4 ms·
> If I was accused of yyy, I would have the right to know who accused me That is false for any value of yyy. You don't need the email address to defend yourse
by otikik 13y ago
> If I was accused of yyy, I would have the right to know who accused me
That is false for any value of yyy.
You don't need the email address to defend yourself (which is ok), you only need it to retaliate (which is not ok).
- ubernostrum 13y agoThat is false for any value of yyy. It seemed to be a comment drawing an analogy to the criminal legal process. And in the US, that process guarantees you the right to know what you're accused of, why you're accused of it, and to confront the people accusing you.
- masklinn 13y ago> And in the US, that process guarantees you the right to know what you're accused of, why you're accused of it, and to confront the people accusing you. Only the latter being at issue here, and in criminal proceeding it's done through cross-examination during criminal trial, not by giving the witness's address to the accused.
- ubernostrum 13y agoIn civil proceedings, there is the discovery phase where pretty much anything is theoretically up for grabs.
- masklinn 13y agoAFAIK there's no right to confrontation in civil cases.
- ubernostrum 13y agoYou get to know who's suing you and subpoena all sorts of information from them. Which is effectively the same result. For example, if someone sues you for spamming (under some theoretical law which would allow that), you'd be able to know who they were and get information from/about them during discovery.