Slashdot Mirror


Posting AC - a Thing of the Past?

c0lo writes to point out an article from the Indystar. From the article: "A Marion County judge has ruled, for the first time in Indiana, that news media outlets can be ordered by the court to reveal identifying information about posters to their online forums."

51 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. I am ironically.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Posting this anonymously

    1. Re:I am ironically.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I demand that /. reveal the identity of the parent poster!

    2. Re:I am ironically.... by h00manist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if they don't have the identifying data, are the journalists then sued for aiding and abetting unaccountable subservive activities?

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    3. Re:I am ironically.... by skrimp · · Score: 2

      Yes, I know.

    4. Re:I am ironically.... by toastar · · Score: 2

      subversive?

    5. Re:I am ironically.... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, proxy bonuses to AC don't stack, so you'd only get the benefit of the highest one.

    6. Re:I am ironically.... by robthebloke · · Score: 2

      Send the judge scuba diving in Sharm el-Sheikh, and to the gallows? Do you have any preference in which order?

    7. Re:I am ironically.... by ashidosan · · Score: 2

      Ah, yes. Your constitutional right to online anonymity.

      The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Should the people wish to post anonymously on bulletin boards, their identity shall be protected, even in such cases where visibility of public boards transcends State or Union boundaries, or even if they're being a total dick.

    8. Re:I am ironically.... by pavon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Defending your privacy against people with sufficient resources is a lost cause. I care about defending against people who don't have a court order or an army of snoops. Like the people interviewing me for a job.

    9. Re:I am ironically.... by Americano · · Score: 3, Funny

      Choose the wrong order, and you have a setup for "Weekend at Bernie's III."

  2. For what reason? by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only reason a court would be gathering such information is to stifle free speech.

    1. Re:For what reason? by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then you have no problem with peoples' identities being sought out. The "qualifier" is bullshit.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:For what reason? by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I were to go around the internet telling everyone that you are a child molester, wouldn't you want to find out my identity? Oh, I posted as an AP when I did it, tough luck. Now if a future employer google's your name it's all over the internet and you have to waste your time explaining it and I got off without even a slap on the wrist.
      I think both sides have good arguments, I would hate for there to be a 'one size fits all' solution to this dilema. If someone is slandering my name on the internet anonymously, I want to go after that person. First I should have to prove the allegations are false, though.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:For what reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The right to free speech says absolutely nothing about the right to anonymous free speech. At also says nothing about there not being consequences to your free speech, only that the government won't stop you from saying it.

    4. Re:For what reason? by Beetle+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, let's dispense with the silly sensationalism.

      Free speech was never meant to defend acts of libel.

      If reasonable acts of libel took place, and the site knows the IP address of the posters, then it is ridiculous to use the shield law. That's like saying that I can set up a newspaper where I don't disclose the identity of any of my journalists, and where they can freely malign any individual through it while appealing to the shield law. That is ridiculous.

      What wasn't clear from a cursory reading is whether the news outlets will be required to store the information. That's a bit overstepping, if it's the case. It's like saying that if I have a bulletin board in my supermarket, then I should be required to get the identity of anyone who posts there.

      While not germane to the point of the story, I've not seen one instance of a news site allowing comments improving the quality of the site, or the discourse.

      Not once.

      Open comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.

      --
      Beetle B.
    5. Re:For what reason? by smelch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Extrapolate your own opinion.... do we search for people leaving threatening anonymous letters in somebody's mailbox, or is that protected free and anonymous speech?

      Obviously internet comments are not the place to take any threat seriously though. They're like rap lyrics but less reliable.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    6. Re:For what reason? by Miseph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may think that qualifier is "bullshit" but it's a well-established and widely accepted one. We have drawn the line where free speech ends at the commission of a crime or threat of harm for a very long time, and doing so is considered appropriate even by the vast majority of card-carrying members of the ACLU.

      You're welcome to disagree, but pretending that this is an irrational or unprecedented distinction is just silly.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    7. Re:For what reason? by smelch · · Score: 2

      Slander should not apply to anonymous posters. The standard for what counts as slander ought to be the person is backing their statement with their own name. Anybody who believes the anonymous writings (not anonymous as in AC, but as in smelch, you have no idea who I am) of somebody online without going to some kind of official reference is a moron. We've all learned not to trust wikipedia, but you think anonymous postings can count as slandering somebody? No, if what is written online about you that way damages you that just falls under "people are stupid", and you don't want to work for stupid people anyway.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    8. Re:For what reason? by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only reason a court would be gathering such information is to stifle free speech.

      Free speech is not the freedom to libel and slander the innocent. Free speech is not the freedom to make threats with impunity.

      The anonymous speaker can be legitimately exposed.

    9. Re:For what reason? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's simple really. If a serious threat of violence is made in an online forum, the police in the jurisdiction the threat is directed at go to a judge, fill out the paper work, and get a warrant. If someone is libeling you, you take the evidence, go to the judge, get a court order. It isn't as if this case is saying that anyone can make a request to get IP addresses of anonymous posters, it would still require a court order or warrant to get that information.

    10. Re:For what reason? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with that is that people have had their lives pretty much ruined by people posting slanderous allegations against them online. The most recent one I heard of was a guy who had to move because word got around that he was a child molester. Some woman took it into her head that he was one. She created multiple accounts on online forums and then started "exchanging" information about his record as a child molester. Each one of her accounts "didn't know" about some of the stuff that another one did. She even had one account that started out "skeptical".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:For what reason? by theaveng · · Score: 2

      >>>I have no problem with peoples' identities being sought

      Also makes it easier to throw the formerly-Anonymous persons in jail for things like ----- sharing how to crack a PS3 to install linux or media-watching software ----- producing art or comic books filled with nude teenagers doing what teenagers do (sex) ----- uploading a copy of Streamboat Willie --- et cetera.

      Liberty cannot live in a world where people can not hide.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    12. Re:For what reason? by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also the grand proposition of reprogramming society not to respond positively to hearsay. That's your "one size fits all". It's all about conditioned response and behavior modification, with specific keywords to set off the alarm, no matter the context. Real, honest to god psy-ops at work. Piece of cake. There's a small stink about the military trying it out on some congressmen in Afghanistan. I have to laugh when I consider how well it's working on genpop when they all recite almost word for word what they hear on the TV.

      I find these charges hard to believe

      Then don't believe them

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    13. Re:For what reason? by swilver · · Score: 2

      Of course, such people would not stoop to simply post such messages using someone else's computer / account / wifi, etc..

    14. Re:For what reason? by smelch · · Score: 2

      Thats unfortunate, and I understand the potential for that to happen. However, astroturfing is something people need to get familiar with because it extends way past slander. Product reviews, etc. I don't think the answer is to look at who's posting stuff after the fact, we should educate people on astroturfing and how to get reliable information online. Rumors existed before the internet, he-said-she-said conversations will never go out of style. People need to understand the nature of the internet and the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. The more we try to fight it, the more it will get in our way.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    15. Re:For what reason? by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Free Speech does not mean No Consequences. Just that the consequences you can face are not for speaking, but for what you say. If you are not speaking the truth, you run the risk of being charged with Libel or Slander, if you are spreading information that isn't yours to spread, you run the risk of being charged for copyright violations, if you are spreading information that has been deemed secret in nature, you run the risk of being charged with espionage, if you are tormenting people, you risk being charged with harrassment, and so forth.

      While the ability to speak with anonymity is a very important thing, in that it allows conscientious whistle blowers, it does not mean that there won't be consequences to what you say, or that you have a right to say whatever you want regardless of the veracity.

    16. Re:For what reason? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      The whole point of "free speech" is that there can't be any consequences for you.

      No, the whole point of Free Speech is that you can criticize the government and the government can not use its power to prevent you from doing it or punish you for it.

      There's a lot of other speech that you will face serious consequences for, from the government or from the public at large.

      You need to hone up on both your history and law.

      Now that is ironic.

      Some states even protect anonymous speech explicitly and their own Supreme Courts will back it up. ...I think I will go read some of the Federalist Papers now.

      Depends on what the speech contains. If it contains threats of violence, their Supreme Courts will hunt the speaker down themselves. Free Speech is not an absolute right and never was. Failure to understand the distinction between what is free and what is already controlled makes the part that is free vulnerable to abridgment by blanket lawmaking (reverting the First Amendment) promulgated to control speech that is already controlled by the law.

    17. Re:For what reason? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullfighting is well established and widely accepted also. Does that make it okay?

      In Spain, yes. In India, no.

      It's suppression.

      Suppression can be good. Bad suppression: mowing down peaceful protesters in a public square. Good suppression: putting a serial killer in prison.

      An assertion of arbitrary authority.

      Depends how far you stretch the term "arbitrary". Our government is, in theory, "of the people". We elect them, and our elected officials appoint the judiciary - except where the judiciary is directly elected. It may not be the best system, but I'd hardly call it "arbitrary".

      The commission of a crime has nothing to do with speech.

      A death threat is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech. To paraphrase Holmes, falsely yelling "fire" in a theater is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:For what reason? by DanTheStone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does that need to be a crime? I could understand being charged with your complicity in the trampling deaths (say, some degree of negligent manslaughter), but why should yelling fire itself be criminal? That just sets up the government to decide other things are also illegal to say.

    19. Re:For what reason? by Rary · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course, such people would not stoop to simply post such messages using someone else's computer / account / wifi, etc..

      So what? The point of obtaining that kind of information isn't simply to blindly arrest whoever was identified. The point is to question the person as part of an ongoing investigation. If there is reason to believe that the person in question has committed an offence, then they may be arrested. But a name associated with an IP address or a forum account is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to get a conviction.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    20. Re:For what reason? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      The point is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do you not think that there wouldn't be significant support for putting Muslims in internment camps? When we have elected officials participating in racist displays such as this, I wouldn't put anything past them.

      Sedition hasn't been used against speech since the 60s, because the military industrial complex hasn't been seriously challenged since the 60s. When a serious movement for peace and freedom appears, you can bet your ass that they'll be up to their old tricks again.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Perhaps the key is by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To ensure this information is never stored in the first place.

    1. Re:Perhaps the key is by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 2

      yeah, that's right - let's count on companies steeped in respect for metrics and numbers to just stop logging who visits their site. That'll happen.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    2. Re:Perhaps the key is by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      Just have a policy of deleting all logs after 24 hours. That gives enough time to block spammers by IP without also giving much of a window for courts to breach anonymity.

  4. Recap by Compaqt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. People under tyranny
    2. Write pamphlets anonymously
    3. Make a new country
    4. GOTO 1
    5. "Goto considered harmful"

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Recap by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your post was too long, so I hope you don't mind that I stopped reading it after 16 steps or so.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Defamation is illegal by imthesponge · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who knew?

  6. So, by unity100 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Random judge, in Indiana, usa, fucking marion county, decides what are the web standards and realities of life on internet ?

    1. Re:So, by RavenChild · · Score: 2

      Marion County is one of the most corrupt places I have ever visited. I went to Indianapolis with some friends, went out to bars, and then everyone got arrested (too long a story to say how it went down). Anyways, the Judge gave everyone the highest bail (one person even received higher than the bail schedule's max amount), we paid it, got charged double (20% cash instead of 10%), and had to go back to court twice. They are thieves. All of the charges were dropped the second we went to court. In the end, we have arrests on our records, everyone is out $2000 for bail and at least $5000 in legal fees, and Marion County Circus is still stealing innocent people's money. Hope someone with money can fight them some day.

  7. Chilling Effects? by Kid+Zero · · Score: 2

    Cyberbullying? Not likely, it's stifling of speech. Find out who they are then drag them into court to put the fear of the Law into them. Once they're scared into submission, the plantiff can continue on safe in the knowledge that no matter how foul he behaves, no one will comment. I doubt it'll go far.

    1. Re:Chilling Effects? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Most cyberbullies don't care if their target knows who is verbally abusing them because they're more popular then their victim already so have no fear of reprisal. This is about making sure nobody ever gets their free speech right online ever again, as lawsuits become the sword that kills the first amendment.

  8. Real dumb... people will move to vpns by mlts · · Score: 2

    Real dumb move there by the decision-makers. What will happen is that Joe Clueless who makes a comment about someone sucking might get stung, while there will be a heightened interest in using a proxy for traffic; likely an offshore proxy that will either reply with unmitigated laughter, or a high resolution picture of a middle finger (or perhaps a sole of a shoe depending on geographic location) when someone demands IP logs.

    VPNs are becoming really easy to use these days. The iPhone can activate one with a couple button presses. Browser extensions can activate Tor access with a button press.

    If push came to shove and people started being arrested and sued left and right, it wouldn't be difficult for even Joe Sixpack to move to a VPN service, which would make current police work against real criminals a lot harder because every connection, the forensic officer would have to bed the VPN server for IP to IP correlation logs, or be able to monitor all connections to the VPN server and prove that connection "A" went into the network, and was routed to site "B", and do it well enough in a presentation to convince a jury.

    If this judge were smart, he would have let the small fry go. This way, the nasty criminals would still be easily catchable without having to make any and all police investigations international affairs.

  9. Re:All I can think about in reference to this... by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Informative

    Already happened. Moot got subpoenaed and showed up to present IP logs and such on the Palin email skiddie. The court also had him define "newfag" and "rickroll".

  10. Re:Does Slashdot retain any AC identifying info? by The+Moof · · Score: 2
    A quick look at my blocked scripts on this page show the following:
    • google-analytics.com
    • doubleclick.net
    • addthis.com

    So there's 3 scripts on this page whose sole purpose is to track you. I'm also willing to bet there's enough information stored in various locations (for example timestamp on the message cross referenced with the log files) to figure out who posted those anonymous comments.

  11. Post Anonymously by dereference · · Score: 2

    If you're logged in, but check the "post anonymously" setting, slashdot apparently retains your association as the author of that comment. You cannot mod your own comment in such a case, even if you logout and login again. I don't know about actual AC postings, although I suspect at the very least the source IP address is retained.

  12. What if they don't know the IP address? by davidwr · · Score: 2

    What if newspapers and other sites purged identifying information within a few days of the post?

    That would be enough time to subpoena the information immediately in cases of "clear and present danger" or if the police are monitoring a site as part of an active investigation, but not enough to go after comments made more than a few days ago under a one-off handle or as a "guest"/"anonymous coward."

    Assuming you don't pre-moderate non-registered comments, you need to keep IP addresses for at least a few hours to make things like spammer-in-progress-from-same-IP-address-blocks work.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  13. Sometimes you MUST believe, provisionally by davidwr · · Score: 2

    I find these charges hard to believe

    Then don't believe them

    If you are a teacher and someone online calls you a child molester, your boss may be legally liable if he just ignores you and it turns you you are a child molester and you later molest a student. He's pretty much obligated to give the claim lip service and suspend you just long enough to do a cursory CYA examination and declare the allegation "trivial," "unfounded," "without merit," or something similar. If the claim has zero evidence backing it up, he might be able to do it in less than 10 minutes but he can't just ignore it.

    On the other hand, if the person making the false claim makes specific allegations, like "countertrolling was my neighbor in Springfield, Illinois in 2002 when I was 13 years old and he molested me and my younger brother. When I told my mom she didn't go to the police but he moved away the next week" and you know from his resume he lived in Springfield until mid-2002, you may have to suspend him for a few days until you can prove to yourself that there is little or no basis to this allegation.

    If the allegation cannot be dismissed as unsubstantiated and it becomes your word against his, your Principal may be forced by his HR department or his school's liability-insurance-carrier to reassign you to non-teaching duties until YOU can prove it is a lie. If word leaks to the general public, parents who are more concerned with their kids than the truth may turn it into a political issue and you may find yourself pressured to resign unjustly.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  14. Just ruled the opposite in UK by petes_PoV · · Score: 2
    A british judge has just ruled that a newspaper does NOT have to reveal the identities of some commentators to a person who wanted to sue them. He classed the comments they made as no more than "pub talk" (a pub is english for a bar - where you go to drink, and talk).

    ref: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/28/newspaper_anonymous_commenters/

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  15. Re:Fine with me! by networkBoy · · Score: 2

    I'm partial to young america minnesota myself. easy zip code: 55555

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  16. Easy Fix by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Don't post stuff in the USA.

    Pretty soon the US is going to see all parts of the internet hosted on non-US soil, to avoid all the US BS. Companies will follow suit. As will Jobs.

    Then the US will just be a tiny speed bump on the information superhighway. I mean the great thing about the internet is that it is distributed, it doesn't actually have to exist in a certain place and thus be subject to its stupid laws. Just move the physical bits somewhere nicer.

    1. Re:Easy Fix by lwsimon · · Score: 2

      Where is nicer? Honest question. I'm an American, and I love it here, but we're headed the wrong direction. In 20 years, I might very well want to move somewhere more free.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.