Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified?

netbuzz writes "Absolutely, depending on the circumstances, yet a Florida newspaper's attempt to unmask 'a political group hiding behind the name of a fictitious person' has sparked outrage in some circles. Part of the reason for that outrage is that the paper posted to its Web site a surveillance video of the blogger visiting its advertising department, a tactic the editor says he now regrets. What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not."

Does not, eh?

[Qzukk]

What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not.

Is that like how the Constitution provides specific grounds for revoking habeas corpus, but it's OK if the government ignores it because you don't have the right in the first place?

How can one claim that someone has the right to "publish anonymously" if a person cannot be anonymous?

Re:Does not, eh?

[dreamchaser]

Actually, neither 'right' with regards to anonymnity is enumerated in the Constitution, nor is any right to privacy outside of unlawful searches.

Re:Does not, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're not required to be!

* Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:Does not, eh?

[k_187]

No, I disagree. The constitution does not give us our rights. We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from. The listing of specific rights in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution does not limit our natural rights to what is listed. Remember, the Bill of Rights was added because some states were not willing to sign on without explicit enumeration of some of those natural rights. Originally, Madison didn't believe the Bill of Rights necessary. Thus, the question really isn't "does the constitution grant us these rights?", but "is this a right that already existed, but has not yet been enumerated?"

Re:Does not, eh?

[kclittle]

You have a right to obey causality. You have a right to obey gravity. You have a right to keep your velocity under the speed of light at all times. You have a right to conserve energy/mass.

These and their like are the only "natural" rights "endowed" upon you by the universe -- in fact, they are *forced* upon you.

Any other supposed rights (freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to chase girls, a.k.a. freedom to pursue happiness) are fictions created by the mind of man as he negotiates his way in the company of other humans.

Now, I certainly enjoy having these rights (especially the one about chasing girls), but I'm under no illusion that they exist in nature external to homo sap.

Re:Does not, eh?

[Oonushi]

You have the ability to say "No" (or to silently resists if you happen to be mute) to anyone who tries to deny you those rights that you claim are "created in the mind of man". The Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply tell the government where they do and don't have authority over its citizens, who in turn agree to submit themselves to that authority.

Your ability to resist imposed authority is as natural as the law of gravity, therefore the only time your rights don't naturally exist, is when you don't defend them.

Re:

[pallmall1]

...but I'm under no illusion that they exist in nature external to homo sap.

Only if nature does not include self-aware intelligence.

Re:

[Esteanil]

You have a right to obey causality. You have a right to obey gravity. You have a right to keep your velocity under the speed of light at all times. You have a right to conserve energy/mass.

That's what it must be like to be arrested by the Physics Police :p

Re:

[Omnifarious]

You take the phrase 'natural rights' out of the intellectual context in which it was used. This is specifically a reference to some ideas tossed around by various enlightenment thinkers. Your opinion is a valid criticism of these ideas, but it is a horrible way to interpret a legal document since the basic premise of the document is that the concept of 'natural rights' has meaning.

You might want to read this reasonably well written Wikipedia entry on Natural rights [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[rtechie]

Any other supposed rights (freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to chase girls, a.k.a. freedom to pursue happiness) are fictions created by the mind of man as he negotiates his way in the company of other humans.

That's a pretty atheistic perspective. From a religious perspective the universe was created ultimately to serve the interests of man and/or God. Remember that the Declaration of Independence states that we "endowed by our Creator" with certain rights. This is a religious perspective. That's

Why do you wear a mask?

[Original Replica]

I agree with you, in rights being "self evident". I disagree with you that anonymity is one of those rights. At it's best anonymity is a form of security through obscurity. Why is this security needed? To voice an unpopular opinion? If that opinion is what you believe, why do you need to hide? If you hide out of fear of a violent reprisal, then the problem is that you are not truely secure in your rights to life and liberty. Fix that problem, don't mask it with a thin veil of anonymity. If you are afriad of

Re:

[Qzukk]

If that opinion is what you believe, why do you need to hide? If you hide out of fear of a violent reprisal, then the problem is that you are not truely secure in your rights to life and liberty.

The country has basically decided that rights should only be protected from the government, and that companies and individuals can trample these rights all they want, and in fact the government can hire, ask, or even order those companies and individuals to trample on your rights without infringing on them itself.

Re:

[k_187]

One could argue that privacy is like property, you have no right to intrude upon mine without good reason. Implict in your argument that one is "ashamed of your actions" is that others have a right to know what I am doing. Right to privacy isn't necessarily a right to anonymity, but a right to keep others out.

Re:

[Trailer Trash]

Note, too, that the Bill of Rights is really only a list of individual rights in a roundabout way. In reality, it's a list of limitations on government; first a list of limitations on what laws can even be created in this land later clarified to state that this list of limitations is on the entire federal government (all three branches) as well as all other governments within the US. This is how it should be.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson states "We hold these truths to be self-evident: tha

Re:

[teh kurisu]

Thus, the question really isn't "does the constitution grant us these rights?", but "is this a right that already existed, but has not yet been enumerated?"

Rather, it denies me the right to deny you these rights. Before annoying things like laws, I would be within my rights if I sewed your mouth shut for saying something I didn't like.

Re:

[k_187]

No, before laws there weren't institutional protections for my rights of expression. Just because you can sew my mouth shut doesn't make it a right.

Re:

[teh kurisu]

Doesn't this fly in the face of your original argument?

The constitution does not give us our rights. We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from.

I could argue that my right to sew your mouth shut is a natural right endowed from wherever it is that I came from.

Re:

[k_187]

Yes you could argue that, but then you'd be wrong.;)

The existence of a right is separate from the ability to express it. The constitution prevents the government from preventing us from expressing those rights. The problem with this is that no one (other than God, if you so believe) knows the full extent of our natural rights. One can argue that anything is in that realm of rights beyond those easily agreed upon, that doesn't mean that just because a right can be argued for, it is a natural right.

The

Re:

[teh kurisu]

The problem with this is that no one (other than God, if you so believe) knows the full extent of our natural rights.

How can you even propose the idea of natural rights if you can't properly define it?

We can argue until we're blue that any given right is "natural", a convincing argument won't make it so.

I would argue (until I give up due to colour change, probably) that there are no natural rights, only what one can do and what one is prevented from doing. The issue of rights is one that is sociol

Re:

[k_187]

What it means to be human has been debated for centuries. I doubt that will be settled anytime soon.

I would argue the opposite, that in the state of nature, rights exist. Again, just because the ability to express a right does not exist (e.g. freedom of the press, which is really just a superset of freedom of speech), does not mean it does not exist.

Either way, the rights that we as people have are not bound by the words that are written in the constitution. EIther they are discovered in the course o

Re:

[teh kurisu]

Okay, in a previous post, you said:

The existence of a right is separate from the ability to express it.

Originally I took this to mean that just because I can express a right, doesn't mean that it is a right, which makes a certain amount of sense dependant on context. However, in this comment you seem to be arguing the diametrically opposite (but not inconsistent) - that just because I can't express a right doesn't mean that it's not a right. First of all, I have trouble understanding what an unexpre

Re:Does not, eh?

[osu-neko]

What evidence or reasoning supports this?

The framers of the constitution believed that this was a "self-evident" fact -- something that would be understood to be true by any reasonable person upon considered reflection, requiring no evidence beyond that.

Now, that's a rather controversial idea. But, whether we accept the existence of self-evident facts or not, it remains true that the U.S. Constitution was written by people who specifically did believe that rights were not granted by government. Rather, that rights are inherent in persons by their very nature. A government can, in this view, protect your rights, ignore your rights, or even infringe upon your rights. But it can't possibly grant you any rights nor remove any rights from you, since that's not something within the power of government. Government is just a collection of people, with no ability to make fundamental changes to human nature by fiat. To assume otherwise is to assume collections of people are somehow able to wield god-like powers simply by virtue of acting collectively, and that's absurd.

So, whether one accepts this premise or not, one needs to read the Constitution with the understand that it was written with this point of view in mind, and needs to be interpreted accordingly.

Re:

[suggsjc]

Just wanted to say that was a very well written post with an insightful counter to the parent's argument. Don't you know that all /. arguments have to overly biased rants with no substantial evidence to support any of their points???

You must be new here...2604??? Nevermind.

Joking aside, again great post.

Re:

[k_187]

What does it mean to be human? I would argue that our natural rights to expression are an integral part of being human.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

Rights as they exist is modern countries are entirely a human construct.

So? I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with this inane comment, but everything which has to do with humans and societies are "human constructs". Does that make them less important, or more?

The greatest advance brought by the enlightenment is the idea and recognition that ALL rights flow from the people. Governments don't give us rights, they can only try to take them away. It is we that give the government rights, not t

Re:

[inviolet]

We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from.

What evidence or reasoning supports this? Rights as they exist is modern countries are entirely a human construct.

Rights are a human construct, yes, because doesn't put up little signs that say "Here is how to run a society." Rights are, nevertheless, essential and inherent.

They are essential in the sense that they represent the requirements of human survival in societies. Not just any society will do; the way that humans

Re:

[AJWM]

We, as humans, have natural rights endowed from wherever it is that we came from.

What evidence or reasoning supports this?

Read the Declaration of Independence, note the beginning of the second paragraph. Here I'll quote it for you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't ues your right to bear arms to take my right to life

Unless you mean that seeing someone with a gun causes you to keel over and die, I'd think it's you with the non sequitur here.

Good try though.

It is clear from the writings of the founding fathers that what he quoted does not mean "that other rights retained by the people cannot be trampled on inadvertently by the rights enumerated". It is clear that they wrote the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in order to indicate that A) the rights of people enume

Re:Does not, eh?

[Gorobei]

That is not what the ninth amendment says, nor does it reflect the intent of the writers.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Pretty simple: sounds like unnamed rights are not to denied or weakened because other rights were explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Lets see if that was the intent of the writers. Madison:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Hmm, he agrees with the orignal poster, not you.

Hamilton?

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Wow, he agrees with the original poster too.

Re:Does not, eh?

[Dun Malg]

Non sequiter. What you quote means that other rights retained by the people cannot be trampled on inadvertently by the rights enumerated. In other words, you can't ues your right to bear arms to take my right to life (except in self defense).

Good try though.

No, you're an idiot. If you actually knew anything about the history of the bill of rights, you'd know that the 9th was a concession to Hamilton and others, who believed that a bill of rights was unwise:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" -Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers, #84. "On opposition to a Bill of Rights."

The 9th (and 10th, for that matter) was included to address Hamilton's specific issues. But let us read the 9th amendment itself, and deduce its meaning based on what it actually says:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

See, I don't know where you get the hare-brained idea that the 9th has something to do with enumerated rights trumping one another. It very fucking clearly says what it means. Allow me to paraphrase:

"The fact that we chose to write down a Top Ten List of rights does not in any way imply that the people do not retain a multitude of other rights"

I'd sure love to see you cite a source for your laughable interpretation of the 9th Amendment. The 9th has been routinely ignored by many, but no sane person has ever claimed it meant other than what it says.

Re:Does not, eh?

[penix1]

I'd sure love to see you cite a source for your laughable interpretation of the 9th Amendment. The 9th has been routinely ignored by many, but no sane person has ever claimed it meant other than what it says.

There is a source for that interpretation. The sad fact is it comes from the lead attorney for the United States.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habea s/ [thinkprogress.org]

Of course, it isn't correct but shows that the man should never have been confirmed.

B.

What right to life?

[sheldon]

I see no Right to Life specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Re:

[penix1]

You are correct that there is no "right to life" enumeration in the Constitution. However, there is one in the Declaration of Independence. Add that to the 9th Amendment and you do have a right to life. The founders were religious men and these documents reflect that. The right to life was enumerated as one of their main reasons to sever the ties to England. They believed the right to life was granted by a higher power so its enumeration to the Constitution was unnecessary besides being already covered in t

Re:

[AshtangiMan]

A small matter is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the legal documents. The Declaration of Independance is an opinion piece, rhetoric, propaganda . . . agreed to by many, but more of a vision statement than binding law. Sorry if this is pedantic, but I recently bumpped into this again and always find it interesting.

Re:

[Omnifarious]

Wow, that's an impressively insane interpretation of that amnedment.

Re:Does not, eh?

[FutureDomain]

The Constitution protects the "Freedom of the Press", but not the "Freedom of Anonymity of the Press". There are steps you can take if you want to remain anonymous, but no laws preventing someone from outing a blogger who doesn't keep his identity a well-kept secret.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER]

And yet, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, publishing under psuedonyms was common practice, even by the Founding Fathers.

Re:

[kclittle]

So? That doesn't mean they felt they had a "right" to remain anonymous, as is evidenced by the fact that those same Founding Fathers did not see it appropriate to include said "right" as an 11th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Re:

[kclittle]

Yeah, cause the only rights we have are the ones specifically enumerated in the constitution, right?

Nope, not at all. But such "other" rights, if claimed, have to be proven through the legal system (this thread is about legal rights). IANAL, but no U.S. court that I know of has ever ruled that a writer/blogger/pundit has the right to remain anonymous.

Re:Does not, eh?

[ronanbear]

And yet the paper would argue that it's allowed to protect its sources. You can't have it both ways privacy is not a privilege that may be conferred by a newspapers whim.

Either the press has the freedom that allows it to publish anonymous sources or it doesn't. If they have the right they should have respected the bloggers rights.

Re:

[kclittle]

The right of a journalist to protect his/her sources has no bearing on the right of a source to expect/demand protection, either from the journalist or a third party. There is *no* right to remain anonymous.

Re:

[DRJlaw]

You can't have it both ways privacy is not a privilege that may be conferred by a newspapers whim.

Either the press has the freedom that allows it to publish anonymous sources or it doesn't. If they have the right they should have respected the bloggers rights.

You've misconstrued the ability of a newspaper to protect its sources. Most states prevent their prosecutors from compelling a newspaper to reveal its sources to the government because permitting such a power would chill free speech. Note that t

Re:Does not, eh?

[TubeSteak]

And yet the paper would argue that it's allowed to protect its sources.

Most States have laws that allow journalists to protect their anonymous sources.
Note: There is no similar Federal Law.

You can't have it both ways privacy is not a privilege that may be conferred by a newspapers whim

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If the newspapers find out your secret... then you're subject to their whim.

Either the press has the freedom that allows it to publish anonymous sources or it doesn't.

They do, at the state level.

If they have the right they should have respected the bloggers rights.

What right did he have? The right to publish anonymously?
He used it.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the right to publish anonymously. All it means is that the Government can't make anonymous publishing a crime. What it doesn't mean is that no one is allowed to figure out who you are and tell the world.

Staying anonymous was the bloggers job.
What legal obligation did the newspaper have to keep his identity a secret?

Re:

[DeadChobi]

I agree with you.

I would like to add that it was probably unethical to use a video surveillance tape to attempt to out the blogger when that was not the purpose of the tape. There's a difference between setting up a camera for the express purpose of identifying your customers and setting up a camera to keep your advertising department safe. He wasn't informed that he was being taped for the purpose of outing him. It's reasonable for me to assume that unless there's some pressing criminal investigation that

Great Britain called

[HomelessInLaJolla]

There's a difference between setting up a camera for the express purpose of identifying your customers and setting up a camera to keep your advertising department safe

They want the intent of their network of surveillance cameras back.

Re:

[TubeSteak]

It's reasonable for me to assume that unless there's some pressing criminal investigation that video surveillance tapes will not be used to out me in any way.

That is not a reasonable expectation.
It strikes me as a bit naive.

Those tapes belong to the business.
They can do whatever they want with them.

To be perfectly clear: If the newspaper wanted to stream their surveillance footage on homepage 24/7, nobody could stop them.

The law mostly limits when the Government (in the form of Law Enforcement or the legal

Re:

[DeadChobi]

I was talking about ethics, not laws. What is legal and what is ethical are somewhat distant subsets, and what is legal and ethical is a small union of those two subsets. It would be unethical, for example, to show all my friends surveillance pictures of me in the newspaper office taking out a personal ad for a gay lover because I may not want my friends to know that. If they discover it in the newspaper then it's my own damn fault and a completely different story.

It's kind of a grey area in the interface b

No, there is a HUGE difference, the sources are KN

[SmallFurryCreature]

The sources of a newspaper are KNOWN, they are NOT anonymous, except to the public at large, but the reporter and editor and in fact the entire newspaper staff ARE known. So we still got a degree of accountability. If you want to remain anonymous as a news source you must first convince a reporter to risk being thrown in jail (a legal action that can be used by the state) to reveal his sources.

However if you publish anonymous on a blog, you got no such layer, anyone can do it, and without anyone to throw i

Re:

[AlanS2002]

Actually, neither 'right' with regards to anonymnity is enumerated in the Constitution, nor is any right to privacy outside of unlawful searches.

The US constitution is neither the first nor the last word on what can be spoken of as rights, if you submit to being able to have a meaningful conversation of such things in the first place.

Re:

[kenwd0elq]

The "right to privacy" doesn't NEED to be enumerated: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The text of the Constitution http://constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm [constitution.org] is pretty clear; the Federal government has only the 19 enumerated

Re:Does not, eh?

[John Hasler]

> Is that like how the Constitution provides specific grounds for revoking habeas corpus,
> but it's OK if the government ignores it because you don't have the right in the first
> place?

No. Aside from the fact that you do have the right to habeas corpus, this has nothing to do with the government at all.

> How can one claim that someone has the right to "publish anonymously" if a person cannot
> be anonymous?

You have the right to "publish anonymously". You have the right to be anonymous. However, no one is obligated to help you be anonymous. It's up to you to keep your identity secret. If you screw up and your secret gets out, tough.

I wouldn't do business with a paper that publishes surveillance videos of its customers, though.

Re:

[John Newman]

>> Is that like how the Constitution provides specific grounds for revoking habeas corpus,
>> but it's OK if the government ignores it because you don't have the right in the first
>> place?

>No. Aside from the fact that you do have the right to habeas corpus, this has nothing to do with the government at all.

You may not be keeping up with politics, but the GPP's allusion is to the current AG's (and President's) latest argument for why they're Constiutionally permitted to imprison American

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no requirement to identify yourself when you publish. That is "the right to publish anonymously". It is not a guarantee: You can't say "this is not to be linked to me" and expect someone else (like the government) to make sure that it isn't. If you want to stay anonymous, it is your responsibility, hence no right to remain anonymous.

Re:Does not, eh?

[FooAtWFU]

It's still pretty rude (or worse) for the newspaper in question to do something like this, whether it's a violation of some sort of intrinsic civil liberty / constitutional right / etc or otherwise. Therein lies the rub. Not everything has to be some sort of civil liberties violation or against the law for it to be the Wrong Thing to Do.

Re:

[Khaed]

Not everything has to be some sort of civil liberties violation or against the law for it to be the Wrong Thing to Do.

And that's something 90% of the people responding to this are missing.

It might be legal to expose an anonymous blogger, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Some anonymous bloggers may need to be exposed. I sure as hell don't think we need a law against exposing them. Newspapers should be responsible, not act like a bunch of children.

Re:

[sugapablo]

Plenty of places where people can post anonymously. Lots of Anonymous Cowards here. :)

Plenty of public machines and IP addresses where you can post to anonymous message boards and editable pages like http://subuse.net/ [subuse.net] and http://subuse.net/level2 [subuse.net]

Re:

[sumdumass]

Habeas corpus has long been determined not to apply to foreigners unless some law made it do so. As for the american citizens, if they are acting in terrorism against our contry, I would hope that insurection and rebelion does kick in.

For the government to ignore something, it would need to be in place in the first place. I don't think this is happening at all here.

And as far as publish anonymously, there is no real protection for that. There is a freedom of speech and we have traditionaly taken that to mea

Isn't their take bass-ackwards?

[siglercm]

What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not.

It seems to me that their conclusion is, logically, the wrong way around. IMHO, we all have the right to remain anonymous. However, if we want to publish we may give up that right. Publishing is totally different from being an anonymous source of information, quoted in a publication.

Or am I off my rocker?

Re:

[AlanS2002]

My thoughts exactly. Do we not, by publishing something in the public domain, by definition invite a lack of anonymity?

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Only if you piss off the wrong people.

The problem is not so much that veil of anonymity can be pierced, but that the government has, in the midst of its own quest to make our private lives a thing of the past, provided would-be piercers with way too much ammunition.

Im sorry but

[Creepy Crawler]

When I think of "anonymous bloggers", I get this image [penny-arcade.com].

Or, I recall that "Multiple Theology Degree, exquisite super-intelligentsia" Essjay [wikipedia.org]. Oh, thats right.. He's a redneck hick who lives about 80 Mi south of me (Louisville, KY).

Anybody can say whatever they want, but due to the "Credibility" of the internet, it usually means something is going to be believed. Not good, as most people haven't the logic or intelligence to discern real from fiction.

Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified?

[toupsie]

Absolutely. Journalism should not be the art of protecting secrets. The first amendment right to a free press does not have a caveat that states that people with hidden agendas are protected from exposure. As long as this is not a government mandated revelation of secrecy of a citizen, there is no issue at hand. The press has a right and I feel a duty to expose all that want to be a part of the public debate both for and against what I personally believe. The only reason the editor feels that this was a bad choice is that he doesn't have the requisite reproductive organs to stand up for what they did which was good reporting. There is no right to anonymity when to start to engage in the public debate. If you can maintain it, that is through your own efforts and not through some Constitutional mechanism.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

I'm thinking of the cases where corporations have been posing as bloggers to promote their products. Undoubtedly a case where revealing them is justified.

This sounds very similar. A political group posing as an individual? Please. They're misrepresenting themselves and then they get mad when someone calls them on it?

Re:

[MrSteveSD]

Surely the ability for people to address the public anonymously is beneficial and should be protected. e.g. Anonymous whistle-blowers.

Re:

[toupsie]

Surely the ability for people to address the public anonymously is beneficial and should be protected. e.g. Anonymous whistle-blowers.

So we are going to create a protected class of citizens that can infringe on the first amendment rights of others? Who gets to decide who can maintain a protected state of anonymity? This is bad policy. Sunshine is always the best environment for speech.

Re:

[polar red]

Yes, if you are not in danger of being prosecuted for your opinions. Try saying the war in Iraq is unjustified, you'll get your dose of hatred, isn't it so, dixie chicks ?

Re:

[gclef]

The constitution does not exist to protect you from the hatred of others. You are free to speak your mind. So are the people who disagree with you. This is how it should be.

Whistleblowers and informants are a case where the privacy of a source should be protected by the government officials that they are working with, but that is not a constitutional right. Again, this is how it should be. Whistleblower's treatment need to be balanced against the rights of the accused. An incredibly important right i

Re:

[AlanS2002]

Does that include journalistic sources? If someone were to follow up on Woodward and Bernstein and expose "Deep Throat", would that be fine by you? After all, he had his secret agenda as well... (Anger at not being promoted to be head of FBI after Hoover left).

He might very well of had an agenda, but he did not publish. That took a decision or not of a journalist.

You bet!

[toupsie]

Does that include journalistic sources? If someone were to follow up on Woodward and Bernstein and expose "Deep Throat", would that be fine by you? After all, he had his secret agenda as well... (Anger at not being promoted to be head of FBI after Hoover left).

Damn skippy it would! The country spent nearly 35 years trying to figure that Deep Throat was William Mark Felt, Sr. Every journalist interested in Washington politics wasn on the hunt for the identity of the real Deep Throat. Journalists that keep secrets from the public are betraying their audience. Sometimes the audience puts up with it like in the case of Deep Throat.

Re:

[zCyl]

Every journalist interested in Washington politics wasn on the hunt for the identity of the real Deep Throat. Journalists that keep secrets from the public are betraying their audience. Sometimes the audience puts up with it like in the case of Deep Throat.

If Deep Throat would have thought ahead of time that the journalists he was turning to would print his name right away and out his identity, then there would have never been a Deep Throat, and we would not have learned what he had to say. We would have h

-1, poor style

[pla]

Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified?
Absolutely, depending on the circumstances

No editorial slant on this FP, no-sir-ee!

Many of our fundamental "rights" in the modern world very much depend on not only having anonymity before doing something, but after as well.

In particular, and I expect the FP author had this exact situation in mind, when the exercise of speech/publishing relates to the commission of a crime. But in all but a few situations (defamation or lying to a grand jury come to mind), the crime and the speech exist as entirely separate concepts, with the latter protected.

Even when the speech does break the law directly (defamation), you need to consider how much credibility an anonymous source really has. If I say "The PS3 sucks", I may have defamed Sony, but no one will care. If US VP of marketing for SCEA says the same thing, it would make headlines (at least in the geek news community).

If I cheat on my taxes, that breaks the law. If I brag about it anonymously - The bragging doesn't break the law, and I have every right to maintain my anonymity in the bragging. If the IRS catches me for the crime itself, no foul; If they hunt me down like a dog and then find out I just bragged but have filed accurately, they have wasted time and money and potentially injured me financially or reputation-wise in the process, despite no actual crime occuring.



Anonymity has a dark side, but without an absolute right to it, we may as well let the government install "The Eye" in our living rooms right now.

Never has been absolute

[Excelcia]

There never, ever, has been an absolute right to anonymity. The day people have that right, is the day that society will cease to exist.

Society exists because of law and peer pressure to conform to its rules. Where anonimity is guaranteed, peer pressure cannot exist, and law cannot be enforced.

There are restrictions on what government can do to invade your privacy, but privacy and anonimity are two different things. In fulfilling its duties to you, government necesarily has a lot of information abo

You keep using that word "absolutely"

[Gothmolly]

I do not think it means what you think it means.

So it can "absolutely" be justified, yet it is also "depending on the circumstances".

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Why is it obvious/implicit that you don't have the right to remain anonymous, save in a society where you have no rights?

Newspapers' Job is to Expose

[Doc Ruby]

What makes anonymity sacrosanct? Someone does something to be anonymous, their perogative. If someone else does something to expose their identity, that's their perogative, too. If what they do to expose them isn't itself wrong, then they haven't done anything wrong. If they use public info (eg. cameras recording public appearances) and deduction, there's not wrong. The exposed anonymous might not like it, but there's no intrinsic, universal right to anonymity just because they want it. And in fact exposing hidden players in public acts is the primary responsibility of newspapers and other periodical publishers.

I wish there were a lot more outrage about newspapers keeping some people anonymous. Anonymous sources used to spin news, lie to damage coverage and public knowledge. When the source isn't actually anonymous at all, to the reporter (or their editors), but is anonymized by the newspaper, creating more ignorance rather than more knowledge. Especially when that anonymity makes unaccountable some people who are reliably wrong, lying, or just predictably spinning.

Newspapers have a glorious future working to expose trolls in our new mediasphere full of cheap and easy cover. We need more exposure, and more support for it.

What makes anonymity sacrosanct?

[walterbyrd]

That is a fair question, and I hope it gets more attention.

My answer is: by remaining anonymous, you can avoid retailiation by powerful entities that may not like what you have to say - whether your articles are true or not. Benjamin Franklin knew this, and sent his letters to the newspaper editor, under a psuednym.

As a more modern example: suppose you knew of a utility company committing some type of a crime. You expose the crime on your blog. The utility company, although guilty, files a lawsuit against y

Re:

[funwithBSD]

"Newspapers have a glorious future working to expose trolls in our new mediasphere full of cheap and easy cover. We need more exposure, and more support for it."

I think as Rathergate and Ruetersgate (gods I hate the -gate meme, but it is so useful) have shown that they are part of the trollers, and that the blogosphere are the ones doing the outing of trolls.

Perhaps some examples might be enlightening?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I think this discussion can be more enlightened by considering some particular hypothetical cases.

In this case the anonymously-posting group whose member was exposed was critical of a prominent county politician.

Suppose the anonymous poster(s) had been critical of the Chinese government's suppression of Falun Gong or occupation of Tibet.

Suppose the anonymous poster had been Salman Rushdie, at the height of the "Satanic Verses" flap, and the outing included his address.

Suppose the time was shortly before the American Revolution and the posters were people like Samuel Adams, William Molineux, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and Paul Revere.

Think about what happened to people like Yuri Orlov, Alexander Litvinenko, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Wang Xiaoning, Nathan Hale, Theo Van Gogh.

I could add names for hours. And, yes, only some of these particular critics of the powerful did so anonymously, so don't bother pointing that out: This list shows what can happen to critics and why they might want to be anonymous.

Maybe this guy won't be sent to a gulag, poisoned by thallium, vanish into the Chinese prison system, or assassinated on the street in broad daylight. But would you be surprised if he is the subject of continual harassment from now on - at least until he moves to another county?

Re:

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Maybe this guy won't be ... poisoned by thallium ...

Or, as in Litvinenko's case, polonium-210 - though thallium would have done the job in sufficient amounts.

Re:

[Omnifarious]

Who knows? Maybe the anonymous poster is part of a massive, well-funded astroturf campaign. Maybe the anonymous poster is a sock-puppet for the guy running against him. I can think of just as many reasons for the person to be anonymous for nefarious reasons as for good ones. IMHO, it's up to the newspaper to make the decision about whether the poster should be outed or not, and if so, how far.

The newspaper can than be criticized or praised depending on the information. For example, posting someone's a

quick litmus test

[swschrad]

if they're in politics or influencing politics, they should be public.

full disclosure forever! -- I am a former practicing journalist.

Girl With A One-Track Mind

[paj1234]

Sounds like what happened to the "Girl With A One Track Mind". It's a (formerly) anonymous blog and book about sex from a female point of view. A newspaper printed extracts from her book, and then went on to reveal her identity without her permission. This is the email that she received from the newspaper:

Aug 5, 2006 11:08 AM

Dear Miss [my name],

We intend to publish a prominent news story in this weekend's paper, revealing your identity as the author of the book, Girl With a One Track Mind.

We have matched up the dates of films you have worked on - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Batman Begins and Lara Croft Tomb Raider - and it is clear that they correlate to your blog. We have obtained your birth certificate, and details about where you went to school and college.

We propose to publish the fact that you are 33 and live in [my address] -London, and that your mother, [her name], is a [her address] -based [her profession]. The article includes extracts from your book and blog, relevant to your career in the film industry. We also have a picture of you, taken outside your flat.

Unfortunately, the picture is not particularly flattering and might undermine the image that has been built up around your persona as Abby Lee. I think it would be helpful to both sides if you agreed to a photo shoot today so that we can publish a more attractive image.

We are proposing to assign you our senior portrait photographer, Francesco Guidicini, and would arrange everything to your convenience, including a car to pick you up. We would expect you to provide your own clothes and make up. As the story will be on a colour page, we would prefer the outfit to be one of colourful eveningwear.

We did put this proposal to you yesterday, but heard nothing back. Clearly this is now a matter of urgency, and I would appreciate you contacting me as soon as possible. To avoid any doubt we will, of course, publish the story as it is if we do not hear from you.

Yours sincerely,
Nicholas Hellen
Acting News Editor
Sunday Times

The author had to leave her job and home. Both she and her parents had photographers camped outside their houses. Even her friends were pestered by journalists. Here is how she felt about it: http://girlwithaonetrackmind.blogspot.com/2006/08/ thoughts.html [blogspot.com]

Fairness

[Joebert]

In all fairness, politicians have to live up to what they say in public, why shouldn't everyone else ?
I don't think anyone should have a "right" to be anonymous, if they want to be taken seriously they need to stand up & be heard like the people they speak out against.

Because they made the choice.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

In all fairness, politicians have to live up to what they say in public, why shouldn't everyone else ?

Because politicians chose to become "public persons" (and have their dirty laundry aired in the press) as a voluntary trade for their attempt to acquire coercive political power.

An anonymous poster has explicitly chosen the opposite course: Forgoing coercive power and influencing others only by the persuasiveness of his words, in order to retain a higher level of privacy.

He has chosen to expose only his an

Re:

[Joebert]

He has chosen to expose only his anonymous persona to the mud-slinging of political discourse (and potential nonverbal retaliation), not to put his private life, peace, possessions, and employment, along with those of his family, in harm's way.

In other words, he wants to play the game but doesn't want to take responsibility if he's wrong.

I take it you also disapprove of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay publishing the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius (which allowed people to

Re:

[Joebert]

That would be assuming that everyone knew everything.
If everyone knew everything, there would be no reason to talk because we'd already know what eachother was about to say.

Outrage

[Brandybuck]

The outrage isn't what the city is doing, it's why the city is doing it. They aren't trying to discover the blogger so they can reward him, they're doing it so they can shut him up and get back to corruption as usual.

This isn't a video of some criminal holding up a liquor store. Hell, it's not even a video of someone running a traffic light. It's a video of someone buying a classified ad! Geez!

sure but...

[oohshiny]

Outing an anonymous blogger can be, but video taping customers coming into your advertising department and then using those videos to identify and out them is never justified. That has nothing to do with bloggers or anonymity or anything else, it is a fundamental breach of trust. I'm sure the company regrets it because any sane person would refuse to do business with a company that behaves that way.

Information Wants To Be Free!

[samael]

Whether it's an MP3, documentation of a government coverup or personal details, information tends find a way out.

freedom of speech

[superwiz]

Freedom of speech is not a freedom say anything anonymously. As a matter of fact, it is reasonable to demand that whoever speaks identifies themselves. Otherwise, freedom to say anything becomes a freedom to lie. As long as one stands behind what one has to say, one should be allowed to say anything (with the usual exception to incitement to do harm). But anonymity takes away the responsibility for one's words.

Advocacy != Slashdot Discussion

[Nom du Keyboard]

"Absolutely...The former exists, the latter does not."

Such advocacy for an issue does not belong in a Slashdot summary, regardless of if it is just a quote of someone else. We should be about open and even discussion here, and not stating one's conclusions right from the get-go. That's what TFA is all about, not the Slashdot summary.

No, but there needs to be a balance.

[Wolfier]

Between anonymity/freedom of press and conflict of interest.

While the article authors have the right to remain anonymous, every article should state upfront whether or not the author stands to benefit from the publication (e.g. a conservative lobby group attacking the Democrats).

And, laws have to be made that if authors are found to lie about this conflict of interest, there should be some sort of penalty.

i.e. you can be anonymous and say/lie whatever you want, but you have to honestly state whether and if

Re:

[SilentChris]

And?

Nothing what they did was illegal.

Further, any blogger (any internet user, and in particular any Slashdot user) should know that online anonymity is impossible. The best take their real names and run with it. The worst stand behind a glass wall and wonder how people figure out who they really are.

Re:

[mikael]

A more civilised approach would have been for the editors to have run an article on the issue and offered to invite both parties (the blogger and the political candidate) for interviews. The purpose of the CCTV system is to protect the staff of the advertising office, not to publicly expose people the editors have taken a dislike to.

Re:ya

[WED Fan]

Nothing what they did was illegal.

There is lot that is not illegal. But, the paper's ethics must be called into question. Aside from threats to national security made in a blog, or confession to a felony in a blog, I'm hard pressed to see why outing someone who has chosen to write pseudonymously would be considered ethical.

Further, any blogger (any internet user, and in particular any Slashdot user) should know that online anonymity is impossible. The best take their real names and run with it. The worst stand behind a glass wall and wonder how people figure out who they really are.

Without the ability to publish, blog, speak anonymously, many of the world's tyrannical governments would not have been challenged, taken down, or seceded from. We, the U.S., did it to King George III and much of the public was influenced to support the effort, in part, through the publishing of anonymous, or pseudonymous tracts.

Yes, there are those who tried to uncover the writers, publishers, and distributors. But, in the end, whose interests do they serve?

I will put this forward, a newspaper that denies another's freedom to speak politically under a cloak of anonymity, should lose its right to exist. In other words, they protect the rights of others so their right is protected.

Re:

[PhxBlue]

I'm hard pressed to see why outing someone who has chosen to write pseudonymously would be considered ethical.

Because it's a question of public interest: Is the person a single entity acting on his own or a front for a political group or "think tank"? In short, is it grass-roots or Astroturf?

Re:

[Shads]

The only problem I see is basically as far as most people are concerned they violated the blogger by disclosing who they were... which is a lot like naming a source, if I had a story that would be the flatout last newspaper I would ever consider going to. They can't be trusted basically.

Re:

[SilentChris]

"Figure out who I am."

I couldn't. CmdrTaco and friends could easily. Feel safe?

Re:

[suggsjc]

Well, then they would still know the time and place. They could figure out a proximity from the router and begin the search from there. Posting "do you know who I am" won't warrant a full blown search just as blogging about what you and your friends did last night. But if you were leaking high profile information and the parties involved had the time and/or resources, then I'm sure there are ways to find this type of stuff out. For all you pointy tin foil hat people out there, you've only got as much an

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see that.

Try Batman Begins or Passion of the Christ. (Posting as an anonymous for obvious reasons.)

Re:

[Brandybuck]

No wonder local politics bothers me.

There is no tyrant so terrible as your neighbor across the street who just got elected to the city council.