Re: worth reading -- Canadian model gets Google to reveal blogger's identity

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: August 20, 2009 1:45:46 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] worth reading --  Canadian model gets Google to  
reveal blogger's identity



Dave,

Several issues here.  First, as Paul notes, these situations are very
case-by-case specific.  Clearly, Google is obligated to respond with
data (to the extent that it is available) in response to court orders
that Google feels are valid.  Note, however, that Google also has an
admirable history of fighting data demands that it considers to be
inappropriate or overbroad.  The issue of overbroad identity demands
is an increasingly common one, currently in the news relating to the
Lesher/Topix case ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8239410 ).

Most people probably don't realize that the ease with which identity
information may be obtained is largely related to the particular  
policies
of the Internet entities involved.  Some hand over data given little
more than a nod and a wink.  Others, like Google and Topix for example,
usually required much more formal mechanisms -- a stance that I very
much agree with.

Most of us presumably don't feel that the Internet should be an excuse
for threats or libel.  On the other hand, demands for identity data
in some cases are simply inappropriate and threaten to strip the
privacy from innocent parties as well.  These are the sorts of issues
that courts exist to work through.

Finally, it's worth remembering that if someone *really* wants to
libel and do it anonymously, they can do so by finding an unprotected
Wi-Fi access point (perhaps spoofing a MAC address as well), create a
one-shot account and fire away -- with any blame and investigatory
hassles being unfortunately diverted to the owner of the access point
when IP addresses are traced.

--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: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

 - - -

On 08/20 13:02, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Paul Levy" <plevy () citizen org>
> Date: August 20, 2009 12:49:23 PM EDT
> To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Canadian model gets Google to reveal blogger's
> identity
>
> This story is based on the winning lawyer's overstatement of the
> significance of his decision.  According to the decision, New York law
> requires the same thing that most courts have said is required under  
> the
> First Amendment -- notice to the Doe and a showing of a meritorious
> claim, including not only a legally valid claim but "evidentiary  
> facts"
> supporting those claims.  In this case, it appears that the legal  
> debate
> was not over whether Ms. Cohen was, literally, a "ho" or "skank" --  
> the
> affidavit from Ms. Cohen that submitted in support of the subpoena to
> Google averred that she was not, and the Doe defendant did not make an
> issue of whether there was an adequate showing of falsity with respect
> to those matters -- but whether the blogger's posting of pictures,
> apparently taken in part from Cohen's own web pages, and then  
> commenting
> using such words as "ho" and "skank", represented actionable  
> statements
> of fact or nonactionable expressions of opinion.
>
> The consensus standard does not mean, and should not mean, that the  
> Doe
> always wins.
> I think one can fairly differ about whether the New York trial judge
> correctly applied the New York decisions construing the law under the
> First Amendment (and New York’s own constitution) that differentiate
> opinion from fact.  Presumably, that is one of the matters that the
> Doe's lawyers are going to be considering as they decide whether or  
> not
> to take an appeal.  But the decision is not generally at odds with the
> prevailing view in all states (including New York, in such cases as
> Greenbaum v Google) that a would be plaintiff like Ms. Cohen has to
> ensure notice to the Doe and make a leghal and factual showing of a
> tenable claim.
>
> It is a bit disturbing that Ms. Cohen is quoted publicly suggesting
> that she may not really care  to go after the blogger who posted this
> nasty stuff, while her lawyers is quoted as saying he intends to  
> pursue
> a defamation suit.  Is this case only the product of her lawyer's  
> desire
> to litigate?  One of the things that we worry about in trying to  
> craft a
> sufficiently balanced standard is the abuse of subpoenas for the mere
> purpose of unmasking, rather than to pursue a genuine defamation  
> claim.
> In light of the quotations in this article, perhaps it remains to be
> seen what this proceeding was really about.
>
> Readers can judge all this for themselves by reading the New York
> court's decision, Ms. Cohen's complaint and supporting affidavits, and
> the Doe's brief, which can all be found on the Cyberslapp web site at
> http://www.cyberslapp.org/cases/page.cfm?PageID=92
>
> Paul Alan Levy
> Public Citizen Litigation Group
> 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20009
> (202) 588-1000
> http://www.citizen.org/litigation
>
> > > > David Farber <dave () farber net> 8/20/2009 12:21 PM >>>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: michael.slavitch () gmail com
> Date: August 20, 2009 11:16:27 AM EDT
> To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Canadian model gets Google to reveal blogger's identity
> Reply-To: michael.slavitch () gmail com
>
> For IP: Anonymity isn't what people think it is.
>
>
> http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/canadian-model-gets-google-tounmaskanastyblogger/article1257768/?service=mobile
>
>
> Michael Slavitch
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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




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