Protecting your Anonymity

[CajunCenturion]

THE VIRGINIA SUPREME Court has ruled against America Online (AOL) in its latest effort to protect the anonymity of one of its subscribers, in a case that could shape how free speech is perceived online.

Full Story:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/05/021105hnaolcase.xml?1106weam

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[schase]

That is extremely far reaching with amazing consequences.

From deflamatory posts - If I was running a board that I could not ban (user keeps getting new email addy and IP address is on a ISP - you ban one you'd ban them all) I would like to know how I could stop them. Up to Hacking - access to info would assist in curbing the negative activities (not stop - but curb).

To legit posts like on TT - if I do not want my info given out, then I expect TT will not give it out without a court order. (through my choices upon registration).

My limited experiences in needing another individuals info has resulted (and in my opinion correctly so) in the ISP or Org. requiring a court order prior to releasing info. I still feel this way is the best all around. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

-Adm. James Farragut

Stuart

 

[sleipnir214]

Where does everyone get this idea of freedom of anonymity? The First Amendment of the United States Constitution simply states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it say in there that my anonymity is guaranteed?

Let's assume that the AOL user did defame Tam Nai by deliberately posting false statements in that message board. And now Tam Nai is attempting to find out the identity of the user so that it can know who to sue.

-Versus-

Let's say that I go down to my local copy center and print up 1000000 copies of the same lies about Tam Nai, and with malice of intent distribute them by leaving stacks of them in public places in the dead of the night. Now Tam Nai is trying to get a copy of my receipt from the copy center so that they know whom to drag into court.

What's the difference between the two? Other than my enormous copy center bill, I mean. I don't see where there is one.


In the United States, we have the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. But that freedom does not universally prevent our speech from having consequences. For example, my speech is not protected when I commit a crime.

If I say, "Let's go rob that bank", the speech is not protected because I am engaging in a conspiracy to commit a crime. If I say, "Let's go protest against that bank", my speech is protected. I am using my speech to engage in another First Amendment right, the right of free assembly.

In any case, it is up to the court to decide whether libel took place or not. And since in most U.S. courts trials in absentia are not allowed, the only way Tam Nai is going to get its day in court is to find out who made the statements and drag him into court.


As far as the Virginia Supreme Court goes, here is an article where the author's arguments support the idea that it should have gotten more involved in the case:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020604.html

______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[schase]

If you were referring to my post - a bit out of context.

Privacy is different than anonymity.

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

-Adm. James Farragut

Stuart

 

[sleipnir214]

schase,

Actually, I was responding to CC's original thread title in the context of the article he posted. But I also disagree with your comment that this case has far-reaching consequences.

My point, which I admittedly did not make well, was that all the ruling of the California courts can do is correctly not uphold a right to anonymity that we did not have in the first place.

______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[schase]

ahh roger that - I read it before my first cup of coffee.

never a good thing "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

-Adm. James Farragut

Stuart

 

[SteveTheGeek]

sleipnir,
The difference between the identity of a poster online and the receipt from a copy bill is what it applies to. Getting someone's identity from a receipt means that they made those copies, and doesn't even apply to the copies they made the day before, or the next day. When you have the identity behind a screename, everything that person has ever said/posted/whatever also becomes tied to their identity.
This is an interesting case for me because there is an individual near Philly who is mentally ill and has been disrupting certain Usenet groups and some AOL rooms for several years, frequently threatens to sue people for slander etc, and has been known to engage in real-life harassment when he gets personal data on his targets. (ray-gordon.com for details if anyone cares.)
Another case where anonymity was important was a few years ago when the Navy essentially tricked AOL into confirming that a screename belonged to an individual (without any legal justification) and as a direct result discharged the individual for being homosexual.
I guess my main problem is that the identity information is given out early in the process, before there is necessarily any proof of wrongdoing - it doesn't take much for someone to file charges, get one's identity, and then drop the lawsuit. However since one can't prove wrongdoing without the accused showing up, it is a vicious circle, and I'd welcome proposed solutions.
-Steve

 

[sleipnir214]

SteveTheGeek,

Okay, in that case, I have an account at my local copy shop to which I charged the printing for my copies. Now, when a writ is presented giving court clearance for access to my records is presented, they now know every other diatribe I printed, as well as the amout I paid for my Christmas cards last year.

I still see no difference.

There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy of the internet. Ignorance of the fact that most ISPs log a great deal of what you do is no more reason for turning down a search warrant than ignorance I might have of the fact that my charging to my account leaves a record of what I printed.

Ray Gordon? I've come across him in my travels. But I am not going to presume Constitutionally-protected rights or non-existent Federal law based on the system abuses of one unhinged person. If anything, his case is an example for the necessity of U.S. tort reform than anything else. In the U.S., he is well within his rights when suing anybody for any reason. If you get sued by him, wait until he loses then slap him with a suit for malicious prosecution. Besides, I've seen people's reactions to him in Usenet lists: as my father once said, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

The dreaded Navy/AOL case. The question is, was the seaman in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as interpreted though Presidential Executive Orders in effect at that time? If the answer is "Yes", then what he was doing was, by definition, a crime. Constitutional protections of speech no longer apply. Anyway, he was in the military -- much of the Constitution does not apply to military personnel in the first place. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[SteveTheGeek]

>Okay, in that case, I have an account at my local copy >shop to which I charged the printing for my copies. Now, >when a writ is presented giving court clearance for access >to my records is presented, they now know every other >diatribe I printed, as well as the amout I paid for my >Christmas cards last year.

>I still see no difference.

The difference is that they do NOT know every other diatribe you printed, as they (presumably) not storing copies of your diatribes.

>There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy of the >internet. Ignorance of the fact that most ISPs log a >great deal of what you do is no more reason for turning >down a search warrant than ignorance I might have of the >fact that my charging to my account leaves a record of >what I printed.

You sound like Larry Ellison. I disagree, I believe there is a fundamental expectation of privacy on the internet. Aren't European ISPs fighting the requirement to maintain logs of customer traffic?

>Ray Gordon? I've come across him in my travels. But I am >not going to presume Constitutionally-protected rights or >non-existent Federal law based on the system abuses of one >unhinged person. If anything, his case is an example for >the necessity of U.S. tort reform than anything else. In >the U.S., he is well within his rights when suing anybody >for any reason. If you get sued by him, wait until he >loses then slap him with a suit for malicious >prosecution. Besides, I've seen people's reactions to him >in Usenet lists: as my father once said, "Never wrestle >with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

His case was a demonstration of why privacy should be protected; privacy should not be held only up to the point where some random moron chooses to pay a court filing fee.

>The dreaded Navy/AOL case. The question is, was the >seaman in violation of the Uniform Code of Military >Justice as interpreted though Presidential Executive >Orders in effect at that time? If the answer is "Yes", >then what he was doing was, by definition, a crime. >Constitutional protections of speech no longer apply. >Anyway, he was in the military -- much of the Constitution >does not apply to military personnel in the first place.

I'm very familiar with the UCMJ. The point I was making was the impact of revelation of his identity without due process. He was not discharged until after the AOL mistakenly revealed his identity.

One can't get back their privacy and I would prefer that a judge's signature on the subpoena indicate that privacy concerns have been addressed rather than that someone filed a lawsuit. Perhaps the looming Dept of Homeland Security is simply throwing my concerns about the erosion of civil liberties into sharper focus lately.
-Steve

 

[Tarwn]

Not that i really have to many feelings one way or the other, but:
"I believe there is a fundamental expectation of privacy on the internet"
A lot of people do believe this, and a lot of people do expect privacy. There still isn't a law or legal defense, if that were so I could make alot of money off suing people whom I expected to give me money...wait, bad example, paradox You get my point though.

-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
For my next trick I will pull a hat out of a rabbit (if you think thats bad you should see how the pigeon feels...)

 

[sleipnir214]

SteveTheGeek,
True, my analogy is weak. But it still could come to pass that my other libelous activities could come to light because of a court-ordered search of my copy-shop records.

Tarwn,
What I said was, "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet". Reasonable in this context means that a set of logical inferences has led you to a conclusion. For anyone to reasonably expect anonymity on the internet, he would have to begin with the assumption that no one would ever log his activities. There is no basis for this assumption.

SteveTheGeek,
This discussion came out of an article about anonymity and court activity in the United States. Since the Constitution's influence stops at the 200-mile limit of territorial waters, what goes on in Europe has no bearing on this discussion. European law on subjects of this type are very different. For example, in the United States, your medical records are assumed to belong to the doctor which maintains them. In many European countries, by law, your medical records are your property.


Both,
I'm not saying that the absence of anonymity on the internet is right or wrong. I'm saying that it does not exist, that there is no reasonable expectation of its existence, and that I know of no law which states the contrary. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[Tarwn]

I'm agreeing with you, I was only saying that these expectations and beliefs are in widespread existence despite their being no legal or logical backing. My example was actually quite bad now that I look back at it, I was trying to point out that unfounded belief or expectation is not a legally binding entity in any shape or form. My example was trying to point out that if that were the case (expectation or unfounded belief being legal tender) I would be able to sue anyone provided I had an (correct or incorrect) expectation from them that they didn't fulfill. Basically creating a legal precedence to protect a "right" that is no more than a buzz word and expectation from the uninformed user would be dangerous.

Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
For my next trick I will pull a hat out of a rabbit (if you think thats bad you should see how the pigeon feels...)