Judge May Unmask Topix Anonymity -- Plus, the Search Engine Connection

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: March 31, 2009 8:15:44 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Judge May Unmask Topix Anonymity -- Plus, the Search Engine  
Connection



   Judge May Unmask Topix Anonymity -- Plus, the Search Engine  
Connection

                http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000530.html


Greetings.  A Santa Clara County judge has moved a step closer to
forcing Topix to release identifying information -- presumably mainly
IP addresses -- of anonymous posters in a long-running defamation case
( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=7213962 ).
The implications are both complex and important.

The core of the case seems relatively straightforward.  A couple was
accused, indicted, tried, and acquitted of serious sexual assault
charges.  Along the way, even before indictments, large numbers of
viciously attacking anonymous comments appeared on Topix associated
with the case -- more than 25K comments in all.

The vindicated couple wants to find out who -- they apparently assume
it's actually a relatively small number of individuals -- has been
posting those comments, so that they can be pursued for defamation.

That's where this all morphs from straightforward to messy and
complex, and quickly falls into one of those "just because you don't
like it doesn't mean it isn't true" situations that I bring up so
often.

Vicious defamation is presumably not a concept that most people would
support.  But the ability to anonymously comment is important as
well -- and U.S. courts have not been terribly consistent on their
rulings regarding the appropriate balance between the two.

And as other seekers of presumed online miscreants have learned, an IP
address alone doesn't necessarily point you at the right person -- not
given public terminals and unsecured Wi-Fi access points.

Yet as several stories on this case pointed out today, large numbers
of highly offensive, factually incorrect attacking comments tend to
rise to the beginning of search engine query results, in some cases
swamping out any retorts or factual pages and comments -- a situation
that could theoretically persist indefinitely.

Some Google critics in particular have called for the censorship of
search results in situations like this.

I view such suggestions as both impractical and unwise.  My basic
philosophy is that in most cases the cure for "bad" information isn't
censorship, but rather bringing *good* information to prominence.

However, the manual manipulation of natural search results ordering is
not something to be done lightly, and I would argue would be best
avoided.

There are possible alternatives -- albeit not trivial and
noncontroversial ones.

I have in the past proposed consideration of a limited and controlled
"dispute links" mechanism that would provide a means of informing
searchers that top search results contain disputed information
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000255.html ).  To avoid abuse,
such a capability might perhaps only be invoked under court order --
for example, to note that the couple being discussed were already
found innocent of all charges.

This mechanism would definitely not be simple and a myriad number of
complicated issues would come into play.  Whether or not in the final
analysis it would even be a practical solution is not a foregone
conclusion.

But consider the parties in play in the Topix case.  On one hand we
have the couple declared innocent by a court.  For them to be forever
saddled with these sorts of attacking -- and now demonstrably false --
comments in top search results without any annotations regarding the
court case's outcome seems fundamentally unfair.

On the other hand, anonymous speech needs a high (though few would
argue absolute) bar of protection to avoid all manner of
anti-anonymity "scavenger hunts" run amok.

So my question becomes, where could "more information" be
appropriately and non-disruptively injected into the system to provide
the maximal fairness for the aggrieved parties, yet also allow for the
appropriate protection of anonymity?

Given that search engines are the means by which most people will find
their way into such discussions, it seems at the very least prudent to
explore whether there are methodologies that search engines could
deploy -- whether my "dispute links" concept or something else
entirely -- that could help to defuse these dilemmas without tampering
with natural search results determinations nor their associated
orderings.

As always, I welcome your thoughts.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
  for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: LW1




-------------------------------------------
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