Post Anonymous, Stay Anonymous

nate1138 writes "According to this story at the New York Times(Free reg. required), the courts may still have a little respect for our privacy. They struck down a company's request to have an anonymous, allegedly defamatory, poster unmasked. It's a small win, but a win." The intersting thing about this case is that the company was trying to stay anonymous while they attacked the poster's anonymity! That's a different wrinkle than we have seen before, and the courts seem to have made the right decision.

A similar note.

[mindstrm]

A cop in Vancouver, BC, (That's in Canada...) found a bag of cash on the sidewalk while off-duty. It was a hundred grand or something, I forget exactly. He turned it in, and laid claim to it if the owner wasn't found in the normal period of time. He had to take the cops to court over it, they said he couldn't have it. THe courts said 'no... he can have it. Nobody came forward to claim the money'.

Now, this wasn't quite true. A lawyer came in and said that his client wished to claim the money, as it was his, but wanted to remain anonymous. THe courts disagreed; you can't claim it without letting us know who you are. The cop got to keep the money.

Judicial Courtesy

[L-Train8]

I like this quote from the article:"lawyers for the anonymous plaintiff asserted that the Virginia Supreme Court should have deferred as a matter of judicial courtesy to the ruling of the Indiana trial court."

I for one, am glad that high courts don't blindly accept lower court rulings out of courtesy. I wonder if the lawyers would have felt the same if the situation was reversed, and the high court was overturning a lower court ruling against them. Are these guys lawyers or politicians?

This is funny.

[www.sorehands.com]

A company demanding identification of an anonymous poster, wishs to remain anonymous.

This is absolute bull. If they wished that this did not become publish, the information could have been relased an a protective order be issued -- making the name and information in the case known to the parties, but not to the public.

At first, I thought it was the another story of the courts taking a reaosnable position to online anonymity. I had to read Carl's article twice to make sure it said what it said -- "I want your private info, but I'm not telling you who is asking."

Brightpoint

[trust_no_one]

For those who didn't read the entire article, the last paragraph indicates that the evidence in the trial record points to the anonymous company being Brightpoint Inc. of Indianapolis, IN (ticker symbol CELL). They claim to be "the leading provider of outsourced services in the U.S. wireless telecommunications and data industry."

This is not funny.

[DVega]

This is funny. (Score:3, Insightful)

Is not funny. It is Insightful

What the *bleep* is going on?!?!?!

[cavemanf16]

Well DAMN!

After all of today's talk about litigation and the US's out of control legal system, this article just makes sense.

I think I'm just going to start suing unspecified individuals, companies, and governments for unspecified, anonymous, unsubstantiated defamatory internet postings, news articles, laws, and other anonymous annoying things in my life. I can become a millionaire too!