Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger 386
An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court. A preliminary ruling was issued in which a court indicated that the slander the blogger was accused of probably rose to the level of a criminal violation. Google Israel then made a deal with the plaintiffs, local city councilmen whom the blogger had been attacking for a year. Google disclosed the IP address only to the court, which posted a message (Google says the anonymous blogger got it) inviting him/her to contest the ruling anonymously. When no response was received within 3 days, Google turned over the IP address to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
double entendre (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like that guy could use a good IP attorney.
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you clearly don't know what anonymous means.
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Interesting)
i believe that slander, libel, defamation, etc are... perhaps outdated concepts. it is probably better for people to check their sources rather than pretend that it is safe to assume what you hear is true. i personally believe that the freedom to lie should not be restricted, even though lying is certainly a bad thing. this is partially because of how awkward cases for slander and libel and defamation can be.
many people, such as yourself, might define 'freedom of speech' differently from how i define it for myself -- and the law certainly has a different view of it than i do. but that's my opinion, and i think that absolute freedom of communication would work. (specifically, i mean allowing consenting parties to communicate whatever they want, not absolute freedom of speech which might be considered to include yelling into an unsuspecting person's ear)
or, to put it another way, if a mere pseudonym is slandering me, i might just ask, "why trust this person?". if people can learn how easy it is to be lied to, then they might learn to check their references, and slandering will become much more difficult. (of course, i do have significant doubts that people will learn to do this... but if people are sheltered from simple communication, then they might never learn.)
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Funny)
I would expect no less from a fascist wife beater like yourself.
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Funny)
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Funny)
Re:double entendre (Score:4, Insightful)
Very good point, but there are two reasons I think the concept of slander would still be valid:
a) The cases where anonymous message reveals information that only a reliable source would have, such as a passcode.
b) Even if people *shouldn't* accept self-serving unverifiable statements at face value, they do, and thus slander can wrongfully harm someone.
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
So take the Internet out of the equation.
It's cool for me to post unsigned flyers around your neighborhood, with your photo, full name, and address, claiming that "This man raped my daughter", because people should assume that it's not safe to trust anonymous flyers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If all that language did was communicate fact or opinion, then it would be easy to say "Don't trust anonymous sources," "Verify your data," etc.
But language does more than communicate information -- every act of speech is also inherently creative. When I say "The Duke lacrosse team beat and raped me," I am doing more than communicating a fact (true or false). I am calling into existence an instance of "rape" in the min
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something else I find disturbing is that a court did request the information. The fact that it was an informal hearing usually doesn't negate any actions or orders produced from it. You didn't bring it up, but the GP did so I wanted to kill two birds with one post.
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: "Anonymous has no weight"? (Score:3, Insightful)
But an entire class of people who fall prey to groupthink don't care that a gossip seed was originally "anonymous". It's tantalizing, and once they tell the story enough time themselves, they decide it's true by default.
When anonymous is combined with permitted lies, social structure breaks down because it opens the way for people to accuse each other of saying it. Trolling indeed.
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:double entendre (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying "the person being slandered" begs the question of whether slander has been committed.
If a court determines slander has been committed, the court will order the owner of the IP to be revealed, and presumably punished. Any "damages" can then be pursued in a civil suit. You seem to be arguing that you should have the right to demand the identity of anyone who you claim to have slandered you without regard for any standards of proof.
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Next the Israeli court
I really need something to do. But I lack motivation. I suppose I could blog
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
> Next the Israeli court
> I really need something to do. But I lack motivation. I suppose I could blog
And when (in Soviet Russia!), the Jews came for YOU, Google had already given them your IP address!
Re: (Score:2)
(You could say *I* missed it too, as I don't have mod points today)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
tell me why Google should ignore criminal abuse of its networks and services.
tell me why someone shouldn't have the right to ask Google for help in the prosecution of a crime.
tell me when "the right to privacy" became a right to injure others anonymously - safe from any consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
When it was discussed on Slashdot, of course. Silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Questioning the government and making false accusations against specific members of the government are two very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
-GiH
Re: (Score:2)
According to which final ruling? Innocent unless proven guilty.
I haven't heart the defense yet. Tell me why Google should be on the prosecutors side. This is Google taking a stand, instead of Google letting the judge make a stand first with a final ruling. He's probably guilty - which is what leads to emotional decisions like this, but I don't think you fully appreciate the glide path here. Are the commercial employees of Goo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They left a note on his blog and told him he had 72 hours to respond with his own comments. One of those actions was to respond to the court as an "anonymous".
The judge did not rule that Google should hand over the IP address. This was a preliminary ruling only. Google was not ordered by the court to do anything and indeed could have ignored the request without breaking any laws. They chose not too. They chose to take action t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think there would even be the consideration of something like this in the U.S. (not sure about other countries).
Re: (Score:2)
I, too, am not a firm believer in on-line anonymity: I think on balance it does more harm than good today, as cases like this illustrate. While I do understand that some people have a principled objection to compromising it, I take a pragmatic view on this one.
However, that doesn't mean just anyone should have access to just anything. We have judicial systems precisely to ensure that where any individual rights must be overridden in the interests of justice, it is done in a controlled way and with due pro
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This post offends my sensibilities. Can we have your real name, please.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds, from a distance, like a case where Google made the correct decision, but...
Who gets to define "criminal"? How is this different from turning over the id of a Chinese journalist?
When powerful people get to define what is a crime, then I'm not easy about "criminal" being used as a justifier for the breaking of confidentiality.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The government. Any and all governments. Each individual government in each individual jurisdication where that government holds power. Even governments we view as being corrupt or morally reprehensible to the determent of their own people.
Google was ordered to by the legal court in the country. Google was not ordered so in this case. There was no court order, merely a preliminary ruling. Different country, different law.
Tough. Criminals have few rights, in some countries less than others. Rights to a "fair trial" or "innocent until proven guilty" are all at the discretion of the ruling power in the land - whichever land that may be - and often on a case by case basis. And yes, some governments define almost everybody as a criminal and then apply whatever punishment they want.
That's life. Reality bites. Has been for all civilisations for all time, including the one you live in and the one I live in now.
And no, you shouldn't feel comfortable about it, but then there is nothing you can do to change it. Just avoid getting caught in those countries by those governments.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before we go down this road, it would be helpful to know a little more about relevant laws in Israel. The article indicates that the judge made it clear to Google that it seemed to be a case of criminal activity. Google "took the hint" and provided the information. Without knowing what the law in Israel says about disclosing this type of information during this stage of a court case, it's difficult for us to comment on it.
So, can anybody in Israel with legal knowledge comment?
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, it seems plenty of people can act as armchair lawyers, and assume that the Israeli laws are the same as the US. Most likely, their not. We need better information.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not a lawyer, but some of my friends are.... anyway, here's a summary based on what was written in TheMarker.com (business press part of the largest newspaper) had to say:
This anonymous blogger has been writing 3 members of a small local town council (Shaarei Tikva, population 4,500) accusing them of bribery and municipal tax fraud (specifically: lying about their status to get tax breaks - probably saying they are retired, or have smaller properties than they have or haven't declared their swimming pools or something relatively minor). The plaintiffs say this is slander. The Plaintiffs and Google came to an agreement that Google would notify the blogger (they say he read the notification) that he could give up his identity and appear in court, or let them know that he was going send a lawyers letter contesting the claims and he would be represented in court as "John Doe"(or actually the Aramaic word "Ploni" equivalent) and Google would provide his IP address to the court. He did neither.
The judge said this was a suitable arrangement which on the one hand protects the freedom of speech of the Accused and the Plaintiffs right to defend their reputations. The judge emphasized that 2 weeks ago a judge had ruled in a case against one of the national newspaper sites (www.ynet.co.il) that details of a Poster (blogger or reponse to a news item) can be given over only if the content of the posting can lead to legal proceedings for Slander. Secondly, there was a ruling in April which stated that the Posters address can be revealed if Slander proceedings are waiting on it and it can be provided as "Further Deposition" (or some legal term which means some additional evidence that can influence the case).
In the judges opinion, there are considerations on both sides: on the one hand, since we're talking about competition over a public position, the public's right to know (the slander) in addition to the deterring surfers from expressing themselves on the internet lean towards protecting the anonymity of the surfer. On the other, you can argue that reputation is even more important to those running for public office. The judge ruled that as we we're talking about the defendents being public figures running for re-election, there is a need to define a new balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation.
I'm not sure people would have been going ape-shit about this if it was only a national paper's website being in the process (as had happened a few weeks ago). The fact that it's Google Israel means that we're all assuming that Larry and Sergey have been sharing all our information with any legal authority that requests it, which I'm not sure is the case. I'm not convinced it's evil either. Should offline national slander laws apply to online speech?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, you see, who here believes me? No one, obviously, because I'm just another vulgar, anonymous, raving lunatic on the internet. With very few exceptions, anonymous slander doesn't cause significant damage in today's rumor-jaded world
John McCain has a baby out of wedlock. WITH A BLACK WOMAN!
Now, you see, who here believes that? No one [boston.com], obviously, because it's from just another vulgar, anonymous, raving lunatic on the internet. With very few exceptions, anonymous slander doesn't cause significant damage in today's rumor-jaded world.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a promise in software circles, and everyone who's really in the know regarding search understands this.
Obviously things have to be different if someone actually asks them. How can google be expected to keep data private if they're asked for it? Aren't they in the business of providing people with information?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.
Which actually makes sense for them if we assume that they are in business for the money and that if users as a whole leave then they will lose ad revenue, but an individual alone has little effect on their balance sheet. Is Google in only for the money? I don't know... but most businesses are because they are composed of many different individuals each one having different ideas about ethics, thus causing the business as a whole to act on more-or-less universally accepted goals, and this is usually prof
What could be more fair? (Score:2, Funny)
Quote: "The notice would invite the blogger to disclose his identity, participate in the hearing, or oppose the disclosure of his identity by filing a motion as "anonymous"."
End Quote
Hey after all he was warned. "...the Israeli blogger who used "Google Blogger" for a blog in which he slandered Shaarei Tikva council members running for reelection.
Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Circumstances are important in judging the morality of an action by most standards (unless you've been reading Kant - in which case I'm sorry).
How Can You (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell... (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the comments so far (among the 1st 15) make it seem like Google is slipping into the hells. It very well could be that MOD/Israel contacted Googl
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, when you realize that every single Israeli citizen old enough to serve is drafted into the military and is in the active reserves for the remaining time, you should no longer be surprised to have employed a member of the Mossad. You should expect it to happen.
However, the likelihood of the Mossad working on a low-level Internet slander case is one I'll leave up for debate.
Re: (Score:2)
And since Israel is not stupid enough to give up a valuable asset for a simple libel investigation, it's was really up to Google to spill the beans on the guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have any of you considered that the PLO has plants working AT Slashdot, and that (like other countries with plants working in key or security-critical employers-- civil or private) that plant's duty is to mod up comments which blame the Mossad?
:p
Ok, no, seriously, there's some really nutty people running around on slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It all makes sense now!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Keep in mind (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So Google should break the law to not be evil? (Score:2)
The first amendment only applys to the US and you have to understand that what is evil to you is different from what is evil to everyone else.
Google refusing to co-orperate with a government that could throw all its employees in Jail because an idiot forgot to use Tor while breaking the laws of his country sounds quite evil to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems pretty clear that Google tried to stand by their principles until the Judge gave them the "You're going to Jail if you don't do this", wink, wink. Not everywhere in the world is "to the letter" and
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I have to disagree. I believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions.
A Nazi that kills a baby and says "He's just doing his job" because Hitler told him to is responsible. All those Germans that voted him into power are responsible. Everyone is responsible, because everyone does their own evil deeds to contribute.
This is what Google mea [blogspot.com]
Three days isn't nearly long enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
[1] I'm assuming unlike the rest of the Slashdot audience he doesn't live in her basement.
Comcast vs Google vs Apple vs MS (Score:5, Funny)
Comcast: Would give the IP without a court order, offer to enable electronic wiretaps, and give full logs of everything that IP did.
Apple: Would require a court order to give IP. Negotiate a weak compromise. Hand over the IP on a sleek and stylish apple brand flash drive.
Microsoft:
Easy solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Think it was approved by Google's Mother Ship? (Score:2)
Due process of law. (Score:2)
Seems like the right thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact: someone who's been wronged has a right to pursue the person responsible. No argument there. The fact that the person responsible is attempting to hide his identity doesn't change that. The problem with the RIAA's tactics is that they want the identity before proving they've been wronged. In this case the councilmen did the right thing: went into court, convinced a judge that the words as written did in fact qualify as something legally actionable, then asked for the identity of the responsible party. It might be technically more correct to wait until a final ruling, but I doubt the final ruling would be significantly different from the preliminary one. Judges don't just fire from the hip when making a preliminary ruling, it's more like "This will be how I rule, unless someone fairly quickly comes up with something that hasn't been even hinted at yet that's major enough to counter everything I've seen so far.".
Sorry, guys, but contrary to popular belief the right to remain anonymous is not a shield against being held responsible for your statements and actions. It just means that the other party should have to prove that your statements or actions were in fact legally actionable before stripping you of your anonymity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now it seems likely that this was going to happen eventually, but why the rush? This blogger had been at it for an entire *year* already, and suddenly it becomes a 72-hour emergency? That makes no sense. Why not wait for the mandate and do the thing that is *tec
this isn't about privacy. (Score:2, Insightful)
privacy isn't a platform you can use to attack other people.
Do no evil? That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do no evil"?
Do no evil + IPO = Public company
IPO = Public company
Google is just as good, bad, or ugly as the next public company. They're trying to balance the interests of their shareholders and their belief in doing no evil. In the end, the interests of shareholders will win every time. If they can keep clear of any illegal insider trading, mistreatment of employees, or other b.s. that affects so many public companies, that'll be a "good" outcome. Believing that somehow Google is different because it thinks it is different is pure fantasy.
It's 2007, folks. The Cult of the Shareholder rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is a company that relies heavily on its public image. Hurting that image is bad for it's share holders. Thats why any significant company has PR people. Just that with Google they take it a good deal further than most, and its obviously served their wallets well.
I don't mean to disparage Google, I tremendously enjoy a good number of their services, but lets be realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this would imply that Google is somewhat at the call of the government. Why they would give up the IP address when they didn't have to is beyond my knowledge, but unless the prosecutors in the case were investors or bribing Google, this only shows that business in a country is bound by the laws in that country.
Isn't that funny... (Score:2)
What google is really about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise it's just sensationalist nonsense. Google is a company with an aim to generate income. However much of it's business deals are driven by the knowledge that google works in "good faith" with it's partners. (Many companies won't partner with Microsoft on new technologies because they don't want to be the next SGI/Fahrenheit sucker.)
Companies, universities and investors would not embrace google if it's practices were unfair on it's users. From reading the article we can see that Google actually made a decent decision and gave the anonymous user options before eventually releasing the details.
Google needs to appear as a reasonable entity to the courts. If google fights the courts to the last frontier in every case it is presented, it would not only be costly to the company, but give google a damaging litigious image. Instead google chooses it's battles wisely for the betterment of it's users allowing it to defend more important legal issues with success. [iht.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. Let's switch out a few things...
Remember Yahoo and the Chinese dissident? Just following the laws of the land in China, what's the problem? Seriously, just because a company is "publicly traded" and in business to make money doesn't mean they should do so at all costs regardless of morality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
mindlessly defending how this is not "evil".
Wow! So I'm to take it that from this one article you now have all the information you need to call anyone that disagrees with you "mindless"!
Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!
Well that is specious reasoning. I'm not grandparent, a Republican, or anything else for that matter but not only did you misrepresent grandparent's quote but then you attack him by calling him narrow-minded, then you accuse him of being a Republican with the imp
Re: (Score:2)
And you are implying that the GP's reasoning is lucid? What he basically said was anyone that doesn't think what google did was evil is mindless!... There's some sound logic for you.
And I'm marked as a Troll? No wonder there are so many AC postings here.
As to the rest of my post, it's called sarcasm!
Thanks for taking the time to post a reply, instead of just marking it down. At least we can discuss it this way, weather or not we agree is another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, the Republicans don't have a monopoly on narrow-mindedness.
Ron Paul is a Republican and he doesn't seem narrow-minded at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul is one of the most narrow-minded people in politics, by every definition of "narrow-minded" I can think of.
Quite simply: (Score:2, Funny)
Do not get me wrong - I do not believe that Google is evil because they started out that way. Additionally, I do not believe that Google is evil because they are an evil corporation(TM). Rather, I believe that Google is evil because they are a publicly held/traded corporation. At this point, all of the Good(TM) mottos in the world will be unable to save them because their primary goal, second to "Don't be evil", is to serve the shareholders. It amazes me that ANY individuals are so willing to gi
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone really suprised? Wasn't it determined that they're in bed with CIA? [disgrunt.com]
Evil or no, it really all comes down to trust. Do you trust Google?
I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
And the CIA is evil because?..
Re:Conflicting thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
And the CIA is evil because?..
Because they're a Corpor.. err.. crap! My communist hippie logic is failing me again..
Re:Conflicting thoughts (Score:4, Informative)
You know, now that I step back and really take a look at it, CIA really reminds me of a fuzzy little bunny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, that's as convenient an excuse as any, although pretty irrelevant, really. A much more likely reason would be the constant propaganda being drummed up by middle-eastern regimes, as well as the unwaivering American support of Israel (and the rabbid-hatred of same by all muslim nations). In reality, it's certainly a mix of factors, and your simplistic analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
But yes, if you just want easy answers that you can understand without having to really think,
Re:hi, I'm non-white... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tolerance can also mean second class treatment. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the middle east, which countries can you openly practice your religion no matter what it is? Only one country, Israel. Which countries have full equal rights for women? Again, only Israel. Which countries have open and honest elections? Only Israel. Which countries are perfect? Ha, a trick question. Not a single one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the middle east, which countries can you openly practice your religion no matter what it is? Only one country, Israel.
You can even be openly Christian and live in Isreal, as long as you don't mind a little spit on your face [google.com]
I think the moral of this story is, if you don't have anything nice to say about someone on the internet, don't say anything at all.
Fuckers.
oops...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Half my friends are Jews. I think I stated already - no, I KNOW I stated it already, but just for you, I'll do it again; I have no problem at all with Jews in exactly the same way I don't have any problem with Americans. But their psychotic governments are a different matter altogether. There. Let that sink in. --Just bec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is not always a licence to defame others.
So what if I murder somebody? (Score:5, Insightful)
Following due process is important and Google should have done so. Releasing info without court demand is as bad as searching without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a company. It can afford to do less evil when it has money and stock price skyrockets, but if it has to choose between the two, which one do you think it'd pick?
Business is business.
Re: (Score:2)
Do no evil? Obeying the law isn't evil, its their corporate responsibility. If the people of Isreal have a problem with those laws, they can address that with their government. Its not Google's business ethically or otherwise to do that.
Re:Do No Evil (Score:4, Informative)
Hey, what about the fact that if it's Anonymous, (Score:2)
Unless more than a few minor anonymous sources indicate the same exact thing, it falls under the sticks and stones rule.
Words by people whom you don't know are worthless.
Re:Hey, what about the fact that if it's Anonymous (Score:2)
I don't know where some people get off believing their right to anonymous speech exists at all, especially in other countries as I'm betting most complainants here are western european or american.
Even th