3 ms·

The New York times isn't seeking the name or address in their request, just some other metadata about each comment including the IP and user agent header. Gizm

The New York times isn't seeking the name or address in their request, just some other metadata about each comment including the IP and user agent header. Gizmodo failed to link to the actual opinion with this info: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7906482/33/the-new-york-times-company-v-federal-communications-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7906482/33/the-new-york... Edit: upon reading more, now I'm not sure if the NYT already has the names and addresses and is just seeking the metadata or if they don't need that data to do their analysis. Your guess might have been right, the ruling is unclear.

deathanatos 6y ago
> The New York times isn't seeking the name or address in their request, just some other metadata about each comment including the IP and user agent header. The point of the person you're responding to is that the NYT doesn't need to seek names or addresses, because they're already public information. Anyone can go look up the docket and see them[1]. So, their argument I believe is that, given that the names and addresses of the filers of comments are already publicly available, what further privacy concern is there in releasing IP address information? And there might be one. IP address & UA might further allow me to correlate the user's activity elsewhere; some comments didn't submit names or addresses — IIRC these were "required" but some people filled in the fields with things like "none". There were also allegations that the names of some comments were falsified on comments not in favor of net neutrality. IP address information might lend evidence to or against those allegations. [1]: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC&submissiontype_description=COMMENT https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-...
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  I did not realize it was that easy to see the comments. That answers that question. Thanks for that link.
- awful 6y ago
  Exactly; I was on that list and looked at the db during the intial controversy. I looked up some of my neighbours, and it was clear to me they had no obvious connection to the issue, and had in fact very similar or exact things to say, as I recall. I took it at the time to mean they had gave someone a proxy to speak for them, maybe some business or political group.

deathanatos 6y ago

> The New York times isn't seeking the name or address in their request, just some other metadata about each comment including the IP and user agent header. The point of the person you're responding to is that the NYT doesn't need to seek names or addresses, because they're already public information. Anyone can go look up the docket and see them[1]. So, their argument I believe is that, given that the names and addresses of the filers of comments are already publicly available, what further privacy concern is there in releasing IP address information? And there might be one. IP address & UA might further allow me to correlate the user's activity elsewhere; some comments didn't submit names or addresses — IIRC these were "required" but some people filled in the fields with things like "none". There were also allegations that the names of some comments were falsified on comments not in favor of net neutrality. IP address information might lend evidence to or against those allegations. [1]: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC&submissiontype_description=COMMENT https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-...

henryfjordan 6y ago
I did not realize it was that easy to see the comments. That answers that question. Thanks for that link.
awful 6y ago
Exactly; I was on that list and looked at the db during the intial controversy. I looked up some of my neighbours, and it was clear to me they had no obvious connection to the issue, and had in fact very similar or exact things to say, as I recall. I took it at the time to mean they had gave someone a proxy to speak for them, maybe some business or political group.