Posting AC - a Thing of the Past? 390
c0lo writes to point out an article from the Indystar. From the article: "A Marion County judge has ruled, for the first time in Indiana, that news media outlets can be ordered by the court to reveal identifying information about posters to their online forums."
I am ironically.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am ironically.... (Score:4, Funny)
I demand that /. reveal the identity of the parent poster!
Re: (Score:2)
Get a court order and Slashdot quite gladly will.
That is why I post under my real name. In this day and age anyone with sufficient resources can trace any post to you anyway.
The Internet has stopped being anonymous something like 10 years or so ago.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to check with HB Gary [krebsonsecurity.com] on that.
Re:I am ironically.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Defending your privacy against people with sufficient resources is a lost cause. I care about defending against people who don't have a court order or an army of snoops. Like the people interviewing me for a job.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I am ironically.... (Score:4, Funny)
Choose the wrong order, and you have a setup for "Weekend at Bernie's III."
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. Your constitutional right to online anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck, i'm behind seven proxies!
Yes, I know.
If only you had sprung for the eighth!
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, proxy bonuses to AC don't stack, so you'd only get the benefit of the highest one.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not ironic, it's just sarcastic. It would be ironic if you forgot to check the box.
Re:I am ironically.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's truly your external IP then I would start with a FOIA Requisition to registra@nic.mil. Not knowing how well or how long they maintain Internal - External IP Crossreferences or your internal licensing scheme, it could be a wild goose chase. I don't remember to what extent the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that data to be maintained or if it would even apply to the DoD.
If there was a legal need, the databases could be supoenaed, but the previous paragraph's points still may apply.
For what reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason a court would be gathering such information is to stifle free speech.
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think both sides have good arguments, I would hate for there to be a 'one size fits all' solution to this dilema. If someone is slandering my name on the internet anonymously, I want to go after that person. First I should have to prove the allegations are false, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For what reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's simple really. If a serious threat of violence is made in an online forum, the police in the jurisdiction the threat is directed at go to a judge, fill out the paper work, and get a warrant. If someone is libeling you, you take the evidence, go to the judge, get a court order. It isn't as if this case is saying that anyone can make a request to get IP addresses of anonymous posters, it would still require a court order or warrant to get that information.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, such people would not stoop to simply post such messages using someone else's computer / account / wifi, etc..
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, such people would not stoop to simply post such messages using someone else's computer / account / wifi, etc..
So what? The point of obtaining that kind of information isn't simply to blindly arrest whoever was identified. The point is to question the person as part of an ongoing investigation. If there is reason to believe that the person in question has committed an offence, then they may be arrested. But a name associated with an IP address or a forum account is not, in itself, sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the grand proposition of reprogramming society not to respond positively to hearsay. That's your "one size fits all". It's all about conditioned response and behavior modification, with specific keywords to set off the alarm, no matter the context. Real, honest to god psy-ops at work. Piece of cake. There's a small stink about the military trying it out on some congressmen in Afghanistan. I have to laugh when I consider how well it's working on genpop when they all recite almost word for word what they hear on the TV.
I find these charges hard to believe
Then don't believe them
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is tough luck. It can even be done publicly to a public official without any recourse.
http://www.zimbio.com/Senator+Rick+Santorum+of+Pennsylvania/articles/Wx8d2kfC9QG/Rick+Santorum+Google+Bomb+Still+Haunts [zimbio.com]
if you want a perfect example...
Now shut up or I'll associate your name with another bodily fluid mixture!
Re: (Score:2)
- a right to answer. On
- a right to the deletion. A bit too extreme in my opinion, but a court already has the possibility to order
Re: (Score:2)
If I were to go around the internet telling everyone that you are a child molester, wouldn't you want to find out my identity?
No.
Now if a future employer google's your name it's all over the internet and you have to waste your time explaining it
No, you wouldn't. No sane person would work for a company so stupid as to pay attention to such a random claim, and no HR department would dare run afoul of the law by refusing to hire you because of an anonymous child molestation allegation. These things don't happen in real life, and they don't happen on the internet either. We don't need special laws to infringe free speech to protect us from anonymous non-existent slanderers .
If someone is slandering my name on the internet anonymously, I want to go after that person
You say "on the internet" so do you want the same power in real life too
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to think twice about working for them.
so think twice:
You'd look at your rapidly dwindling savings account or perhaps mounting debts, while your resume is starting grow this large unemployed gap... and quickly decide that you'd rather work for an idiot for a while than remain unemployed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The right to free speech says absolutely nothing about the right to anonymous free speech. At also says nothing about there not being consequences to your free speech, only that the government won't stop you from saying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does.
The whole point of "free speech" is that there can't be any consequences for you.
You need to hone up on both your history and law.
Some states even protect anonymous speech explicitly and their own Supreme Courts will back it up. ...I think I will go read some of the Federalist Papers now.
Re: (Score:3)
Free Speech does not mean No Consequences. Just that the consequences you can face are not for speaking, but for what you say. If you are not speaking the truth, you run the risk of being charged with Libel or Slander, if you are spreading information that isn't yours to spread, you run the risk of being charged for copyright violations, if you are spreading information that has been deemed secret in nature, you run the risk of being charged with espionage, if you are tormenting people, you risk being charg
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of "free speech" is that there can't be any consequences for you.
No, the whole point of Free Speech is that you can criticize the government and the government can not use its power to prevent you from doing it or punish you for it.
There's a lot of other speech that you will face serious consequences for, from the government or from the public at large.
You need to hone up on both your history and law.
Now that is ironic.
Some states even protect anonymous speech explicitly and their own Supreme Courts will back it up. ...I think I will go read some of the Federalist Papers now.
Depends on what the speech contains. If it contains threats of violence, their Supreme Courts will hunt the speaker down themselves. Free Speech is not an absolute right and never was. Failure to unde
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, let's dispense with the silly sensationalism.
Free speech was never meant to defend acts of libel.
If reasonable acts of libel took place, and the site knows the IP address of the posters, then it is ridiculous to use the shield law. That's like saying that I can set up a newspaper where I don't disclose the identity of any of my journalists, and where they can freely malign any individual through it while appealing to the shield law. That is ridiculous.
What wasn't clear from a cursory reading is whether the news outlets will be required to store the information. That's a bit overstepping, if it's the case. It's like saying that if I have a bulletin board in my supermarket, then I should be required to get the identity of anyone who posts there.
While not germane to the point of the story, I've not seen one instance of a news site allowing comments improving the quality of the site, or the discourse.
Not once.
Open comments to news stories almost always have brought out the worst in people in every news site I've seen. There's almost never anything informative in them, and even if there is a comment that makes a valid point, it is lost in the crowd of other comments.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I have no problem with peoples' identities being sought
Also makes it easier to throw the formerly-Anonymous persons in jail for things like ----- sharing how to crack a PS3 to install linux or media-watching software ----- producing art or comic books filled with nude teenagers doing what teenagers do (sex) ----- uploading a copy of Streamboat Willie --- et cetera.
Liberty cannot live in a world where people can not hide.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they don't know the IP address? (Score:2)
What if newspapers and other sites purged identifying information within a few days of the post?
That would be enough time to subpoena the information immediately in cases of "clear and present danger" or if the police are monitoring a site as part of an active investigation, but not enough to go after comments made more than a few days ago under a one-off handle or as a "guest"/"anonymous coward."
Assuming you don't pre-moderate non-registered comments, you need to keep IP addresses for at least a few hours
Re: (Score:2)
TOR. Don't know how many times I have to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Buy a cheap, hundred dollar laptop from someone on Craigslist. Wipe the disk and install Linux. Create an account called "privacy". Encrypt the home directory."
Why?
Live CD + usb stick. does the exact same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really this fucking stupid? Yes, there could be abuse. There is the possibility of abuse with ANY law. The court can issue a warrant for your phone records or to toss your place, but dammit, websites should never have to turn over IP addresses! They only want to stifle free speech! After all , if some kid posts that he's going to shoot up his school on some forum, the cops have no right to get a warrant for any in
Re: (Score:2)
Further, the judge exposes himself to the laughing hyenas of higher courts, who will decimate his ruling for the folly it is. The judge forgets the US Constitutional Fifth Amendment, Indiana's Constitution, Indiana Code, and the long tradition of pseudonyms-- which are entirely legal by common law lo long as the pseudonym isn't used for fraud.
He's made an ass of himself, and will have his ass handed to him.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge forgets the US Constitutional Fifth Amendment
Exactly which part of the Fifth Amendment applies here? If you meant the Fourth Amendment, I don't think it protects you from a warrant issued by a court. In fact, I vaguely recall there being something explicit in there about warrants.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the part about: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,.... as in not say anything, or say in anonymity. It's also part of the right to freely assemble, looked at in another way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason a court would be gathering such information is to stifle free speech.
Free speech is not the freedom to libel and slander the innocent. Free speech is not the freedom to make threats with impunity.
The anonymous speaker can be legitimately exposed.
What is the world coming to? (Score:2)
The problem is that the harm done by people positing anonymously is practically nonexistent. People bring up slander, but an anonymous post in an internet forum isn't really slander, it's just at troll. People bring up bomb threats, but there are plenty of ways to make an anonymous bomb threat and tracking this information will not really help with that (honestly, if you're going to make a bomb threat, doing it anonymously in a forum is not a good way to go about it).
On the other hand, requiring websites
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
Lets hope this is struck down rapidly and we can all get our constitutionally guaranteed rights back.
Re: (Score:2)
The main point : every service provider must log information about what anyone did, when, and how; including login, password, and anything available to identify someone. And it's not even on a case by case basis, but an obligation for all service provider...
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that, then you already have a tinfoil hat on.
Not all speech is, or should be, protected and inviolate.
Here's a hypothetical: someone is murdered. Someone posts details about the scene/incident anonymously that were never released publicly.
Defamation (as in this case) is a slipperier slope, imo. So you're saying that people are entitled to say the most slanderous, horrific, libelous, lies about someone without any recourse to the victim being able to refute or deny? I'd say that's unreasona
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you have no problem with peoples' identities being sought out. The "qualifier" is bullshit.
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
You may think that qualifier is "bullshit" but it's a well-established and widely accepted one. We have drawn the line where free speech ends at the commission of a crime or threat of harm for a very long time, and doing so is considered appropriate even by the vast majority of card-carrying members of the ACLU.
You're welcome to disagree, but pretending that this is an irrational or unprecedented distinction is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it *is* entertaining...and at the finish of the event, you end up with steak....
I'm thinking win-win.
Re:For what reason? (Score:5, Informative)
Bullfighting is well established and widely accepted also. Does that make it okay?
In Spain, yes. In India, no.
It's suppression.
Suppression can be good. Bad suppression: mowing down peaceful protesters in a public square. Good suppression: putting a serial killer in prison.
An assertion of arbitrary authority.
Depends how far you stretch the term "arbitrary". Our government is, in theory, "of the people". We elect them, and our elected officials appoint the judiciary - except where the judiciary is directly elected. It may not be the best system, but I'd hardly call it "arbitrary".
The commission of a crime has nothing to do with speech.
A death threat is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech. To paraphrase Holmes, falsely yelling "fire" in a theater is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech.
Re:For what reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do you not think that there wouldn't be significant support for putting Muslims in internment camps? When we have elected officials participating in racist displays such as this [newsvideoclip.tv], I wouldn't put anything past them.
Sedition hasn't been used against speech since the 60s, because the military industrial complex hasn't been seriously challenged since the 60s. When a serious movement for peace and freedom appears, you can bet your a
Re: (Score:2)
...for different definitions of "crime" or "serious threat"...
You know that a crime is what the law defines, yes? Now extrapolate and think about it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously internet comments are not the place to take any threat seriously though. They're like rap lyrics but less reliable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The supreme court disagrees [wikimedia.org].
Perhaps the key is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
especially on ad driven sites.
The customers aren't the people who read the topic but the Ad companies. And the Customers get what they want or they go elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Recap (Score:5, Insightful)
1. People under tyranny
2. Write pamphlets anonymously [google.com]
3. Make a new country
4. GOTO 1
5. "Goto considered harmful"
Re:Recap (Score:5, Funny)
Your post was too long, so I hope you don't mind that I stopped reading it after 16 steps or so.
Does Slashdot retain any AC identifying info? (Score:2)
If the website doesn't retain info on anonymous posters, then there's nothing for them to provide. Does Slashdot retain anything?
Re: (Score:2)
If the website doesn't retain info on anonymous posters, then there's nothing for them to provide. Does Slashdot retain anything?
Retaining the data is worth money to sell to advertisers, marketing and who knows what other parties. Lots of places retain a ton of data. What they say on the policy may have no relationship at all. Especially when it's all done by multiple companies contracting each other and everyone just way too busy dealing with everyday problems, costs+margins, employees, shareholders etc. Your personal data is just a meaningless detail of the businesses. It's hopeless actually, data will circulate everywhere, legal
Re: (Score:3)
So there's 3 scripts on this page whose sole purpose is to track you. I'm also willing to bet there's enough information stored in various locations (for example timestamp on the message cross referenced with the log files) to figure out who posted those anonymous comments.
Post Anonymously (Score:3)
Defamation is illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+ It occurs orders of magnitude more often
+ It's the most common form of speech on the internet
+ there's lots of trolling, and people understand that
+ It's international in origination, not just local (so justifications about enforcement that went into the old precedents may not apply)
+ The Streisand effect combined with court investigations p
So, (Score:4, Informative)
In Honor of his Honor... (Score:2)
I suggest that Slashdot have a day of awareness by using "Anonymous Hoosier" for all AC comments.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it requires a court order (Score:2)
I get tired of people who hide behind AC thinking they can get away with harassment and forum owners who won't take control of the situation. At least this requires a court order, which means the person or group demanding the information be made available must provide a reasonable justification to the court as to why it must be done. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than saying, "You can't allow anonymous posting."
Fine with me! (Score:2)
Mr. Ivan A Humpabunch
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington D.C., DC 20500
202-456-1414
screwyou@mailinator.com
The rest of you anonymous cowards should be ashamed of yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Waaait a second, I know that address.
Sure, it was given to me by a Mr. I.P.Freely when registering with my board. Does he live with you?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm partial to young america minnesota myself. easy zip code: 55555
Chilling Effects? (Score:2)
Cyberbullying? Not likely, it's stifling of speech. Find out who they are then drag them into court to put the fear of the Law into them. Once they're scared into submission, the plantiff can continue on safe in the knowledge that no matter how foul he behaves, no one will comment. I doubt it'll go far.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice troll artic (Score:2)
Due process is being observed; the defendant is in court and evidence is being gathered. This isn't police warrantlessly fishing through these records. Just because the internet is involved doesn't mean "everything's changed!" That's the battlecry of those who would use it to diminish current due process rights.
Real dumb... people will move to vpns (Score:3)
Real dumb move there by the decision-makers. What will happen is that Joe Clueless who makes a comment about someone sucking might get stung, while there will be a heightened interest in using a proxy for traffic; likely an offshore proxy that will either reply with unmitigated laughter, or a high resolution picture of a middle finger (or perhaps a sole of a shoe depending on geographic location) when someone demands IP logs.
VPNs are becoming really easy to use these days. The iPhone can activate one with a couple button presses. Browser extensions can activate Tor access with a button press.
If push came to shove and people started being arrested and sued left and right, it wouldn't be difficult for even Joe Sixpack to move to a VPN service, which would make current police work against real criminals a lot harder because every connection, the forensic officer would have to bed the VPN server for IP to IP correlation logs, or be able to monitor all connections to the VPN server and prove that connection "A" went into the network, and was routed to site "B", and do it well enough in a presentation to convince a jury.
If this judge were smart, he would have let the small fry go. This way, the nasty criminals would still be easily catchable without having to make any and all police investigations international affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Did something change? Since when are we after the big criminals?
You got that wrong. Steal a hundred bucks and you get arrested. Steal a hundred billion bucks and you get a bailout. It's all a matter who got who at the balls.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction:
If people saying "Elbonia sucks" on a forum get nailed by the Elbonian embassy for slander, then people will get scared and start using VPNs. Once this becomes a common practice, the people that LEOs really want to catch for suspected terrorism or other serious offences will require international cooperation with an offshore VPN service instead of just asking the telco for IP to names.
Re: (Score:2)
If this judge were smart, he would have let the small fry go. This way, the nasty criminals would still be easily catchable without having to make any and all police investigations international affairs.
Its an entirely different market. Criminals tend to be poor and depend on public defenders. The other side of the case is the prosecutor, who is a public employee.
Civil cases involve relatively wealthy litigants and/or defendants. So this judge is simply protecting the ability of his cronies in the legal profession to engage in a profitable business.
Re: (Score:2)
Blowback 101. That will work for a couple cases, but when the bar gets set low that a well heeled person or organization starts doing massive SLAPP cases against every Tom, Dick, and Harry that disses he/she/them, the proxy company will end up just showing the government where they reside, how pathetic American requests for info are. Veiled or overt threats may work for a bit, but eventually will be ignored or dealt with, especially if it was made public how a US firm was trying to force their hands.
If th
There are names, and there are True Names. (Score:2)
So you can no longer comment anonymously. Start up a secret identity. I've been using one since 1994.
Oh, did you think 'Remus Shepherd' was my real name? It's a pseudonym, and hopefully one that no one can connect to my real name, even if a judge orders them to do so. I'm sure it's not bulletproof, but every layer is another court precedent that has to happen before your anonymity can be taken away.
Slander (Score:2)
Slander is illegal regardless of medium, but you have a protected right to express your opinion, even if the subject doesn't like it and feels 'criticized'..
Just ruled the opposite in UK (Score:3)
ref: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/28/newspaper_anonymous_commenters/ [theregister.co.uk]
Easy Fix (Score:3)
Don't post stuff in the USA.
Pretty soon the US is going to see all parts of the internet hosted on non-US soil, to avoid all the US BS. Companies will follow suit. As will Jobs.
Then the US will just be a tiny speed bump on the information superhighway. I mean the great thing about the internet is that it is distributed, it doesn't actually have to exist in a certain place and thus be subject to its stupid laws. Just move the physical bits somewhere nicer.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is nicer? Honest question. I'm an American, and I love it here, but we're headed the wrong direction. In 20 years, I might very well want to move somewhere more free.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the fucking Marion country judges.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, could you explain in more detail please?
Re:All I can think about in reference to this... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The court also had him define "newfag" and "rickroll".
Yeah, but that part the judge did just for the lulz.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate astroturfing is different than free speech (non-defamatory expression of one's views).
Hopefully most people would have the savvy to react differently to each.
Actually, no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies aren't people. That means they shouldn't be able to contribute to election campaigns and things like that. That wouldn't limit the rights of the owners or employees of a company to make contributions: they could still do that with their own private money.
It would however prevent the company from making contributions based on the decisions of the CEO or majority owner - going contrary to the wishes of e.g. minority owners. That would be a good thing. It would restrict nobody's legitimate political
Are unions people? Are newspapers? (Score:2)
Just be sure you take those collective rights away from the ACLU, the NRA, the NAACP, the NY Times, the AFL-CIO, and Slashdot while you're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying that you retain all of your original rights but that you should not gain a second voice and set of rights simply by creating a legal fiction which exists solely as a remnant of 1600s era Venetian business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the degree of the action:
Someone saying $PERSON sucks is one thing.
Someone posting on many forums, falsely alleging heinous crimes that $PERSON did in efforts to deliberately destroy a reputation is another.
The libel/slander laws are aimed at the second instance. However, because SLAPP laws are not enforced these days, said libel/slander laws get used for the first.