There isn't enough information here to really jump on top of the school for giving this kid detention.
I worked as a tech in a public school district for just over 5 years, we did our best to keep the school's machines locked down tight. But there isn't a lot you can do against a student bringing FireFox in on a USB drive and surfing the net, bypassing some of our security. (OK, there is a lot you can do to stop this, but I'm not going to debate that now.)
The school may have certain rules put forth about running unauthorized software. The student was told to stop and didn't. I really don't see anything wrong with the dention.
On top of that, as some others have mentioned, we know none of the back story. Does this kid have a history of being a troublemaker, especially in terms of the computer (we routinely had "reapeat offenders", kids trying to break into the school network and getting caught.)
A little more information on the schools rules and exactly what had happened would be nice before jumping on anyone about this.
If you are involved in the case, yes, you should have to divulge your identity. If the blogger is not involved in the case, their anonymity should be safe. Hence why I said, at best, Google should have to divulge whether or not it is the defendant. If it is, they are guilty of perjury, if not, then the person remains anonymous.
I'm sure legally it can't work that way. The law system has a tendancy to be all or nothing. Just saying that I believe the prosecuters have a right to know whether or not it is the defendant making the blogs. He said no under oath, that doesn't mean he wasn't lying. I believe they have a right to verify the truth when the information is available. I do not believe they should be privy to any information other than whether or not he was lying. If the law states they need all the information, not just the pertinent information, then no, they shouldn't have it. I do not know the law though.
According to the article, they are attempting to discover the bloggers identity not to call them out or persecute them, but to make sure it isn't the defendant in the case.
The township subpoenaed Google for "daTruthSquad's" identity -- as well as for any emails, blog drafts, and other information Google has about the blogger -- claiming that the defendant in the case is actually writing the posts. The defendant, however, has already sworn under penalty of perjury that he is not "daTruthSquad." Why this was left out of the article summary, I am not sure.
While I don't personally think that giving away the person's identity is right, I do think the prosecutors have the right to know whether or not the defendant is posting these blogs to cause a big ruckos and to support their cause. Especially since the defendant has already testified it is not them. If they lied, they are guilty of purjury.
If google could just verify that the blogger is not infact the defendant, I think that would be fair enough.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't enough information here to really jump on top of the school for giving this kid detention. I worked as a tech in a public school district for just over 5 years, we did our best to keep the school's machines locked down tight. But there isn't a lot you can do against a student bringing FireFox in on a USB drive and surfing the net, bypassing some of our security. (OK, there is a lot you can do to stop this, but I'm not going to debate that now.) The school may have certain rules put forth about running unauthorized software. The student was told to stop and didn't. I really don't see anything wrong with the dention. On top of that, as some others have mentioned, we know none of the back story. Does this kid have a history of being a troublemaker, especially in terms of the computer (we routinely had "reapeat offenders", kids trying to break into the school network and getting caught.) A little more information on the schools rules and exactly what had happened would be nice before jumping on anyone about this.
If you are involved in the case, yes, you should have to divulge your identity. If the blogger is not involved in the case, their anonymity should be safe. Hence why I said, at best, Google should have to divulge whether or not it is the defendant. If it is, they are guilty of perjury, if not, then the person remains anonymous. I'm sure legally it can't work that way. The law system has a tendancy to be all or nothing. Just saying that I believe the prosecuters have a right to know whether or not it is the defendant making the blogs. He said no under oath, that doesn't mean he wasn't lying. I believe they have a right to verify the truth when the information is available. I do not believe they should be privy to any information other than whether or not he was lying. If the law states they need all the information, not just the pertinent information, then no, they shouldn't have it. I do not know the law though.