Should ISPs Be The Decision Makers On Giving Up Your Anonymity?
from the not-their-role dept
We've been staying out of the big Wikipedia debate lately, because it really seems like the same old thing. Some information in Wikipedia is false, even malicious, and it can be changed by anyone. That's not new -- and every time someone discovers it, it doesn't make it new again. However, in this case, the angry individual, John Seigenthaler, is now rumored to be using his case to push for legal changes, whose unintended consequences could be pretty extreme. Seigenthaler's big issue in this story is that he traced the writer of a malicious and false bio of himself to a BellSouth account -- but BellSouth, respecting that user's privacy, won't give out his info. At this point, there are a few different options: (1) forget it and not worry about it (2) change the Wikipedia entry to be a lot more accurate or (3) completely change our legal system to put the burden on ISPs to judge by themselves whether or not someone has done something so egregious that they no longer have a right to privacy. It appears Seigenthaler has chosen option three. As Ross Mayfield points out, this opens up a number of bad doors: it puts the cost on the ISP (something they were promised wouldn't happen when they agreed to the DMCA a decade ago) and, most importantly, "privatizes governance and enforcement." Why is it that a private entity gets to decide whether or not you've done something that reduces your right to privacy? This shifts the burden away from the accuser (where it belongs) to both the accused and the middleman -- which would set a very bad precedent.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"John Doe" ??
It's all going to go to hell when people start doing this stuff through free wifi though :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look the fact is that words only hurt if you allow them. People need to be educated that everyone is intitled to their opinion even if that opinion refelects badly upon someone else.
If a lie is distributed, it is easily fixed if it is a lie. The idea that someone could be put in jail or brought into the public eye cause they said something in anger or pain is just pathetic to anyone who values thier freedom of speech.. which people like the guy mentioned in the article above show they most certainly do not.
I'm sure it hurt him when they person slandered him. However every individual has the responsibility to evaluate what they hear from themselves and to investigate that statement before they take it as truth. If they don't do so, then they bring misery upon themselves.
We as a country will publish peoples names who have been accused of a crime even though they have not been convicted of this crime. The public will use this information against them. This is just plain silly.
Facts should guild your actions, not gossip. and that is what this is all about is gossip with nothing to back it up. If people believe gossip they get everything and more of what they deserve.
At that point our government has to do nothing to deceive them. they do it to theirselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixing a lie
Lies are not easy to fix, especially if you cannot confront the liar.
With no comeback it will become a commercial tactic to lie about a competitors product to gain commercial advantage.
If it goes too far then the ISP's will probably end up being classed as publishers and sued directly.
Surely along with freedom of speech responsibility for your actions must go hand in hand.
Peter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fixing a lie
How is that much different from the now common practice of lying about your own product to gain commercial advantage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, it's not good enough for the RIAA. They fought that like crazy a few years ago, going toe-to-toe with Verizon over whether or not they had to file John Doe lawsuits, or if Verizon should just hand over names.
Wasn't that long ago...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031222/1226248.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity and Responsibile Behavior
I agree the anonymous user should be punished, if found guilty of defamation.
Anonymity is a privelege. It is your right to remain private about your affairs, not a right to defame others. Once you cross that line, your anonymity is forfeit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]