- Swallowing Yahoo may make Microsoft want to take a nap
- ISO approves OOXML as standard
- Maintaining integrity on the Net
- Microsoft caves, in part, to online computing
- Eyewitness to H-1B scammers
- Social networking hits the bar scene big screen
- Is the slow economy hurting high-tech sales?
- Take the smarts out of smartphones
- U.S. Immigration [USCIS] changes selection process for H-1B visas
- Will the iPhone force Apple to change course?
November 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Google agrees to disclose IP address of Israeli blogger
We’ve had this discussion before but it is probably worth having again since it does not appear that the problem will go away anytime soon.
As reported in The Register, Google has agreed to handover the IP address of an anonymous blogger to a Tel Aviv, Israel district court.
The case involves three Israel local politicians who are suing the blogger for slander.
At first Google refused saying, "disclosing the blogger’s identity violated rulings on the balance between freedom of expression and a person’s right to his reputation."
However, once the presiding judge ruled that the anonymous "blogger may be guilty of criminal conduct" in that what he was accusing the politicians of was an outright lie, Google consented.
The question is, criminal or not, should an online identity be sacrosanct? Say as sacrosanct as client lawyer privilege or what is said in a confessional to a priest?
Both, as far as I know, protects the lawyer or priest from criminal charges even if their client confesses to a crime.
Clearly there are times when the Web site or ISP should not disclose the identity as in the case of the Shi Tao and Yahoo which resulted in the jailing of a dissident in China.
In the case now working its way through the Israeli courts, the litigants and Google have agreed to give the anonymous blogger 72 hours to come forward or Google will disclose his IP address.
Much to consider here. I’l like to hear some comments.
Posted by Ephraim Schwartz on November 28, 2007 11:44 AM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-
- COMMENTS
To begin with, its pretty silly to imagine any company can operate in a foreign country but ignore their rules and regs. The idea of Google operating anywhere - like China or Israel or wherever - but only obeying the rules we like is preposterous.
While a person has to be pretty stupid to believe all the crap posted on blogs, there *are such people.
So the notion that the anonymous purveyors of the rampant slander, defamation, character assasination, and lies that is the blogosphere should be protected from the consequences of their deliberate lying is just pure-d, self-serving nonsense.
Posted by: Rich at November 28, 2007 03:45 PMThe difference between lawyer-client priveledge and priest-penitant priveledge is that those individuals aren't making public declarations, they are confessing private matters in a private fashion.
If you go public, as in a blog or newspaper, you should be willing to prove what you say is true in court. This allows you to say what you wish, as long as you choose to accept the consequences of your actions.
Perhaps a different angle leading to the same conclusion of the previous commenters.
Even though most people would say that they don't believe everything they see on the web, how does one decide? For most, it's not a rigorous or consious process, and at the very least, by reading the blog, the ideas presented are at least entertained as being true.
Along with freedom of expression, there are slander laws as a balance, and it should apply to all forms of expression.
Ever since the advent of the printing press, there has been a constant struggle between what is said in print and whether it is true or not. Since its founding our country has struggled with this. A simple review of our history during the time of the presidency of John Adams reveals just how contentious this was. Our laws, legal system and journalism as a whole have evolved as a result.
The sum total is that bloggers are now discovering why many newspapers and magazines don't print everything they hear. Good journalists know they need to check their sources and verify their facts before putting them into print.
The issue in question has nothing to do with lawyer/client or priest confession issues at all. It is all about freedom of the press (and yes, bloggers must learn to view themselves as "the press" and play by those rules.)
Posted by: Glenn at December 6, 2007 07:22 AMThe Google Israeli bloggers case shows us how easy it is to twist the truth with a well-placed item of disinformation. Almost every article repeated the plaintiffs claim that the bloggers were writing criminal slander. Yet even a cursory examination of the contents of that blog raises serious doubts about that claim.
The above quote is from the site:
http://shaarei-tikva.behirot.net
It provides English translations from the blog and also more balanced view on the whole debate
