Internet "Secret" ID to be Revealed

[Chan Ho]

Here is a link to a case in Buffalo Grove involving a case when a judge agreed to reveal an internet poster's true ID. This might be a cautionary tale for Topix posters who might have opened themselves up to legal action by posting slanderous, libelous, or homicidal threats here. So much for the anonymity of the internet!

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/tr...

[ollie]

I too have been watching the Buffalo Grove case and while I am surprised at the judges ruling, I'm sure by raising ollie's name you are referring to ollie from Lockport. I have never threatened, harassed or bullied anyone on this forum. All I have done is ask trout to explain his LIES about serving in the military http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lockport-il/T...

He keeps ducking the question but if there's anyone on this forum who should be nervous about the ruling, my vote would be for Trout. Re-read his posts and you'll see they are full of violent imagery, harassing statements and threats.

Here we are one day before Veteran's Day, on a day when when soldiers are being remembered at Fort Hood, and Trout has yet to explain or retract his claims to have served 4 tours in Vietnam.

Nervous, Trout?

[Kevin]

I'm not a fan of ruling against Internet anonymity. I post using my real names, but I support anonymity for two reasons:

1. Both internationally and at home it allows people to be publicly critical or in favor of things that they couldn't be due to fear of reprisal whether it is in regards to government bodies or companies they work for.

2. It isn't illegal to tell people to f_ck off even if they're depressed and commit suicide (I know this is cold, but at least for now its true,)and Internet Tough Guys that threaten and harrass others in most forums do so without any way of backing up their comments. Trout or the Chicago Troll will never meet each other. They realize this and therefore their harrassment of one another is really baseless and harmless. Topix has a Terms of Service agreement and a Report Abuse option; if they choose to allow the banter on their site its their right to do so.

[Kevin]

And just to expound for a moment: there is abuse of anonymity, but in many cases harrassment is done out in the open. Women with Myspace pages or Facebook accounts threatening ex girlfriends of their current boyfriends aren't anonymous and therefore should be held accountable for any defamation or harrassment. People that register for site that requires personal contact information are only anonymous if that site's privacy policy allows them to be in certain situations.

I can go on and on, but overall I think there is a tendency in government to try and regulate the Internet. If they start by holding people responsible for posting ridiculous comments on anonymous forums what is to stop them from nailing people for political reasons? I can say Pat Quinn is an a__hole. Maybe some day I won't be able to.

[Chan Ho]

Well put, Kevin. Well put. Unless there is some concrete way to prove injury through an anonymous posting, then there really should be no reason to reveal anyone's ID, imo. You mention political and employment related retribution as beneficiaries of such a ruling, and I agree. I'm glad I never posted how my boss is a two-bit cheatin' "hor"or who had been blo ing her boos, and then finally divorced her long-suffering husband only after she got a promotion(thanks to her all-too-eager lover) and a HUGE pay hike. Ooops... did I just post that?????

[Kevin]

Trout wrote:

<quoted text>
Chan, what has gotten into you?

That was hilarious!

[Chan Ho]

Trout wrote:

<quoted text>
Chan, what has gotten into you?

Just a lame-o attempt at humor. But the first part about internet anonymity was heartfelt. I do feel that public figures are open targets when it comes to TRUE allegations, as well as public opinion in regards to decisions made by our elected officials. If one can't voice their dissatisfaction with the choices our elected officials make without fear of reprisal, then we're all in trouble. I am very concerned about this judge's ruling in the Lisa Stone case, and how it may be applied in the future by other elected officials. BTW, I do know the case had nothing to do with any decision she made in an official capacity, but rather a personal attack on a member of her family.

[ollie]

Chan Ho wrote:

<quoted text>Just a lame-o attempt at humor. But the first part about internet anonymity was heartfelt. I do feel that public figures are open targets when it comes to TRUE allegations, as well as public opinion in regards to decisions made by our elected officials. If one can't voice their dissatisfaction with the choices our elected officials make without fear of reprisal, then we're all in trouble. I am very concerned about this judge's ruling in the Lisa Stone case, and how it may be applied in the future by other elected officials. BTW, I do know the case had nothing to do with any decision she made in an official capacity, but rather a personal attack on a member of her family.

Not "just a member of her family" but an minor. The mainstream press has been pretty good about a "hands off" policy when it comes to public officials' children, but the unregulated internet does not need to follow the same rules. News sites associated with press like NYT, WaPo, WSJ and others will monitor their behavior, but the internet as a whole is not about moderating or monitoring. Although anyone using the internet that worries about their anonymity should be aware of phone company and ISP cooperation, without warrants, with federal government agencies. I do not support retroactive immunity for the companies that cooperated. federal law prohibits such action, but watch the companies scramble to get language inserted and passed that protects them retroactively. Check out the RESTORE Act http://www.speaker.gov/blog/... which has a December 2009 sunset clause. Don't you just love the goofy acronyms (PATRIOT ACT, anyone?) that our gov't uses.