4 ms·

This sentiment seems a little silly to me - there's no implicit right to anonymity in RL, especially if you go around pissing people off by stealing from them.

by simon_ 17y ago

kordless 17y ago
> no implicit right to anonymity Check the privacy laws of the United States - they clearly do protect our right to anonymity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Stat... In this case I see both violations of False Light and Appropriation being possible, if these guys didn't do anything, and didn't agree to be involved in this stunt. Personally I like the idea of vigilantism, but these things are better left to law enforcement and the legal system. They are in place for a reason, after all.
- simon_ 17y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading Wikipedia, but it looks like False Light and Approbation violations would require (respectively) the dissemination of false information or some intent to gain financially. However, it's probably true that these laws will be tested in unexpected ways as everyone gains the power to communicate with "the public".
- jellicle 17y ago
  You know that that Wikipedia article doesn't even have the word "anonymity" in it, right? There's no general privacy law in the U.S. There's some minor right to write anonymously, extrapolated from the First Amendment, but absolutely no right to be anonymous in general, and in fact the First Amendment goes the other way: Threadless has the right to publish those photos and to make any truthful statements about them whatsoever. In many cases Threadless can even make untruthful statements about the photos and still be perfectly legal.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
angelbob 17y ago
No, there's no legal right to anonymity for these things. But he just said "bad thing to start, bad thing to encourage." Here, let's try a thought exercise. "I got hit on by this guy at a bar the other night. Let's make it public that he's gay and obviously scum ('cause he hit on me). I'll give $100 for whoever can tell me his name and where to go to tell his neighbors, $50 for the person who told them, and $25 for each of the next people to tell them." See why it might be a bad idea to encourage this as a general solution to this type of problem? Don't get me wrong -- it really sucks that Threadless got robbed, and these guys (assuming they were the thieves) deserve to be found and punished. But as we discover new means of vigilante justice, it's worth remembering that vigilante justice has a cost in fairness, accuracy and rule of law.
- JoeGermuska 17y ago
  The value of your thought exercise is that it would flush out bigots. They aren't asking for vigilante justice. They're asking for identification.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

This sentiment seems a little silly to me - there's no implicit right to anonymity in RL, especially if you go around pissing people off by stealing from them.

by simon_ 17y ago

This sentiment seems a little silly to me - there's no implicit right to anonymity in RL, especially if you go around pissing people off by stealing from them.

kordless 17y ago

> no implicit right to anonymity Check the privacy laws of the United States - they clearly do protect our right to anonymity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Stat... In this case I see both violations of False Light and Appropriation being possible, if these guys didn't do anything, and didn't agree to be involved in this stunt. Personally I like the idea of vigilantism, but these things are better left to law enforcement and the legal system. They are in place for a reason, after all.

simon_ 17y ago
Maybe I'm misreading Wikipedia, but it looks like False Light and Approbation violations would require (respectively) the dissemination of false information or some intent to gain financially. However, it's probably true that these laws will be tested in unexpected ways as everyone gains the power to communicate with "the public".
jellicle 17y ago
You know that that Wikipedia article doesn't even have the word "anonymity" in it, right? There's no general privacy law in the U.S. There's some minor right to write anonymously, extrapolated from the First Amendment, but absolutely no right to be anonymous in general, and in fact the First Amendment goes the other way: Threadless has the right to publish those photos and to make any truthful statements about them whatsoever. In many cases Threadless can even make untruthful statements about the photos and still be perfectly legal.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

angelbob 17y ago

No, there's no legal right to anonymity for these things. But he just said "bad thing to start, bad thing to encourage." Here, let's try a thought exercise. "I got hit on by this guy at a bar the other night. Let's make it public that he's gay and obviously scum ('cause he hit on me). I'll give $100 for whoever can tell me his name and where to go to tell his neighbors, $50 for the person who told them, and $25 for each of the next people to tell them." See why it might be a bad idea to encourage this as a general solution to this type of problem? Don't get me wrong -- it really sucks that Threadless got robbed, and these guys (assuming they were the thieves) deserve to be found and punished. But as we discover new means of vigilante justice, it's worth remembering that vigilante justice has a cost in fairness, accuracy and rule of law.

JoeGermuska 17y ago
The value of your thought exercise is that it would flush out bigots. They aren't asking for vigilante justice. They're asking for identification.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]