Another Court Tells Newspaper, Comcast To Reveal Identity Of Anonymous Commenters
from the anonymity-anyone? dept
In the US, we've seen plenty of lawsuits from politicians upset about anonymous comments on websites -- and most court rulings seem to recognize that commenters do have a right to anonymous free speech -- up to a certain point. The bar is usually where the speech becomes defamatory -- but even then the bar should be quite high, given the nature of online chatter and the (lack of) seriousness with which most people take it. Unfortunately, not all judges are so enlightened. JJ points us to the news that a court has sided with a town trustee in Buffalo Grove, Illinois (a Chicago suburb) ordering the Daily Herald and then Comcast to turn over info on the identity of an anonymous commenter. The details aren't entirely clear -- as the comments have since been deleted. But apparently the story involves that trustee, Lisa Stone, and her son, who got involved in the comment discussion. According to a separate report, The Daily Herald turned over the commenter's email address upon the court order, only to find out that the email address had been "deactivated". So, from there, Stone went back to court, demanding that Comcast hand over info on the commenter, which has now happened. Again, depending on the nature of the actual comments perhaps this isn't so crazy, but with the details given so far, this seems to be setting a dangerous precedent whereby politicians get to unveil anonymous critics, taking away their right to speak anonymously. That could create a serious chilling effect on free speech.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
Filed Under: anonymity, buffalo grove, lisa stone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thank Gods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank Gods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The arguments of lawyers and engineers pass through one another like angry ghosts." -- Bohm, Gladman, Brown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of deciding that for us, why don't you let US decide that for ourselves by allowing us to see the conversation? Or is it that you think we'll disagree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courts fail to grasp that none of it matters anyway
Consider: we routinely see acknowledged mass compromises of mail servers, especially freemail providers -- as we did just last week. These are but a a small sample of the much larger set of unacknowledged compromises that are far too numerous to bother listing. So there is no technical reason to believe that mail from fred@example.com actually came from Fred.
Consider: we also know that there are at least (and this is now a 4-year-old estimate) a hundred million fully-compromised system out there. This not only means that any IP traffic from them cannot be linked to their putative owners, it also means that any email credentials stored or used on them are now available to the hijackers.
The bottom line is that the environment we currently operate does not allow the linkage from email address or IP address to a human to be made reliably unless there are special circumstances/additional evidence which can independently corroborate this.
Footnote: please note that ill-considered snake oil such as SPF and DKIM, both of which are utterly worthless technologies used only by those who don't have the intelligence to know any better, do not in any way, shape, or form solve or even mitigate either of these problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right to speak anonymously
Where are we given that right? The Bill of Rights gives us the right to face our accusers in criminal cases, so I would think that, if anything, I would expect the opposite. But there might be other precedents I am unaware of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right to speak anonymously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right to speak anonymously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on the story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-buffalo-grove-web-fightoct14,0,4615421.story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]