have a right to online anonymity? Now we have this? I'd call it a dupe, but I think the idea is that kdawson is harping some ideology here, or perhaps crowdsourcing a book. I hope you all like volunteer work!
Strangely, around the time this story appeared originally, I removed all kdawson stories from my profile due to the unwavering lameness factor, but here I am again. How does this happen? Do I need to reset my RSS URL to reflect my new author preferences?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I am not claiming Pamela was a paid shill, just that she was accused of being one.
Could I have your real name to back that up?
Do we have the right to post our political opinions anonymously? We sure do. Does a politician have a right to reveal who the anonymous posters are? He or she certainly does!
If "Mudflats" has the right to free speech (and she does), doesn't Mike Doogan have the same right? Remember, the right to free speech covers someone saying something unpopular. Being anonymous is a right only on /.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
...if you mess with powerful people, they may burn you. If you don't mess with powerful people, however, they will know that they can mess with you with impunity and you will see your democracy become first an aristocracy and subsequently either a feudal or totalitarian state.
Your choice: Personal risk, or national disaster. To surf the 'net, or be a serf: That is the question.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
In real life, people who steal credit card numbers, if caught, are sent to jail. This is true even in cases where there has not yet been any monetary theft via the credit card numbers, because the law assumes that the only reason someone would have credit card details is to misuse them.
Was this intrusion of solitude? No, this was a blogger, who was trying to get publicity (albeit under a pseudonym).
Was this a public disclosure of private facts? No, disclosure of identity wasn't publically offensive and it was definitely newsworthy.
Was this false light? No, it wasn't publically offensive, nor was the disclosure of identity misleading.
Was this an appropriation of name or likeness? No, this was identification of writings made by the blogger.
A person doesn't have an absolute right to privacy (otherwise papperazii and credit bureaus wouldn't exist), although it's quite probable that laws, oaths, duties, or contracts were broken in the attempt to pierce this veil of privacy in this particular case.