Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules That Government Can Force Glassdoor To Unmask Anonymous Users Online (arstechnica.com)
pogopop77 shares a report from Ars Technica: An appeals court will soon decide whether the U.S. government can unmask anonymous users of Glassdoor -- and the entire proceeding is set to happen in secret. Federal investigators sent a subpoena asking for the identities of more than 100 anonymous users of the business-review site Glassdoor, who apparently posted reviews of a company that's under investigation for potential fraud related to its contracting practices. The government later scaled back its demand to just eight users. Prosecutors believe these eight Glassdoor users are "third-party witnesses to certain business practices relevant to [the] investigation." The name of the company under investigation is redacted from all public briefs. Glassdoor made a compromise proposal to the government: it would notify the users in question about the government's subpoena and then provide identifying information about users who were willing to participate. The government rejected that idea. At that point, Glassdoor lawyered up and headed to court, seeking to have the subpoena thrown out. Lawyers for Glassdoor argued that its users have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously. While the company has "no desire to interfere" with the investigation, if its users were forcibly identified, the investigation "could have a chilling effect on both Glassdoor's reviewers' and readers' willingness to use glassdoor.com," states Glassdoor's motion (PDF). The government opposed the motion, though, and prevailed in district court.
The company under investigation is Slashdot. The anonymous tipsters revealed their shady business practices including posting repurposed press releases on the front page ("slashvertisements"), inflating story count by posting the same story numerous times ("dupes") and fraudulently claiming to employ competent editors who are actually illiterate millennials.
Do you have a right to anonymity online?
If you did, you could use it to aid terrorist activities, like bombing. So do you really want online anonymity, citizen?
Given how unreliable witnesses are compared to actual documented evidence, and given that the company in question is likely to attack the credibility of the witnesses based on the fact that "they said mean things about their former coworkers anonymously like the KKK!", why is the government so insistent on this?
These prosecutors act like spoiled children.
"You can't go into that door"
"I DEMAND TO BE LET INTO THAT DOOR!!!"
"There's nothing in there! And if you open it, you'll let the dog out and I'll have to chase it down the street!
"NOWNOWNOWNOW!!!"