Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Court Sides With Online Anonymity
bs0d3 writes "Michael Geist said of a recent Canadian court ruling, 'Anonymous speech can be empowering — whistleblowers depend upon it to safeguard their identity and political participants in some countries face severe repercussions if they speak out publicly — but it also carries the danger of posts that cross the line into defamation without appropriate accountability.' Although I disagree that defamation is an acceptable reason for a court to find someone's identity, the outcome of this trial seems favorable. The court was not asked to determine whether the posts at issue were in fact defamatory. Rather, it simply faced the question of whether it should order the disclosure of personal information about the posters themselves so that someone could proceed with a defamation lawsuit. The court relied on 'Warman v. Fournier,' a previous Canadian defamation case and asked, '(1) Whether there was a reasonable expectation of anonymity; (2) Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of wrongdoing by the poster; (3) Whether the plaintiff tried to identify the poster and was unable to do so; and (4) Whether the public interest favoring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered." In this case the order to identify the poster was denied. Since the plaintiff did not identify the specific defamatory words, she failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation. Moreover, the court also ruled that the posters had a reasonable expectation of anonymity and that there were insufficient efforts to try to identify them."
at least in Canada eh?
Safe Blog hosting.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
How have the corporations overlooked the Canadian government for so long? How could a ruling that makes this much sense come out of a court of law in this day and age at these prices?
I got here through a series of tubes
Although I disagree that defamation is an acceptable reason for a court to find someone's identity...
Fucking moron.
This is how the process ought to work, however in the US the presumption is that any data belongs to the site, not to the posters and they can do what they want with it. Slashdot for example says that the comments belong to the posters, meaning you retain copyright in what you post, but nothing is said about who owns log data such as the IP address where your post came from, or the mapping between your handle and your "real" name (I don't remember showing anyone a birth certificate). That's why US citizens really have no case against the Telcos if they turn over your call records to the Feds. They regard it as their data. It would take a privacy law which we don't have now to force it to be decided by the US Judicial branch.
With the current Harper government in power, I am totally amazed at this ruling. I applaud the judge for standing up for online anonymity.
Also:
RIP Jack Layton
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Girl With One Track Mind can tell you all about the importance of being able to stay anonymous.
Actually in her case she was doing a pretty good job at staying anonymous while posting her blog entries about her sex life, but then she published a book and some asshole 'journalists' tracked her down and gave out all her personal details.
She lost her job.
She stopped writing her blogs, and let's be honest, the readers lost an interesting character to read about on the interwebs.
Staying anonymous is extremely important for many reasons, so people like facebookâ(TM)s marketing director Randi Zuckerberg, who also happens to be Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerbergâ(TM)s sister need to shut their yaps and stop spouting this type of nonsense:
I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away⦠People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. ⦠I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.
You can't handle the truth.
Looks like the blog is down.
Anyways, Michael Geist's column is here:
http://www.thestar.com/article/1032104--geist-court-grapples-with-legalities-of-anonymous-online-postings
Wearing pants should always be optional.
...welcome our new Anonymous Coward overlords.
I don't care how free you are, you Canuck bastards, do you have any idea how many b-rated movies have had to settle for Tom Sizemore and other lesser-known actors since the war? Do you even feel GUILTY? Billy had kids, man!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Today, Steve Jobs the head of Apple computer and inventor of minimalist design passed away due to complications from his fight with cancer. Jobs, who was last seen in the public eye wearing a very stylish black sock/dress combination; was said to be softly murmuring "But Wait! Theres more" before gently passing away early Friday morning.
Freedom of speech should also involve taking responsibility for what you have to say, so why hide behind anonymity if you have something important to say? If you plan on taking down a company as a whistleblower, have the balls to do so and sign your name!
Signed, Anonymous Coward.
Yes, we all have a right to anonymity.
But it wasn't decided that that right prevents discovery of our identity if we overstep our rights by committing legal offenses against others.
It was only decided that the offended party didn't say what the offense was, and didn't try to identify the offender themselves. If they had, and this case had come down simply to the right of anonymity, the courst would probably have ordered the identification, as anonymity is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
It said she was a whore.
Posted AC for obvious reasons, eh?