Facebook To Unmask Anonymous Dutch User Accused of Repeated Defamatory Posts (arstechnica.com) 71
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Starting today, Facebook users may feel a little less safe posting anonymously. The Court of the Hague in The Netherlands ruled that Meta Ireland must unmask an anonymous user accused of defaming the claimant, a male Facebook user who allegedly manipulated and made secret recordings of women he dated. The anonymous Facebook user posted the allegedly defamatory statements in at least two private Facebook groups dedicated to discussing dating experiences. The claimant could not gain access but was shown screenshots from the groups, one with about 2,600 members and one with around 61,000 members. The claimant argued that his reputation had suffered from the repeated postings that included photos of the man and alleged screenshots of his texts.
The claimant tried to get Meta to remove the posts, but Meta responded with an email saying that it would not do so because "it is not clear to us that the content you reported is unlawful as defamation." At that point, Meta suggested that the man contact the anonymous user directly to resolve the matter, triggering the lawsuit against Meta. Initially, the claimant asked the court to order Meta to delete the posts, identify the anonymous user, and flag any posts in other private Facebook groups that could defame the claimant. While arguing the case, Meta had defended the anonymous user's right to freedom of expression, but the court decided that the claimant -- whose name is redacted in court documents -- deserved an opportunity to challenge the allegedly defamatory statements. Partly for that reason, the court ordered Meta to provide "basic subscriber information" on the anonymous user, including their username, as well as any names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account. The court did not order Meta to remove the posts or flag any others that may have been shared in private groups, though.
Meta has already agreed to comply with the order, the court's ruling said. However, if Meta fails to provide the Facebook user's identifying information, the social media company risks a penalty of approximately $1,200 daily. The maximum fine that Meta could face is less than $130,000. [...] Meta's defense of the anonymous user's right to free speech failed, the court said, because freedom of speech is not unlimited. "Someone who, without evidence, repeatedly makes serious and clearly traceable accusations, must take into account, partly in the light of the conditions applied by Facebook, that he or she may be confronted with a measure whereby his or her anonymity is lifted," the court order said. Although the key concern for The Court in the Hague appeared to be that the statements posted anonymously were plausibly defamatory, the order also noted that the content would not have to necessarily be unlawful for Facebook to be ordered to identify the user posting it. "According to settled case law, under certain circumstances Meta has an obligation to provide identifying data, even if the content of the relevant messages is not unmistakably unlawful," the court order said.
The claimant tried to get Meta to remove the posts, but Meta responded with an email saying that it would not do so because "it is not clear to us that the content you reported is unlawful as defamation." At that point, Meta suggested that the man contact the anonymous user directly to resolve the matter, triggering the lawsuit against Meta. Initially, the claimant asked the court to order Meta to delete the posts, identify the anonymous user, and flag any posts in other private Facebook groups that could defame the claimant. While arguing the case, Meta had defended the anonymous user's right to freedom of expression, but the court decided that the claimant -- whose name is redacted in court documents -- deserved an opportunity to challenge the allegedly defamatory statements. Partly for that reason, the court ordered Meta to provide "basic subscriber information" on the anonymous user, including their username, as well as any names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account. The court did not order Meta to remove the posts or flag any others that may have been shared in private groups, though.
Meta has already agreed to comply with the order, the court's ruling said. However, if Meta fails to provide the Facebook user's identifying information, the social media company risks a penalty of approximately $1,200 daily. The maximum fine that Meta could face is less than $130,000. [...] Meta's defense of the anonymous user's right to free speech failed, the court said, because freedom of speech is not unlimited. "Someone who, without evidence, repeatedly makes serious and clearly traceable accusations, must take into account, partly in the light of the conditions applied by Facebook, that he or she may be confronted with a measure whereby his or her anonymity is lifted," the court order said. Although the key concern for The Court in the Hague appeared to be that the statements posted anonymously were plausibly defamatory, the order also noted that the content would not have to necessarily be unlawful for Facebook to be ordered to identify the user posting it. "According to settled case law, under certain circumstances Meta has an obligation to provide identifying data, even if the content of the relevant messages is not unmistakably unlawful," the court order said.
Two simple questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook users may feel a little less safe posting anonymously
1/ Since when is anyone anonymous on Facebook? The company violates your private data and tracks you to such an extent that it knows you better than your own mother even if you use a fake name.
2/ Since when does anyone feel safe posting on Facebook?
Re:Two simple questions (Score:4, Funny)
3/ Since when does anyone post on Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But whoever posts anything, I don't think they feel completely safe doing it.
Don't feel safe? What the hell are they posting that they would feel unsafe about it?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, apparently at least one person felt safe enough to post (claimed) defamatory content...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't disagree - but idiots make up a huge percentage of the human population. It's rather essential you take them into consideration when making any blanket statement, question, or plan that involves people.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
3/ Since when does anyone with brains post on Facebook?
Here, FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
You've achieved! (Score:1)
Re:Two simple questions (Score:4, Funny)
Facebook users may feel a little less safe posting anonymously
1/ Since when is anyone anonymous on Facebook? The company violates your private data and tracks you to such an extent that it knows you better than your own mother even if you use a fake name.
2/ Since when does anyone feel safe posting on Facebook?
1. I know I'm not anonymous on Facebook, it really doesn't bother me. Same as I'm not anonymous at the airport or when I use my bank/credit card.
2. I feel safe because I'm not a complete cunt who says hateful and inflammatory things. I'm not worried about something I wrote on Facebook 10 years ago resurfacing (in fact, I look forward to it because I am Hiiiiii-lari-ous).
Re: Two simple questions (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
What are âoeusersâ?
Facebook Pulling A Big Blanket Over Their Head (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
"a male Facebook user who allegedly manipulated and made secret recordings of women he dated."
"The claimant argued that his reputation had suffered from the repeated postings that included photos of the man"
Is this article supposed to be like a Mensa test or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but that means you have to sue a "John Doe" and then once you get that evidence past a jury, you can leverage Facebook into providing the necessary information. Here they want to unmask a potential user without ever starting a court case, any conviction or evidence provided to a jury, this is just the government trying to unmask a person on-demand.
If this is someone secretly recording sex acts and then releasing that online, the victims should have a pretty good idea of who this person is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Just Terrible (Score:2)
It's a horribly written article. Too many pronouns: he, he, the user, he, etc.
A piss-poor bit of journalism.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
The man anonymously* posted things about women but the claimant is a man? The same man? Did the man date other men and post about them? And one of those men is the claimant? WTF does any of this even mean?
* Facebook has anonymous posting? I don't think so.
Why the hell does anyone care what gets posted in some unknown groups that no one knows about or cares about? Do they think some random person they might meet and date would just happen to be in one of these groups?
Also, it's not defamation if it's true. Which is probably why Facebook didn't do anything about it in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is about as anonymous as your free email address. Sure you have to enter a real-sounding name but there's no reason to use your real name. It's not like they ask for your ID.
That's how anon.petit.fi died... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the day anon.petit.fi was an email anonymizer service, quite convenient. And then Church of Scientology got a court order to unmask the anonymity of the user who posted some of the CoS materials online... The service as a result had to shut down. That was the first blow to the anonymity on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
After anon.penet.fi (and I still see Julf Helsingius still post on FB, ironically), anonymous stuff went to remailers. It was interesting to see how many features those had, be it the ability to send to them encrypted, and create remailer chains. I would consider him one of the few people who actually has done something and inspired works that have actually helped privacy.
That sort of person just doesn't exist today.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the chain anon remailers still exist today?
One cool thing with those was, you could have the return message posted to a USENET group
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some remailers exist in some form, although because they are ripe for abuse by commercial/state sponsored actors as easy targets for sending out spam, using them is a lot tougher than previously. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some using TOR, but that's probably the best one can find. Of course, there are websites that might allow one to send mail out anonymously, but those are almost likely blackholed into oblivion.
In theory, alt.anonymous.messages might still be viable, but injecting into
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day anon.petit.fi was an email anonymizer service, quite convenient.
I recognized that name and thought, "wait a sec", and looked it up. It was anon.penet.fi.
Re: Wow, $1200 daily... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Wow, $1200 daily... (Score:2)
If they pay the fine, but otherwise don't move, things will escalate rather quickly. Thus is civil litigation, not criminal.
Confused what this is about? (Score:1)
Re:Confused what this is about? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They should do something like this here
Unmask some of those brave posters writing all that crap.
You'd find out that the most prolific 200 trolls are the same 12 guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Feh. (Score:1)
Facebook defending freedom of expression? (Score:2)
Gullibility and gossip (Score:2)
Much of the problem here is a habit of uncritically accepting accusations as fact. Perhaps people should be held liable for slander and libel if they do stuff based on spurious accusations. There are lots of ways to get back at someone that don't look just like unfounded smears.
Got proof Mr Smith did xyz bad thing? Grind him to powder. If not, Mr Smith grinds you into powder. You didn't come up with that? Too bad. You should have checked to see if it was true. This is why gossiping used to be condemne
Same goes for /. (Score:3)
Now that you can't post anonymously without logging in, there is the very likely possibility of unmasking all of the anonymous posts. Either through court order, change in the site's policy, or a data breach.
Uh (Score:1)
Anon accuses Anon of accusing Anon of doing stuff? (Score:2)
Meta ... must unmask an anonymous user accused of defaming the claimant, a male Facebook user who allegedly manipulated and made secret recordings of women he dated. The anonymous Facebook user posted the allegedly defamatory statements
So in other words the claimant, say Man_A, dates some women. The "anonymous Facebook user", say Person_B (one of those women?), says Man_A manipulated and made secret recordings of those women he dated (how does Person_B know that? - have they been in contact with those women, other than themselves if they were one?).
Man_A says his reputation has su
Our society needs to make decisions on this. (Score:2)
Awhile back, a woman on Instragram posted a video of a couple and accused them of trying to abduct her child.
The police did investigate, and found the claims had no merit. She ended up being charged with a crime, since she had filed a police report after the video went viral.
I think it's rather reasonable to assume that accusing a random couple of attempting to kidnap a child, and posting a video where they could be recognized, does create a situation where that couple may be harmed.
Now she didn't do so an
Re: Our society needs to make decisions on this. (Score:1)
The problem with your idea is that it puts very potent powers in the hands of government. Any time you give government powers, they WILL be abused, no matter what it is or what good intentions inspired it. It's very hard for the people to reverse such things. The solution is more skepticism and lawsuits against the gullible people who hurt others by believing in garbage.
deepfake porn video (Score:2)
The article is not complete.
The anonymous man made a deepfake porn video from a well known woman in the Netherlands.
See Dutch post:
https://tweakers.net/nieuws/21... [tweakers.net]
I think posts will be a bit different from now on in this threat.