Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Coward Sued for Slander
An anonymous reader sent us a link to a story where
you can read about Anonymous Posters being Sued
for slanderous comments made on forums at Yahoo. This ain't good people: I've been trying to
keep ACs here for a long time to make it possible for people
to speek openly, but the abuses put the whole system at
risk. Slashdot couldn't afford to be sued- and we've been
threatened several times. I'll be watching this one carefully,
If they entered false crap in their profile, I'd like to see them track these guys down going on IP address alone.. I don't know about other ISPs, but my shop's login/radius logfiles rotate out within a month or two.
I must agree with Ellis-D. I love linux, but cannot find an ISP that will give me the same kind of access that I can get under Windows. This would not not be a problem if I could afford a dedicated connection, but alas I cannot.
All ISPs can be used with Linux (or any Unix). TCP/IP is the same, PPP is the same, and even Ethernet (where it's used) is the same everywhere.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Rob: I know you're busy, but I have been wondering for a long time why you don't make posting as an AC more difficult than as an authenticated poster? ;)
I mean make sure that if someone wants to post something anonymous (hey, I love free anonymous speech too), make them do some extra work to do it.
That should take care of the "first posts" newbies too
Just ask for an email and send them a login that says "AC" with an anonymous account for like 10 minutes. :)
That would solve lots of peoples grief about ano....blah
Just wanted to say something :)
But I'm tired and drunk so who am I?
Bram at grmbl dot com
--
People using html in email should be shot.
Nobody was sued for slander here. Slander is a defamatory oral statement. As no oral statements were made on yahoo, there was no slander taking place. Libel, perhaps, but not slander.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The reporter can write just 'bout anything they want to about someone in public office unless they know it not to be true.
Someone running a business... well... then a whole lot more limitations on what you can say kick in.
The courts have traditionally (long-long-time) respected marriage, not making married couples testify against each other and the like.
Extending these would make for difficulty in definition... who's to say if you were "close friends"? Does "people living together" apply to a college roommate? Anyhow, extending said protections would weaken the courts' ability to make a case.
IANAL.
Posted by HeyPartner:
/. is subpoened to release a name when a proven lie has done proven harm, you have the same responsibility as a content provider in any other medium (newspaper, TV, radio). Chances are, you will be sued. I doubt that will happen at /. But imagine you being maliciously attacked at say eBay for selling bad goods. When in fact, you never sold anything yet, can prove it, and it turns out some oligopoly is trying to divy up the beenie baby market by shutting everyone else out through slanderous comments in other sellers profiles.
The way it is in everyone other medium, if you are going to allow the voicing of opinions, you are exposing yourself to subpoenas when people abuse your medium with malicious lies that do harm. A big part of slander is proving "harm". If
It is eBays responsibility to cooperate in stopping that. How can it be any other way?
-kevin
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
DMW, you don't have a complete understanding of the laws. You can sue for slander or libel IF a reasonable person might believe that the (false) charges made against you are true.
If I were to say that "I've got pictures of Bill Gates giving oral sex to JFK's corpse while taking it up the rear from a martian."(which I don't), that would not be libelous or slanderous because it's obviously not true. No reasonable person would believe that it could be true.
Public figure or not, you may sue for slander or libel if the creteria are met. In this case Wade Cook would be better off suing for defamation. Because to prove slander or libel charges, you must prove that the statements made against you have hurt you financially.
LK
I've got to agree with this. People should take responsibility for what they write.
A right to free speech is NOT a right to irresponsibility.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
If I tell the world you are a pedophile, and it turns out you actually are a pedophile, then I am not guilty of slander. However, if I was lying, then I'm guilty.
Before you morons spout off about how bad of an idea that is, try to think about how much power big money would have if there weren't slander laws. For example, if it were legal for Microsoft to start an ad campaign saying Linux will destroy files randomly and crash every 10 minutes and sacrifice your firstborn to Zirkon the space goddess, you know they'd have no qualms about doing it.
FUD is pretty bad, but it would be even worse were it not for the slander law. With the slander law, they have to be very careful to not say anything which is directly false - their lies are restricted to half-truths and connotative ambiguities that can't be technically proven false.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Simple solutions to increase the signal/noise ./
here on
1. Do not allow Anonymous Cowards to post more
than 3 comments. After 3 comments, you must create
a user account. If your browser has trouble with
cookies then too bad!
2. Do a browser sniff and ban Windows-based
browsers from posting comments.
OK, #2 is extreme, but I think #1 is a reasonable
suggestion.
Exactly.
Free speech without accountability is just noise.
TedC
Right... That'll be an accurate determination of who's intelligent and who's not.
Not to mention that, if slashdot did this, it would tell you that I'm using Netscape Navigator Gold 7.32 in AIX running on an Apple ][.
--Phil (The Internet Junkbuster can be such fun.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
How about if someone wishes to post anonymously, /. in any way it's ok, but otherwise,
that their post has to be approved by the moderator, more so than a registered user?
Thus, if the AC post is worthy of being
posted *and* posted anonymously, *and* won't
harm
the post hits the bin bucket?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Do not speak the "C" word here. The last thing Slashdot needs is FCC regulation as a common carrier. Don't declare it as one or even hint that it might be one.
The FCC has fairly broad power to regulate common carriers, the services they provide, and the content of broadcast media surrounding them. Thinking harder about it it might not be so bad a thing as I thought since Rob already provides equal services to everyone for the same price, and it's easy to show that he is using a non-limited transmission medium, but I'd still rather see the FCC keep away from Slashdot.
Okay, "no one" (not no-one) forces me to work with NT, but it's what came up the last time I got screwed on a contract, okay?
And it's "their ignorance" not "there ignorance" and "their choice of jobs" not "there choice in jobs" and "mentally deficient" not "mentally deficiant".
Now, what were you saying about ignorance and being deficient?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I absolutely agree with that.
Anonymousity and right of free speech are not at all a reason for allowing AC posting.
See me? I am accountable, but I am absolutely anonymous.
If you AC advocates now want to reply: "Oh no, we know your email adress, your gender, or your summary", let me tell you this: "You know nothing babes, all you do is BELIEVE to know, and all you can find out about me, is because I want you to find out or I want to tempt YOU to make stupid assumptions because I like to laugh hard about your credulity"
Best Regards
Tobias or Candy or Bill Gates??????
Being forced to take "responsibility" for what you say can, in some cases, be the same as being silenced. Whistle-blowers would have a much harder time under a no-AC situation.
-Chris
and how do you propose to use IP spoofing to post to slashdot???
hint:
http -> tcp -> connection -> two way thing.
IP spoofing, remote end cannot reply to you.... no connection, no http....
ip spoofing works for sending untraceable mutant tcp/ip packets to crash windows machines... but it ain't going to get you very far in communicating with a http server.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Although IANAL, I used to edit a newspaper and one thing I can say about the subject, is that the
/. or they are reading the /. is considered a third party.
"common carrier" idea is completely mis-understood by most people.
The basic idea behind a "common carrier" is to limit the liability of third parties in legal
disputes. For example:
1) can't sue travel agent for booking your family on a plane if the plane crashes because a plane
is a "common carrier"
2) can't sue telephone company because one person made a liable about someone else because a
telephone is a "common carrier"
Notice that in case 1, the owner of the plane CAN BE SUED even though they are a "common carrier"
because they are a second party not a third party. The "common carrier" defense only protects third
parties in lawsuits.
However, things like newspapers and BBS are on shaky ground for this defense since they often
execute "editorial control" over their content. For instance: you censored that article, why
didn't you censor the hate mail that got my friend killed.
It all depends on whether people are thinking that they are reading
comments of the other person as to whether or not
For instance when you read the front page of the NY Times, you are reading the newspaper, not the
author of the article. If you are reading the editorial page, you are reading the author.
ISP have tried to make themselves into CCs by posting a strict policy and deleting all material
(I mean all material, no exceptions) that violate this policy. In this way, they can argue that
they are not exercising editorial control, but are just implementing a written policy which all
users implicitly agreed with before using their service.
WARNING: You should definitely consult a REAL LAWYER before attempting this strategy since
having an incomplete policy is MOST DEFINITELY WORSE than having no policy at all!
This type of strategy is know as an attempt to create a "safe harbor" which in layman's speak
is to say "everyone else does this, and nobody's complained before". In other words, it gives
people the opportunity to act like a 6 year old.
As far as I know, this hasn't helped the ISP cause in Europe, but in the US, I think the feds are
willing to let this go.
do you know what wade cook does? he promotes "investment" techniques that he claims he made millions of dollars off of when in reality, he was a taxi driver that made millions off of selling his secrets. if anyone is a fraud it's him. he's the one abusing free speech by misleading people. all the people he ripped off should file a class action suit!
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
--
And Justice for None
How about a modified threshold system + some fun with perl scripts? If a user tries to post something with a s or f word or other type of obsenity then the post will be denied. The threshold system could allow posters to categorize their posts, with things like: informational, question, my $.02 (opinion),flame, and Anonymous Coward. The AC would be a manditory flag for non logged-in users. Then the user of /. could set up their own prefs. such that you could screen a certain type of post or even specific users. Sure it will give the servers more of a load, but that new dual 450 box needs something to do anyway.
This is a problem that faces many many Internet Service providers and one I faced when I ran ml.org... Big companies with big pockets (or even individuals with deep pockets) can easily harass a company for the identity of their users. And its difficult for little startups and groups of users to defend themselves against this without going broke. It's just a symptom of the litigious nature here in USA... I'm more and more tempted to move servers overseas.. though of course they can still get you personally if you live in the states... Can't win....
"cyber rasict"? That's a new one. As I recall, part of the definition of racism/prejudice is that someone is being judged for something they have no control over. Race, ethnicity, nationality &| culture(of birth), disabilities, and so forth. I find it quite rediculuous to try and lump a person's choice of OS into that category. A person can install whatever OS they want on their box, and if they need certain programs only available on one OS (a prime reason for keeping Win9x in combo w/UNIX as I have been forced to, admittedly) there's always the option to split your HD w/partitions.
Bottom line, It's not prejudicial, thought it may be petty. I don't hold a person's choice OS against them,
but in this forum and context, I see nothing wrong with pointing out where (what OS & information culture) people are coming from. It's perfectly relevant, and very insightful as to the person's background and point-of-view.
I've seen this coming for a long time. technology has rushed faaaar ahaid of the law. there will be more and more of these privacy and copyright cases that are caused only because the law hasn't caught up with the software industry and the internet yet. it's the wild west out here, and in this wild west the law is also just one of the cowboys...
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humor,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
It is amazing that your ignorance is so pervasive in almost every word you type. It maybe that the Internet is a world wide adventure. This does not mean that you could not be held liable for slander. The fact is most European country have similar laws concerning slander (a result of common law being accepted in many places). So, I suspect even in Norway, you could find yourself in a law suit (it would of course have to be filed in Norway).
For the most part, I suspect you are not smart enough to understand the problems related to unchecked public slander.
Troy Roberts
First, you have looked slander up in the dictionary. This is not the place to find a legal definition. However, I believe the same laws apply to both slander and libel.
Troy Roberts
Slander can cost company millions of dollars. A person or company has legal right to protect themselves from malicious propagand.
Troy Roberts
Rob, I don't think you have too much to worry about. First, the plaintiff in this case is not after "Anonymous Coward", but instead after specific pseudonymous posters, like "CmdrTaco" or "MrSpock". Though IANAL, I'm a law enthusiast, and am relatively sure that so long as you take reasonable measures to keep slandrous comments out of /.-space, and have a mechanism in place to deal with them, then you should be relatively safe (assuming, possibly incorrectly, that you would be able to stand up financially and fight in court).
I like "same rule as anon.penet.fi"--reveal identity only if subpheonad.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
While I think the AC concept does hurt the sense of "community" at /. (everyone is anonymous and no one ever gets to know each other here, unlike the BBS' of the early 90's).
But it does allow people to post things they might be otherwise too embarassed to post. I think that is probably more important.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Really, I mean it, why not?
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
Kitchen table works fine for me and Mrs. Alums...
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Sue sue sue.......That's what the good ol' USofA is all about now......going after weenies on a bulletin board...What next?
Yes they do.
until you get it fixed.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This is AWESOME. I LOVE IT! You've gotta be fuck'in kidding me! This is one of the funniest things I've heard all week. I think this is great! Some ALL MIGHTY law firm pissed off by a couple of guys fuking around with their dinky little yahoo uids.
Maybe I'm the only one that finds real humor in this, but I think it's priceless.
I came. I saw. I coded.
Even more radical, ban ACs.
If people don't have the guts to put their name to a posting, its automatically of dubious provenance.
While ACs may have some use (whistle-blowing), to hide behind them for illegal activities (slander/libel are illegal, even in the US) should not be seen as acceptable, and should be pursued in law if all else fails.
Of course I don't expect anyone to agree with me, this is afterall
If you're embarrased to post something, perhaps it's because it sounds stupid, or vulgar. Maybe it's because you're talking out of your ass and somebody's going to ask you to back yourself up. I am willing to stand by what I say and either back it up or admit I'm wrong -- why can't we ask that of *all* /.ers?
Glyph Lefkowitz - Project leader, Twisted Matrix Labs
Writer, Programmer - Not a member of the TSU
against claims made by a bunch of yahoos on
Yahoo, you have something to hide.
Grow up.
The mature thing to do is to offer considered,
well substantiated facts in rebuttal to each of
the posters' claims, if they bother you so much.
If they do, see paragraph one.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
1600's.
And Galileo Galilei got "sued" for it.
Point is, if courts of law were to agree faceless
corporations, with financial or political
resources far beyond that of any one person's,
have the right to put individuals on trial, for
what they say or what they write the
truth may get lost.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
logan
Do you mean, submit the information to anybody
who threatens to sue you? Or only if
subpoenaed?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I read through the article, and it seems that they named the Anonymous posters as defendants. Interesting concept, since they don't know *who* the posters are. They talked about getting the data from Yahoo, but if Yahoo's system allows for truly anonymous commenting, that data may not be easy to get, if it's possible at all. I know PalmStation.Com logs *nothing* about anonymous commentors. The only way I'd be able to track anyone down, if I were to be asked, would be to look in my server logs, and find the IP of the person who posted a comment at the exact time that the comment in question was posted. While this may work for something posted recently, I dont have logs for anything other than the current month. I can only imagine that /.'s comment system works similarly for anonymous people.
-Hal
-Hal
it is one thing to have free speech, but there are reasons why we restict it. there are these things called libel laws and laws that say you can't disclose inside company info. My dad had this happen to his company on the Yahoo message boards, posting some VERY secret stuff, and some VERY illegal stuff, and some stuff that was just designed to hurt the company. he killed their stock price. it is a problem in some cases.
I'm all for free speech, but not for speech that is designed to hurt a company in illegal ways.
give an even better name to those AC's out there!
why don't you attack those posters for giving AC's a bad name instead?
and unfortunately, this does happen -- it happened to my dad's company on I think Yahoo stock boards. they posted some stuff that was illegal to post (trade secret stuff or inside stuff I guess) and some stuff that was untrue and harmful. their stock price took a hit. it was not pretty.
it isn't
:-)
oops... I guess I must have typed in the name of my professor instead. oh well...
MUHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
well, what do you do if someone posts inside/secret info about your company that is illegal to post? and then ALSO posts slanderous things that aren't true but MIGHT be. and then it makes your stock price go down?
:-P )
this happened to my dad's company. it was not exactly cool.
(not that I'm for people getting beaten by those AOL users either
maybe message boards about stocks... dunno... hard to fix it! confirmation email at the VERY least!
although some free speech is protected, false and harmful speech is not. lying about a company/posting insider information/doing illegal things by posting is NOT protected, and I don't believe it SHOULD be either. screws everyone involved, except for the person it gives a nice little thrill -- or a big fat check for selling the stock short.
so why is this a solution? I think that in many ways, it simply compounds the problem.
The tort of defamation is false communication that injures a person's reputation by disgracing him and diminishing the respect to which he is held. An example would be the publication of a false statement that a person had committed a crime or had a loathsome disease."
Elements of Defamation The elements of a defamation action are (1)a false and defamatory statement concerning another, (2) an unprivileged publication (communication) to a third party, (3)in some cases, depending on the status of the defendant, some degree of fault on her part in knowing or failing to ascertain the falsity of the statement, and (4) in some cases, proof of special harm caused by the publication. Restatement, Section 558. The burden of proof is on the plantiff to prove the falsity of the defamatory statement.
It goes on to discuss the difference between libel and slander. Libel being communication in a medium other than spoken or oral. Slander, of course, being oral or spoken communication. There are however defenses to defamation. They fall into two classes:truth and privilege. Truth, is self evident. If what you communicated is true, then you have not defamed the plantiff. There are three types of privilege: absolute, conditional, and constitutional. Absolute privilege is for the rare situations where public policy favors complete freedom of speech like (1) statements made by participants regarding a judicial proceeding; (2)statements made by members of Congress on the floor of Congress; (3) statements made by certain executive branch officesrs in the discharge of their governmental duties; (4)statements regarding a third party made between spouses when they are alone. Conditional priviledge depends upon proper use of the privilege. A person has conditional privilege to publish defamatory matter to protect his own legitimate interests, or in some cases the interests of another. Conditional privilege also extends to many cases where the publisher and the recipient have a common interest, such as in letters of reference. A publisher who acts in an excessive manner, without probable cause, or for an improper purpose forfeits conditional privilege. Constitutional priviledge refers to the first amendment and allows individuals or the press to comment regarding public officials or public figures so long as it is done without malice.
Therefore if these individuals have communicated false statements about Wade Cook(possibly)(1) to a third party(the internet community)(2) without bothering to check the validity of their statements(3) and created special harm to Wade Cook(4) then they are guilty of defamation in the form of libel. Their only defense could be truth as I don't believe they qualify for any of the three types of priviledge.
The law is the law is the law. The internet is just another communication medium as far as defamation is concerned. If they had printed up flyers defaming Wade Cook and mailed them to everyone they knew, it would still be defamation.
Now the important question, is not whether a bunch of bozos defamed Wade Cook but rather what will happen to Yahoo!. Any good lawyer is not going to waste time trying to sue these bozos for money. Rather he will try for a criminal conviction against them and then sue Yahoo! for publishing the statements without verification and in effect acting as an accomplice to the defamation. Obviously the lawyer would do this because Yahoo! is likely to have more money than the bozos.
Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker
Stuart Eichert
On another note: capitalism is freedom.
Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker
Stuart Eichert
Ya, see for instance, the Yahoo Biz page for WADE. Recent Price: $0.45, 52-Week High: $3.375
The disclaimer has been in place for a long time, see the FINE PRINT at both ends of the comments
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I wouldn't ban them.
It would be interesting to list the browser and OS in the comment header, just to see who is using what.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
You've slandered the GNU/Linux^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Lignux^H^H^H^H^H^H er, Linux name. Tux is not happy with you and is speaking with his lawyer.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
America has more lawyers per-capita than any other country. The lawyers need work, so they come up with new and interesting ways to interpret the law, and take a case to court. They find a "open-minded", "progressive" judge. (who used to be a lawyer him/herself), and the case goes forward. If they win the case (by appealing emotionally to 12 people who weren't smart to get out of Jury duty) the open the doors for more lawyers to try similar cases (and reap the benefits).
Law remains lucrative, and guarantees that in the future there will be even more lawyers than there are today.
Oh, and if you try to change any of this, you will be accused of attempting to take away the rights of all Americans to have fair access to the Judicial system (IE the poor will get screwed).
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
But you can expect the phone company to be able to be able to identify (ie trace) abusive phone calls. They may not tell you the identity of the caller, and it might turn out to be a payphone, but they should be able to identify the source of calls. Likewise for internet. The ISPs should not be responsible for the actions of their customers, but they should be able to identify which of their customers (or whose account) is causing the problem
With most ISPs (the exceptions being the information service providers such as CompuServe and AOL) you should be able to get exactly the same access using Linux as you do with Windows. As long as it will "talk" PPP, the OS you use to connect should be irrelevant.
IANAL, but it seems like they wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to holding /. responsible. I quote: /. likely wouldn't be either.
"The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. "
This case is *not* about anonymous cowards, but about people who have an account. Furthermore, Yahoo is not named as a defendant in the case, so
0 1 - just my two bits
People on Yahoo weren't just calling each other names - they were former employees of a company who were making statements about their former employer which may be considered illegal within SEC rules.
Yes folks, the law does curtail your right to say whatever you want, in certain circumstances.
hmm, that law actually seems quite sensible when you read it, except for one thing: it makes SPOUSES a particular case. what the fuck does being married have to do with what you're allowed to say to each other? make that "close friends" or "people living together" or somesuch, at least.
How can people say this? We defend the KKK's right to hate others and spread this message to their children and others, and yet someone puts down some idiot in a stupid *capitalist* company and they need to be sued! This is just wrong people. I don't give a DAMN what the laws are, it is NOT RIGHT.
#1 - Slashdot could claim immunity from being sued for a slanderous comment by an AC as a 'common carrier'.
#2 - This is OLD news. Slashdot ignored my submission, as usual, about half a week ago.
As for Anonymous Cowards, the comments posted in reponse to the (bullshit) story about the UK satellite being taken over by hackers, confirmed for me that Slashdot's usefulness as a place where interesting and informative discussion takes place, is severely compromised by ACs.
Dodge
PS: You Americans, go see 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' (released in theatres across the States last Friday). It rocks.
Why not find a country where the owner of anon.penet.fi could never have been forced to reveal anyone's true identity, and set up a box there?
;), with Ministers for Bandwidth, Disk Storage, Processing Power, etc.
:)
Oh yeah - money.
Okay. How's about we declare independence as a virtual nation and establish an "embassy" in the form of a broom-cupboard-sized room in a Telehouse somewhere with a few Linux boxes.
I can see it now. Slashdot - the world's first virtual nation. It would have to be a Republic, with a President as Head of State (first one would be CdrTaco, OF COURSE!). An elected Cabinet, led by a Prime Minister (i.e. a Minister who can't be factored!
Argh! Shades of The Diamond Age's CyrptNet.
The Dodger
Minister of Offe^H^H^H^HDefence.
"No, I'm not planning a military coup, honest..."
Obviously US regulations aren't the same as European ones. Elucidate, please.
D.
I was actually thinking about the telephone company example when I was writing that comment, so what you've outlined above is what I was thinking of.
/. is more likely to be a common carrier than an ISP, because CmdrTaco and his henchmen [;)] exercise no editorial control _whatsoever_. Admittedly, they do say that "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated." but this is followed by "(You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold).", so I'm assuming that this means that no message, no matter what it's content, is ever deleted.
Your point regarding the whole editorial control and ISPs implementing a policy is valid. imho. However, I think that
Perhaps CmdrTaco would like to comment at this point?
D.
> I hope the court will rule yahoo cannot be held responsible.
Uhm...
The court will NOT rule upon whether Yahoo can be held responsible or not.
Why?
Because noone's asking them to rule that Yahoo _is_ responsible.
The only thing that might happen to Yahoo is they might get a subpoena requiring that they provide the court with the email adresses (or whatever) of the people who made the posts.
I'll just say it again, so everyone understands:
NOONE IS FUCKING SAYING THAT YAHOO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE POSTS THAT AC'S MAKE USING YAHOO'S FORUMS!
ok?
Although it ires me slightly when people don't know what they're talking about, it pisses me off infinitely more when people can't even be bothered to read an article before posting their opinions.
Christ, it's not as if the article doesn't say, quite fucking clearly, that "Yahoo! is not a target of the lawsuit."
In fact, I find myself wondering why CmdrTaco is even worried about this.
Dodger,
Stressed out and taking a break from conducting mortal combat with sendmail.
"I'll get it to work if I die trying!!"
The Internet is not a forum for whistle blowing. If you are involved in or witness illegal activities, report it to law enforcement agencies and/or through a "whistle-blowing" phone number that is often advertised for various companies/government agencies.
I agree that if you have something productive to say, you might as well take credit for it. If you don't have anything productive to say go ahead and say it un-anonymously so I know who to ignore later. AC is just a means for spreading stupidity, ignorance, FUD and whatever else (the majority of the time).
Simply slamming people/companies just isn't necessary.
In a perfect world, everyone would ignore AC posts and therefore people/companies would not be damaged from erroneous AC posts and consequently AC posts wouldn't be a problem. Then no one would read them so no one would post them....
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Interesting... they seem to have been falling steadily for over a year now... I wonder when these supposedly slanderous comments were made? (Having not seen either the actual comments themselves, I refuse to make a potentially slanderous comment myself by stating one way or another wether the comments in question were true, after all, a lawsuit-happy american company with money problems is involved.) Did these comments come before or after the decline of their stock value began? If it's before, then the AC's in question are likely to get toasted, since Wade's lawyers would be able to point to that and say "Look! See the damage these people did!" - And that would be a bad thing for us, since it would mean more clamping down on freedoms that we often take for granted. If, on the other hand, the comments were made much more recently, then the AC's lawyers (or the public Attourney, or whatever) could say that no damage was really done, since there isn't really any significant change in the trend the company's stock was taking. (Steadily down, nice and smooth...) I may not be a financial expert (Ok, I'm not even an amatuer, I have enough trouble with my own bank book, so don't take stock advice from me.) but isn't the value of stock supposed to measure how well a company is doing?
pls get a clue...
You get a spinless whiner with money and a lawyer and they love to threaten lawsuits. All it amounts to is a pissing contest and he who has the biggest wang wins, the problem is that the lawsuit will be impossible to win unless the person suing can explicibally prove that they lost money from that exact comment. Unfortunately the law doesnt state that if you sue someone and dont win you have to pay your and their court costs plus a $20,000.00 pain in the ass fee for bringing up a stupid lawsuit to begin with, payable instantly or 2 months in jail and then payable 30 days after that. That would be a great law, like one that allows clients to cane their lawyers when they mess up. oh well we live in the land of the free where the judges are lawyers and perpetuate the rich are in control plan.
(you're poor? GUILTY! rich? ohhhh your' just a victim.. Lawyer? naughty! you got caught! try to hide your illeagal activities better next time!)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
back in the 80's we had a Free speech BBS here, it was like /. except there was no login at all you connected and you're in. they were sued for some commment, when the judge looked at the evidence he told the person suing that life's a bitch, and awarded the defendant the counter suit of loss of money. ($5000.00) The judge said that it's a BBS just like a Bulliten board or telephone pole. you cant sue the phone company for something posted on a telephone pole.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I agree, but just the browser and OS should be tacked onto each person's post. The ip serves no purpose but to show hackers who to smurf when they disagree with you.
"What makes this 'virtual attack' even
more egregious is the fact that these
falsehoods are posted on Yahoo!
message boards for millions of
people to read and they cannot be
removed from the Internet by the company."
Give me one reason why you SHOULD be able to remove these falsehoods from the internet! Poor millionaire, can't make people stop saying bad things about him...I have absolutely no sympathy.
-lx
Let's ALL go and post on yahoo message boards that Wade Cook was arrested for accepting kickbacks...see what they do then... >;)
-lx
Although you are right that the cook people are misled, please try to remember who gave you the internet - the US.
And frankly, you have no room to talk about personal habits - Lutefisk, Aqvavit(sp), Lefse - need I say more? Pimply teenagers in red jumpsuits?
-lx
Just set your profile to only show people who have a score of one. You get 1 point just for not being anonymous.
-lx
I believe that slashdot would be protected under the standing parts of the CDA. In fact, you may expose yourself to liability, only IF you make an attempt to censor slanderous conduct. Basically it is not reasonable to expect you to monitor the behavior of private individuals. It could, and has been, argued rather easily that expecting web sites to censor would have a chilling effect on free speech. The only argument I could see is if you POSTED, like on the front page, an article that you knew to be false, and somehow made commercial profits by intentionally republishing this inflamatory content. Anyhow, I've gotta run, but I can show you some precedents when I get back.
People can get hysterical sometimes, when it comes to personal safety issues and what not. There have actually been a few perfectly good airplanes that ceased to be produced because the media and what not wrongly pinned the blame in the airframe, when in fact it was the engine.....and other issues. This is a billion dollar type of wound, its not so minor. You tell that the to employees who lose a job as a result, its not just 'the suits' who get hurt in these things.
Private citizens do not enjoy an absolute privilege, unlike members of congress and those in the court room.
I could not for example, announce that I am an employee of Boeing and that management uses defective parts. This would both be untrue and publicized. It _would_ obviously hurt Boeing's shareholders, management, employees, etc. If Boeing could prove that I was never an employee, they are legally entitled to damages. Why should the government protect such speech. It would be very hard to show why a private citizen is entitled to this. The courts have decided that various entities are entitled to varying degrees of free speech. Journalists, for example, are given a great deal more latitude in their publishing standards. If they make a reasonable attempt to verify somethings validity, they are protected even if it later turns out to be untrue. Likewise the courts and various individuals in the government are protected when attending to official business. If the courts started holding Congressmen liable, they would be hestitant to challenge, try, inspect, etc.
I do not feel the need to defend myself from a twit such as yourself. But for your information, far more Europeans smoke than Americans. Secondly, you know as well as I do that the USA is responsible for 99% of the computer technology. While NT might be a product of the USA, so was AT&T Unix, so was Berkley, so is the semiconductor industry. And lets not forget Cisco. And MIT.....I could go on, but lighten up. Oh yeah, I'd be willing to bet that I am a great deal more literate than you are.
Regardless of the ineptitude or ineffectivity of the user, the law is still pretty clear. Should the secret service ignore a would be assasin just because he probably wouldn't be successfull?
And on your last comment, commercial speech is limited as well. Many people get taken by these scams, in fact publishers clearing house just got sued I believe.
Can't we all just GET ALONG!!! :)
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
All Slashdot.org readers are wonderful (in bed and out of it, on coffee tables, etc), never have or have had a Bad Day (tm), stay crunchy (even in milk) and live on planet Earth! They're even DYNAMIC!
We should have a poll asking which household object people most prefer to !@#$ on.
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
Hmmm... you have good taste :P
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
There is no way to trace these people if they seriously want to be annonymous [sic].
;)
that's not entirely correct. if someone really wants to know who you are, they can get at your IP, and trace it down to a physical location. also, if you are using ethernet your card has a uniqe signature sent w/ every transaction. that, too could theoretically be traced.
basically, there is no such thing as privacy for us normal schmegeggies.
ciao.
And rights come first, dang it!!!1
Even DHCP isn't fool proof. I have a cable modem and I can set any IP address I want. The DHCP method is nice because it prevents IP collisions. I could just randomly pick IP addresses until I find one that isn't in use then do what ever evil things I wanted to.
-matt
Other than the Gods thing you got it. Your boss can't fire you because you're a wiccan and he's a born again christian.
-matt
Isn't it a safe bet to just say "In my opinion" before a statement? I think that if you're portraying your statements as fact, it's considered slander, but if you're giving them off as just your "opinion" then you're pretty safe against this stuff...after all, it's opinions that the first amendment was designed to protect, right? I think this is the same thing that MS used in their antitrust defense tho, so it might not be that great of an idea after all...:oP
I still use Windoze for some things, people. (Like getting my work done while I'm still learning Linux.)
How about we alter proposal #2 there to banning Microsoft (not windows) browsers instead. At least that way, if someone really wants to post, they've got to at least be smart enough to be able to install another browser (or have a friend do it).
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
I think people need to stand up and demand their anonymity. If something is proven to be a lie, the owner can remove it upon receipt of the proof. /. shouldn't log the IP's of visitors. You can't subpeona records that were never made. /. as far as attacking the service itself goes. (Though, I suppose a good raider would leave no traces anyway.)
If possible,
That would, of course, mean that people would be entrusted with behaving around
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
I think this country is going to hell with all these lawyers wanting to sue over everything. We can't do anything in this country anymore without the threat of being sued.
I think I'll go move to some remote island in the middle of the Pacific... geez...
DO NOT KEEP RECORDS. If you keep records, you can be ordered by a court to turn them over. Nothing REQUIRES you to keep records. Do not keep them.
In any case, Yahoo is not being sued. Their users are being sued, as soon as their identities can be determined. In an analogous situation, Slashdot would not be sued, but you might be ordered to turn over records. Check out what's left of the original CDA. Under that law, you are an interactive service provider, and interactive service providers are specifically EXEMPTED from being held responsible for things that their USERS say. This law has been tested a couple of times in court, once at least with AOL, and the ruling of the court was that the provider (AOL) was not responsible for things that their user said. I know Wired at least covered this.
Do not keep records, and make it well-known that you do not keep records. That is your best defense and one employed by anonymous remailer operators. If you keep records, you are a TARGET, and soon a victim of, well, you know.
-- Blame any errors on your own stupidity. All wrongs reserved.
Even if they do log, then the ones who want the info now have to subpeona the proxy to find you, which could take a while. And the magusnet.com proxy chains through another proxy to boot, so now that's three subpeonas you've got to issue, in sequence, and the logs may no longer be around at that point. And this assumes you aren't making longer proxy chains, which you can do. This whole Yahoo thing has been going on for weeks now. Plus subpeonas generally have to be issued within the jurisdiction that they take effect. So now maybe they have to go to another state or another country, which takes time and money.
Don't put all your faith in proxies, but they do help, even if they do log.
-- Blame any errors on your own stupidity. All wrongs reserved.
If Yahoo reveals the registration info on the user name, wouldn't that leave Yahoo wide open to a class action suite from all users for revealing so-called confidential information?
Maybe David Brin was right, the only security is in no privacy for _anyone_. Scary.
Actually it shouldn't be that hard to track down who owns a dynamic ip address. If you are dialing in then the dialup server knows what ip address it gave which user id. If you are using DHCP then the DHCP server knows what machines had which IP addresses when. Maybe dialup servers and DHCP don't keep track of this information but it doesn't mean they can't very easily. Tracking people down through their IP address isn't that hard. And if companies start bringing lawsuits you can bet more and more people will track IP addresses to help limit their liability.
You're being rather cavalier with Rob's machines and his financial well-being. To say that Rob should allow anyone to say whatever they want when he could be the one to pay for it is irresponsible. Frankly, I think people, if they have a comment, should stand with their words.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
We knew this was coming. I don't want people to lose their rights to free speech, but they should be responsible for what they say. Using the AC system people can just make shit up and never have to validate their claims. If your gonna say something have the balls to put your name on it.
I love linux, but cannot find an ISP that will give me the same kind of access that I can get under Windows.
What kind of access can you get for Windows but not for Linux? Even if they don't explicitly support Linux, most ISPs actually use UN*X of some sort for their services, so Linux has no trouble connecting to them. Even for those few that use proprietary systems like NT, it is almost always possible to connect with Linux, as it supports many of the proprietary protocols. Unless you live in a really backwater area, I find it difficult to believe you can't find an ISP that can give you the connectivity you need with Linux.
Finally. I hoped at least one poster had actually read the article. Yes, the case is not about an Anonymous Coward, it is about a user with a real account. There have been other cases like this, such as people trying to hold ISPs responsible for what their users post on a webpage. The Anonymous Coward option should stay; the whole point of it is to be able to speak freely.
Well I really don't care. Just keep that fine print on this page.
Now if anyone gives you trouble, we'll just slashdot their site!
And their stock quotes, plus a lot of other stuipid things one can do drive them old'uns crazy!
Serioulsy now, I would like to know if we could sue him for EMOTIONAL DISTRESS!
The kernel needs a Gtk/Gnome-based post-install device configuration tools "a la" make xconfig. (Better sig coming soon
It won't work. I submit my three (possibly slanderous) posts and then wipe my cookies file. Voila! Three more posts.
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
and the ones with the words don't know too w
Yahoo itself is not being sued. As far as I can tell, /. has no means of identifying the real identities of ACs. That doesn't leave the poor company much to go after. Right?
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
Jason Dufair
"Those who know don't have the words to tell
and the ones with the words don't know too w
I dont think Slashdot editorial content is very accurate. I learn more from the user comments.
Item #1 has been dealt with: cookies in this case don't offer anything really useful at excluding technically competent AC's from doing (content wise) idiotic posts. Secondarily, if a user's browser doesn't support cookies (correct me if I'm wrong here, people!!), logging in won't help because the user info wouldn't move from page to page.
Here's my own RADICAL PROPOSITION: All Slashdot posters (myself included) should use the 3 pound computer between their ears to consider what it takes to make Slashdot a site worth reading BEFORE mindlessly wasting our time by hitting the submit button with stupid posts. Therefore I would submit that:
- First Poster comments are worthless.
- Expletive laden comments aren't worth reading either.
- Bad-mouthing an individual online is bad karma. What goes around comes around.
- Reading other people's posts to avoid lame repetition of other's comments saves all of us time in the long run. Post sparingly.
- Suggesting that
/. alienate the 80,000,000 or so people who happen to be stuck using a M$ box is not only extreme, but bad for the site as a whole.
Even though Linux is good and getting better, and is already a whole lot better than the opposition in some areas, it's not the only game in town. I am paraphrasing C.S. Lewis (the book Mere Christianity) in saying "we may disagree with others in the house, but our job is to look for ways to work together rather than ways to stand divided." Linux/Slashdot/any software project improves in direct proportion to the number of users who are available to find problems with it. In the meantime, don't piss on the Windows User community. Recruit and train them instead....Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Tell you what, AC. You start a company, work for several years to get it going. Then I'll go up on the 'Net and post all sorts of lies and "inside stories." No law against it, so your company starts to lose money.
Hmmm. You say... this ought to be against the law. Coulda shoulda woulda been...
I reiterate one more time: think before you post!!
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
On the internet, everyone is a public figure.
-bonkydog
Quid rides? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. -Horace, Satirae
I fail to see the logic. This is like saying that wearing a face mask to hide your identity during a robbery should be viewed as unacceptable, if not made illegal. If we fine people for wearing masks, perhaps fewer robberies will be committed.
Buh?
If I can rely on my comprehension of the article we are discussing, one of the users named in the suit went by a username, "Delusional5". This is a username just like "knifegirl" and "afniv" are. I have chosen a name for myself here so am not an Anonymous Coward. That does not mean that you know my identity.
I'm a little unclear on how Yahoo can be subpoenaed for the legal names of its users. I don't think they require a user to provide this information before signing up for an account and, if they did, how could the information be verified?
No, I think they are suing Yahoo! BECAUSE they have $$. That way there is something to get out of the deal. You sue the little AC's that posted the stuff and it would like trying to sqeze water out of a rock. The layer fees alone couldn't be paid with a years salary of the possible AC's.
Ahh, life in the USA. Cross a layer with the godfather and he'll make you an offer you can't understand!!!
unmask the John Does?!?
I have a geocities acct that lists my address in LA. I live in WI, and used various sites to get the correct ZIP and area codes for "1234 Main St."
There is no way to trace these people if they seriously want to be annonymous.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
this seems really silly distinction. how about religion. prejudice against a person's religion is just as bad as race. and a person has choice over their religion. your OS is a lot like your religion (at least with /. people).
Seems to me this is possibly a case of "Mommy...Tommy from next door called me a stupid fatso." Don't get me wrong...by all means, this guy has the right to be upset for the slander. But why can't he respond in a reasonable, adult manner? And besides, my understanding (insert obligatory IANAL disclaimer here) is once someone is a public figure, they lose the right to sue for slander. Might the case be made the CEO of the company is a public figure?
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I would give quite a different answer depending on exactly what !@#$ translated to...
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
While people can try to use libraries and universities for anonymous connections to the Net, those places are also filled with people who can describe that weird guy who brought his laptop in when the crime was committed.
Umm... what?
I dunno about where you live, but I know that around here, I can walk into the public library, sit down at one of the ~50 internet terminals provided, fire up Netscape, and post whatever the hell I want.
In fact, there's usually a ~half-hour to an hour wait to use one of the terminals, depending on what time I go. Believe me, nobody would remember me. It's about as anonymous as you get.
The university is even more anonymous, where I could walk right into the computer lab, post, walk out, and look like any other student. Any of the other 10,000 or so who go to that university. The other major university in town even has internet terminals (text-only, granted) scattered liberally throughout the campus with easy access. Possible that no-one would even notice I was there, let alone recognize me.
Alternatively, I could just log into a freenet to route me.
Combine that with a Hotmail/Yahoo/etc. account...
Trust me -- anonymity is very easy to achieve.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
*and* won't harm /. in any way it's ok
That's extremely dangerous.
Once you start doing that, you (Rob/the moderator/whoever) becomes responsible for the content of the posts (or at least the AC ones), which they are not currently.
Then, if one that could be considered (by someone) to be slanderous/libelous/defaming/whatever does get through, the original poster (who is an AC, and therefore unknown) can't be sued, but the lawyers will have the recourse of going after Rob and/or the moderator(s), which believe me, they will do.
Ouch!
Sorry... your proposal could only make the situation worse
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I'll make a couple of very generous assumptions here:
1) There are 200,000 Slashdot readers. (No way! The number of accounts is at something like 20,000; the number total has gotta be less than 200k.)
2) Every one of these would be willing to contribute $20. (Again, highly dubious, when you consider the high-school, etc, students for whom $20 is a lot of money, people overseas and for whom for other reasons, sending such money would be a large hassle, people who are lazy, and people who just don't care.)
Even making these assumptions, my total only comes to $4,000,000. Do you have any idea how much money one of these companies can bring to bear in a lawsuit? Waaaaaaaay more than 4 million!
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Semantics. The point is the same.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Hmm.. this raises yet another interesting question. Is this even really slander? I would say not.
The dictionary defines slander as: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person
Note; I didn't hear any oral comments tbrough my computer -- did you?
Bah. why don't they just go watch more tv?
Not drinking, chasing women, or doing drugs won't make you live longer--it just seems that way.
Nod, libel: defamation of a person by written or representational means.
the law suit was for slander, right? This is clearly a libel case... which would make it moot. There was no slander here, which was my original point.
boo.
Not drinking, chasing women, or doing drugs won't make you live longer--it just seems that way.
Yeah, that would work.
Hi! My name is Ben Simmons, and I live in Moultrie, GA.
Sure, you can trace my IP address and at least start to suspect (if, that is, you know where foo.anl.gov is located physically) that I'm full of crap, but how to prove it?
Banning AC's won't stop people from posting anonymously. Or rather, it won't necessarily make them post honestly.
----
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
#2 is extreme because there are an unfortunately large number of /. readers that are forced to use Wind'oh!s based crap at work.
Or, as someone else mentioned, some people can't get connected to an ISP via Linux.
Currently I fall into the former category, but I'm thinking of switching my desktop machine over some evening "after hours" and seeing how long it takes my bosses to notice. heh heh
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
You have GNU sense of humor, do you? I'd say something about rms, but I just realized I'm not logged on anonymously.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
How about instead, your browser/OS/IP address gets tacked onto every message? That should prevent a few people from flapping their jaws.
/. gets flooded with the tilde??.microsoft.com users who come here to do nothing but misinform :-).
It would also be pretty useful, for when
Go to a public library
Get a free anonymous e-mail address
Post to Slashdot, Yahoo, Usenet (though Dejanews), or whatever.....
What are they going to do, fingerprint the keyboards? Subpeona the librarians?
--
Beef
"Raging Moderate" of the
Make a disclaimer about how /. is not responsible for the users actions.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Ooops. I just I forgot about the "fine print"..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
#2 I think that could be a cyber rasict statement..
There is nothing wrong with what OS a user uses.. Get over it.. We shouldn't be hating each other becuase of the OS we run.. You might run linux, one may run mac os, one may run nt.. That does make a diffrence at all.. The windows user might be more technolically advanced than the Linux user.. (There are some...)
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Wow, someone agreed w/ me!!! Hahah.. Well I run 98, NT and redhat in my house. I use 98 as my main os becuase I can support all my wierd hardware and my software. Also I have been running it for a longtime and I just don't want to switch my main unit over. I would run my linux box all the time, but it's not working with the nic. It's a Sparc IPX box if I remeber correctly with a 210 hd (I would be using a 1gig, but I can't get rid of the Netware format off of it from the redhat install) P.S-> If anyone has anyhints, please send them!!
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Ok.. What's is an IP going to do? Those can be spoofed.. Also remember dynamic accounts.. Ect. ect.. I beleive the net is it's own lil' country (world) and it's a free one and that anything that happens on it should be void and null from laws of countries. Government should not take control of the net due to my beleives.. It should a complete anarchy.. =>
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I believe that people should work together to intergrate the program for all the os communities. You have to think about how each community help each other with the advances in code and hardware.. A simple competition.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
You can't patent names.. You can make it a (R) or (C) but you can not patent..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Goto my homepage and look under virtual servers, I have a link to a anonymous ISP. .
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Look for IP spoofing HOWTO on a search engine. The only OS that can truely do this is on *nix systems. Windows would be hard becuase you would have to fux0r w/ the IP stack.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
That's why the smart sysops wrote disclaimers..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Talking about the KKK, they should be liable for slander.. Think about it.. (Just thinking of anyway to rid the world of what seems like the lowest life forms to be)
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Wait a minute.. Umm.. The internet start in the US.. 2nd I'm getting sick of all the forienger (sp?) that message us saying the we suck and that we should go **** a goat or something.. I get random by you poeple alot just going off on me.. What did I ever do to you? Nothing.. Why do I deserve this, becuase I am american.. Will racism stop, no! Becuase you have people that seem so f$$$ing stupid out there and they think they are better than sliced bread.. Arrggg.. The net is suppossed to a cool place to be, with out racism. Take your crap and jump off a cliff..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
During the Redhat install??? When I go out to the fdisk util it just goes back to the install when I try most of the commands.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
What would the logic behind that.. We would have to fine every one in aspen durring winter.. Hehee.. That would be funny thou.. =P
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Not if US Law is asking for the information.. Unless there is a disclaimer saying that 'Under no cercumstances will any user (resistered and/or anonymous) information will be displayed to a 3rd party group, including government agencies.'
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Yes... I say these key words "seems like".."My Opionion" "Feels like".. I think there are a couple more..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Hmmmm..I would like my site to ./'d... Wonder if my admin would care.. Ah.. It would test out his dual Celerons... =P
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
/.'d.. instead of ./'d..heeh
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
They can't.. =>
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I should think that the anonymous coward poses the most trouble for Rob in case of a lawsuit. If a names poster posts libelous comments, and a lawsuit ensues, resulting in a subpoena for the users information, at least Rob would have an email address to hand over. In the case of the Anonymous Coward, however, he would be unable to serve any information whatsoever, i suspect, and at that point, the lawyers may turn to /. for reconciliation.
"I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink is our friend." --Jack Handey
Kaisyain suggests keeping track of IP addresses. But that would only work if ISPs cooperate. How else are you going to track down the several million of AOL customers going through a handful of proxies? And ISPs do not want to do this; doing this would mean they agree they are responsible for what their customers do. Unlike for instance phone companies, or the US postal service. You can't sue AT&T because someone phoned someone else and slandered. You can't sue the US postal service because you send an illegal copy of a book by mail.
A few years ago, the Church of Scientology sued half of the ISP's in the Netherlands, because they claimed they were responsible for their customers putting up websites with text the Co$ claimed to have copyright on. The court ruled that the ISPs cannot be held responsible - they are just couriers. An ISP might be held responsible if it can be proven one of their customers commits a crime, and the ISP doesn't react.
The law in the US is of course different. It would certainly be interesting to know how the court will rule in this case. I hope the court will rule yahoo cannot be held responsible.
-- Abigail
Kurt Gray writes:
> Do not allow Anonymous Cowards post more than 3 comments.
And how are you going to count?
-- Abigail
> I love linux, but cannot find an ISP that will give me the same kind of access that I can get under Windows.
Huh? What else than PPP (or SLIP), and some standard TCP/IP and UPD/IP servers do you need? Or can you find only ISPs whose DNS server refuses to talk to non-Windows machines? That would be a silly hack....
-- Abigail
Let's talk about something a little more interesting. Why are we putting up with this current system? Instead of talking about the broken slander laws let's talk about the fact that corporations have the rights of citizens. (Non Humans have the right to free speech.) Microsoft has the right to create FUD. (There's no FUD law yet!)
If anything is holding back the evolution of the human species it's FUD!
Stop FUD Now!
If you're not familiar with Noam Chomsky. These Ideas tend to relate to what he's written...
More on Chomsky here