ICE Loses Access To Sensitive Utility Customer Records Following Pressure By Senator Ron Wyden

from the and-now-we'll-wait-for-the-law-enforcement-pushback dept

Another one of ICE's (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) data spigots has been shut off. Don't cry too many tears for poor old ICE. It still has plenty of options. It's still hoovering up location data from app developers who either don't know or don't care that this data is buyable through data brokers. It also still has plenty of privileges, thanks to laws and judicial decisions that say most constitutional rights are null and void within 100 miles of our nation's ports of entry (borders, coasts, and -- making this far more concerning -- any domestic airport offering international flights).

Plenty of data can still be had (and plenty of brokers willing to sell it), but ICE has just lost access to one source of data it uses to track down immigrants: utility bill information gathered, packaged, and sold to government agencies by third parties like Equifax and Reuters.

Equifax gathers this information ostensibly to assess the creditworthiness of United States residents. (It also leaks this information on occasion.) Thomson Reuters uses the same information (called "utility header data") in its CLEAR database, which contains "billions of data points" and "leverages cutting-edge public records technology." Its potent combination of bulk data and profit-seeking is sold to whoever wants access, which includes US law enforcement agencies.

ICE no longer has access to this data through CLEAR. At least the "utility header data" part of it. So have the nation's law enforcement agencies. Following pressure from Senator Ron Wyden, utility companies will no longer allow this data to be resold by Equifax to private entities like Reuters. (Possible paywall ahead. Alternate link.)

A nationwide group of utility companies that provided sensitive data from millions of Americans’ cable, phone and power bills to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other government agencies has agreed to end the practice in response to concerns the information was being misused to track the general public.

Wyden's pressure on the National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange (NCTUE) prompted change. The NCTUE told Equifax to stop selling this data. This means the data no longer flows to Reuters' CLEAR database, which means agencies like ICE no longer have access to it.

But Reuters isn't the only player in the data market. There are plenty of third parties purchasing data and selling it to government agencies and other third parties. That's why Wyden is now demanding the Consumer Finance Protection Board start doing its job and start regulating the sale of Americans' data.

Wyden, a longtime critic of government surveillance, called on the CFPB to further rein in a data-broker industry that he said had spun “out of control” due in part to “vague and undefined regulations.” He urged the agency to aggressively investigate how data gathered for commercial purposes was ending up in the hands of law enforcement without court approval or oversight.

“Selling personal information that people provide to sign up for power, water and other necessities of life, and giving them no choice in the matter, is an egregious abuse of consumers’ privacy,” Wyden wrote. “The personal privacy of hundreds of millions of people should not depend upon the goodwill of corporations worried about negative headlines.”

Currently, it's third parties on top of third parties, buying data from wherever it can be purchased and repackaging it for sale to others. This has led to consumers being misled about everything, from the data being collected to how the data is being used. Boilerplate about sales or licensing to third parties doesn't make it clear information collected to open and maintain necessities of life (like utility services) will ultimately be part of "billions of data points" accessible without a warrant by law enforcement.

As of right now, the data Wyden is concerned about is bought and sold in a gray market -- one not directly affected by regulation. That's what Wyden hopes to change.

The sale of credit payment histories and related data is closely regulated under federal law. But government agencies can access credit header data because the regulations do not clearly outline how the revealing information can be used. Wyden urged CFPB to clarify the law and investigate how the data is sold.

Government agencies and data brokers have long preyed on the disconnect between public perception and the far uglier reality of data harvesting. Customers and consumers understand utility companies need to collect information to provide service and collect payment. They may also make the small logical leap that payment histories will be forwarded to companies that assess credit ratings. What they almost never assume is that all this data -- which includes names, addresses, social security numbers, and plenty of contact info -- can be accessed at will by US law enforcement agencies.

Many data fire hoses are still in operation. But this move slows one form of data to a drip -- one that travels to Equifax but goes no further. It's a start, but as Sen. Wyden clearly realizes, there's a long way to go before Americans can trust the entities that collect data from us.

Filed Under: clear, data, data brokers, ice, nctue, privacy, ron wyden, utility bills
Companies: reuters

Dear Reuters: This Is NOT How You Report On Dishonest, Disingenuous Talking Points From US Officials Regarding Encryption

from the come-on-guys dept

Attorney General William Barr and his DOJ and FBI have really ramped up their bullshit campaign against the public being able to use encryption. President Trump himself weighed in himself with some ignorant statements, suggesting that Apple owes him some sort of quid pro quo, because his policies may have helped them on trade:

We are helping Apple all of the time on TRADE and so many other issues, and yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements. They will have to step up to the plate and help our great Country, NOW!

This is dumb and wrong for many, many reasons. First of all, no matter what the US government has done on an unrelated issue, that doesn't mean that Apple should do something on a totally different issue. Second, the issue is not Apple "refusing to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements." It's Apple offering encryption that protects all of us. It is not possible for Apple to "unlock" the phones of criminals without doing so for everyone else as well, putting everyone's information at tremendous risk. And, for very little benefit, seeing as there are multiple private companies who have figure out how to crack iPhone encryption and which the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies are already using.

Indeed, outside of the President and the DOJ, other parts of the federal government have come down against having Apple break encryption, including the intelligence community and the Defense Department who recently told Congress how important general purpose consumer encryption is in protecting national security.

But, because only the other side of the debate seems to get any attention, and because Trump toady's feel the need to kiss up to the President, now we have Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, also repeating nonsense about Apple and encryption:

“I understand the president’s view, and it is absolutely critical for our technology companies to cooperate with law enforcement,” Mnuchin told CNBC in an interview.

Mnuchin later told reporters at the White House that he had not discussed the issue with Apple and did not know the specifics at hand. “I know Apple has cooperated in the past on law enforcement issues, and I expect they would continue ... to cooperate.”

Damn straight he doesn't "understand the specifics at hand." Still, political grifters spewing nonsense is nothing new. What frustrates me is how Reuters framed this story. Its headline blared: "Mnuchin urges Apple, other technology companies to work with U.S. law enforcement"

That's really bad framing, because it suggests to basically everyone (totally incorrectly) that the issue here is that Apple and other tech companies are somehow not "working with U.S. law enforcement." Except they are. Where possible and where reasonable and allowed by law. The issue at play when it comes to encryption literally has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not tech companies should or should not "work with" law enforcement, but rather whether they should put all of our security at risk, in order to make it marginally easier in a few limited cases for law enforcement to get into phones it probably already has access to through other means.

When framed that way, it's obviously dumb. But anyone reading Reuters' coverage of the issue won't get that. They'll think that Apple is somehow taking some sort of stand against US law enforcement. This is what Trump, Barr, and apparently Mnuchin, would like people to think, but it's not true, and it's fundamentally bad journalism for Reuters to frame it that way.

Filed Under: doj, donald trump, encryption, going dark, law enforcement, security, steve mnuchin, william barr
Companies: apple, reuters

NY Times And Reuters Claim Totally Different Explanations For Yahoo's Email Scanning

from the so-um-well,-this-is-awkward dept

On Wednesday afternoon the NY Times released a report that appeared to clarify some of the questions around Tuesday's Reuters report about Yahoo scanning all emails. According to the NY Times, unlike the original Reuters report that talked about a "directive" (which would imply an NSA surveillance program such as the one under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act), the scanning was actually the result of a more traditional FISA Court order.

Yahoo was ordered last year to search incoming emails for the digital “signature” of a communications method used by a state-sponsored, foreign terrorist organization, according to a government official familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department obtained the order from a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

To comply, Yahoo used a modified version of its existing systems that were scanning all incoming email traffic for spam, malware and images of child pornography. The system stored and made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation a copy of any messages it found that contained the digital signature.

Some had speculated that this was what happened, but there was still some confusion over Reuters' original use of "directive." However, before the digital ink had even dried on the NY Times report, Reuters came out with a new report of its own that claimed the scanning was done under a Section 702 program:

Yahoo's request came under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the sources said. The two sources said the request was issued under a provision of the law known as Section 702, which will expire on Dec. 31, 2017, unless lawmakers act to renew it.

But, the Reuters report also notes that there was a "FISA Court warrant" associated with the request:

The FISA Court warrant related specifically to Yahoo, but it is possible similar such orders have been issued to other telecom and internet companies, the sources said.

So it sounds like there may have been some sort of weird hybrid FISA Court order, which used Section 702 as the basis for the demand -- even though the coverage of it included items that previously had been considered off limits under the 702 PRISM program (i.e., "about" communications, rather than just to and from metadata).

Either way, this is putting renewed emphasis on the problems with Section 702 -- and the fact that it expires at the end of next year. If the NSA had been hoping that the PCLOB report, and other factors, would lead Congress to rubber stamp the renewal, the exposure of the Yahoo program may have just undermined that in a big way. The EFF is already pointing out how scanning all emails for a selector like this is a 4th Amendment violation. Of course, actually getting standing to prove that in court is going to be a challenge.

Filed Under: 702, email scanning, fisa court, fisc, mass surveillance, nsa
Companies: ny times, reuters, yahoo

The Way You Ask The Questions Matters: Reuters Poll Says People Support Apple Against FBI, But It's All In The Questions

from the stupid-questions,-stupid-answers dept

Earlier this week, we highlighted a questionable poll done by the Pew Research folks concerning the Apple/FBI fight, and noted that the actual questions it asked were wrong and misleading (and also leading...) and that resulted in fairly meaningless results, which were then spun by reporters into false claims that the public backed the FBI in this fight: And then, just days later, Reuters/Ipsos released a poll of its own, saying... basically the exact opposite, and it's being spun to claim that there is "Solid support for Apple in iPhone encryption fight." And, once again, the poll is basically meaningless when it comes to the actual issues in this case. You can read the details of the questions in the linked document, which shows that, before asking the key question, the pollsters asked a bunch of questions about whether or not people were willing to "give up privacy" to help the US government on a variety of things. And lots of people said no. These questions more or less framed the issue as one about protecting your own privacy -- as compared to the Pew poll that framed it more as being about investigating the San Bernardino attacks. Then after all those questions, the poll asks about the specifics of the Apple case, where they frame the question much more broadly than Pew's. Here's Reuters question:

Apple is opposing a court order to unlock a smart phone that was used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attack. Apple is concerned that if it helps the FBI this time, it will be forced to help the government in future cases that may not be linked to national security, opening the door for hackers and potential future data breaches for smartphone users. Do you agree or disagree with Apple’s decision to oppose the court order?

And, to refresh your memory, here's how Pew asked it:

As you may know, RANDOMIZE: [the FBI has said that accessing the iPhone is an important part of their ongoing investigation into the San Bernardino attacks] while [Apple has said that unlocking the iPhone could compromise the security of other users’ information] do you think Apple [READ; RANDOMIZE]?

(1) Should unlock the iPhone (2) Should not unlock the iPhone (3) Don't Know.

Notice that the Reuters/Ipsos version focuses solely on the downsides laid out by Apple, and not the supposed intent of the FBI. The Pew poll tries to "balance" the two. Meanwhile both polls get the basic facts wrong, because the request is not to "unlock a smart phone" because Apple cannot "unlock it." The actual ask is that it build a new operating system (which has some big challenges) that has purposely undermined two key security features on the iPhone, so that the FBI can then hack the passcode and access the phone. The specifics here matter and neither poll gets them right.

So while I, personally, think Apple is the one to support in this fight, I don't think either poll really says much about anything, other than that depending on how you word a poll, you can get very, very different results. That's really not particularly interesting as it pertains to the actual debate here. Stupid polls get stupid answers.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, iphone, polling, privacy, questions, security
Companies: apple, ipsos, pew research, reuters

Reuters, Re/code Care So Very Much About 'Conversation' That They're Asking Commenters To Leave

from the baby-and-the-bathwater dept

A little more than a year ago, Popular Science announced they were shutting of news story comments, stating that comments were "bad for science." Earlier this month Reuters Digital Executive Editor Dan Colarusso also announced that the company would also be eliminating comments from news stories. Comments, Colarusso proclaimed, were no longer necessary thanks to the rise of social media. Reuters still values conversation about the news, he insisted, but the old-fashioned idea of allowing users to directly comment on stories must give way to "new realities of behavior in the marketplace":

"Much of the well-informed and articulate discussion around news, as well as criticism or praise for stories, has moved to social media and online forums. Those communities offer vibrant conversation and, importantly, are self-policed by participants to keep on the fringes those who would abuse the privilege of commenting."

That's a lovely way of saying that Reuters didn't care enough about its readers to pay for moderators. This is the same Reuters that a few years ago threw the baby out with the bathwater when they banned anonymous commenters, ignoring the fact that anonymity isn't synonymous with jackassery, and can often allow people to give valuable insight they might not be comfortable with otherwise.

On the heels of the Reuters announcement the folks over at Re/code this week announced a similar plan, again insisting that social media is a good enough replacement for direct, on-site reader feedback:

"Our writers are all active on services like Twitter and Facebook, and our official Re/code accounts on social media post our stories all day long. Readers aren’t shy about offering their opinions to us on these and other social media services, and you are likelier to be able to interact with us there. In effect, we believe that social media is the new arena for commenting, replacing the old onsite approach that dates back many years."

Should you visit Re/code now, you're informed that your comments are considered so important, you're encouraged to leave:This sudden disdain for traditional comments raises the question: is Facebook somehow immune to stupid comments? Is forcing all news conversation on to Facebook's terms really an improvement in meaningful dialogue? The rush to declare the comment section dead seems to ignore the fact that on-site comments create value by building a sense of local community, something GigaOM's Mathew Ingram recently put rather succinctly:

"The bottom line is that if the discussion and debate and interaction around a news story occurs somewhere else, then soon the readers who are interested in that engagement will start to think of the platform where it occurs as the important part of the relationship — not the site that actually created the content."

Offloading moderation costs to social media websites is of course their prerogative, but I find the pretense that this is about some kind of concern for an evolution in conversation to be disingenuous. It's like a local bar owner saying they value intelligent conversation so much they'd really prefer it if patrons held their conversation at the massive stadium down the street. It's a way to keep your readers -- both the obnoxious ones and those offering interesting insight and corrections -- at arms length. The fact these announcements tend to be dripping with disdain for site readership doesn't generate the impression that participatory feedback is actually welcome.

That's not to say comments aren't frequently a raging cacophony of nitwits, partisan blowhards and spambots when moderated poorly. However, there's a number of older tech communities like Slashdot that have been able to moderate communities and cultivate intelligent conversation for more than a decade on a fraction of the budget of Re/Code and Reuters. Sites like Reddit and Gawker have similarly tinkered with community self-regulation and systems that work to dull the boldest bullhorns in said nitwit cacophony. This sudden trend toward waving your face like a Southern belle at the overwhelming and brutish nature of Internet conversation seems dramatic. We're herding a few jackasses here, not splitting the atom.

Obviously news comments are an ongoing evolution, and it takes a little work to cultivate meaningful conversation. But offloading your Viagra spam and bile-soaked comment section to Facebook because you can't be bothered to hire moderators is a cop out and it's lazy. Pretending you're doing it because you value conversation adds insult to injury. What Popular Science, Reuters and Re/Code are really saying is that they don't care enough about their communities -- or those regulars who do stop by to have intelligent conversation -- to pay somebody to weed the garden.

Filed Under: comments, community, conversation, journalism, social media
Companies: re/code, reuters

Reuters Tries To Explain Away Its Refusal To Call Torture 'Torture'

from the the-view-from-nowhere dept

We recently pointed out that in a Reuters news report about the pending (and ultimately delayed) release of the declassified executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's $40 million report on the CIA's torture program, Reuters reporter Patricia Zengerle refused to call the torture program "torture" instead describing it as "physically stressful interrogation techniques" within the following context:

Human rights activists and many politicians have labeled as "torture" some of the physically stressful interrogation techniques, such as water boarding - or simulated drowning - that were authorized under former President George W. Bush.

We then went on to point out how odd it is that Zengerle apparently can't come to call it torture herself, given that by pretty much every definition out there, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (not to mention President Obama himself) have defined the practices as "torture."

Journalism professor Jay Rosen read the story and decided to ask Zengerle and Reuters about it. Rosen is the guy who has helped to highlight and call out this weak form of journalism known as "the view from nowhere" in which reporters refuse to actually say what something is, preferring to avoid any such claim. At best, such journalists feel the need to find someone to quote to call something what it is, rather than saying so themselves. Zengerle told Rosen he needed to talk to Reuters PR people, which was reasonably perplexing. Since when do journalists take their orders from PR?

Nonetheless, Rosen did exactly that. At first he was referred to Reuters' "Handbook of Journalism" which is the organization's style guide. Except, as Rosen noted, there doesn't appear to be anything in there concerning whether or not Reuters reporters can call torture "torture." In response, the PR person told him:

We have no formal policy regarding the designation of certain practices as torture. Our approach, in general, is to factually describe a technique -- such as waterboarding -- and attribute the characterization of it as torture to credible sources.

That is... an unsatisfactory answer to say the least. The idea, of course, (as one of our commenters on the story noted) is to "stay away from emotionally charged words." But that's not reporting. That's a cop out. Is torture an emotionally charged word? Possibly, but it's also accurate. It's not debatable. Under every definition of torture, practices like waterboarding fit. When reporters like Zengerle take the cheap way out, they actually make things even worse. Calling torture like waterboarding "physically stressful interrogation techniques," it may avoid the "emotionally charged" term of "torture," but it does a disservice to readers by underplay what is really happening when someone is waterboarded.

A reporter should be accurately reporting the facts. And that means when something is torture, they should call it torture.

When a Reuters PR person tries to brush this aside by arguing that Zengerle "factually described a technique," she's not telling the truth. Calling waterboarding and other CIA torture techniques as merely "physically stressful" is an outright misrepresentation of the fact that these techniques -- submitting someone to severe mental or physical pain for the purpose of obtaining information -- is the very definition of torture. Walking up a big hill may be "physically stressful." Waterboarding is not merely physically stressful. It's torture. Reuters does a disservice to truth in pretending otherwise.

Filed Under: jay rosen, journalism, patricia zengerle, style guide, torture, view from nowhere, waterboarding
Companies: reuters

Reuters Downplays CIA Torture As Merely 'Physically Stressful Interrogation Techniques'

from the torturing-the-english-language dept

We recently wrote about the ongoing delays in releasing a (heavily redacted) executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's torture regime following 9/11. That was linked to a Reuters story about how the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee still can't agree on what to redact. However, I'd totally missed a line at the end of that Reuters piece that Kevin Gosztola calls to our attention. It's where Reuters reporter Patricia Zengerle decides to not call torture "torture," but rather "physically stressful interrogation."

Human rights activists and many politicians have labeled as "torture" some of the physically stressful interrogation techniques, such as water boarding - or simulated drowning - that were authorized under former President George W. Bush.

This is a cheap cop out by Reuters and Zengerle. Waterboarding is torture. A month ago, the NY Times finally got around to admitting that waterboarding and the other interrogation techniques used by the CIA were torture and that it would call it that in the future. Reuters should get with the program (also known as the English language). It's the "view from nowhere" to pull the "well, some human rights activists call it torture." It is torture. It is not just a few human rights activists saying this. It is widely accepted as torture. The UN has said it is torture, and Reuters reporters should know that because that article is from Reuters.

Not only that, but it's pretty clearly torture under US law which defines it as:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

The act further says that "severe mental pain or suffering" includes "the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering" and "the threat of imminent death." Waterboarding fits both those classifications. It makes the brain think that you're drowning. It is severe pain and suffering and makes those experiencing it think they are about to die.

If you don't like the US law, how about the Geneva Convention, which says that parties are "prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands" and further defines "torture or inhuman treatment" as including "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

And if that's not enough, we have the UN Convention Against Torture, which the US has both signed and ratified, which clearly notes:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

There is no legitimate argument that the activities carried out by the CIA go beyond "physically stressful interrogation techniques." The CIA engaged in torture. And Reuters can (and should) call it that.

Filed Under: cia, interrogation, journalism, patricia zengerle, physically stressful, torture, waterboarding
Companies: reuters

Reuters Sorry About Pre-Releasing Kinda Bitchy Soros Obit, Not Sorry Enough To Take It Down

from the things-are-busy dept

From our friends over at Dealbreaker, we learn that those bastions of professional journalism, Reuters, published a premature obituary for George Soros (where they left in the XXs for his age). Upon realizing this, Reuters issued an apology, but apparently left the original story up for about an hour before someone realized that perhaps they should pull it down. Hey, everyone makes mistakes, but it seems a little silly when people want to argue that bloggers are untrustworthy and that the mainstream media is careful about these things. Following their massive fuck up concerning the Boston Marathon bombing and then followed by stories like this, I think it's safe to note that mistakes happen across the board -- though it seems as if amateur blogs and the like often seem a lot faster about making corrections...

Filed Under: george soros, journalism, obituary, reporting
Companies: reuters

Pointless Journalist Fight: Who Gets Credit For Tweeting A Story First?

from the get-over-yourselves dept

One thing I always find particularly silly in the mainstream media is when they claim "exclusive" on a story. News is not "ownable," and the second someone gets a story out, that news is out there and the facts are available to anyone else. So every time I see publications claim "exclusive!" it makes me laugh. It may be exclusive for a few seconds, at best. But, old school journalists seem to get really really picky about those things, as evidenced by this particularly stupid argument over who gets "credit" for a story. It seems that the NY Times and Reuters both had reporters working on the story, and the NYTimes tweeted the news out about 26 seconds before Reuters did -- but the Reuters reporter is still demanding credit -- first claiming (incorrectly) that he tweeted it first, but then noting (correctly) that they published first. The simple fact is that no one cares, other than a couple of journalists. No one keeps score, and no one owns the news. After all, if we have to go back to the "original" source, then wouldn't it be the person the story is actually about?

Filed Under: facts, pointless, twitter fight
Companies: new york times, reuters

Reuters Dumps Anonymous Comments: Throwing Out A Bunch Of Babies With The Bathwater?

from the it's-not-the-anonymity dept

This probably isn't a surprise. Lots of traditional journalism folks have been busy slamming "anonymous" commenters online, often falsely blaming them for things they did not do. Earlier this year, we pointed to an excellent defense of anonymous commenting, by the Washington Post's Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, with the key line being:

For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.

We've seen it here. We've always allowed anonymous commenters, even as we've continually added more and more features to make it worthwhile to identify yourself. And yet, if people do want to be anonymous, we're fine with that. To be honest, in over a decade of doing this, I've really seen no difference in either the level of "bad" or "good" comments from anonymous commenters as I have from named commenters. We have anonymous commenters who are brilliant, insightful, well-informed and add to the discussion all the time. In fact, with a few of them, I can even recognize that they're the "same" commenters via their writing style (even as some of them are totally anonymous, via proxies). At the same time, some of the commenters who freely admit who they are, can be some of the rudest, most obnoxious and uninformed commenters around. And, of course, the reverse is true as well. Certainly there are plenty of anonymous clueless commenters and plenty of insightful named commenters. The point is that the anonymity is the wrong thing to blame. We've seen no indication that anonymity leads to a higher level of clueless comments.

Unfortunately, however, some have decided to go in a different direction. Reuters is apparently now the latest to ban anonymous comments on their site. This is unfortunate, as among the big news providers out there, Reuters often seemed more "aware" of how to best embrace the internet, but this move seems like it's a mistake. It won't stop snide comments, but they may lose many valuable community members who, for whatever reason, did not have enough incentive to reveal who they were.

Filed Under: anonymity, comments
Companies: reuters