Why Didn't Google Or Comcast Protect The Identity Of Anonymous Church Blogger Who Was Outed?
from the criminal-subpoenas-deserve-privacy-too dept
You may recall the story we discussed recently concerning a church in Florida, where one member of the church was anonymously blogging critical comments about the church. Another member of the same church, who was heavily involved in the church hierarchy, was also a local police officer and used that position to get subpoenas and to reveal the blogger's identity. Once he did so, he dropped the investigation, destroyed the records and told the church leaders who it was. The whole thing was highly questionable. At the time, we questioned why the state's attorney was willing to issue subpoenas on such an issue.Paul Levy wanted to know the answer to another question: why did both Google and Comcast cough up this guy's identifying information without even giving him a chance to quash the subpoenas. He asked both companies and the answer he got is, basically, that they immediately cough up info if it's a criminal subpoena rather than a civil one:
Although neither Google nor Comcast generally opposes outright civil subpoenas to identify their users, both have a good history of insisting that the enforcement of such subpoenas be deferred until they have a chance to give notice to the customers, so that the customers will have a chance to defend their anonymity. This practice made their failure to defend their customer�s rights in this instance all the more surprising. I inquired of their legal departments why they acted as they did. I was disappointed to learn that neither company customarily asks any questions or gives any notice to customers when their receive subpoenas in connection with a criminal investigation. Instead, they verify only that the subpoena forms are properly filled out and are issued by courts of competent jurisdiction.Considering how frequently we hear stories of governments abusing their investigative power, it's a bit troubling that these companies do not, in fact, go further in protecting their customers' rights even in cases of criminal subpoenas. Levy notes that, unlike those two companies, many actual media companies are much better at resisting criminal subpoenas when appropriate:
The discussion reminded me that although the major ISP�s have generally behaved well when they receive civil subpoenas to identify their users, insisting that their users get notice and an opportunity to seek to quash, they lag far behind the mainstream media when it comes to criminal subpoenas. Newspapers and broadcasters have a forty-year history of fighting criminal investigators who issue subpoenas to identify their sources. Newspaper and television reporters regularly accept incarceration as the price that sometimes has to be paid for this principle. I can�t think of an ISP that has stood up to state power so strongly.This is a good point and one that doesn't get much attention in the tech space. Hopefully, more tech service providers will begin to recognize that their customers have rights in criminal investigations as well as in civil lawsuits.
In least in some cases, that history has led media companies to resist criminal subpoenas to identify bloggers, although the media lawyers present evinced wide variation in the value that they placed on the content provided by users who comment on media web sites. All agreed that, at the very least, users should get notice so that they can move to quash on their own. And after the panel Barbara Wall, a vice-president of the Gannett media chain, discussed with me a number of cases around the country where Gannett has successfully resisted criminal subpoenas to identify the users of the web sites of some of their outlets around the country. Sometimes Gannett is able to talk to prosecutors out of pursuing subpoenas, and sometimes it beats them in court. (It appears that Gannett adopted a firm policy in response to an embarrassing incident involving one of its own papers.).
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, privacy, subpoena
Companies: comcast, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Google "cooperates" with gov't.
Besides, Google has zero interest in any given individual, yet great interest in pleasing gov't. Don't expect a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perhaps this is the URL you are after?
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2010/11/gannett-shamed-into-changing-policy-on-responding- to-request-to-identify-blog-comments.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopes are often liars. Anybody have some ideas for solutions rather than prayer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only money talks
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5792/53/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intollerable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic Fail at the TOP
The State and City and Church all seem to be guilty of criminal activity.
The funniest bit in all of this seems to be that church reacted by declaring the blogger a sinner, and banning him from the church. The cop/deacon who abused his authority and opened a bogus investigation and then destroyed evidence is still in the church. It seems the God in this church only thinks sinners are people who do not agree with the pastor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are people even when uniformed or ordained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People are people even when uniformed or ordained
everyone involved in this investigation should be punched in the mouth
maybe if that were to happen more often, we wouldn't have these sorts of social issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is a Govt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is a Govt Brown-Noser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Vs Newspapers
We should not compare Google bloggers and newspaper sources in this case. A newspaper reporter has met his source multiple times and has made a determination about his trustworthiness and value. Google has never met their blogger and has no idea who the blogger is. The blogger may actually be a criminal or, as in this case he/she may be an anonymous activist. Google has little information to make such value judgments.
So we must not expect that Google will protect their bloggers to the same extent as as newspaper sources. e.g. going to prison for them etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Vs Newspapers
Umm, no. Sometimes they have no idea who their actually is. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_throat
The blogger may actually be a criminal or, as in this case he/she may be an anonymous activist.
The same can be true of newspaper sources as well. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google Vs Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google Vs Newspapers
Woodward and Bernstein knew the identity of Deep throat. they were the ones who finally confirmed that it was Mark Felt.
If google is to protect a blogger from a criminal process, Google will not know the blogger. So how will it know right away whether the blogger is a paedophile, scammer, or an activist fighting for someone's rights.
Some might say that this can be found out by reading through the blog, but that is placing undue burden on Google. This is something that is best decided by the court system whether the person deserves to be anonymous or not and whether the person then deserves prosecution or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]