Should We Control Anonymous Propaganda?

After all, it's always good to consider the source, but how can you consider the source when the source is anonymous or assuming a different identity?

The unique characteristics of Internet communications present new challenges to the issue of anonymity, the "concealing of one's identity while communicating, thus enabling the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation."

The Internet offers individuals with very little money or political power the vehicle to potentially reach large audiences and make a real impact, thus leveling the playing field. Although the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment guarantee free speech, that does not protect individuals with unpopular opinions from retaliation (loss of job, anonymous threats, etc.). Anonymity is often the only protection in many cases.

As is the case with all personal freedoms, anonymity on the Internet is often used to inflict harm...for example, posting an individual's private information, spreading false or damaging statements, etc. However if whatever is spread causes harm, liability and monetary damages may be awarded.

Proving "harm" is another story. First you must hire an attorney to file for a subpoena to serve upon the ISP in order to reveal the identify of the "defamer", who then has the right to file a "motion to quash." The burden of proof is on the person defamed, so he or sher must present "prima facie" evidence that the accused did inflict harm. The inconvenience and cost can be prohibitive, leaving most of us at the mercy of anonymous evildoers lurking amongst us.

Then, there is the propaganda mill. It's bad enough when we can the "who" behind the information designed to mislead or persuade us, but when the propagandist conceals his identity, the impact could be that much greater. Wikipedia is one example where the "anonymous" go to propagandize. However, as in the case of Wikipedia, most *wikis track the editor's ip address, so, it' fairly simple to see that much of the so-called anonymous editing is coming from Congress, the CIA, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition, large corporations get in on the act: "Someone from Halliburton deleted key information from an entry on war crimes; someone from Diebold, an electronic-voting machine manufacturer, deleted sections of its entry about a lawsuit filed against it. Someone at Pepsi deleted information about health problems caused by the soft drink. Somebody at The New York Times deleted huge chunks of information from the entry on the Wall Street Journal." And of course, the CIA has been editing the entry on the Iraq war.

Fortunately, Wikiscanner and other similar tools allow us to search the millions of edits across the wiki spectrum so that we may consider the source. And, it's never been easier to do our own research for verification purposes.

The idea of government legislating against anonymous Internet posting, editing, etc. is unconstitutional and creates more problems than it solves. Enforcing it alone would be impossible and extraordinarily time consuming and costly. So, since we, the people have the tools to do our own research and check the sources of our information, anonymous propaganda is not all that troublesome . As for the other issues, it's the price we pay for living in a free society.

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society." -- 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

The Changing Web and Copyright.

*In a nutshell, a wiki is a collection of collaborative Web pages that allow users to modify entries, thus, a wiki is constantly changing depending on who creates or revises the entries.

Read more...

Good News! You're Not Liable for Bumping!

No, not chest bumping, although I can think of several reason why liability might be an issue, but we won't go there.

Nope, it's far more liberating than Bush's chest bumping or Obama's fist bumping. It's Internet post or thread bumping.

If you have spent night after night, tossing and turning, worrying about whether what you've bumped on the Internet, there is good news for you:

"Bump messages" - new comments posted to older messages in order to move them current on a forum or web site - are not considered republication, therefore you can not be sued for liable. Whew! I can finally get some sleep.

On 12/10/08, in Admission Consultants Inc. v. Google, Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn of Manhattan denied Admission Consultants request that Google give up identifying information aimed at obtaining the names and addresses of two anonymous posters to BusinessWeek's Web site. Admission Consultants claimed that each bump message republished the defamatory material, therefore "constituted an actionable statement". In other words, they sued for bumping.

Citing Gregoire v. Putnam's Sons, (1948), Justice Cahn said:

"Under the 'single publication rule,' which New York follows, the publication of a defamatory statement in a single issue of a newspaper or magazine, although widely circulated and distributed, constitutes one publication that gives rise to the cause of action. That rule applies here to the modification of an Internet Web site,"

Justice Cahn concluded:

"Subjecting a single modification of an Internet Web site, such as a bump message, to the definition of a republication of defamation would have a 'serious inhibitory effect' on this form of communication."

Some other ground-breaking lawsuits:

I was circumsized, dammit!

My dress fell apart at the altar!

My thong injured by eye!

Poop happens.

Don't hug me!

Brooklyn Judge sues for negligent use of soapy water, mop bucket and wringer.

Read more...

Google Will Hand Over Anonymous Blogger's IP Address

This is a little scary.

"In an unprecedented move, Google Inc. (Nasdaq:GOOG) has agreed to supply the IP address of an Israeli blogger who used "Google Blogger" for a blog in which he slandered Shaarei Tikva council members running for reelection. The election is being held today. So far as is known, this is the first time that Google forewent legal action in such a case."

Read more...

Like a Condom for your Computer.

The DemocraKey was created in May of 2006. Within two days, over 60,000 people had read about the DemocraKey and built their own. It was featured on MSN, Digg, Lifehacker, and hundreds of other pages. Now, it’s entering version 2.0, where it becomes a complete, portable privacy suite. We can’t trust unknown computers to be secure, so the DemocraKey helps scan and surf securely from computer to computer.

Eventually, the DemocraKey will also encrypt and store personal documents, creating an entire personal security suite.

Read more...