Canadian Court Orders Site To ID Anonymous Posters 358
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian court has ordered
the owners of the FreeDominion.ca to disclose all personal information on eight anonymous posters to the chat site. The
required information includes email and IP addresses. The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy, a major blow to online free speech in Canada."
Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm behind 7 proxies
Re:Good luck (Score:1, Insightful)
Something interseting (Score:5, Insightful)
I noticed the blogger doesn't mention anything about the case itself. I wonder how knowing the particulars of the case might effect the response of slashdot posters.
Re:Good luck (Score:3, Insightful)
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
I'm behind 7 proxies
Does anyone see something wrong with this? Courts can now redefine reality? Or will they just outlaw proxies to keep reality updated?
I sense a dejavu coming up, Matrix style.
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.
Re:A Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
The court ruled that anonymous posters have no reasonable expectation of privacy
I wonder what then the court considers to be a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Sorry, here or anywhere else, when I click the "post anonymously" button I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now what they happen to log etc I can understand, but there's an expectation of at least a measure of privacy. If Joe Troll emails /. asking for my IP I expect them to say get lost. But if they get a subpoena I expect them to get the IP. That's where "reasonable" lies in my opinion.
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is one of the foundations of freedom of speech and democracy, allowing citizens to voice their concerns and opinions without fear of prosecution or ridicule.
It reminds us to place principles before personalities, allowing logic to take precedent over emotions.
P.S. It's a bit ironic to hear an admonition to "be brave for once and say what you want in the open" - from an Anonymous Coward. LOL. Good job. Alanis Morrisette would be proud.
Re:A Canadian (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, here or anywhere else, when I click the "post anonymously" button I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Why? I won't defend the court's decision, but putting on a mask when in public doesn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy. Why should putting on a mask on the internet do so?
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Common Sense [wikipedia.org] would indicate otherwise.
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:1, Insightful)
Obviously, you didn't RTFA, or google for any relevant background information about the case. In Canada, you cannot simply say anything you want if what you want to say is deemed "hate speech" by a tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As I understand it, if you are found "guilty" by this tribunal for offensive speech, you could be fined several thousands of dollars. That, in itself, warrants "a fear of persecution."
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called an anonymous informant and a journalist.
Free Speech vs Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a bit fuzzy on the difference between free speech and the right to stay anonymous.
It would seem to me that anonymity is not a requirement for free speech, online or otherwise.
What's to stop the internet-equivalent of standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?
Anonymity, IMHO, is actually detrimental to civil discourse - it gives individuals the idea that there are no consequences to what is said in a public forum. What we say in public life always has consequences - why should the internet be different?
Visiting most online discussions is like watching the monkeys at the zoo, and the risk of being hit with a lump of flying feces is just as high.
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I must disagree:
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech
Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.
however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".
Re:A Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it does.
In some places wearing a mask would be illegal -- precisely because people are not supposed to expect privacy there.
Re:Free Speech vs Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, the right to privacy and anonymity is one of the base requirements for the existence of free speech. Without a guarantee of privacy, much speech which dissents from the mainstream, identifies graft and corruption, or identifies wrong-doers would be stifled if there were consequences for the speaker. Whether it's a bully stealing lunch money, a contractor putting beach sand in concrete for a building, a tip line for identifying/finding criminals, or a Governor selling a senate seat - the implications of telling the truth which is detrimental to a powerful individual can be a personal risk which is just not tenable.
Yes, privacy can be used for evil; however it is critical that is be available.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you take explicit steps you are not anonymous online *ever*. Even when you do, you're only as anonymous to the point of making it more difficult to find you. The trail is there, however cloudy and convoluted.
An insecure wireless connection on the other hand...does wonders for anonymnity(sp?)
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need to post anonymously, you didn't have free speech in the first place.
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, except for the fact that one ruling concerning anonymous posters will affect ALL anonymous posters everywhere within Canada.
The Internet is all-or-nothing in this case. If you can prosecute one case of slander and libel, you can prosecute all cases, including "statement critical of the Führer and The Party", which is the scary part of it.
Combine all the efforts underway and you'll see where this is heading. Censorship because of the children, where they lock you up in prison for making the banlist public. Somehow, these banlists always include certain political opponents, but that's just a coincidence. Either way, lock everyone up who questions the Child Porn Ban List, because Children are holy.
Then ID'ing anonymous posters, next forcing webmasters to present ID when setting up a public servers and then we're very very very close to the requirement of having each and all typewriters registered with the Stalinist Party.
This ain't a slippery slope fallacy, because we're already sliding down as we speak, and we're sliding fast. They're already railing up against "unsensible" and "provocating" comments which include pro-catholic, anti-catholic and of course anti-muslim opinions. We have that in Denmark, The Netherlands and the UK already, but it's still only a handful of cases. But as I said, we're having quite a ride on the slippery slope which people have foreseen years ago and were dismissed with Godwin's Law. Well, pessimism can be true sometimes.
Not me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Web service data retention policies (Score:4, Insightful)
What this says to me is that anyone running a service, anonymous or not, needs to be thoughtful about their own data retention policies.
For instance, I might want to keep finer-grained detail for a short while, to assist in troubleshooting or incident handling.
Otherwise, it's probably just fine to keep more terse logs for a longer period of time. My understanding is that you can't be forced to divulge information you simply don't keep, if regular log rotation is part of your usual business process. The point is, it should probably be part of your usual business process, as it's too late to delete once the lawyers are involved.
Re:Rock and hard place. (Score:4, Insightful)
I often wondered how long it would take the insanity of US & UK to reach us.
Really? Because I often wonder why it happens every goddamn time we elect the Conservatives, and why nobody remembers this the next time.
Anonymity, not free speech, is the issue here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to post anonymously, you didn't have free speech in the first place.
You may have freedom from the government, but you can never be free from judgement by your peers. Posting anonymously has long been the best way to spread uncomfortable truths without facing the public backlash that inevitably leads to self-censorship. Someone with your sig ought to know, unless you're just a poser.
Canadian Loss of Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like Canada must be married to Australia with this nonsense court ruling. Must we all now go to a public library or internet cafe in order to be able to post anonymously? Somebody should act up and get rude and loud until governments get the message. Freedom of communications is not in the hands of governments to regulate. This freedom belongs only to individuals not to states.
Major blow to online free speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, its a major blow to free speech in general.
Its a short step from this to IDing a person via a 'traffic camera' at a physical rally, especially as drivers licenses are starting to be scanned and entered into facial recognition databases.
Re: Canadian Loss of Freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
Even most public libraries in my area require you to log in to their computers with your library number, which is traceable to your account. If you want to use their free WiFi you are safer, but you still need to be careful that they aren't logging you MAC address, which would enable someone to catch you if you came back.
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even worse that that. In our brave new world where everything you've ever said online is indexed and recorded by google et al; and corporate judgements of our personality - and employability - can be made based upon some 10 year old blog posting, it's crucial that anonymous speech be defended.
Voting is anonymous for a reason; people can be pressured into voting a certain way by businesses, threatened to be fired if they don't vote as instructed and hand over their ballot receipt as proof. With no voter receipt, and privacy in the voting booth, this protects voters from unfair co-oercion by the powerful.
These days, instead of that private conversation by the watercooler or in the pub where people express their opinions - and gripes - beyond the ears of their manager, instead, it's on the likes of twitter, facebook and slashdot.
How can we have freedom of speech in our names, on our own time, when we fear for our very livelihoods because every word we ever utter will be pored over by some bored manager or HR guy, regardless of whether it's any way related to or the business of the company?
Anonymous and pseudonymous speech allows us to carve out a little bit of our lives and keep them for ourselves and our friends, and not be constantly looking over our shoulders in fear at government or company in case we're perceived to be less than an ideal citizen.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, there's a name for speaking up in the face of inevitable judgment by your peers. It's called "having the courage of your convictions."
Out of interest, is Baron Hethor Samedi your real nameor a pseudonym?
Re:Anonymous speak Free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to the fact that rights tend to overlap, rights always have limitations. The old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" comes to mind.
Free speech, therefore, has limitations. This is even true in the United States. For example: slander.
We do have a constitutional right to free speech within the legal limitations, just as the Americans have a constitutional right to free speech within their legal limitations. Yes, we have more limitations than the Americans do, and yes I believe that Canadian law goes too far with its limitations on speech. However, this doesn't change the fact that Mr. Steacy's assertion that free speech is "an American concept" and that "Canada doesn't have free speech" is incorrect.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is cowardly to use anonymous comment to avoid having a brick (or bricks) thrown through your window well then it seems a pretty reasonable sort of cowardliness.
There is also a huge range of penalties that can be brought to bear along the way from "people might not like you" to "the state is going to jail/kill you" and those penalties are non-trivial. Losing a job (and then the dominoes start to fall) for example. Being anonymously discriminated against for another. Having your rights simply ignored because you've said the wrong things.
State persecution aside, unless you've had the mob turn it's attention on you then you probably have no idea just how important anonymity can be to your safety and well-being.
There is also the idea of ad hominem attacks in discourse. These are decried for good reason and an ad hominem attack based solely on someone being anonymous is no better. It is foolish and wrong headed to devalue what someone is saying simply because they are saying it anonymously.
Deflamation and IP Violation (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm reading the case correctly, it appears that a jury decided that the anonymous poster:
1) posted deflamatory remarks, and
2) posted IP-protected material (copyright violation, whatever)
And now at the jury has decided this, they're summoning the website to hand over the logs so they can procecute.
I'm not sure what I see wrong with that. When someone breaks the law, they broke the law.
A different issue is whether the website should be keeping those logs, but that's not what this is aboot, eh?