Nowhere to hide, libel not covered by 1st Options

[lilburne]

Court orders hand over of identity of anonymous wikipedia editors.

http://lawkipedia.com/social-networking/id...-amendment.html

libel not covered by 1st - apparently.

[Silver seren]

Ah, no, I didn't read that far.

Yeah, internet anonymity seems to be heading toward an end. I used to make fun of Canada because of Stephen Harper trying to make internet anonymity illegal (and then not really doing anything about it), but we're not really that much better here.

[Somey]

Yeah, internet anonymity seems to be heading toward an end. I used to make fun of Canada because of Stephen Harper trying to make internet anonymity illegal (and then not really doing anything about it), but we're not really that much better here.

It may be too early to say "I told you so," but this is very close to what I've been going on about for five years now. Politicians are stupid, and court judges aren't that much smarter, at least when it comes to "new media." They're not going to want to make the distinction between anonymous blog commenters and anonymous encyclopedia-article-editors, or even between anonymous participants (in interactive websites) and anonymous readers. They're just going to want to do what their corporate-lobby masters want them to do, and that means fewer rights and less privacy for you, more rights and more profits for them.

Meanwhile, website operators like the WMF will continue to abuse (or allow the abuse of) the advantages that user-anonymity gives them, until it's ultimately taken away almost completely. Sure, "hacktivists" and other anonymous subcultures will continue to exist, but Wikipedia isn't some underground organization - without its heavy traffic and (related) Google-dominance, it could fade into second-tier status very quickly.

[lilburne]

Yeah, internet anonymity seems to be heading toward an end. I used to make fun of Canada because of Stephen Harper trying to make internet anonymity illegal (and then not really doing anything about it), but we're not really that much better here.

It may be too early to say "I told you so," but this is very close to what I've been going on about for five years now. Politicians are stupid, and court judges aren't that much smarter, at least when it comes to "new media." They're not going to want to make the distinction between anonymous blog commenters and anonymous encyclopedia-article-editors, or even between anonymous participants (in interactive websites) and anonymous readers. They're just going to want to do what their corporate-lobby masters want them to do, and that means fewer rights and less privacy for you, more rights and more profits for them.

Meanwhile, website operators like the WMF will continue to abuse (or allow the abuse of) the advantages that user-anonymity gives them, until it's ultimately taken away almost completely. Sure, "hacktivists" and other anonymous subcultures will continue to exist, but Wikipedia isn't some underground organization - without its heavy traffic and (related) Google-dominance, it could fade into second-tier status very quickly.

Hmmm I'm not too sure. Justice Eady in the UK, who seems to be quite big on defamation and privacy, has dismissed libel in comments on discussion board posts as equivalent to chatter down the pub. The Judges are capable of determining the impact of the website in question, so those commenting in Joe's personal blog will have less to worry about than say a reputed and widely read blogger's postings, or an insertion into a WP article. As the site gains in perceived reputation and authoritativeness so the liability increases for anything that is added as main article there.

[Newyorkbrad]

Yeah, internet anonymity seems to be heading toward an end. I used to make fun of Canada because of Stephen Harper trying to make internet anonymity illegal (and then not really doing anything about it), but we're not really that much better here.

It may be too early to say "I told you so," but this is very close to what I've been going on about for five years now. Politicians are stupid, and court judges aren't that much smarter, at least when it comes to "new media." They're not going to want to make the distinction between anonymous blog commenters and anonymous encyclopedia-article-editors, or even between anonymous participants (in interactive websites) and anonymous readers. They're just going to want to do what their corporate-lobby masters want them to do, and that means fewer rights and less privacy for you, more rights and more profits for them.

Meanwhile, website operators like the WMF will continue to abuse (or allow the abuse of) the advantages that user-anonymity gives them, until it's ultimately taken away almost completely. Sure, "hacktivists" and other anonymous subcultures will continue to exist, but Wikipedia isn't some underground organization - without its heavy traffic and (related) Google-dominance, it could fade into second-tier status very quickly.

Hmmm I'm not too sure. Justice Eady in the UK, who seems to be quite big on defamation and privacy, has dismissed libel in comments on discussion board posts as equivalent to chatter down the pub. The Judges are capable of determining the impact of the website in question, so those commenting in Joe's personal blog will have less to worry about than say a reputed and widely read blogger's postings, or an insertion into a WP article. As the site gains in perceived reputation and authoritativeness so the liability increases for anything that is added as main article there.

Interesting. I haven't read the British cases on this issue, but the cases in New York on "John Doe" discovery so far seem to focus most heavily on the fact/opinion distinction.