3 ms·

This part jumped out to me: > Mr Tomlinson also filed a lawsuit in 2020 to try to force the internet service provider Cloudflare to reveal the names of the ind

This part jumped out to me: > Mr Tomlinson also filed a lawsuit in 2020 to try to force the internet service provider Cloudflare to reveal the names of the individuals behind the website. > The request to subpoena Cloudflare was denied by the Superior Court of California after a judge ruled it fell under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields blogs and social media sites from problematic content on their platforms posted by third parties. What exactly is one supposed to do? You can't sue Cloudflare because they're only there for DDOS protection. You can't force Cloudflare to reveal the identity of the website owner. You can't sue the website owner because they are "just" service providers, but you can't subpoena them for the posters' identity because you don't know who the providers are and Cloudflare won't tell. Sounds like using Tor for illegal activities is overkill when all you need to do it in the open are two degrees of separation.

perihelions 3y ago
Does anyone have the text of the court filings? I assume Mr. Tomlinson's legal actions were highly defective in some way, given that the court sanctioned him, - "A judge also ordered Mr Tomlinson to pay the anonymous blogger behind the website $23,700 in legal fees." In the US, you don't pay the opposing party's legal bills when you lose, unless you did something egregious. [late edit]: I believe the relevant filing on the SFTC page is "ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SEC.2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS". (I'm not able to link to it). To my understanding: it looks like the operator of the website didn't do anything actionable (as far the plaintiff could demonstrate), and it was (the court says) invalid for the plaintiff to try to unmask them. They could have tried to unmask individual users of the website, and it reads to me like the court might have agreed to compel the operator to do that. But it was sanctionable to go after the operator, on (to my reading) a speculative theory that they might have been involved with the posted content. As the court says, you can't do that: you need evidence specific to the person you are trying to deanonymize.

perihelions 3y ago

Does anyone have the text of the court filings? I assume Mr. Tomlinson's legal actions were highly defective in some way, given that the court sanctioned him, - "A judge also ordered Mr Tomlinson to pay the anonymous blogger behind the website $23,700 in legal fees." In the US, you don't pay the opposing party's legal bills when you lose, unless you did something egregious. [late edit]: I believe the relevant filing on the SFTC page is "ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER JOHN DOE 1'S PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO CLOUDFLARE, INC. ISSUED FOR CASE PENDING IN FOREIGN JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SEC.2029.600 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS". (I'm not able to link to it). To my understanding: it looks like the operator of the website didn't do anything actionable (as far the plaintiff could demonstrate), and it was (the court says) invalid for the plaintiff to try to unmask them. They could have tried to unmask individual users of the website, and it reads to me like the court might have agreed to compel the operator to do that. But it was sanctionable to go after the operator, on (to my reading) a speculative theory that they might have been involved with the posted content. As the court says, you can't do that: you need evidence specific to the person you are trying to deanonymize.