[IP] Anonymity (a note from Reed and a reply from Steele

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Shari Steele <ssteele@eff.org>
Date: December 2, 2008 8:44:26 AM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set -  
Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?

Hi Dave.
Feel free to forward this to the IP list.

<sigh>  We don't champion an absolute right to anonymity.  Our much  
more nuanced stance is that anonymity should not be able to be pierced  
unless there is something more than an empty allegation of underlying  
criminal wrongdoing--there must be some proof that there is actual  
illegality involved--not absolute proof, but enough proof to make a  
case.  Predictably, most folks who try to find out the identity of an  
anonymous poster (or, more correctly, a pseudonymous poster) have no  
proof of wrongdoing and are looking for that identity for retribution  
purposes.  A brief look at our website would make this clear to anyone  
who wants to check it out.

I don't expect to change David's mind about us, but I sure would be  
honored to have his support.
Shari

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Shari Steele                                        ssteele@eff.org
Executive Director                             415.436.9333 (voice)
Electronic Frontier Foundation        415.436.9993 (fax)
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

Become an EFF member!  -- http://www.eff.org/support/


On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Dave Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>
> > Date: December 1, 2008 6:12:15 PM EST
> > To: dave@farber.net
> > Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents  
> > Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online  
> > ToS?
> >
> > This discussion seems confused.  Privacy on this list (IP) gets  
> > mistakenly conflated with "information protection", which is a  
> > subset of privacy in the law (and a smaller subset of privacy in  
> > the culture and norms of life).
> >
> > Privacy in the law is a "right to be left alone".  That includes  
> > protection from harassment (whether anonymously or not - anonymity  
> > is not a "get out of jail free" card against harassment), the right  
> > to a legal abortion, etc.  Some such rights are constitutional,  
> > some are legislated.
> >
> > Harassment *is* a violation of privacy.
> >
> > Freedom of speech (first amendment or cultural norm-based) is a  
> > quite different legal animal.
> >
> > EFF is not primarily a "privacy" organization.  It does what it  
> > does. Championing an absolute right to anonymity in public speech  
> > is one of its causes. It's one of the reasons I have chosen not to  
> > be a member of EFF, despite supporting many of its causes.
> >
> > The idea that there is an absolute right to "anonymous public  
> > speech" has any number of problems.
> >
> > Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of personal belief, I find  
> > anonymity troubling.  It's constructive when the fears it responds  
> > to are unjust, unfair, and so forth.  But when it reflects a  
> > criminal's fear of being found out, it has no justification.  
> > Further, anonymity often is used to proclaim falsehoods: as it is  
> > when "unnamed sources" are used by journalists to promote wars and  
> > other dangerous societal interventions.
> >
> > Courts of law require that evidence be entered by non-anonymous  
> > witnesses.  Accused people have a right to confront their accusers.
> >
> > Let's not, therefore, conflate "privacy" with absolutist rights of  
> > anonymous speech.  You can argue for either, but one is not the  
> > same as the other.






-------------------------------------------