Model Drops Lawsuit After Outing Anonymous Blogger

JumperCable writes "The NY Daily News is reporting that model Liskula Cohen, who was suing the 'Skanks of NYC' blogger for defamation, is dropping the lawsuit now that she has outed the anonymous blogger, who is a Fashion Institute of Technology student named Rosemary Port. This brings up the question of potential abuse of the legal system to 'out' anonymous authors even if there is no intention actually to pursue a case against an anonymous individual. Also, according to the article, the outed blogger intends to sue Google for $15 million because it 'breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity.' Do Web hosting services even have a fiduciary duty to protect their clients, or is this all legal bluff and bluster?" Should such anonymity-busting court rulings include a provision for penalties if the plaintiff does not follow through with legal action after outing their target?

Comments

Expectation of anonymity?

[Cragen]

Sorry. "Expectation of anonymity"? Where did that come from? I don't think anyone should ever expect anonymity. In fact, I am becoming more in favor of making everyone use their real name, all the time, to lessen the ridiculous-ness, the hateful content, the juvenile, spiteful posts, that we regularly see on forums. In RL, there is no anonymity. Every action has a reaction. Maybe more people need to learn that.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[zwei2stein]

So, what is YOUR real name and address?

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Have you considered the expedient of ignoring posts without real names attached, rather than overhauling the treatment of anonymity and pseudoanonymity across the entire internet?

You might find that a bit more practical.

That aside, though, "in RL" there is often anonymity. People have been pamphleteering, often scurrilously, since the invention of the printing press. People have been writing things on walls since (approximately) the invention of walls. Heck, until comparatively recently, with the invention of modern recordkeeping and administration, anybody who went more than a few miles from where they habitually lived could claim to be just about anyone, with no way to check.

The positive history of anonymity: whistleblowing, social support for certain stigmatized groups(alcoholics, homosexuals, low caste hindus, etc.), freedom from coercion by others in your life, and so forth; also bears mentioning.

Sure, sometimes we have to deal with the greater internet fuckwad; but (most of the time) that isn't a big deal, and there are upsides.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[hattig]

This is pretty much the only post that needs to exist on the topic of the "outed" blogger's plans to sue Google.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[MindKata]

"I don't think anyone should ever expect anonymity" and "British"

With a foolish attitude like that, they should try to get a job with the British Government.

Anonymity is almost a form of protection, however its *never* perfect protection. Anonymity is a poor man's protection in an imperfect world, but some small amount of poor protection is still better than no protection.

Its a fact of life not everyone in the world can be trusted, so all of us choose to hide some information. Therefore any attempt by governments to imply "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" (tm) is simply part of government (and business) PR manipulation tactics to fool the masses into docile acquiescence. Knowledge is power so all of us have to be careful leaking all knowledge about ourselves. Plus all governments want more power (its why each politician got into that job in the first place, they want the power to rule and control others so they can ultimately personally gain from having that power over others, and its also why they always want ever more of everyones information because it gives them ever more power. Knowledge is power).

As for this model, she is (like many models) very evidently a HPD (Histrionic Personality Disorder), and the one thing HPDs want above almost all else is ever more attention, which is exactly what this case is giving her.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[damburger]

I concur.

Furthermore I will add that removing the privilege of Internet anonymity would not herald a return to some non-existed golden age of respect, it would technologically disarm the citizen, the whistleblower, and the blogger whilst leaving intact the weapons of the PR guru, the astroturfer and private detective. There is an arms race between those in power who wish to control discourse and those without power who want to carry out discourse outside the reach of power. Surrendering one side would not automatically make the other side step back.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[Richard_at_work]

Google should not have complied. It should have fought back instead of folding like cheap lawn furniture.

This attitude is starting to get more prevelent, and its quite disheartening. Why should Google have to spend thousands of dollars in a legal defence of your actions? That sounds like a feeling of entitlement to me - 'protect me because I use your service!'

Rosemary Port could have hired an attorney to make her defence to the court and made her own case to keep her identity a secret. Did she do that?

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[Znork]

I think generally the powerful have more to gain from anonymity then the poor.

The rich and powerful may lose their positions, but the poor may lose their means of sustenance or face other, worse, forms of persecution.

We might wish we had a world where nobody would have to fear persecution for their political views, their religion or their sexual preferences and one that would always remain so tolerant. But we don't. We might wish we'd have a world where all your friends, co workers and relatives would be happy to know your intimate details. But we don't. And while we might wish we could choose the beliefs and preferences of everyone we know and everyone we have to work with, the fact is, many can't.

Some things we keep from people because those facets of ones life is none of their business. Sometimes to protect them, as not to offend them, sometimes to protect ourselves.

If it was ever possible to air everyone's dirty laundry I think I would welcome it.

Perhaps. A lot of deserving people would get what's coming to them. But so would a lot of undeserving ones.

On balance I think it would harm more than help; the loss of free dialogue and speech from many who fear persecution would by far outweigh any gain of fewer hurt feelings by people who don't know how to ignore assholes.

Re:Expectation of anonymity?

[rho]

You can make up a Venn diagram if you want, but bloggers certainly can be journalists, and vice versa.

"Journalist" is like "scientist". It's a method, not a certificate. A less well-defined process than science, but it's a lot like porn: you know journalism when you see it.

power isn't often balanced

[circletimessquare]

it is often the case that someone who wishes to whistleblow on a company dumping into an aquifer, or having proof of a bullshit reason to invade iraq, is pitting themselves against a furious entity with a lot of power. such that you want anonymity ensured in communication channels where individuals are not afraid to speak out against crimes and abuses of the public trust by the government or other powerful entities

of course, the flip side of that concept is you get this ridiculous skankfight and the legal idiocy resulting from that. but protecting skanks from identifying each other is a small price to pay considering the upside of protecting the concept of anonymity

Re:Luckily the person in question wasn't a minor

[hedwards]

That's not a fair comparison at all, unless I missed the part where the plaintiff committed suicide. This sort of shoddy reasoning is exactly why things are going to hell. Additionally being anonymous is different than pretending to be a real person that isn't you and using that deception to willfully inflict harm on others.

In fact I'm not sure that there really is anything at all in common to there besides the net and attorneys.