Interesting People mailing list archives
Anonymity (a note from Reed and a reply from Steele
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:18:37 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Shari Steele <ssteele () eff org> Date: December 2, 2008 8:44:26 AM EST To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
Hi Dave. Feel free to forward this to the IP list.<sigh> We don't champion an absolute right to anonymity. Our much more nuanced stance is that anonymity should not be able to be pierced unless there is something more than an empty allegation of underlying criminal wrongdoing--there must be some proof that there is actual illegality involved--not absolute proof, but enough proof to make a case. Predictably, most folks who try to find out the identity of an anonymous poster (or, more correctly, a pseudonymous poster) have no proof of wrongdoing and are looking for that identity for retribution purposes. A brief look at our website would make this clear to anyone who wants to check it out.
I don't expect to change David's mind about us, but I sure would be honored to have his support.
Shari *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Shari Steele ssteele () eff org Executive Director 415.436.9333 (voice) Electronic Frontier Foundation 415.436.9993 (fax) 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Become an EFF member! -- http://www.eff.org/support/ On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com> Date: December 1, 2008 6:12:15 PM EST To: dave () farber net Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?This discussion seems confused. Privacy on this list (IP) gets mistakenly conflated with "information protection", which is a subset of privacy in the law (and a smaller subset of privacy in the culture and norms of life).Privacy in the law is a "right to be left alone". That includes protection from harassment (whether anonymously or not - anonymity is not a "get out of jail free" card against harassment), the right to a legal abortion, etc. Some such rights are constitutional, some are legislated.Harassment *is* a violation of privacy.Freedom of speech (first amendment or cultural norm-based) is a quite different legal animal.EFF is not primarily a "privacy" organization. It does what it does. Championing an absolute right to anonymity in public speech is one of its causes. It's one of the reasons I have chosen not to be a member of EFF, despite supporting many of its causes.The idea that there is an absolute right to "anonymous public speech" has any number of problems.Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of personal belief, I find anonymity troubling. It's constructive when the fears it responds to are unjust, unfair, and so forth. But when it reflects a criminal's fear of being found out, it has no justification. Further, anonymity often is used to proclaim falsehoods: as it is when "unnamed sources" are used by journalists to promote wars and other dangerous societal interventions.Courts of law require that evidence be entered by non-anonymous witnesses. Accused people have a right to confront their accusers.Let's not, therefore, conflate "privacy" with absolutist rights of anonymous speech. You can argue for either, but one is not the same as the other.
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Anonymity (a note from Reed and a reply from Steele David Farber (Dec 02)