This is not a new subject, nor an easy one, and despite Zhuo taking a clear stance on it, she does present both sides of the debate: accountability vs. privacy and freedom of expression.

A lot of blogs are encouraging (or even requiring in some cases) users to log in with their Facebook accounts. There’s no question that Facebook has a vested interest in the decay of anonymity. Facebook wants to own your identity. Facebook has always looked down on anonymity though, even before Facebook Connect existed. That’s why unlike MySpace or Twitter, Facebook requires you to use an actual name (rather than a handle) for your Facebook Profile. 

While there are cases where fake accounts are created, Facebook has even over-enforced this policy in some cases. Remember the woman named Yoda that was blocked because she shared a name with a popular Star Wars character? 

That’s not to say Zhuo doesn’t make a compelling case, citing known examples of when anonymous comment "trolls" have crossed well over the line of human decency. Here’s a sample from the piece:

After Alexis Pilkington, a 17-year-old Long Island girl, committed suicide earlier this year, trolls descended on her online tribute page to post pictures of nooses, references to hangings and other hateful comments. A better-known example involves Nicole Catsouras, an 18-year-old who died in a car crash in California in 2006. Photographs of her badly disfigured body were posted on the Internet, where anonymous trolls set up fake tribute pages and in some cases e-mailed the photos to her parents with subject lines like “Hey, Daddy, I’m still alive.”

Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behavior. Road rage bubbles up in the relative anonymity of one’s car. And in the online world, which can offer total anonymity, the effect is even more pronounced. People — even ordinary, good people — often change their behavior in radical ways. There’s even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect.

Still you have to think a lot of valuable content would be lost if comments were no longer able to be anonymous. Some people just don’t want to put themselves out there like that, and it’s not always a matter of accountability. Some people just have genuine concerns about privacy. 

I’m sure there are also plenty of people who have valuable things to add to conversations that just don’t feel like taking the extra steps necessary to authenticate their identities (not everyone is a Facebook user, mind you, and not all Facebook users trust Facebook with their privacy).  On the other hand, it would reduce the noise too.

Then there is the fact that enforcing any kind of accountability is just not an easy task, and Zhuo acknowledges this. People can give fake names, email addresses, etc. Although, this may be one of Facebook’s ways of encouraging Facebook email address adoption too.

It’s an interesting problem with no easy solutions. If the web has taught us anything during its existence, it’s that people will always find ways to abuse it.  

Caller ID has been a pretty popular feature for phones though. 

Do you think online anonymity should be erased? Do you think it can be? Share your thoughts.
 

A little history: Port’s blog uses Google’s Blogger software.  Port used her blog to call model Liskula Cohen a skank.  Cohen then sued in order to find out who was behind the insult, and following a legal skirmish, a federal judge forced Google to hand over the relevant information.

That brings us to the $15 million lawsuit-in-the-making.  Port told George Rush, "Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me.  I would think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate would protect the rights of all its users."

And according to Port’s lawyer, Salvatore Strazzullo, Google "breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity."  He also said, "I’m ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."

Either a win or a loss could have a significant impact on how anonymous bloggers operate.  We’ll keep an eye on the matter.

The most recent incident involves handing over information to the Jacksonville, Fla. Sheriff’s Dept. to help identify an anonymous blogger critical of the pastor of a local Baptist megachurch. In September of last year, the pastor, John Blount, filed a police report regarding “possible criminal overtones” on the blog FBCJaxWatchdog, hosted on Google’s Blogspot service.

Once Robert Hinson, the detective assigned to the case, received a subpoena requiring Google “to provide all information, including names, screen names and address, of the anonymous writer,” Google blindly complied. Though Hinson closed the investigation because he found no criminal activity, the church issued a trespass warning to Thomas Rich and his wife, apparently now excommunicated from First Baptist Church. Hanson has investigated two other bloggers as well.

What’s very important to note here is that, despite the Sheriff’s office saying the detective was just doing his job, law enforcement was able to force Google to reveal the identities of a law abiding citizens exercising their right to anonymous free speech based on accusations of possible criminal overtones in written communication, not based on any actual evidence of wrongdoing. In effect, Blount and Hinson, and Google by default, presumed Rich guilty until proven innocent.

The power structure’s desire to strip anonymity from the digital landscape is reaching disturbing levels. It has grown beyond the “three times makes a trend” rule in journalism and becomes a full-blown epidemic—it’s happening all over the country and world. A Kentucky legislator was famously shouted down for introducing a bill that would outlaw anonymous commentary. An Alaskan politician recently outed an anonymous critic for no reason other than he didn’t like anonymous bloggers. German police raided a Wikileaks volunteer because of the anonymous leak and posting of a secret Australian website blacklist.

A bill recently introduced in the US Congress and passed by the House of the Representatives at the end of March is intended to prevent the federal government from compelling a journalist from revealing his or her sources. However, it still contains language defining who is considered a journalist, and by default, who is not. According to the bill’s language, an unpaid, unprofitable blogger would enjoy no such protections.

Quite obviously no branch of the government (apparently anywhere) cares about the First Amendment rights anonymous bloggers or nonprofit, gadfly bloggers. And, as per usual, where the government actively seeks to deny the rights of citizens in the digital realm, the citizens will find no refuge in terms of service agreements of large corporations, nor in surface-level digital democracies.

Like your privacy, your right to anonymity is an illusion.
 

All of this stems from a case where a Dunkin Donuts franchise received some non-complimentary anonymous comments about its bathroom cleanliness on the online forum NewsZap.com run by Independent Newspapers. The store is in Centreville, MD and having never been there I, Frank Reed, have no comment as to the cleanliness of their facilities. I will say though that I have encountered a few Dunkin’ Donut restrooms that could be introduced to some disinfectant and air freshener for sure but I digress.

The franchise owner claims that the anonymous posters on this forum defamed his store. This is where this ruling gets pretty unclear as to whether anonymity is actually being protected. Apparently the plaintiff misidentified the actual posts in his complaint. In other words, this guy screwed up. The appeals court is acting on a technicality of sorts because this franchise owner was sloppy. If he had identified the posts correctly (how in the world did that not happen in the first place?) would this have been overturned?

The court says that it is trying to balance the right of anonymous speech on the Internet with the right for a target of any defamatory remarks to seek protection from those kind of remarks.

A CNET blurb on this subject continues

In a defamation case involving anonymous speakers, the ruling said, courts should first require the plaintiff to try to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena. That notification could come in the form of a message posted to the online forum in question, and the posters must be given sufficient time to respond.

The plaintiff must then hand over the exact statements in question, so the court can decide whether the comments are obviously defamatory. Finally, the ruling says, the court must weigh the anonymous poster’s right to free speech against the strength of the defamation case and the necessity of disclosing the poster’s identity.

That’s interesting. First, if you have any stones whatsoever don’t post anonymously. It’s just a cowardly act and any thinking Internet user would hopefully discount any type of remark that comes from someone who can’t use their name to take credit for the comments. Second, with a little due diligence this case may have looked a lot different because remember the crux of the ruling was about the misidentification of these anonymous posts. Lastly, I wonder how many people even saw these comments? I know for sure that one of the first things I do when I research which Dunkin’ Donuts I will visit I HAVE to read someone’s opinion.  C’mon, I just need a coffee and couple of donuts then I’m gone.

Expect this kind of story to be more frequent as the economy continues to suffer because the courts may be the new way for people to generate income. Boy oh boy I can’t wait!

Comments

Kentucky State Representative, Tim Couch

In summary, House Bill 775 would require anyone who wants to leave a comment on a Web site to register their real name, address, and e-mail address with the Web site. They would be expected to use their real name whenever they commented. Web site operators who would not abide by the law would be fined $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for any additional violation.

Considering how powerful the issue is, the WebProNews video department tried repeatedly to contact Representative Tim Couch for a video interview. When Mr. Couch returned our calls, he declined the interview saying he was overwhelmed with the feedback this bill has brought.

Mr.Couch says his name has been slashed all over the blogosphere for this bill. I tried to persuade him the interview would give him the opportunity to explain to the blogosphere his original intentions, but he still declined saying:

“I only wanted to make a statement, and I did.”

Mr. Couch told me over the phone that he is being attacked on the Internet. He has received countless e-mails and phone calls not only at his office, but also at his home. His daughter received a call that contained severe “foul language.”

He said, “I am not a Communist,” like he thinks the blogosphere is making him out to be.

On the Lexington Herald-Leader blog, Pol Watchers, John Cheves gives the explanation that Mr. Couch was trying to protect the children in his district.

"Some nasty things have been said about high school kids in my district, usually by other kids. The adults get in on it, too."

Drew Curtis of the famous Fark.com, which is based in Kentucky, wrote, “Kentucky lawmaker wants to r-u-n-n-o-f-t largest website in the state. Drew looking forward to moving Fark to the Cayman Islands.”

Mr. Couch also told WebProNews that he does not think the bill will go anywhere especially after the strong response he’s received. He said he would like the negativity to stop, and he’s very busy at the moment working on the state budget.

Second rule of politics for incumbents: If you go to the trouble to introduce a bill, be prepared to defend it until the bitter end, even if you know in your heart it will never pass, not in a million years, unless futility somehow becomes a desired legislative virtue.

Oh wait. Scratch that futility part. Futility gives the administrative branches of government something to do*.

Ahem. On with the article, right?

Kentucky state representative Tim Couch** (R-Hyden), introduced a bill to the General Assembly that would bar Kentuckians from anonymously commenting on Websites, or via their own blogs. The bill would require anyone leaving a comment to provide their real name, address, and email address to the website on which they wish to comment. Website operators would be required to enforce this policy or face fines.

Yes, their home address, too, which I think is illegal in Michigan.

Does Couch think this legislative measure will pass or even do any good to combat the cowardly drive-by anonymous jibes left on countless websites everyday? Well, no, not really. This bill was just to get your attention, not for real legislative purposes.

John Cheves reports Couch doesn’t think it will go anywhere or that the legislature can do anything about it in reality. Also in reality, Couch is using his legislative powers to bring attention to online bullying, especially when bullying is exacerbated by parents who join in on the anonymous gauntlet, which we can agree is pretty cowardly and rotten.

This quote was the kicker, though: "I think right now (online posting) is pretty much just on its own. It’s a machine that’s going to go its own way," Couch said. "The state can try to pass some rules, but I don’t really think it would do anything."

But he introduced it anyway, House Bill 775, dubbed "Prohibit anonymous blogging," just to show us Kentuckians our money is well-spent. Tip: If you’re going to be introducing symbolic protest bills, better reconsider that whole casino gambling thing so we have a better way to pay for them.

Then again, without the logic to support bills-to-nowhere, we wouldn’t have the logic to support why state lotteries, horse racing, and bingo are okay while casinos, back-room and online poker games, and betting on sports are not. Ahem. But I digress.

I don’t think I need to talk about freedom of speech, the First Amendment, civil liberties, or the necessity for anonymous speech even if it is abused by a few dastardly, yella-bellies—I get a few of those comin’ by sometimes myself. Perhaps an anonymous commentator called "rossh" can present that defense for me:

"The erosion of personal liberties continues ever so quietly … The government is here to protect us."

Well said, whoever you are.

And something like that is not something to be taken so lightly that you risk civil liberties just to get attention. God forbid you get enough votes to actually pass it.

The good news: It’s an election year and Couch has 3 Republican opponents signed up to run against in Leslie County, or thereabouts.

*The Third Rule, of course, is: Do not play with the electorate’s inalienable rights endowed by their Creator, yada yada, what Thomas Jefferson said.

*While not the famous rocket-armed quarterback, Rep. Couch shares his name and his home county with Tim Couch. And he kinda looks like him, too. Guessing there’s a relation, then, but just guessing. In a county of 12,400, I suppose it’s possible there are two unrelated Tim Couches who kinda look alike.  

Hiding Behind Your Computer Is Still Allowed

Late last week, the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County ruled against a Massachusetts-based real estate developer’s petition to unmask the identity of an anonymous website operator, who set up a site dedicated to exposing the developer’s business practices.

PaulMcMann.com isn’t owned by Paul McMann. Well, it was owned by him until he let the registration lapse. The domain was snatched up by an angry (anonymous) business associate who is now using the domain as a headquarters for an online campaign warning others about him. The anonymous webmaster invites others to tell about their experiences on the site.

The site owner also alleges McMann attempted to hire a hacker to take it down to circumvent the legal process. Someone at least going by the handle PaulMcMann posted an ad here entitled “Hacker Wanted.”

Without a hacker, the decision is thrown to the court, which ruled that without evidence of wrongdoing, the critic in question retained his or her First Amendment right to anonymity.

This is the second failed attempt to unmask McMann’s critic. Previously, according to Public Citizen, the Internet free speech organization representing the anonymous critic, McMann sent subpoenas to GoDaddy and to Domains by Proxy, the registrar and host of the new PaulMcMann.com, seeking the site owner’s identity.

The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed McMann’s claim in October, finding he did not have any legitimate claim for defamation, invasion of privacy, or copyright infringement.

“This victory is a win for the First Amendment right of free speech on the Internet,” said Greg Beck, an attorney for Public Citizen. “The court correctly recognized that people’s right to speak anonymously online should not be violated without good cause.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been on a similar mission recently, taking on Santa Barbara News-Press owner and publisher Wendy McCaw.

News-Press issued a subpoena to Google asking for the identity of pseudonymous blogger Sara de la Guerra, an anonymity-busting stop along the way to discovering who made an anonymous comment that allegedly influenced her editorial staff’s vote to unionize.

The EFF’s Corynne McSherry posts:

Hat tip to TechDirt.

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

The impersonal nature of instant messaging has proved a blessing for people who want to discuss mental health issues with a therapist, but would prefer to keep those visits as closely guarded as possible. A Wall Street Journal report noted a trio of services catering to those needs.

MyTherapyNet offers “E-mmediate Care” counseling for a $1.60 per minute fee. Patients can also book sessions with therapists according to the website. HelpHorizons connects people with therapists, while eGetGoing works as an online drug and alcohol rehabilitation site.

People who need these services frequently prove reluctant to seek them out. Any whiff of news of needing “help” with depression or addictive behavior would quickly circulate through a workplace. Even the suggestion that someone “can’t cope” without some help can destroy a career, along with a person’s reputation and relationships.

Instant messaging performed over a secure platform helps relieve the concern of being seen leaving a treatment facility or a therapist’s office by someone who may know the patient. In some opinions, that could have a downside.

The article raised concerns about treating people sight unseen. “What one gleans as a psychiatrist in a clinical assessment is not just from the words one says but from the emotions,” says Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. “Emoticons just don’t get you to the same place.”

Critics also worry about therapists attempting to treat suicidal patients, but providers have said they would recommend immediate personal help to anyone who may be a danger to themselves or others.

The use of technology can be a greater benefit than its potential pitfalls. Many therapists have worked by phone with patients for years, and email has become an extra method of communication. Instant messaging just adds to the available methods of connecting a patient and a therapist.

—
Tag:

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | PreFound.com

Bookmark WebProNews:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Among the indignant protests that came noisily tumbling to the front of our minds was a recollection of the Fourth Amendment. But EPIC.org s Sherwin Siy, speaking to a surprisingly small group at SES NY, says the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure, doesn’t apply in civil matters.

The panel assembled for the Search and Privacy track at SES also included MSN’s Ramez Naam, SearchEngineWatch.com’s Danny Sullivan, and Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu.

Wu, who co-authored the book “Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World,” framed it as a civil liberties issue that went beyond the US government.

“This just the beginning,” said Wu, giving a harrowing prediction of abuse by governments around the world. “There are many governments that are interested in this,” he said.

Perhaps even more eye opening, the panel agreed that the better a company is at aggregating data, and not destroying it, the more attractive that data will be to government entities.

The issue of privacy isn’t so much about what the US Dept. of Justice received, which was a basic list of queries and time frames. The issue surrounded what could be obtained in the future. Wu was quick to mention that European law was much stricter about user privacy than US law.

As WebProNews has covered in the past, the index kept by search engines like Google may have a tremendous amount of personally identifiable information that at the very least has a registered IP address. But some query logs will also hold an email address if a personalized service is used.

Siy pointed out that a subpoena to an Internet service provider would reveal to the government (or others) who was using a specific IP address. But also at issue here is the impact the ease of information retrieval has on the culture.

Public records, for example, at one time were difficult to find. Siy said they “went from the basement to the Web and are easily discovered. Until the information was available online, it wasn’t worth it to anyone to find it.”

But public records and publicly viewable information are a small hiccup compared the personal information Web users trade on a daily basis to acquire the services they desire.

“It’s a value exchange,” said Naam, referencing the benefits of personalization services offered by high-profile companies like Google, AOL, Yahoo, and MSN. Users agree to trade a little (or a lot) of privacy to make their online experience richer.

The key question, then, is whether the benefits of personalized service outweigh a certain level of privacy. The personal information granted to Google is stored on Google’s server. How long will the search engine be able to resist government subpoenas at home and abroad?

If a Web user is willing to forgo personalized features, they can use anonymizing software to help maintain their privacy.

Toward the end of the session, Sullivan expressed the need for some sort of Search Privacy Bill of Rights, and/or some kind of privacy notification posted on websites if only to avoid subpoena.

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to DiggThis Yahoo My Web

Technorati:

My position, as articulated at the Corante Web Hub and in my comments throughout the blogosphere is that the change merely extends similar policy to the Internet. In other words, as I wrote on a comment on La Shawn’s business blog, the law was simply “updated to reflect technical advances.” Once again, it appears people completely separate the physical from the virtual world – this type of activity is illegal offline and with other less virtual telecommunications devices.

I realize that there are some issues with the amendment (or at least, perceived issues – I’m no legal scholar). Namely, what qualifies “annoying”. More importantly though, is how will the government actually enforce this law? Technically speaking, they just don’t have the resources or infrastructure to do so.

But that is not the issue so many have here. Instead, it relates to what people believe is a removal of freedom – but does the law prohibit freedom of expression? Obviously not. As I wrote on Steve Rubel’s blog, “This legislation does not outlaw anonymous comments. Rather, anonymous comments “with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person.” In terms of this debate, I’ll stop here.

This particular issue gives me the ability to talk about identity in the online world. In Dick Hardt’s very intriguing Identity 2.0 talk at the Web 2.0 Conference, he makes the case for identity being about reputation. My reputation as a blogger extends beyond this blog. As you can see above, I comment often in the blogosphere – but how do people know that I am actually the one leaving the comments?

Even in a system where comments require user registration, there is no way to verify a blogger’s identity. That means identity fraud could easily occur. Someone could begin to defame my reputation or yours, by leaving comments with your name around the blogosphere.

Over the past two months, I’ve actually setup a makeshift means to do two things: 1) Help me keep track of my comments. 2) Help others to verify my comments. What I’ve done is simply tag my blogosphere comments in BlinkList with a mycomments tag. Today, I’ve put my most recent comment links, along with their abbreviated excerpts into my blog’s sidebar as well. It is my way of protecting myself and my digital reputation. If there is ever a question about a comment with my name, people can turn to mycomments page (of course, it’s missing everything prior to December).

This solution somewhat works because BlinkList requires me to sign-in, in order to add “blinks” to my list. My BlinkList user name is “kyarmosh” and now, since you know I write on this blog – I’ve verified my account for you.

For the government to enforce this updated legislation on the Internet, similar elements would need to be in place – a national sign-in with a means for digital identity verification. We are no where near that – if there is any reason to be mad about this amendment, it’s the fact that we don’t have the technology or infrastructure to support such an ambitious law.

Don’t be surprised in the future though (and I don’t know when), if people will have online ID’s issued by the government or local agencies. Thinking about the virtual world more in terms of the physical world is inevitable.

Ken Yarmosh is a consultant who helps organizations get the most out of their technology investments. He works with technology users and creators across various industries, focusing on technology education and strategy. With over 7 years IT experience, Ken has worked with small businesses, non-profits, federal agencies, and multi-million dollar companies.

His online efforts include acting as the Editor for the Corante Technology Hub and authoring the TECHNOSIGHT blog.