Once Again, Public Official Thinks Its Illegal To Be An Anonymous Critic

from the the-right-to-anonymity dept

US Courts (unlike some other courts) have been quite good at recognizing that anonymity is part of free speech. Ruling after ruling after ruling by courts, specifically in dealing with things like anonymous blogging or forum posting have found that it's perfectly legal to be anonymous. That doesn't mean that you can defame others, but just being anonymous is not illegal, and an upset individual can't sue just to find out who the anonymous critics are.

Apparently, the Police Director in Memphis is unaware of such first amendment rights. Slashdot points us to the news that Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL to find out the name of a blogger who has been critical of Godwin. Of course, being critical also isn't illegal. But sometimes that's hard to understand when you're the target of the criticism. Hopefully a court explains the law to Godwin in short order.

Filed Under: anonymity, blogging, memphis

Is Anonymity Good Or Bad For Wikipedia?

from the depends-on-who-you-ask dept

Last year plenty of attention was paid to the release of Wikiscanner, a tool from Virgil Griffith that connected the IP addresses of Wikipedia edits with the companies from which they came. This resulted in a few PR flare ups as people noticed some questionable editing by biased parties. Griffith has now upgraded Wikiscanner to do even more (and renamed it to Wikiwatcher). While the revelations probably won't be as surprising, it will allow some way of connecting those who may have edited at home to their employers.

However, perhaps an even more interesting discussion is somewhat buried at the end of the Forbes article linked above: the question over whether or not anonymity is a good or bad thing for Wikipedia. The article quotes Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, complaining that Wikipedia needs to do a better job protecting individuals' privacy. Griffith responds that removing anonymity should improve the quality of Wikipedia:

"I would say that if people are anonymous, the quality of their contribution is probably much lower. Wouldn't you want Wikipedia users to be held accountable for what they change?"

This brings up a few interesting questions. Rotenberg's complaint seems misplaced. The fact that your IP address is revealed with each edit is a known fact. Anyone editing Wikipedia should take that into account. That's hardly Wikipedia's problem. But anonymity can also be an important factor in getting content out. And so far, it appears that all of the "scandals" associated with Wikiscanner were related to biased parties changing info in their favor -- which certainly suggests Giffith has a point: catching those who are changing Wikipedia with ulterior motives does seem to improve the reliability of the site.

Filed Under: anonymity, epic, marc rotenberg, privacy, virgil griffith, wikipedia, wikiscanner, wikiwatcher

Bronx DA Backs Down After Sending Secret Subpoena To Unearth Anonymous Bloggers & Commenters

from the the-right-to-anonymity dept

Paul Alan Levy the lawyer from Public Citizen who defended the bloggers in this case was kind enough to write in alerting us to another job well done by Public Citizen. In this case, a NYC political blog site called Room 8 had some posts by an anonymous blogger criticizing some actions in the Bronx DA's office and the Bronx Republican Party. Not long after the posts, Room 8 received a subpoena from the DA's office not just demanding the IP address of the anonymous blogger and various anonymous commenters, but also warned them that even disclosing the subpoena could get the folks behind Room 8 in serious trouble. Luckily, Room 8 chose to fight this request, signing up the help of Levy, who convinced the DA's office to drop the subpoena and after Room 8 had to threaten the DA's office with a lawsuit of its own, it dropped the demand that the supboena be kept secret. Room 8 has a full account as well. Public Citizen also has posted links to a bunch of documents from the case.

What's still not clear is what was the purpose of the original subpoena. From the facts presented, it's easier to jump to the conclusion that it was purely political. Someone in the DA's office didn't like being criticized, and used the power of the office to try to squelch that voice (and, in fact, well before this came out, the anonymous blogger in question erased all his posts and disappeared). The folks who run Room 8 tried to determine what the actual issue was, and never received any answers. The whole thing is a bit scary, as it does show how a DA could abuse power to get info on anonymous critics simply by claiming it was a criminal investigation, without disclosing any details, and without letting the bloggers subpoenaed speak about it. Hopefully if other sites are getting bullied in this manner, they'll learn to fight back as well.

Filed Under: anonymity, blogging, bronx, new york, politics

EFF Protects Anonymity Of MySpace User

from the good-for-them dept

While not necessarily true in other countries, the US courts tend to do an excellent job protecting the rights of individuals to criticize others anonymously. Of course, when you're the victim of that anonymous criticism, it's often not very enjoyable -- and many assume that what they don't like must be illegal, and therefore sue. This is especially true in anonymity cases, where the victims feel that it positively must be illegal to be anonymous and make such statements.

The EFF has been defending a number of these cases, and recently filed an amicus brief against the town president of a Chicago suburb who had filed a lawsuit seeking the identity of whoever had set up a MySpace profile mocking the guy. The EFF explained how revealing the identity of the user, without having the president of the town first show proof of defamation, would be a violation of the poster's First Amendment rights to privacy. Luckily, after seeing the EFF's argument, the guy withdrew his lawsuit, though it remains to be seen if he'll try to file again with more proof of defamation.

Filed Under: anonymity, eff
Companies: myspace

Australian Officials Accidentally Reveal Google As Responsible For Anti-eBay Filing

from the jockeying-for-position dept

Last month, we wrote about plans by eBay in Australia to ban all non-PayPal payment solutions from the auction site. This has set off quite a firestorm, especially from folks who don't particularly like PayPal. Australian regulators are looking into the matter, and have asked for comments from anyone interested, some of which it's posting online. Most of the comments come with the name of the individual and/or company who sent it in -- but a few were posted anonymously, at the submitter's request. However, it appears that regulators didn't do a very good job scouring for metadata, as someone who looked more closely at the PDF file discovered that it clearly says "Submission by Google re eBay" in the metadata (found via Slashdot).

While this has some wondering if "tensions" are escalating between the two companies, I think it's safe to say that tensions were already quite high between the two companies concerning their competing payment solutions. After all, when Google first launched Google Checkout, eBay quickly banned it from use on the site, claiming (with a straight face) that Google wasn't trustworthy enough, since it didn't have a track record of payment solutions. Then, you may recall a year ago, that Google (childishly) planned a "protest" outside of eBay's own user conference, which resulted in eBay removing all ads from Google for a little while. Considering that eBay is Google's largest advertiser, this was no small move. So, somehow, I doubt the fact that Google filed a comment against banning other payment systems in Australia is going to be seen by either party as an "escalation" of the tension between the two companies.

Filed Under: anonymity, australia, google checkout, metadata, paypal
Companies: ebay, google

California Looks To Strengthen Anti-SLAPP Laws; Protect Online Anonymity

from the good-for-them dept

We've covered various anti-SLAPP laws in the past. These are laws that protect people from bogus lawsuits that are merely designed to shut them up. SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are basically when a large corporation just files suit against someone knowing that the lawsuit alone will cause them problems, no matter how bogus the lawsuit is. Many states have created anti-SLAPP laws that let victims of SLAPP suits ask for them to be quickly dismissed. California has good anti-SLAPP laws, but they may get even stronger. While current California law lets those accused in SLAPP lawsuits to also get back attorneys fees, the law may now be extended to cover lawsuits filed outside of California against California residents. This should serve to help protect anonymity online as well as the ability to speak out against much larger entities. Hopefully, other states will follow suit as well.

Filed Under: anonymity, anti-slapp, california, slapp

Old School Journalists Still More Resistant To Conversational Journalism

from the we-tell-you-the-news,-we-don't-discuss-it dept

We recently discussed how the mainstream press was finally catching on to a concept that had been obvious for years: younger news readers don't look on the news as being reported to them. It's something that they're participants in. They want to share the news, discuss the news, analyze the news, break the news and make the news all at the same time. A new study shows that old school journalists still haven't fully realized this. The study found that there's a significant gap between the way editors and readers think a newspaper site should work. Editors are against the idea of anonymous comments being allowed (only 30% thought it was okay). Yet 55% of readers felt that allowing anonymous comments was a good idea. 58% of editors didn't think that journalists should join in the online conversation and give out opinions, but only 36% of readers agreed. You can certainly see where the old school journalists are coming from -- having grown up in an era where journalist objectivity was everything, but it's becoming increasingly clear that people don't believe journalists are objective -- and they're much more upset by journalists pretending to be objective than those that are willing to be open with their views and willing to discuss them. Once again, newspapers need to start realizing that the very nature of journalism has changed.

Filed Under: anonymity, conversations, generation gap, journalism

Troll Tracker Sued For Defamatation By Patent Attorneys In East Texas

from the you-knew-that-was-coming... dept

Just this morning we were lamenting the fact that the formerly anonymous Patent Troll Tracker had shut down his blog, but now we know why. It appears that two patent attorneys in East Texas have sued him and Cisco for defamation. One of the attorneys happens to also be the son of the judge who helped make Marshall, Texas famous as a favorite for patent holders. The details on the case suggest that this lawsuit may have been the reason that Rick Frenkel outed himself, as it was actually filed back in November and used as a way to unmask the Troll Tracker.

The defamation claim is based on a post that Frenkel put up back in October, which we wrote about. It involved the fact that the Texas lawyers in question had filed a patent lawsuit against Cisco in Texas, the day before the actual patent was issued (which you're not supposed to do). In response, Cisco (perhaps Frenkel himself) had quickly filed for a declaratory judgment in Connecticut. Later on, the date on the original filing in Texas was changed, a fact that Frenkel found quite questionable. No matter what, that case was eventually dismissed entirely -- but the lawyers in question are still suing both him and Cisco for defamation. Cisco, I'd imagine, isn't thrilled about the whole situation, but one would hope execs there are reasonable enough not to punish Frenkel for this. It would be great if lawyers could weigh in on the defamation claim. The links above have most of the text being used in the defamation claim, and I'm struggling to figure out what's actually defamatory about it. There doesn't seem to be anything that would count as defamation at all. Even if there is some defamation in there somewhere, it's also difficult to see how Cisco could be found responsible for the speech. Even though Frenkel worked at Cisco, he clearly did not post the story as a representative of Cisco, and was quite careful to point to other sources that had reported the news first (i.e., not using internal Cisco info). Anyone know if Texas has a SLAPP law in place?

Filed Under: anonymity, blogs, defamation, patents, texas, troll tracker
Companies: cisco

Senate Looks To Outlaw Phishing, Even Though It's Already Illegal

from the gotta-do-something dept

As the saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The folks in Congress sure do an awful lot of whacking at various nails these days. The latest is a new bill in the Senate that seeks to outlaw phishing. One tiny point is important here: phishing is already illegal. So, really all this bill does is allow these politicians to claim that they took a stand to stop phishing. Except, it's actually worse than that. Not only will this bill not do anything to stop phishing, it will actually make life worse for plenty of non-criminals. That's because a part of the bill would outlaw hiding domain name registration information. Now, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for not wanting to reveal your info in the whois database -- but according to this bill, it won't be allowed any more. If you want to own a domain, you'll need to cough up your name, address and phone number to whoever wants it -- and they better be legit. If you provide false info, you'll also be breaking the law. So, it won't do anything new to stop phishing, but will make it much more difficult to own a domain anonymously. That's quite a nail.

Filed Under: anonymity, grandstanding, phishing, senators

Gov't Says Second Life + Online Anonymity = Terrorism

from the oh-really? dept

Just as our courts on continually pointing out that anonymity is protected free speech, it appears that the federal government is trying to do away with anonymity entirely. We've already pointed out that National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has been saying that the government should be able to monitor all internet communications. Now, the government's Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity has come out with a fear mongering report trying to suggest that online anonymity in 3D worlds leads to terrorism. It highlights things like Second Life as a breeding ground for terrorism. It's all quite scary if it weren't for the fact that it's totally baseless. There's no evidence at all that this kind of activity is happening in world's like Second Life. In fact, the report buries a quote from an anonymous (ha!) intelligence official admitting that there's no evidence whatsoever that any such activity is happening at all. As the EFF points out in the link above, private communications online are nothing new. The fact that they might take place in a 3D virtual is totally meaningless -- other than to suggest that there are folks involved in national "intelligence" who aren't that intelligent at all.

Filed Under: anonymity, online anonymity, security, terrorism, virtual worlds