UK Law Firm Sets Up Special Team To Hunt Down Anonymous Commenters
from the free-speech-is-for-suckers dept
Stephanie Migot writes in to let us know how UK law firm Wragge & Co has decided to set up a special "cyber tracing" team, whose job it will be to scour the internet for anyone making negative anonymous comments about any of their clients and then take action. Of course, the law firm says it's really looking for people leaking confidential information (such as disgruntled employees), but, as you probably know, defamation laws in the UK are significantly more draconian than those elsewhere. Thus, the line is a lot more blurry, and will almost certainly lead to these sorts of activities targeting mere criticism and complaints, rather than true defamation. The unfortunate end result is a series of chilling effects on any concept of 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: anonymous commenters, defamation, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Eh? Well then.
There, I did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fucking hate this country. I didn't choose to be born in to it, but I have to put up with Cameras EVERYWHERE, Police who do F.A. for fear of reprimand, a PM whose a talentless gimp and signs away the whole countries legal system without even asking us and now this! It's shit!
Oh, I almost forgot - Fuck you Mandelson! No-one likes you! You were fired 3 times from government! Who the fuck keeps letting that douche back in?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subject
Free speech isn't an absolute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: subject
Given published survey data on "personal habits" you are therefore quite safe in levelling that particular accusation against just about anybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: subject
I bet that doesn't apply to everyone, does it? Like gov't officials? What happens to the PC or prosecutor who accuses someone of a crime and then can't prove it? On a larger scale, I seem to remember those in the British gov't accusing the Iraqis of having certain weapons of mass destruction. Couldn't prove that one either, could they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insults != Libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insults != Libel
We left because of a GOVERNMENT that didnt respect us, not the people. Imagine how many friends those people more than likely left behind?
The Lawyers Are Pond Scum, as are their clients.. However It's the Government that allows them to go along with this, what do you think they are going to do tar and feather them publicly? maybe be drawn and quartered? No there going to receive a government sanctioned defamation summons and law suit.
Really Before you Flame him, even thought he did sound like a troll in the way he expressed it, at least think of the general meaning behind what he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insults != Libel
Suggests? "Pond scum" suggests the same thing as "money grubbers" to me. See how it works, dick-head?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous commenting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reputation Management?
I think that what the clients of Wragge & Co are trying to do is a cack-handed form of limiting bad PR. In the past, complaints about them wouldn't have circulated as quickly or as widely, whereas today they can be pinged back and forth online in an instant.
Businesses are running scared, but rather than engaging directly, and maybe improving their level of customer service, they're sending out the legal attack dogs instead.
I don't buy the "confidential information" fudge for an instant. It's a respectable excuse for boorish behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
laws on the intarwebs
Or am I allowed to anonymously insult their clients?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws on the intarwebs
Anyone, anywhere can sue in the UK courts for libel if they convince a judge that statements against them would have been seen by somebody in the UK. British courts are the libel capital of the world. The situation is completely ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws on the intarwebs
Good Luck with that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws on the intarwebs
> read your statement, it is considered "published"
> and they can take you to court.
They can take me to court, they can even get a default judgment when I completely ignore them and don't show up, but good luck collecting on that judgment from me if I'm not in the UK.
They'd have to apply to an American court to have the judgment enforced and the American court will determine whether such a sanction is valid under American law. If the comment was made by an American citizen, in America, then the 1st Amendment is in full effect and if the libel laws in the UK sanction speech which would be protected in America, then the American court will refuse to enforce the judgment.
It's the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws on the intarwebs
Anyone, anywhere can sue in the UK courts for libel if they convince a judge that statements against them would have been seen by somebody in the UK. British courts are the libel capital of the world. The situation is completely ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: laws on the intarwebs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: laws on the intarwebs
Personally I think that the EU government wont accept pesky cross border civil suits. And I think that the government of England will try hard to keep things on the up and up, at least for some years to come. They was caught red handed bugging the european parliament after all.
But in a few years, it's anyones guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anonymous commenting was disabled and I was required to give out your real name in order to comment, I wouldn't be nearly as apt to comment on stories such as this out of the fear that the law firm in question could track me down and sue me for saying that they're a bunch of jackasses who should be considered true enemies of freedom of speech and expression.
In other words, knowing I can't comment anonymously leads me to avoid commenting altogether out of fear of legal action; hence, a chilling effect on my ability to speak my mind freely.
You think anonymous commenting and information spreading isn't important? Try saying that to Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wragge & Co are Wanking Pond Scum and I have Photos to Prove it
And neither is the willingness of a population to be governed under any specific set of laws or "civil" precedents an absolute.
Unabashedly marketing a service such as this speaks very poorly to the state of things today.
Corporations are not individuals with feelings. The over-entitled, puerile wankers running this disgusting program would do well to "drop it" when it comes to vitriolic comments without criminal content or intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insults != Libel
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=slander+vulgar+abuse+uk&meta=&aq=f&oq=& ;fp=9cff3232a59d5ab3
For example, here's a relevant quote by Mr Justice Eady, discussing Internet comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/08/wallstreetjournal.pressandpublishing
'Eady ordered a stay on a number of libel actions brought by the chairman, and said many comments would have a defence in slander as "mere vulgar abuse".'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
> and ANONYMOUS speech.
No, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to speak anonymously is implicit in the concept of free speech and hence is covered by the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useless Task Team
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Useless Task Team
This is because Britain hates free speech and doesn't want anyone to have it if they can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opportunity!
DISCLAIMER: 'WE WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE WAY IN WHICH POLITICIANS ARE REPRESENTED IN THIS PROGRAMME. IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION TO IMPLY THAT POLITICIANS ARE WEAK-KNEED, POLITICAL TIME-SERVERS WHO ARE CONCERNED MORE WITH THEIR PERSONAL VENDETTAS AND PRIVATE POWER STRUGGLES THAN THE PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT, NOR TO SUGGEST AT ANY POINT THAT THEY SACRIFICE THEIR CREDIBILITY BY DENYING FREE DEBATE ON VITAL MATTERS IN THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT PARTY UNITY COMES BEFORE THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE THEY SUPPOSEDLY REPRESENT NOR TO IMPLY AT ANY STAGE THAT THEY ARE SQUABBLING LITTLE TOADIES WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF CONCERN FOR THE VITAL SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF TODAY. NOR INDEED DO WE INTEND THAT VIEWERS SHOULD CONSIDER THEM AS CRABBY ULCEROUS LITTLE SELF-SEEKING VERMIN WITH FURRY LEGS AND AN EXCESSIVE ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL AND CERTAIN EXPLICIT SEXUAL PRACTICES WHICH SOME PEOPLE MIGHT FIND OFFENSIVE.
WE ARE SORRY IF THIS IMPRESSION HAS COME ACROSS.'
(With meta-apologies to Monty Python)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The old unidirectional broadcast culture is gone, never to return. And the network culture treats both censorship and police state surveillance as damage, to be routed around.
Those pigs are only wasting their money and time developing their surveillance software and playing whack-a-mole with disgruntled employees. They're about to learn the utter worthlessness of their police state technologies, and the beautiful power of the words "HELL, NO!"
To put it simply, they can't shut us up, no matter how bad they want to. The 20th century was the age of large, bureaucratic organizations. By the end of the 21st, there won't be enough of them left to bury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assumptions & Legitimacy
For whistleblowers, I don't know enough about UK law. Certainly there have been abuses. Scientologists, for example, filed a bunch of lawsuits when their procedure manual became public. I don't remember how it ended on the copyright issue, but they couldn't claw back the truth.
And what about nuts? It may be bad PR to file a lot of suits (look at the record industry) but there are certainly some boneheaded rumors out there. Procter & Gamble is satanist because of their logo? Hogwash, promulgated by nuts, but persistent. Urban legends abound and if they cause harm to a reputation, I don't see a huge problem in gathering facts using proper means. As to what they do with the facts, it sounds like everybody's guessing. There may be dozens of reasons to decide to not sue, but until you have the background facts, you don't get to that decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you can do it
supply nike shoes airmax TN sport shoes ----supply nike shoes airmax 90 sport shoes
supply nike shoes airmax 95 sport shoes------supply nike shoes airmax 97 sport shoes
supply nike shoes airmax 03 sport shoes------supply nike shoes airmax 06 sport shoes
http://www.tradertrade.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you can dot it
We can produce various athletic shoes, recreational shoe, stogy, mainly Nike, adidas, timberland, gucci,prada, Luie Vuitton and puma shoes . We can provide Nike Jordan series, Airmax and Shox series.For example: nike air max 95, airmax 97,airmax 2003, shox TL, shox R4,Shox NZ, Air force one(AF1),Dunk, Kobe,James, Jordan I-XX. All the shoes are packed in original boxes with retro cards, and the tags and style code number are 100% correct
www.tradertrade.com
yahoo:tradertrade07@yahoo.cn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.china.org.cn/china/features/content_15959669.htm
I probably shouldn't give them ideas, should I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it feasible ?
The concept may find some takers but as things stand this is in my view a technically infeasible service for the most part.
Tracing these commentators is very hard, even if they operate consistently from one place. It takes a whole team. It needs the assistance of the forum websites, blog operating companies, ISPs, and law enforcement authorities. In some countries (India for example) police are ready to help (formally or informally) but in others (UK,USA) they are not helpful to private parties.
Assume for the sake of argument that commentators and bloggers could be found and summoned to court; is that the end of the story ? Far from it ! Serious technical problems remain to be solved about internet comments and how they can be fingerprinted and traced reliably.
A blogger who has blogged his fighting of an Anton Piller search order even claims in his defense that "third party comments" do not pass through his computer: On Blogs and Searching for Evidence.
As these type of arguments become common, it may be worthwhile for large companies to sign on for some such "insurance cover" .... that is probably why such services are becoming popular, but the efficacy is not yet demonstrated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]