Beware, anonymous hordes of the internet. Next time you say something nasty about someone online, your identity could be revealed. That’s what a judge in Indiana ruled recently in a defamation case against the The Indianapolis Star. The lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Miller, an executive at something called Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, who didn’t like what some people were saying about him on Star comment boards.
The ruling forced The Star to turn over info like IP addresses and internet providers, after which an attorney can subpoena the provider for real names. While it’s a win for Mr. Miller, others are thinking about the wider implications of the case, mainly whether this will have a chilling effect on speech on the internet.
This is not good.
Tor?
‘While it’s a win for Mr. Miller, others are thinking about the wider implications of the case, mainly whether this will have a chilling effect on speech on the internet…’
oh, so you mean all those trolls will now have to give their real names now?? Good….
I can imagine cases where our ID’s should be revealed. Can’t we all? — OK–LIEberTARDS can’t because they partake of no social responsibility.
Likewise, I can imagine such access to be abused.
Sadly, I don’t trust the court to tell the difference==in all cases.
But can I offer an alternative? No.
Therefore: let democracy rule.
John C Dvorak is a poopoohead! I have proof!
Just kidding, JCD.
Uh Oh! But, I still stand by what I said.
I don’t like what people say about me also.
Let the mayhem begin!
I don’t think this has wider implications for the internet.
This is a newspaper letters column – there is generally a requirement for contributors to submit their name and address (not for publication).
The judge quite reasonably decided that sending a letter to the editor via “a set of tubes” was no different than on paper.
If you’re going to visit a lamestream site, “borrow” someones connection and use a proxy.
Here in the UK, a Judge just ruled on this same issue, but with the opposite outcome. I was mildly surprised that common sense persevered.
http://out-law.com/page-11798
Link is to the online presence of a “respectable” UK law firm. (I actually think they may be respectable, if a law firm can be such a thing)
Excellent, won’t hurt free speech at all.
Its the death knell of 80% insane and hateful speech.
About 20% will be unaffected, that how many are insane and hateful and don’t give a damn.
Iffy call by the judge. Though I’ve never been a “troll,” I’m glad I haven’t lived in Indiana for a very long time.
Will guest this is the end of the end of internet
#8 – that is a shocking level of good sense by a judge in a libel case!
Thinking of the ruling on the guy who said Robin Hood airport should be blown up. The judge agreed that it was a silly comment to a mate, but that he was still a terrorist!
I’m just glad I haven’t offended anyone.
Obligatory when this stuff is posted anywhere on the net:
Cursor_
free web proxy?
vpn?
chain them?
Why not make the government warrantless wiretappers work for a living?
I don’t see how you can be defamed by an anonymous person. Should we send evidence teams to figure out who has been writing nasty stuff on bathroom walls as well?
This could be easily solved by not storing the information in the future. Keeping too much user information is not smart.
If trolling were my past time I would use Tor. It’s not rocket science you know. Seriously.
Question, How many people actually give out their real identity when filling out the questions? Second question, how many are using a neighbors unprotected WAN, or a free wireless say Starbucks etc.? That’s what I thought. This will work sure it will.
So now I have to warn my neighbors not to troll while using my WiFi?
Shit, am I protected at the library using my Zune?
Hahahaha come and get me coppers!
Does the anonymous target of flames now have to reveal himself/herself/itself in order to start the ball rolling on revealing the flamer?