Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Right to Post Anonymously Protected 217

Posted by CmdrTaco from the chalk-one-up-for-the-good-guys dept.
JudTaylor writes " ZDNet has an article decribing a decision by a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge allowing Yahoo to protect the privacy of posters to message boards. Lee Tien, an white hat attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, stated "This is a great victory for anonymous speech. I believe Judge Cabrinha's ruling will signal to other companies that judges will not permit corporate executives to abuse the courts in ferreting out their critics." Critics of Pre-Paid Legal Services had posted messages disparaging the company on Yahoo boards. Representatives of the company had no immediate comment." I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Right to Post Anonymously Protected More

Right to Post Anonymously Protected

Comments Filter:
  • Yahoo, as a corporation, is expected to act as an entity, much like you or I. And if you or I took the time and effort to make a bulletin board system and wanted to allow anyone to post to it anonymously (or at least, as anonymously as possible), then it is within our rights.

    The court got this one right. No one can force Yahoo to turn over these identities and no one can tell Yahoo not to allow anonymous posting. This entire matter should have been tossed out of court as frivilous in the beginning.

  • Protect this (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can I now post goatse.cx links and not get yelled at?

  • Free Dome? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dmccarty ( 152630 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:20PM (#2110808)
    In a flash of wisdom CmdrTaco wrote:
    I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.

    Amen to that, brother! For far too long we noble citizens have been paying way to much for our domes. It's high time we made them free! Dome lovers of the world, Unite(d Center)!

    • Well that's the problem isn't it? Anybody can have a free dome [umich.edu]; that damn Propecia [propecia.com] is expensive!

    • Amen to that, brother! For far too long we noble citizens have been paying way to much for our domes. It's high time we made them free! Dome lovers of the world, Unite(d Center)!

      Taco would never refer to free-as-in-beer domes. Obviously, he means free-as-in-speech domes. You can copy these domes, redistribute them or even change the structure of the dome.
      I hear a religious war has broken out in the architect community over the difference between the GPL dome and the BSD dome.

  • If I were posting trade secrets online, the least I'd do would be to use safeweb. Then again who would have thought that criticism is prevented speech.

    Maskirovka

  • Is a White Hat Attorney one who works for the EFF or can any non-ambulance chaser qualify?

  • Slashdot? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lskovlund ( 469142 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:26PM (#2111754)
    Might this have had a negative impact on Slashdot if the decision had been against Yahoo? Perhaps even as far as banning AC posts?
  • How hard is it to supply fake information when you sign up on a message board?

    I use fake names for everything, including message boards, product registration, whatever....

    The only way to track me would be to get my IP address, but most message boards don't show that information, even if it is in the server logs. (And rightly so.... sysadmins should still be able to keep your IP on record, even if your post is supposed to be "anonymous". It's just like calling the police from a payphone. If you want to be truly anonymous, use a PC at a library in addition to using fake information.)

    Dave

    • If you want to be truly anonymous, use a PC at a library in addition to using fake information.)

      yeah, but make sure there isn't a security camera watching you use the library's computer.

      E.

  • Thank God for the Federalist Papers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by scruffy ( 29773 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @02:04PM (#2111770)
    The reason we see US courts so sympathetic to anonymous speech is because of the Federalist Papers which written in the late 1780s (or so) to create support for adopting the US Constitution. It turned out the anonymous authors were Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
  • The judge had a pretty clear-cut case here, so it wasn't hard to determine that the anonymous posters didn't have to be turned on. However...

    What if some of the anonymous posters had been indeed posting trade secrets or posting defamatory statements ("Pre-Paid workers eat alive children for lunch on every sunday, poison their bones and then give those to dogs!!! Really!" or some crap like that)? Where do you draw the line between protected free speech and unprotected abuse of it?

    • Blockquoth the poster:
      What if some of the anonymous posters had been indeed posting trade secrets or posting defamatory statements ("Pre-Paid workers eat alive children for lunch on every sunday, poison their bones and then give those to dogs!!! Really!" or some crap like that)?
      Then, presumably, the court would have ordered the revelation of their identities ... after the damages had been proved . It's possible to sue "John Doe" and then obtain the identities.
  • I suppose this is good, but it seems to me that as long as I don't say anything libelous, I sould be able to say anything I want about a company, my congressman, president etc, _AND_ attach my name to the comment. Does not the right to free speech protect me still if I use my real name? -Bob
  • I'm have Pre-Paid Legal and I've found it to be well worth the $25/month. I call my lawyers practically every week on some issue and have thrice had nice letters with a two-inch letterhead sent to companies who immediately fixed my problems.

    I've yet to actually be sued and use my primary coveraged, but as far as I'm concerned it is a good deal. But I'd be interested in knowing what problems other people are having.

    I tried searching Yahoo but I end up with a bunch of categories and can't seem to find a place to search posting or wherever these complaints took place.

    - JoeShmoe

  • Bashing the U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 5foot2 ( 24971 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:20PM (#2113605) Homepage
    I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.

    Please focus your venom on the problems, not on the country as a whole.
  • I'm glad to see you still have the freedom to mispell "freedom".

    I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.

  • Defamation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DougM ( 175616 )
    With anonymous posting, how do we protect ourselves from lies that others would seek to spread about us?

    IMHO, anonymous comments should have less protection from censorship/moderation. How else could I persuade an ISP to remove defamatory material from their site, when no-one is willing to defend it?

    • Simple. In all the cases that protected anonymous postings, none of them have given total protection. What they've said is that you wouldn't be able to force the revelation of the poster's identity just because you made an allegation, you have to prove that the posting was, for example, libel first. So you protect yourself by sueing John Doe for libel and proving he did libel you, then ask the court to force the message board to reveal his actual identity now that you've proved he did commit libel. And if you can't prove he committed libel, you've no legal grounds for demanding that he sign his name to it.

      As for the ISP, you can get it removed by proving that the material itself is defamatory. You don't need to know who posted it to do that.

    • The rulings just said that the identities (if knowable) of the posters need not be revealed. It does not say that the posts themselves shouldn't or couldn't be removed.

    • This case, and other cases have said pretty much the same thing -- you have to show likelyhood of success before revealing identity.

      You don't need to know who the person is to determine if something is a trade secret. This might be similar to the standard for a anti-SLAPP [casp.net]

      If you file a libel claim against me, you have to show that the statements made are libelous, before you pull off my mask.

    • For libel/slander, it's pretty simple. You got to show that (1) damaging statements were made, and (2) They were false. At that point, the judge will instruct the message board operator to turn over whatever clues there are to the identity. (I don't think /. Anonymous Cowards have anything to worry about, since /. doesn't keep any information that could backtrace you. But /. could be ordered to turn over registration info.)

      This was, plain and simple, a partial victory over companies that want to harass you because you said something bad about them and it was true. They can't win a libel suit, and they certainly don't want newspapers covering a jury trial about those allegations -- but under some boneheaded court rulings in the past, they could find out who you were, then they'd drop the suit. And if you were an employee (who else really knows how a company is screwing it's customers?), they could fire you.

      The other issue is trade secrets and copyrights. Anonymous posters sometimes quote from company manuals or instructions given to the help desk, on how to give customers the run-around instead of fixing defective products or services. Sometimes the company will then sue to find out who posted that, claiming that the manual was copyrighted or the work instructions were a "trade secret." Of course they don't _want_ to go to trial, that would get their dirty secrets on the front pages, but rather they just want to find out which employee posted it.

      If they get a judge that's sufficiently a corporate stooge, in the muddled present condition of the law he might neglect to ask how a procedure that everyone knows a name for ("run-around") could be a trade secret, or to point out that quoting one page of a manual is fair use. This decision provides a precedent whereby a judge _ought_ to ask those questions.

      Yeah, what I'd rather see is (1) a procedure by which the case can be defended anonymously and the identity revealed only if plaintiff wins, or (2) a requirement that the plaintiff post a large bond, to be paid to the defendant in the event that after finding his identity plaintiff fails to pursue the case or loses -- plus additional damages if there are concrete losses incident to having one's identity revealed, say 2 years pay if you get fired... But that takes legislation, and don't look for it from the best congress money can buy.

    • IMHO, the real problem with defamation is that the credibility of the defamer is ignored, even though it has a significant effect on how much damage the defamee suffers. Anonymous Coward has no credibility, so anything he says carries no weight and does no damage.

      If Anonymous Coward says, "Sloppy is a communist child-molesting telemarketing scientologist," it doesn't make sense for me to get mad and sue Slashdot over it, because nobody would believe it, since AC isn't really staking his reputation to back up his words (or rather, he has no reputation). Thus, in that scenario, I have suffered no damage.

      So why do we need to protect ourselves from anonymous lies about us?

      • As a respectable communist child-molesting telemarketer, I take GREAT offense at being called a scientologist! My law firm, Cheatem, Screwem and Lye, will be contacting you shortly.

        I bid you good day.

  • No need to deface bathroom stalls (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KarmaBlackballed ( 222917 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:30PM (#2118561) Homepage Journal
    You can now write anonymous messages on the web, not just brick walls and bathroom stalls.

    Seems like a silly comparison, but think about it. Without anonymity on the web, where else can you express a thought when you have concerns for your safety or future?

    Perhaps those that argue no one should have the "right" to speak anonymously due to liable risks should re-think their priorities and think through where this will lead us. It is only natural that people will attribute more veracity to attributable news than it ever will to anonymous postings. Nothing wrong with that. This is a good thing.
  • Now I can keep recieving anonymous spam!!

    Damn double-edged swords.

  • Although not IRON CLAD the anonymous server I run can stop almost everyone from Finding out who the originator of the message was. Including me! Although a lot of this lies on how the user uses the site. This is do to the fact that the server uses encryption and can use chaining to bounce e-mail or usenet posts through several remailers before the destination is reached. I have been asked by LEO's , AG's, and DA's (Asked being a nice way to put it.) for logs. As I do not have logs for more than about 4 days, there are no logs to turn over. Even the logs I have do not show where the messages came from or where they were going they simply show incoming and outgoing mail. There are no laws that require a site or business to maintain logs of people who look at there site or use the sites services.

  • You Know, Taco... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cheshire Cat ( 105171 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:19PM (#2121958) Homepage
    I'm glad to see a decision for freedome can still happen in this country.

    The courts have also ruled dictionaries and spell-checkers are completely legal, Taco. :)

  • It's about time someone stood up for the goatse.cx guy! Poor guy's just trying to beatiful ASCII art, no harm in that... ;^)

  • It's like the editorial page in the paper (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blue Aardvark House ( 452974 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:20PM (#2124970)
    Electronic bulletin boards are an easy way to voice your opinion on any topic. In the dead-tree version, you can leave your name off the submission. Why should electronic bulletin boards be any different?
  • At first this seems like a victory for anonymous speech, but then you begin to realize that instead of suing the poster, they will just sue the message board provider for creating an anonymous forum for defamation in the first place.
  • If some people have the right to post anonymously, then I want to have a tag inserted in that post so I can automaticly shit-can such posts. That includes e-mail. My philosophy is that if you have something to say to me, then you should be open to responses. An anonymous post (e-mail) cannot be replied to if there is no return address. Just my $0.02 worth.

    • I agree with your right to ignore anonymous posts, but I bet you're happy to enjoy the safer products and cleaner environment that anonymous corporate whistle-blowers have helped bring about. Just as long as there's someone who's not ignoring them...

    • Not a good example. Posting anonymously on a web forum, and sending e-mail to a specific recipient are two different things. First of all, you choose to participate in the web forum, and your welcome to post comments, rebottles, ect. Besides, criticizing a cooperation for something you feel is wrong, and trying to sell you a penile enlargement, or refinance your home mortgage are quite different methods of speech.

  • I Can See It Now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:17PM (#2125562) Journal
    New fine print on corproate sponsored boards:

    "Note: This is not a message board."

  • ...it's yet another reason that we can't believe anything posted anywhere. Now anyone with a grudge is free to say "Joe Blow of Joe's Carpentry shop talks to lima beans and eats babies". Anonymous speech is great, but accountability has its virtues too.
    • Blockquoth the poster:
      Now anyone with a grudge is free to say "Joe Blow of Joe's Carpentry shop talks to lima beans and eats babies"
      And you're free to weigh that opinion appropriately. If it worries you that some people are abusing the right to post anonymously, simply discount their input. I'm all for free speech, and I'm even all for anonymous posting... but anonymous posts carry a lot less weight with me, because I can't integrate them into my web of trust.

      The key thing here, as far as I can see, is whether the company could go after people who might have defamed the company, violated trade secrets, or whatnot. PPL wanted to get the names before proving any damage was done; and the court rightly stopped them.

  • Teensy slashdot bug! (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Tried to get first post, but instead got:

    Easy does it!

    This comment has been submitted already, 277168 hours , 16 minutes ago. No need to try again.



  • Nope, not in my dictionary.

    The Commander was having an off day.
  • Isn't that really what makes the web what it is? Think about it.

  • Full disclosure on saved information (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FamousLongAgo ( 257744 ) <maciej&ceglowski,com> on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:31PM (#2130909) Homepage
    I think this brings up an important ethical question for anyone designing public forums (fora?) on the web -- if you allow anonymous postings, you must make it clear to users if you save any item of information that could lead to disclosure of their identity -- IP address, referer, username, etc.

    Until there are enough of these encouraging court cases to set an iron-clad precendent, people must be told if information about their identity is going to get stored with an 'anonymous' post.

    Of course, the truly paranoid (hello, slashdot readers!) already know to go through anonymizing services to prevent this kind of backtracing. But average users will appreciate knowing whether or not it is even possible to reconstruct their identity from saved information about an anonymous post.

    Maybe it would even be possible to sue a site that claimed full anonymity for deceptive practices if they saved an IP address, etc.
  • ...but who cares.
    i've been checking google, but have come up empty so far.
    does anyone know what exactly "exercising their First Amendment right to criticize the company" means? what were these people saying to incite defamation lawsuits?
    if their right to anonymous free speech is so protected, where have all the records of it gone?

    a friend of mine is involved with this company, and it really sounds sketchy to me...as most MLM-type things do. i'd love to be able to cite some links though.
    to all you karma whores out there, here's a chance to modded up.
    • I can't blame you for wanting to do your due diligence on PPL. One place I can tell you to go is www.richdad.com. They have a whole forum dedicated to MLM and network marketing opportunities. Read that forum and you should be able to find some online sources for PPL.

      The reasons why many MLM and network marketing organizations try to restrict online advertising is to reduce the amount of spam that is circulated, and to preserve the person-to-person contact that has made this business popular and profitable. Depending on the organization, the penalty for not adhering to advertising guidlines could be as severe as having your rights to your distributorship revoked.
    • Let's say that someone, anonymously posts criticizing a company. THat company then sues for defamation, trying to get the court to order the ISP to reveal who the anonymous poster was. THey find out, they drop the charges, then fire the employee who posted the comments.

      It's an abuse of the legal system; they have no intention of actually suing anyone; they are just trying to find a way to force the ISP to give up the users anonymity.

  • Here Here! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MasterOfDisaster ( 248401 )
    I dont know about everyone else here (AC's aside) but, if i want to say something, I feel it should be a right not only to choose what I want to say, how I want to say it but also I want to have the choice of not revealing my identity. Why? Good question. often the case is I'm afraid of corprate bullying - just as the yahoo posters seemingly were. Another reason would be to try and get an idea into the heads of people who disagree with it. Often, on /. I've seen that when you dont have a specific user to yell at, comments that would normally get ignored (Pro-DMCA for example) sometimes get a second chance
    But, I really feel to have true freedom of speech, you need the freedom to be anonoymous.

    PS: Taco, I'm all for Freedome, but we need much more freedom before we can fight the freedome war

    where does one get one of these free domes anyways?

  • White Hat Attorney (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:24PM (#2131745)
    From the post: white hat attorney

    So we're dividing shyst^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers into 'White-hat' and 'Black-hat' categories now, like cowboys or crackrs? I knew a description would come along that would suddenly make legal proceedings make sense.

    Wait a second... if ethics are what we use to divide any group into 'Black' and 'White' categories, how can any group that holds holy the concept of client-attourney privalege be anything but 'Black Hat'?
    • How does attorney-client privilege make lawyers black-hat? Aside from the fact that this would also make doctors and priests black-hat, it just sems like an odd criterion: "They retain confidences and refuse to kiss and tell -- the bastards!"
      • Ah, but the problem here is not an ethical one, but a logistic one. Priests and doctors keep confidences in order to preserve their clients' privacy. Even if a priest is bound by his faith not to disclose a confession of an illegal act, I don't think there is any priest out there who would work to try to get his confessee to turn himself in.

        On the other hand, lawyers do this to preserve their client's 'innocence' in front of a court, even if that person actually has done what they're being accused of. In many cases this is essential to a client's privacy and safety, but in many cases, both criminal and civil lawyers are required to ignore facts in order to best represent their client.

        I had a conversation recently with a friend from high school who got in pretty serious trouble with the law while I was away at college. He told me that his defense attorney told him not to tell him if he had done what he was accused of or not. While this 'suspension' of ethics is professionally responsible, my opinion is that an ethical attorney would have instead advised his (guilty) client to pleade guilty and then try to get him off with as light a sentance as possible.
        • Well, that's probably why you're not an attorney (nor am I). Criminal lawyers tend to avoid grand concepts like "truth" and "justice" (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.) Instead they deal with what can be shown in court, which is a much more hard-nosed arena.

          It's not too dissimilar from science. A scientist might reject certain theories, not because he knows them to be right or wrong, but because they can't be tested, and his field deals with testing.

          Presenting the case for your friend's guilt is the state's job, presenting the case for his innocence is his lawyer's job, and judging is what the court does. The only reason I know the defense might want to avoid some questions is that the rules forbid him to lie in court.

          Look at the bright side. In theory, even if a lawyer believes his client to be guilty as hell (perhaps because he's a member of some despised minority, or he's been well-framed), this system lets him have a defense.

      • Because (Score:2, Funny)

        by wiredog ( 43288 )
        It violates the "Information Wants To Be Free" concept. As does the decision of the court. After all, if you support "Information wants to be free!" then you have to oppose anonymity. If the poster is anonymous, then the information about his identity is being withheld, and is not free.
        • To me, "information wants to be free" is more of a statement than an ideal -- people tend to blab, ideas are often created independently, someone else saw you do it... in short, it may be impossible to keep a secret forever.

          Whether or not information should be free is a different question.

        • Re:Because (Score:3, Interesting)

          by BenboX ( 194360 )
          So when the "Information Wants To Be Free" concept clashes with the concept of "Personal Privacy," including the right to keep your very identity private, which concept wins?

          Are we saying that the "Information Wants To Be Free" includes my personal medical information? My personal legal information (the status of divorce proceedings should be public???) My consumer habits/profile information should also be free?

          I think this is one of those "free as in beer" distinctions that we have to draw. The "Information" that wants to be free are ideas, methods, processes, software, things that Slashdotters believe should not be patented or owned, but shared by all. My doctor/lawyer/marketing information should NOT be part of this "information"

          So getting back to the initial thread, lawyers who decide to defend our individual liberties and rights to privacy do deserve the "White Hat" moniker. Attorney/Client priviledge should have nothing to do with this.

          Benbox

          • Sometimes, an expediant avenue of information transfer is through a human being.
          • Sometimes, that human being acknowledges the fact that transfering the information may have consequences to their own person.
          • If, however, that person has no other reason to prevent the information flow, and they can evade the consequences, they may transfer the information.
          • Anonymity is an excellent evasion for most specified consequences of information transfer.
          • Therefore, if somebody knows something, and they can propigate those data, but will only do so if they can escape retribution (for example) for the propigation, and they reasonably can conceal their identity, then anonymity serves the flow of information.
          In the long view, the datum of a person's identity is usually much smaller that the data they with to convey. People are screwy, and they mandate this sort of information for information sacrifice.

          Furthermore, anonymity lifted once discourages future human data avenues from transmitting in the future, since they have a reason to expect that the anonymity is a farce.

          In a similar way, priviledge of information encourages it's freedom, since the priviledged party can adjudicate the transmittal of collatoral information that might never have flowed overwise.

          Lastly, strict adherence to the "All Information wants to be perfectly free" credo doesn't typify white hat anything. A white hat cracker doesn't distribute your credit card data, out of respect for personal property.

          "Information wants to be free" is more properly an axiom than a motto, IMO, anyway. It describes how data behaves; sometimes it's behavior is desirable (for instance, new product releases, security hole updates) and sometimes it is not desirable (any data-based security mechanism), and when it is desired, you get it free, otherwise, be prepared for vigilance.

    • Personally, Id separate laywers into "Potential Targets" and "Previous Targets"

  • Insider trading... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mjh ( 57755 ) <(moc.nalcnroh) (ta) (kram)> on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @01:28PM (#2134398) Homepage Journal
    I fully expect to get moderated into oblivion for this post, but....

    An interesting thing happened at a former job. I used to work for a company that provided capital markets trading services. Someone found a post on a very popular web forum which included information that was *clearly* insider trading information. This is information that could only have come from *inside* the company, and released like this put the entire company in jeopardy with the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and the SEC (Security & Exchange Commission).

    We were under SEC & OCC requirements to track down who posted this thing, or potentially shut down all of our operations. But that wasn't the only pressure. We had an ethical obligation to track this down. A crime was being committed. The ability of this person to continue to post to this forum, enabled them to perpetrate a fraud and steal money from our investors. At the time there was not a single reason that I could think not to try and get this person's identity, and I can't think of a reason now, either. Failure to do so meant that someone (potentially lots of people) lost money (potentially *LOTS* of money).

    So, we checked our firewall logs, and found a couple of *possible* leads, but nothing conclusive. After checking as many internal logs as we could find, we came to the conclusion that we had to get the web forums to give us the email address of the person who registered the account. We called the web site, explained that a crime was being committed and politely asked them to provide the identity of the person who posted the comment. They declined, citing their privacy policy.

    This is the point where I no longer have first hand experience with what happened. But as I understand it, our attorneys drafted a letter to the web site stating that this information was absolutely required. Eventually, the web site backed down, provided the information. The person who allegedly posted the information was arrested.

    I post this here because there seems to be a huge number of folks who seem to think that under every circumstance internet anononymity should be retained... and most of the time I agree. But sometimes it can enable crimes and I think we have to be careful about how far we take the demands for internet privacy.

    $.02.

    Please, commence with the karma draining moderation.

    • OK, this sounds like one case where "proving you could win" sounds like no problem at all. And it's not just a civil suit, revealing insider info is a criminal offense, right?

      However, it is also a sort of case where giving the poster a chance to respond before outing him seems to be critical -- maybe what you think is insider info had already leaked out, or never was much of a secret. E.g., his response might be to cite pg 27 of the Wall Street Journal the day before he posted, or something like "I am not a corporate officer and do not have inside information about sales. My posts were based on the observed, public facts that sales have been falling for two years and the company still hasn't come up with a new product that will keep working throughout a sales demonstration, therefore sales are going to continue dropping."

    • Questions (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )
      I'm not going to disagree with you, but this brings up some questions for me:

      What would happen if the insider posted it via a truly anonymous distribution mechanism? Example:a web board that doesn't keep track of the email address, or an anonymous newspaper ad.

      In the above cases, would it be right to shut down the message board or the newspaper? Or would the govt. step in and require filtering? And why would anyone believe anonymous information like this? If I post that company X is laying off 500 workers tomorrow, am I in trouble? Is Slashdot?

    • Re:Insider trading... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @01:59PM (#2140078) Journal
      I think (hope?) you're defending against a false belief. The point that I've yet to see mentioned in any postings is that an increasing number of companies are filing lawsuits for the sole purpose of "unmasking" an anonymous spokesperson, then dropping the suit as soon as they accomplish that, often with the intent of following up on the issue themselves. For instance, your company might have chosen to do internal discipline without regards to the law.

      Your example is bad for this purpose, because a real, honest-to-goodness crime is being committed; your company never considered merely unmasking the suspect and internally disciplining them. But there are other cases that have occurred. Suppose someone was merely badmouthing the company, in such a way that they clearly worked inside the company. Companies have been bringing frivolous slander lawsuits against "John Doe"s, finding out who "John Doe" is, then dropping the suit and pursuing internal discipline against the now-unmasked employee. These disciplines are often on the wrong side of legal.

      Nobody with any sense is supporting the idea that anonymity is some sort of ultimate goal; instead, people like me recognize that this abuse of the law system is dangerous, and insist that the courts establish that some crime was committed before issuing the unmasking order. Normal procedure up to this point was to unmask before establishing the existence of a crime, and it is this fact that people have been abusing. If a crime is committed, unmask away! But if the statements ticking off the company aren't truly illegal, then they have no particular right to unmask these people, and it is this anonymous speech we support: legal anonymous speech.

      Thus, as far as people like me are concerned, your company acted perfectly ethically (as well as legally). You established the existence of a crime (and a rather serious one at that; insider trading seems harmless (due to its abstractness) in some ways but it truly is a victim-crime), then pushed a bit (legally) to discover who was doing it. As far as I'm concerned, if you had to go to court to get that information, more power to you!

      I run a weblog tracking this sort of stuff and this story isn't actually interesting enough for me to run; this kind of decision is actually fairly common at this point. The judicial system has "seen the light" of this argument and basically agrees, unless you get unlucky and get a bad judge.

      • Your example is bad for this purpose, because a real, honest-to-goodness crime is being committed; your company never considered merely unmasking the suspect and internally disciplining them. But there are other cases that have occurred. Suppose someone was merely badmouthing the company, in such a way that they clearly worked inside the company. Companies have been bringing frivolous slander lawsuits against "John Doe"s, finding out who "John Doe" is, then dropping the suit and pursuing internal discipline against the now-unmasked employee. These disciplines are often on the wrong side of legal.

        I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that in our zeal to prevent wrong applications of the law, lets not also prevent appropriate applications of the law. If, for example, the /. community is able to create a law that makes it illegal for anyone, under any circumstances to unmask identities on the web, that would create a lot of freedom, but it would also create problems. For example, I could legally threaten to kill you, and you would be unable to investigate whether or not that threat is realistic or false bravado.

        Freedom of speech is not unlimited. The unchecked pursuit of it can be exploited, and abused into just as devilish of things as the unchecked pursuit of censorship. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is illegal because people were hurt by it.

        The point? That there has to be a reasonable middle ground. Because the extremes are awful.

        if the statements ticking off the company aren't truly illegal, then they have no particular right to unmask these people, and it is this anonymous speech we support: legal anonymous speech.

        So do I. Just be careful not to take it too far and legalise things that currently are, and ought to remain, crimes.

  • Ok, assume you are the in charge of your company's webboard. Maybe this web board is for people to post questions, get answers, provide feedback on products, etc. What if someone annonymously starts posting rumors and lies about the company on the web board? What do you do?

    Duh! You give the truth and clear up the rumors yourself. Unless, of course, what is said is the truth. *tongue in cheek* Then you should obviously prosecute those anonymous posters *tongue out of cheek*
  • Be great to hear what they said that got Pre-Paid up in arms. Almost did some work with them, and would love to see the inside scoop moded up on slashdot.

    Someone spending some time to summerize could make the lawsuit backfire, not only do they go unrevealed, their opinions are spread everywhere...

  • Changes Coming? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:21PM (#2135458) Journal
    Does this mean that boards that force you to register must let you post anonymously if you want that option? It could mean deep trouble and changes in the works for them. It could also be a catalyst for renewed flamewars via AC's all over the net.
    • Does this mean that boards that force you to register must let you post anonymously if you want that option? It could mean deep trouble and changes in the works for them. It could also be a catalyst for renewed flamewars via AC's all over the net.

      Yeah right. Like you have some RIGHT to post anonymously to MY server. The case tested the right to defend anonymous postings from being exposed due to court order, not everybody's right to post everywhere anonymously. RTFA.

    • You know, I've often wanted that option on our message board [holophrastic.com] myself. (Hey, dethro! How hard would it be to add this option in for the redesign?) A lot of our boards require that you be logged in to post, but anybody can read them. I can understand wanting to keep out the random troll, but once in a while I wish I could reply to someone without having to explain myself or start a war...not that I don't want to accept responsibility for what I say, but sometimes it helps to be anonymous. People are often more likely to listen to the opinion of an 'unbiased stranger' rather than the same advice from someone they know. Strange but true.
  • This rises another issue. Now that the {Lawyers/FBI/RIIA/etc} can't sue the message posters, who will they turn to?

    Yup.. the message board web site owners.

  • In other California legal news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @12:59PM (#2137691)
    California's Supreme Court ruled that schools are allowed stop, question, and search students without reasonable suspicion.

    http://www.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/08/14/ studentrights.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

    Quoth the court: "Just don't abuse it too much."

    So I guess this kinda cancels out that "victory for freedom" you mentioned.

  • A trial court's ruling has negligible precedential value (at least in the state court system-federal is different). It does not get published. It doesn't bind anyone. Trial court judges in the state courts here in a busy county like Santa Clara frequently have a dozen or more rulings such as this one to make a week. In addition, they might have 30 or more other less significant motions to rule on. So they don't have time to pay as much attention to the legal issues as an appellate court judge does. As a result, reversal on appeal is a definite possibility. Furthermore, this ruling is going to be very fact specific, as it most likely relies on what was posted and the company's motivation for going after the poster. That is, if someone posts something like "Company X sucks. Their products are horrible," Company X has a hard time arguing that its lawsuit is anything other than a screen to subpoena the identity of the poster. But if the post is "Company X CEO John Doe has been convicted of bestiality," the court is much more likely to let John Doe subpoena the identity of the poster.

  • How much anonymity is reasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2001 @02:12PM (#2143852)

    OK, so as a starting principle, let's suppose that anonymity is a Good Thing. It lets people post what they like, without fear of reprisal. Clearly this has benefits, particularly for people living or working under oppressive regimes.

    But now, stop and think objectively for a minute, please. How many of the big problems with the internet are a direct result of anonymity? Let me offer some suggestions.

    1. Pretty much all of those spam mails you receive every day are illegal, but you all know better than to reply to the "remove" address. (UK residents may now snipe at our Euro-MP who voted for an "opt-out" policy.)
    2. How many websites, newsgroup postings, e-mails and bulletin board postings can untruthfully badmouth people, groups or products without fear of reprisal, in spite of the fact that the lies concerned would clearly constitute slander or libel if claimed by other means?
    3. Thousands of people get away with copying music, games and so on without paying for it, thus increasing the cost to the rest of us. There are ways to deal with being ripped off, but breaking the law (and doing so at the expense of other people, not just the target companies) isn't one of them.
    4. Websites can get away with downright damaging advice. Financial tips sites and sites offering medical advice are notorious for this, but no-one can stop them if they can't identify who's behind it.
    5. Finally, of course, there are websites used for blatantly dangerous activities -- check out the vigilantism in the UK when a list of suspected paedophiles was put up on a web site during the big anti-paedophile frenzy a few months back. People really are stupid enough to believe this stuff. One paediatrician was done over because someone didn't even understand the words after reading this stuff, and several people who were totally innocent but unfortunate enough to look like suspects were assaulted.

    Basically, this all comes down to crime. Anonymity lets criminals -- quite literally -- get away with murder. (Yes, really -- remember the site listing doctors in the US prepared to carry out abortions, who were systematically being bumped off?)

    So, while I support the notion of anonymity from the general public, I think it's equally important that lawful authorities can always identify someone using the internet to effect, encourage or facilitate illegal activities. Of course, that runs the risk of encountering downright unreasonable or abusive authorities, but you get that all the time in real life, too. It's a small price to pay for the many benefits that come from letting the police and courts identify someone on-line in cases where it's necessary to achieve the right result.

    • Basically, this all comes down to crime. Anonymity lets criminals -- quite literally -- get away with murder. (Yes, really -- remember the site listing doctors in the US prepared to carry out abortions, who were systematically being bumped off?)

      This is a flaw in logic. Although it can be used for crime it can also be used for great good. The person (Anonymously) reporting discrimination at the work place. The person (Anonymously) reporting his boss, spouse, brother, cousin, etc for illegal acts. The list goes on. The above statement is like saying that GUNS allow criminals to murder, steal, and escape. With out admitting that it is the person that commits the act not the tool. Anonymity is just a tool. Criminals can and will be anonymous with or with out a law making it illegal!
    • 1. Pretty much all of those spam mails you receive every day are illegal, but you all know better than to reply to the "remove" address. (UK residents may now snipe at our Euro-MP who voted for an "opt-out" policy.)


      I'm thinking back to the ones I received today, and with the exception of the single cable descrambler one, I can't think of another one that's illegal. Could you please give some examples?

      • In some parts of Europe, an opt-in policy exists, or is very likely to exist shortly. I believe that in the US, it's illegal to send spam without meeting certain restrictions (providing a valid removal address to prevent future spamming, for example), though I'm prepared to stand corrected on that one. Many spamming companies must be breaching UK data protection legislation, since they send me details they have obtained that, it could be argued, could be used to personally identify me. Under these sorts of conditions, almost all of the spam mails I received in the past week would be illegal in some places at the moment. If (please!) our beloved governments ever get around to enacting sensible anti-spam laws, this position will become even more conclusive.

        • I believe that in the US, it's illegal to send spam without meeting certain restrictions (providing a valid removal address to prevent future spamming, for example), though I'm prepared to stand corrected on that one.

          Start standing; that bill never passed either house of Congress.
  • This case seems to fall in line with many of the cases across the country. It has no effect (outside the parties in the case) since it is only a trial judge and this issue has already been through some of the appeals courts.

Slashdot Top Deals

Good day to avoid cops. Crawl to work.

Close