Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News

Dutch Court Orders Lycos to Reveal Client 126

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the privacy-not-so-private-when-you-break-a-law dept.
linumax writes to tell us InformationWeek is reporting that the Dutch Supreme Court ruled against Lycos last Friday stating that they wrongly protected the identity of a user who posted "slanderous allegations" against an internet postage-stamp dealer. From the article: "The dealer and claimant, identified in court documents only as A. Pessers, took Lycos to court in 2003, seeking the details of its client so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Court Orders Lycos to Reveal Client More

Dutch Court Orders Lycos to Reveal Client

Comments Filter:
  • It'll all come back to music and movie piracy. That's not in the slashdot summary, but may really be the largest impact of this.

    The Brain Institute, which represents the global entertainment industry in the Netherlands, said in a statement that the ruling will enable it to seek damages from people who illegally swap copyrighted software, music and movies over the Internet.

    BTW - does anyone else find it interesting that the "Brain Institute" represents the entertainment industry in the Netherlands?

    -Pete

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:32PM (#14120484)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • > They will use it to go after each and every P2P user,

      For slander?

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:43PM (#14120539)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Well, its still not that easy. The music industry still has to take the cases to a judge before ISP's are obligited to give the info.
        • Having first convinced a judge that they need access to the information, they can then get the information and start legal proceedings against the defendants who, if they are innocent (and there is any justice) will win. Do that often enough, and most judges are going to think twice before granting such access in the future.
        • > Not for slander, but because this case has set a precedent that allows the music
          > industry to trample on privacy and retrieve full contact information for anyone
          > who they think *might* have done something that *could* be a violation of a law.

          Well, they can try, but it still has to be handled legally - they can't just turn up at the ISPs premises and start taking stuff. Just like any other law. Sometimes I get the feeling that people think there's some different legal process just because an ac
    • ``They will use it to go after each and every P2P user, blogger and industry critic they can find.''

      Except that downloading music is still legal, and there's still freedom of speech.

  • irony? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rootedgimp ( 523254 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:33PM (#14120487)
    the supreme court told lycos, 'go get it!'...
  • The dealer and claimant, identified in court documents only as A. Pessers, took Lycos to court in 2003, seeking the details of its client so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations.

  • This is acceptable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by matr0x_x ( 919985 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:33PM (#14120493) Homepage
    Honestly, I'm happy about this verdict - how is the internet different from any other form of communication, you are responsible for what you say period. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of "the big boys" telling others who I really am... but in some situations I believe it is warranted. If you owned a company that someone slandered repeatively online how would you feel?
    • Your sad little apologetics for the record companies threaten my freedom of speech. Thus, I believe your freedom of speech should be restricted. Don't make any more posts like this, or anticipate legal action.

      My attorneys will meet your attorneys in hell.

    • Re:This is acceptable (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Parham ( 892904 )
      I honestly would like your opinion on what Microsoft should do about the MILLIONS of people bashing their software everyday? Microsoft is a company, and people all over the world insult their company and use slanderous words against their software. Should Microsoft find out who these people are online and go after all of them?

      A company is a company, big or small. If this guy gets to find out who is talking shit (pardon my language) about his company online, eventually Microsoft will get to as well, and t

      • Anonymous Criticism - YES, Libel - NO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Presence1 ( 524732 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @09:27PM (#14121529) Homepage
        Big or little does not change the rights.

        I should be able to make any truthful or opinionated statement about a person, corporation or government anonymously. I have no love for Microsoft, the RIAA or their tactics.

        However, when I make false statements that damage your business, livelihood or personal life, I should be held accountable. It should not matter whether I am attacking you as a private person, some celebrity, Microsoft, or the RIAA -- I should not be allowed to make damaging false assertions without being held to account -- especially if these damaging false assertions could be profitable to me.

        Sure, a big company will have more money for lawyers to come after me, but they still must convince a judge that the assertions are false. As a small plaintiff, it is not that costly, and the presumption will be on the side of the small guy. Moreover, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel (written) or slander (spoken).

        A rapidly rising problem in this area of anonymous online speech is stock scammers making false damaging blog and message board posts. They get it in their head that the stock should go down, or feel that they have been wronged, and they start making false accusations, and do so in groups, creating a nasty buzz. That will do nothing against giants like Microsoft, but can create a serious distraction and unavailability of capital for small companies recently gone public, and can cost people their jobs. Shouldn't these people at least have the threat of being exposed and having to answer for their statements?

        Similarly, some cow-worker decides that you wronged them and wants to get back at you, so kludges up some false photos and email trails and makes sure your spouse/SO is made aware of it, damaging your home life. Shouldn't you be able to identify them and make them answer for it?

        I like neither big government, big corporations, nor the excess power they can wield. But, I do not think that their potential power is sufficient reason to create a lawless zone on the Internet where anyone can libel with impunity.

        • > some cow-worker decides that you wronged them and wants to get back at you, so kludges up some false photos and email trails and makes sure your spouse/SO is made aware of it, damaging your home life. Shouldn't you be able to identify them and make them answer for it?

          A more likely scenario: an angry ex-spouse decides you defamed him in your divorce papers and in your blog. So they sue you for libel and use that suit to demand your private information,ostensibly to prove their suit but actually just

          • We completely agree -- that is what the courts are for. The ISP should not reveal identities at the requests of a citizen, corporation, or lawyer. But, when a court has become convinced that the case has sufficient merit to subponea the identity information, they should reveal it. I'm only arguing against the premise that he court is wrong and should not have the power to compel release of the identity.

            I also completely agree that as an ISP, I would not want to be in the business of deciding merit of the

        • Friendly Article says:
          It issued a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they are suspected of a crime and the information is wanted by the police.

          So if I want to find out the identity of whoever is writing his claims, I can just go to the ISP and say "this writing has hurt my business/feelings/whatever, give me the contact information."

          What Lycos is saying here is that the information should go thru the officials, not just any random company that wa

          • Right, the article did say that. However, I was arguing in the smaller context of the parent post, which said that Microsoft et al." ... have A LOT MORE money to take you to court with and ruin your life...", implying that they should not have to respond to a court order either.

            I should have put it in better context. I do not think that the companies should have to reveal the identities on any random request, but that they should have to respond to a proper court.

  • David vs Goliath (Score:3, Funny)

    by xfletch ( 623022 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:34PM (#14120501) Homepage
    Sorry, let me get this straight - an internet stamp dealer took lycos to court and won?

    Man, am I proud to be european.

    • Re:David vs Goliath (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RobertF ( 892444 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:38PM (#14120520) Homepage
      Yes, finally, a story in which the not-as-big guy gets to squash the little guy and his free speach without the biggest guy getting in the way!
      • It's still a bigger guy crushing a little guy, which is always bad. If it were google suing you without microsoft getting in the way (hypothetically), i'm sure it would still be objectionable...
      • Yeah, the 'little guy' should be able to get away with slandering people. In any other medium, he would be nailed for it, but as it's the Internet, it's completely acceptable!

        Restricting people's rights to lie about people and destroy their business as a result is a disgrace! We should all be unaccountable for everything we say and do. Slashdot has spoken.

    • Re:David vs Goliath (Score:1, Redundant)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      so a little guy takes a big guy to court in order to get info needed to squash an even littler guy.

      who's side are we on again?
      • Er, or is it little guy takes on big guy to take on little guy who has slandered his business.

        I think the point is little guy takes on big guys and wins shock

    • Yes, but only because he had Brein behind him, paying for lawyers etc. Also, somewhere I read he's making like 350k/year with his stamps, don't know if it's true though.

  • The original conversation (Score:5, Funny)

    by kleptonin ( 901871 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:37PM (#14120512) Homepage
    st4mp_h8r_2005: ur stampz r gay
    a_pessers: >:-(
    a_pessers: *sues u*

  • Standard for Releasing Data: Civil vs. Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rewinn ( 647614 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:41PM (#14120530) Homepage

    It's interesting that Lycos seems not to have argued that they never would release data; only that the standard they wished to uphold was that the underlying dispute must be a criminal action, not a "mere" civil suit.

    [Quoting from article]: "...a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they are suspected of a crime and the information is wanted by the police..."

    This may be good or it may be bad. Naturally The State will always insist on its right to get data in a criminal suit, and it's scarcely worth the bother of arguing over that right.

    The Big Question is the right of private parties to get 3P information in a lawsuit such as is described in the article. Is a libel suit enough, or is a better remedy for publishing false information simply more information? Is publishing on a website enough of a libel to break privacy protections? What if the "libel" is published on a password-protected site ... but the password is shared freely? What if the "libel" claim is protected by our American 1st Amendment but not by whatever law they have in the Netherlands ... or in China?

    I don't have The Big Answer but if privacy is to mean anything, I suggest the bar against private suits should be a tough one.

  • Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MaestroSartori ( 146297 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:44PM (#14120542) Homepage
    You don't suddenly become free of the responsibility for things you say just because you say them on the internet.

    Of course, when the internet comes into play, legal situations can get kind of tricky - if I post a slanderous message while I'm in Country A, onto a server in Country B about a person in Country C, where does the crime take place? What if the statement is legal in one of those countries, but illegal in the others?

    • Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by max born ( 739948 )
      You don't suddenly become free of the responsibility for things you say just because you say them on the internet.

      True you don't. But this is about slander.

      If some fool gets drunk, gets on line, and says "you are a fucking fag and a criminal and a baby killer" because he's having a bad day, should he be prosecuted? I mean, he defamed someone's character, right?

      Traditionally in the US idiots like this are covered by the first amendment and people are expected to be able to see such remarks, and the
      • The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.

        Everywhere else in the World, the accused must be able to prove his/ her statements were TRUE in order to avoid judgement.

        And, for the record, slander refers to verbally defaming the character of an individual, whereas LIBEL refers to defaming one's character with writings.

        • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Liam Slider ( 908600 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @07:04PM (#14120842)

          The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.

          Everywhere else in the World, the accused must be able to prove his/ her statements were TRUE in order to avoid judgement.

          We tend to feel the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a good one. The burden of proof that a wrongdoing has occured (even in a civil case) should fall to the accuser.
          • ... not withstanding the fact that proving a negative is, in fact, impossible?
            • Bullshit. Proving a negative is just as easy as proving a positive.

              I can prove that I did not have hot sex with 32 virgins 10 minutes ago.

              I can prove that 1+1!=2,4392

          • In a case of libel, however, if an individual/corporation says/prints something, then no doubt they would be able to prove that what they are saying is true.

            Otherwise you would have people saying & printing malicious information which the accuser has no way of proving is false.

            • So you're saying that if I print something that says that you run around nake every night raping nuns and butchering kittens then you have no way of disproving it?
          • If I say your business is ripping people off then I am the accuser.

            I'm accusing you of wrongdoing, so I have to prove it. If I can't prove you guilty then I can't run around publically telling people how guilty you are.
            • But you're not taken them to court over that. You aren't sueing them for ripping off people. Instead, they are accusing you, in court, of spreading lies about them in an attempt to cause them harm. That makes them the accuser. Anbd as I said before...the accuser must prove their case.
        • Note: IANAL, but...

          Well, no: The standard for slander/libel is that the statements made were made in knowledge of their falsity, or in disregard of its falsity or otherwise (actual malice or negligence).

          Thus, the claim that I am a baby killer is highly likely to be able to be shown to have been made in disregard of its falsity or otherwise. However:

          The other part of course, is that it is a tort: You must establish damages. If a statement did not damage you, you cannot possibly claim any damages (due to th
        • The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.

          Everywhere else in the World, the accused must be able to prove his/ her statements were TRUE in order to avoid judgement.

          AFAIK, in criminal law we actually have two variants in the Netherlands: criminal slander and criminal defamation. To be acquitted of criminal defamation you have to argue that you speak in the public interest. This is the
        • The United States' slander/ libel laws are the only one's in the World where the victim must prove the statements made were in fact FALSE in order to receive judgement.

          It is actually even harder then that. Not only must the statement have been shown to be false, but it also must be shown that the statement was made in malice. In the US it is almost impossible nail someone for slander/libel unless it is a mind numbingly blatent case, and even then it is hard. Personally, I like it. Joe Blogger vs Corpora
    • . . .where does the crime take place?

      What crime? This is a civil action for damages. Owing money, assuming that money is even owed, is not a crime.

      KFG
  • I can't even go a few weeks without having to purge my access logs, and I run a pretty low-profile server. If they expect them to keep logs on things for no reason other than to persecute their customers for that long, then they can go fuck themselves.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • ....I can't even go a few weeks without having to purge my access logs.....

      Why do you even have to KEEP or record such access logs at all. How do they help you? If you don't keep information, then you don't have to worry about getting a subpoena. You just reply' "we don't keep the requested information". Just keep collective statistical data from which there is no way to glean individual identifying information that would be of use to any lawyer.

  • Googling around.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr2cents ( 323101 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @05:47PM (#14120552)
    I speak Dutch, and searching in google for the seller's name and "postzegels" (Dutch for stamps), I found a thread on the forums of ebay (also in Dutch): http://forums.ebay.nl/thread.jspa?threadID=1000006 05&tstart=120&mod=1093984729600 [forums.ebay.nl].

    Basically there seem to be some complaints, mainly that the guy is too slow (reads his e-mail once per 10 days), he only accepts US$ and no Euro's, a complaint about conversion rates, and one person on the forum had his stamps delivered with some damages. The seller is a lawyer, so going to court is second nature to him.

    If only he read his e-mail more frequently and tried to be a salesman instead of a lawyer, this would have been unneccessary it seems.

  • Is Lycos an ISP or a portal like Yahoo! In the later case, how does it know the identity of anyone?

  • There is no annonimity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by a_greer2005 ( 863926 ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @06:13PM (#14120653)
    Just like offline, If I call a radio station and slander someone on the air, the radio station and / or the phone company can track it if asked in a legal way, If I post signs on light poles and an officer, or servaelance camera sees me, the company can in court supenas the tape or for the officer to testify, if there is a technical way to provide the tape (i.e. it hasnt been recorded over) and the owner of the tape will not hand it over, that is contempt. What is differant online?
  • Goldmember [imdb.com].

    Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
  • "Supreme Court spokesman Steven Bakker said the court found Pessers' claim of having suffered damages sufficient to order Lycos to release the client's name and address, even though no criminal offense had been committed. It issued a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they"

    This seems to be an all too common occurrence today. The music industry just throws money at the lawmakers, says something about terrorism and illegal file sharing, and BOOM! All
  • Because I never could figure it out. I mean, if you run it all the way to it's ridiculous conclusion: Presidential candidates can sue each other every four years. Every fast food commercial that says their greaseburgers are better than brand X's greaseburgers is liable. Every religion denounces every other religion as false while holding themselves to be the one true faith, so every church needs to sue every other church indefinitely. Everybody who's flamed everybody else on Slashdot owes the offended party
    • If one person's saying it and it's that extreme, it's probably disbelieved anyway.

      Are you serious?

      So if I hate my high school maths teacher and say he sexually abuses children and all he can do is deny it, you don't think that would create doubt in people's minds, make people treat him differently and possibly get him fired?

      There are good reasons for libel laws. Free speech should have limits.
      • So if I hate my high school maths teacher and say he sexually abuses children and all he can do is deny it,

        Uh, as opposed to if he DID molest you and you didn't have the presence of mind to run immediately to a DNA lab and save the sample from your orifice, and now you can't prove it in court, so he gets to sue you for slander, too? I consider the former case the lesser of two evils. Are you telling me something bad happens to *everyone* who's accused of molestation? Michael Jackson's still rich. The Cath

        • Cut it out with the straw man arguments. Just because some libel or slander does not cause damage, does not mean that none causes damage.

          Also, get your facts straight. The Catholic church may still be standing, but it has been very damaged. It is closing many churches in Massachusetts for lack of funds, and is making major changes in how it works (a good thing IMHO). I also haven't noticed Michael Jackson exxactly seeking publicity the last few years (not a bad thing either, but you can't argue that the
        • The onus of proof in rape and molestation cases is very high but I feel a completely separate issue from slander.

          If you are molested and then accuse your abuser and their business drops off from the rumours, it is in no way the same as being validated in a court of law and having that perpetrator convicted of that crime. It's not okay that it's extremely easy to get away with abuse but slander is not justice for the victims.

          Are you telling me something bad happens to *everyone* who's accused of molest
  • But I keep my feelings about the Postal Service to myself.
  • I can't wait to see what the Dutch Supreme Court does when Lycos tells them to shove it. Will the US courts uphold their ruling that Lycos must reveal the user's identity even though no crime has been committed? Or will they tell them to shove it as well? It's always amusing when a foreign court tries to tell a US company what to do.
  • "...so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations."

    I think he means "so he could allegedly pursue the alleged financial damages (as alleged) allegedly resulting from the allegations."
  • I suppose I'll here the buzz about this when I get into work on Monday, but does anyone know if they were suing Lycos (the US company, owned by Daum of Korea) or Lycos Europe (which is owned by Bertelsmann and based in Germany). They are two very different companies, but news sites don't always know this. (Remember the anti-spam screensaver fiasco last year? That was Lycos Europe.)

    The news report just says "Lycos", but it's a Dutch lawsuit... so I don't know.

  • jaja (Score:1)

    by surgeon ( 61206 ) *
    But we all agree that the notorious Ome Johan is still a teringleier and een oplichter.

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close