Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Privacy Your Rights Online

UK Judge Orders Wikipedia To Reveal User's Identity 260

Posted by timothy
from the firstname-lastname-at-someplace dept.
BoxRec writes with this excerpt from The Daily Mail: "A mother trying to identify a blackmailer who posted 'sensitive' details about her child on Wikipedia has won the right to find out who edited her entry. In the first case of its kind, a High Court judge has ordered the online encyclopedia's parent company to disclose the IP address of one of its registered users."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Judge Orders Wikipedia To Reveal User's Identity

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @07:59PM (#30318804)

    Nothing.

    Because I don't want you to know who I am.

  • Tor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03, 2009 @07:59PM (#30318810)

    What if he/she used Tor?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Then law enforcement will question whoever ran the TOR node, and will dig more ISP logs to find out more.

    • Re:Tor (Score:5, Informative)

      by Orion Blastar (457579) <[orionblastar] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:17PM (#30320036) Homepage Journal

      Well IIRC Wikipedia had a policy not to let IPs of proxy servers and Tor IPs have editing abilities, but they cannot block all of them as not all of them are "known". I know because I tested it out one time and I was blocked from editing and had an error message that says Proxy/Tor IP addresses are blocked due to abuse. Now they may have lifted the block since then, but I think Wikipedia wants to know who is editing their articles so that a person cannot edit their own entry if they are notable enough to be listed and organizations cannot edit their own articles on their organization and many tried to get around that via proxy servers and Tor, and thus Wikipedia blocked those IPs from editing.

      But I could be wrong, someone try it and see what happens.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aqwcenturion (1691248)
      Unlikely. TOR nodes are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia for such reasons - all open proxies are blocked by default.
    • Re:Tor (Score:4, Informative)

      by Xeriar (456730) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @11:06PM (#30320338) Homepage

      Tor exit nodes have a hostname that begins with tor-exit - and Wikipedia blocks on that. Most open proxies can feasibly be detected.

    • Re:Tor (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @11:59PM (#30320712) Journal

      Forget TOR. What if he used a library, coffee shop, rest stop, or other access point?

  • Wow... (Score:5, Informative)

    by nog_lorp (896553) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:03PM (#30318856)

    So, someone anonymously leaks information about shady financial dealing by a businesswoman, and then sends a letter indicating that the press was notified of these dealings. Apparently no request for payoff has been made. Sounds like a whistle blower not a blackmailer.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)

      by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:10PM (#30318922)

      She also received anonymous threatening letters suggesting her accuser would reveal information to the press.

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232901/Wikipedia-ordered-reveal-identity-editor-accused-blackmailing-mother-child.html#ixzz0Yfq9nBa3 [dailymail.co.uk]

      Doesn't that depend on what was in the letters? If he's demanding something and threatening to reveal it if not, that's blackmail... especially if the supposed "information" is not true.

      According to the article, we don't know what the information was or whether it was true or not (emphasis mine).

      The amendments made to the woman's entry involved information about her professional expenses claims and details about her child which the judge did not reveal. She has also received two anonymous letters - although it was not possible to say if these were from the same person who altered the website.

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232901/Wikipedia-ordered-reveal-identity-editor-accused-blackmailing-mother-child.html#ixzz0Yfqcw5Yk [dailymail.co.uk]

      It does say it involved expense claims, but that isn't proven to be true or false either... so you're believing someone that has presumably sent threatening letters over the businesswoman. She denies the wrongdoing, by the way.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:12PM (#30318948)

      Maybe so, but when all of the details are secret we just have to trust the judge who says that according to what he's seen the woman has probable cause to suspect blackmail. This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom, so it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge.

    • No excuse. None.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Depends. I once wrote to George Bush Sr a letter threatening to blow the whistle to the whole world that George Bush Jr is a good for nothing drunk, unless he sent me one million dollars. I never got a reply, though...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Nonsense. When the whistleblower is exposing incest or certain types of child abuse, the whistleblower automatically reveals the names of children involved by revealing the abuser. And sometimes a whistleblower or anonymously protected exposition is necessary because the guilty person cannot or will not be pursued by law enforcement, as occurred with the Catholic priests finally convicted of child harassment in the strange cases that led to Cardinal Bernard Law being taken off the short list for the next Po

    • whistleblowing is when you go to the press and release info of a criminal nature. blackmailing is when you send letters to the target with a threat to release the info, whether of a criminal nature or just a private, sensitive nature

      please report to the nearest droid maintenance facility and have your moral circuitry checked out, thanks

      • All the details are secret; we can not know whether or not there was indeed any blackmail involved, other than the words of a woman and a judge. I myself do not feel that blackmail is a crime, in any case. Immoral, perhaps, but certainly not something to go to court over.
        • by MarkvW (1037596) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @09:24PM (#30319624)

          Blackmail is a crime because if blackmail were not a crime people would be more likely to engage in self-help to rid themselves of the blackmailer. Such self-help could manifest itself in socially destructive ways.

          Blackmail is just a variant of extortion, anyway. Surely nobody would doubt that protection rackets are rightfully criminal. Threatening to hurt somebody financially if money is not paid is only a matter of degree less awful than threatening to kick somebody's ass in exchange for money.

          Blackmail also is a good way to extort people into doing very undesirable things (like espionage, embezzlement, corrupt political behavior, for example).

          Extortion is one more example why free speech must be limited. Words can hurt!

          Only a screwed-up unworkable society could ever have unrestrained free speech. One of the best measures of a free society is the care taken to draw equitable lines between unpermitted speech and free speech.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by tehcyder (746570)

            Only a screwed-up unworkable society could ever have unrestrained free speech.

            Hey, leave the US out of this.

        • by elnyka (803306) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @09:37PM (#30319708) Homepage

          All the details are secret; we can not know whether or not there was indeed any blackmail involved, other than the words of a woman and a judge. I myself do not feel that blackmail is a crime, in any case. Immoral, perhaps, but certainly not something to go to court over.

          Interesting. So, say you or your significant other happens to have a STD, say, herpes. And let's supposed that it was contracted in a manner that you don't want to made public. Certainly not to your children or in-laws. This is something that you and your significant other manage pretty well within the privacy of your life.

          And say that, I, somehow, legally or not, get a copy of your medical records which include by your own account with luxury of details how the STD got acquired in the first place. And then I send you a photocopy of it with a letter telling you that if you don't wire $10K (or whatever amount you feel like for the sake of argument) I will make that letter document available to your in-laws, your co-workers, your church and your kids.

          Blackmail. Now, not finding blackmail in general criminal, or thinking that is criminal only in extreme cases (like the hypothetical one presented here), that will either be immensely idiotic or disturbingly wrong on so many levels that it is horrible to contemplate.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by harlows_monkeys (106428) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @09:14PM (#30319544) Homepage

      I know a lot of people don't RTFA, but is it to much to ask that you at least read the Slashdot summary?

  • Streisand effect? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by auntieNeo (1605623) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:12PM (#30318946)
    Is it wrong that I'm curious as to what the editor posted to get himself in trouble? Seems like the Streisand effect might backfire on the girl if the Internet is as cruel as I think it is.
    • by mdwh2 (535323)

      Indeed - the edit was apparently made to the woman's entry, so come on - can anyone tell us what the article was? And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...

      To be honest I think my view on this depends on what we're talking about - is it blackmail about either false or private details? Or is it a whistleblower case?

      On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistak

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        an anyone tell us what the article was?

        Her name has not been released and is being kept secret. You should read the article :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by FunPika (1551249)

        And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...

        Which is very easy to do. MediaWiki (the wiki software Wikipedia runs) has a feature that allows privileged users to hide the contents of edits from a page's history.

      • Re:Streisand effect? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rsborg (111459) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:36PM (#30319240) Homepage

        On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistaken edits. But how much false information has been published by these same newspapers?

        Clearly a case of the consolidated media industry fighting off new technology startup that could shine a light on all their misdeeds

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kalriath (849904) *

        Indeed - the edit was apparently made to the woman's entry, so come on - can anyone tell us what the article was? And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...

        To be honest I think my view on this depends on what we're talking about - is it blackmail about either false or private details? Or is it a whistleblower case?

        On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistaken edits. But how much false information has been published by these same newspapers? At least with Wikipedia, it's often quickly reverted (and in most cases they wouldn't even know if it wasn't possible to go trawling through the history), yet newspapers often never retract their bullshit.

        Wikimedia's legal team can - and do - revert entries and leave no history entry. They can (and do) also perma-delete some entries.

  • by bobdotorg (598873) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:13PM (#30318960)

    Not by the court's order, but that the Daily Mail actually published a decent, non-sensationalistic article.

  • Can this order really be enforced? What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?
    • Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:4, Informative)

      by aBaldrich (1692238) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:18PM (#30319028)
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by westlake (615356)

        The servers are in Florida.

        But that doesn't exclude the possibility that the Wikipedia or its managers may have a significant legal presence and exposure elsewhere.

        The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law.

        Jurisdiction and legality of content [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jim_v2000 (818799)
      Why wouldn't the Wikipedia comply/help even if they didn't legally have to? I don't think there's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who's blackmailing someone else from your website.
      • Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wvmarle (1070040) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @11:21PM (#30320438)

        Agreed. In this case. Why in this case? Because a JUDGE has decided that this is a case of blackmail. And while I know no judge is infallible, they are human after all and the evidence presented may be incomplete or incorrect, I do generally trust their qualities. And if a judge says it's a case of blackmail then I would consider it a case of blackmail until proven otherwise.

        So even though that judge may be in the UK and WP in the USA it would be nice for them to comply with the request and reveal the IP address from which the edit was done. After that it's again up to law enforcement to figure out who actually did it. Whether the information is enough is another matter, at least WP did what they could and should do.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by owlnation (858981)

      Can this order really be enforced? What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?

      The order can't be enforced, as the Wiki Foundation is based in Florida. However, if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address.

      Which is great news for anyone in somewhere like China "anonymously" editing Wikipedia. Doing so could easily cost you your life if it's The Wiki Foundation's whim to expose you to your Government that day.

      There's at least some possibility that th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chyeld (713439)

        A whistle blower is someone who alerts the media or authorities to wrong doing, by coming forward with evidence of this wrong doing.

        A blackmailer is someone who alerts a victim that they have evidence of either wrong doing or simply humiliating facts and will go to the media or authorities if steps aren't taken by the victim.

        Our "Mr. X" updated a Wikipedia article with possibly true information concerning our woman's expense reports and her child. They then sent two letters which implied they had more infor

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter (624760) *
        Yeah right, because exposing a blackmailer is the same as working for the ministry of truth.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        That's why I love Wikileaks, at least so far. They actually protect their sources. And they do seem to show some discretion about what they publish, which helps prevent blackmail abuse. I was vastly amused when they published various manuals on operations at Guantanamo Bay.

    • Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Informative)

      by geniice (1336589) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:10PM (#30319978)

      # In reply, lawyers for the Respondent made a number of preliminary observations. First they addressed the request made on behalf of the Applicants that the amendment be deleted. They stated that the Respondent is not the publisher or writer of the article relating to the mother, or of the amendment. They said they would refer the request for the deletion of the archived version of the amendment to "the community of volunteer editors, one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns". They referred to the immunity they claim under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil liability for content they did not originate or develop. They stated that the Respondent does not conduct operations within the jurisdiction of this court. Nevertheless, they stated that they were happy to forward the Applicants' request to their volunteer community.

      # The amendment was removed promptly following the request made on behalf of the Applicants.

      # In their letter of 19 November lawyers for the Respondent next addressed the Applicants' request for the IP information. They stated that it is the policy of the Respondent that such data be released in response to a valid sub poena or equivalent compulsory legal process. They added:

              "Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".

      http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html [bailii.org]

  • Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bcrowell (177657) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:17PM (#30319014) Homepage
    Why is this news? The victim showed a judge a blackmail letter. In that situation, of course a judge is going to sign documents forcing people with relevant information to disclose it to the police and/or DA.
  • Caught? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ebonum (830686) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:18PM (#30319032)

    How do people get tripped up on this stuff? If you are going to post something you KNOW you shouldn't post, use a proxy from a country like China or Russia. Then China gets the blame, and you stay hidden. Com'on. This isn't that hard.

    Sadly, stuff you shouldn't post can include stuff you should post, but powerful people don't want you to post.

    • Re:Caught? (Score:4, Funny)

      by auntieNeo (1605623) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:21PM (#30319052)
      Heh, something tells me that Chinese proxies wouldn't work well for editing Wikipedia. :(
      • Re:Caught? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @10:10PM (#30319972) Journal

        Heh, something tells me that Chinese proxies wouldn't work well for editing Wikipedia. :(

        Sure they would. Just depends on the edit that you are making ;) I always use Chinese proxies when I edit this [wikipedia.org] article to reflect the truth that the events mentioned therein are nothing more than Western propaganda ;)

    • Of course, if it actually WAS blackmail, I'm glad the blackmailer was stupid and I hope he gets caught.... one fewer blackmailer in the world seems like a good thing to me.
    • by JoshuaZ (1134087)
      We don't actually know yet if the person has been caught. They may well have been using a proxy. Even if they were not using a proxy there are other ways they could minimize information (such as using a public wireless network in a busy location).
  • People need to know the limits of their freedom on the internet. I am all for freedom of the internets, expressing an idea, deploring stupid thoughts, but personal attacks and blackmail we need to have protections. Not because it causes social harm, people need to think before they act, but because it causes mental harm, long term mental harm. Mental harm our society will have to pay for in lost wages/taxes, mental assistance, and of course the sympathy/empathy we feel for these people. To become null t
    • by pydev (1683904) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:46PM (#30319334)

      Do you think slave holders were not offended by being called murderers and inhuman? Do you think Catholics were not deeply disturbed by Protestants calling the Catholic hierarchy illegitimate and corrupt? The right to offend is an essential part of free speech rights.

      In a democracy, you have a right to be protected form libel and criminal blackmail. You don't have a right to be protected from "mental harm" resulting from speech you find disturbing.

      • Actually the terms are:
        Emotional Abuse
        Psychological Abuse
        Harassment

        Sure someone has the right to insult, offend, or just plain state an opinion on someone else or a group, but if it leads to emotional abuse, psychological abuse, or harassment then a civil court can take the case. For the abuse, not the words that caused the abuse.

        In this case there was a child involved and had his/her real information posted to Wikipedia, which might have lead to the child suffering abuse in some form. Usually most judges consider when someone posts someone else's real personal information on a web site without their consent that it is harassment. Usually real name, address, phone number, SSN, etc, which can lead someone else to steal their identity then the poster of that information is usually found guilty of harassment, especially if other people use the info to harass the person it was posted about.

        Even if there is a freedom of speech and right to insult and opinions, there can still be abuse in some form and a civil case, but it has to be proven that abuse happened and the person or their children suffered for it.

        This could be blackmail, it could be harassment, it could be abuse, or it could be a whistleblower if it was true. It could also be all of the above. Sometimes blackmailers use true info to blackmail someone like embarrassing photos, or expense accounts that wrote off non-business expenses, sexual orientation, or something else. But the question is, even if the information was true, is it still blackmail? That is for a court to decide.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TapeCutter (624760) *
      "...blackmail we need to have protections. Not because it causes social harm..."

      Actually it IS because it causes social harm. You already have a right to be offended, you do not have the right to demand someone else pay for YOUR sensitivities (thank you Larry Flynt [wikipedia.org]).
  • slashhordes: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:27PM (#30319142) Homepage Journal

    blackmail is blackmail is blackmail

    whatever you think of your rights online, criminal activity renders some of your rights null and void

    of course you have rights in a free society: as long as you also abide by your responsibilities. this is true of actual, flawed societies that are not entirely free, and also true of any hypothetical societies you can imagine that function perfectly: when you break your responsibilities you have in a free society, you have abdicated your rights. do you honestly think there is any way around that fact? a society of individuals who do not abide by their responsibilities is by direct consequence a society with few rights as well

    the government is a side issue: most of your rights are violated in this world by your fellow citizens, not the government. of course the government also violates your rights. in a society trying to improve itself, this is revealed, discussed, and punished. just like individuals who violate your rights deserve to be punished. sorry, they don't deserve to be punished, they MUST be punished to show there is genuine consequences for abdication of responsibility in this world. without such enforcement, there's no reason to respect anyone's rights, whether by government, or a fellow citizen

    to most of you, the previous paragraph is eye-glazingly obvious

    however, i feel the need to say it, because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people's rights. when the fact is, if you blackmail someone, you HAVE to have your rights violated, for the sake of a functioning free society, actual or theoretical

    we see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights. what we don't see much discussion is one about responsibilities. please do your small part and keep that in mind: for every right you claim, you are also taking on an implied responsibility you must keep if you wish to maintain the rights you cherish

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MichaelSmith (789609)

      I wonder if wikipedia should just publish the IP address of edits by default in the revision history. That way it would be clearer to people who need privacy that they should take steps to hide their identity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AK Marc (707885)
      blackmail is blackmail is blackmail

      And what if it isn't blackmail? We have one person asserting something and demanding information. We don't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant. We have what may be the beginings of a civil suit, but nothing criminal that I see. In fact, the order is to identify the person so that the woman offended can "identify" that person, and not because of any court action against the unidentified person.

      As far as the court is concerned, there is no search for the
      • Re:slashhordes: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter (624760) * on Thursday December 03, 2009 @11:48PM (#30320640) Journal
        "And what if it isn't blackmail?"

        Presumably "some woman" would be charged with falsifying evidence. You and I do not have the ability to accurately judge the claim for ouselves because we are operating in an information vacum. You are ignoring the fact a judge has read the letter and we haven't. Their job is to judge the claims of "some woman", hence the name judge.

        If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it.
        Well duh, who are the going to charge, 'anonomous of no fixed IP'?
      • Re:slashhordes: (Score:5, Informative)

        by arkhan_jg (618674) on Friday December 04, 2009 @03:47AM (#30321690)

        We don't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant.

        No, because this is the British High Court of Justice, which deal with important and high profile cases. The judge is a senior one with many years of experience, and he issues a court order instead of a warrant. She requested the editor's IP from wikipedia; wikipedia refused, but said "Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".

        So she's gone to the High Court to get the information, on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for, and the Judge agreed. If he didn't think there was a case to answer for, he wouldn't have issued the order. Whether that ends up being a civil case or a criminal case handled by the CPS likely depends upon who that IP belongs to. She believes it will belong to someone to she already has a dispute with, and if so (presuming she gets another court order for the ISP to hand over subscriber details for that IP) then there's quite possibly enough evidence there for the CPS to become interested, and the judge does think there's enough evidence for a blackmail prosecution.

        But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for? Because that's an awfully restrictive setup, where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tehcyder (746570)

      however, i feel the need to say it, because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people's rights. when the fact is, if you blackmail someone, you HAVE to have your rights violated, for the sake of a functioning free society, actual or theoretical

      Well said, the way some people go on about rights and free speech on slashdot, you'd think everyone had some God-given right to act entirely without thought of the consequences, or fear of any comeback on their actions.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:33PM (#30319206) Homepage Journal

    So they have the ip address. Big whoop. It doesn't reveal WHO posted, just the modem that was used.

    Could have been a wifi user out at the street corner, a virus.. someone broke into the home and posted.. An IP in a vacuum isn't evidence.. its a suggestion..

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Nonetheless, it was a court order forcing Wikipedia to reveal user data that otherwise wouldn't have been exposed. Whether or not it is useful is more or less irrelevant in this case, the precedent is probably the larger component to the story.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Skapare (16644)

      However, if the IP address goes back to an already suspected person, who has special interest in the situation, it will be hard for THEM to argue it was some random spammer controlling their computer with a zombie bot.

  • Excuse me for asking the question nobody seems to be asking: How do we actually know she's being blackmailed?

    1) Person says something about you don't like
    2)Claim they're blackmailing you
    3)Judge orders person's identity revealed
    4)Lawsuit
    5)Profit! (And jail time for the accused Blackmailer)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Good article on this at the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/03/wikipedia_blackmail_case_disclosure/ [theregister.co.uk]

      According to The Register article, Wikipedia WILL release the IP address when presented with an order by the court.

      There appears to be some kind of business dispute behind all of this: "One of G's companies is in dispute with a person whom she believes is also behind a smear campaign against her. An anonymous letter she received appeared to be a threat to claim that her expenses claims amounted

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You missed 2.5) Judge looks at the post and all the other evidence offered by the plaintiff and decides if there is sufficient likelihood that the plaintiff would prevail to justify ordering the identity to be revealed.

  • I'm not saying that there shouldn't be legal oversight. The problem is which is the authority?

    When are we going to have the first incident of someone paying off a third world judge to obtain private information?

    Where is the Switzerland of the internet?

  • WARNING - DAILY FAIL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gordonjcp (186804) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @08:55PM (#30319414) Homepage

    This news article was taken from the Daily Mail, a far-right tabloid newspaper which contains more foaming-at-the-mouth madness than a month of Fox News. This story was in all probability sandwiched between an article about how the eeevil not-quite-as-right-wing government are spending *your* taxes on a Christian Vegan Lesbian Holistic Nicaraguan Islamic Learning-impaired Whale-Yoga Ashram, and how the Fish-People really run the BBC which is why they showed eeeevil Nick Griffin and not an episode of Last of the Summer Wine.

    Believe pretty much any article you read on Wikipedia before you believe the Daily Mail.

    • by zonky (1153039) on Thursday December 03, 2009 @09:15PM (#30319552)
      Check out the awesome photo selection on this article. [dailymail.co.uk]

      God knows why they're using a distorted aspect-ratio video screen cap for Mr Cable thou down the bottom.....
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Reziac (43301) *

      One of the comments said something to the effect of "I smell a scam, I just can't put my finger on it".

      I think it's simple enough:

      1) vandalize your own Wikipidia page
      2) scream "blackmail"
      3) blame someone with deep pockets or that you have a grudge against
      4) ...
      5) profit!!

  • Does this court feel that the individual who committed the offense lives within their jurisdiction? Or does this court feel that it has the right to extend its grasp into other nations?
                This treaty nonsense is an offense to liberties of free men around the world.

If I want your opinion, I'll ask you to fill out the necessary form.

Working...