3 ms·

I don't think that opinion says what you think it says. What is really being discussed there is if the government could compel Yahoo to unmask an anonymous use

by hibikir 12y ago

I don't think that opinion says what you think it says. What is really being discussed there is if the government could compel Yahoo to unmask an anonymous user. It says nothing about actual anonymity guarantees among private parties. If Yahoo decided to hand over the account details, the court would not have intervened at all. So when you have an account with some service, any expectations on how the company will handle the data come from the TOS. In a similar fashion, a company is free to delete any content you submit to their website. The government can't curtail your speech, barring a few exceptions, but a company certainly can, as long as the government is not involved.

dalke 12y ago
We know that the government could compel Yahoo to unmask an anonymous user - get a FISA order to inspect the business records and, poof, done. So I don't see how that's the issue. Here's the breakdown: "A prominent cancer scientist, unhappy with the attention his research papers have received on PubPeer, is suing some of our anonymous commenters for defamation." That's a third-party, who is not a government organization, suing PubPeer to de-anonyomize a commenter on PubPeer's site. "Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board. When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed." That's a third party, Dendrite, who is not a government organization, suing Yahoo to de-anonyomize a commenter on Yahoo's site. If Yahoo wanted to, they could turn that information over. The question was, could Dendrite compel Yahoo to do so if Yahoo didn't want to. And the answer is that there's a First Amendment issue which must be considered, so the answer is "sometimes." Yahoo didn't want to. And PubPeer doesn't want to. So I don't understand why you are bringing up first party actions (actions that Yahoo and PubPeer are free to do) when the issue is what third party actions may compel them to do.

by hibikir 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

We know that the government could compel Yahoo to unmask an anonymous user - get a FISA order to inspect the business records and, poof, done. So I don't see how that's the issue. Here's the breakdown: "A prominent cancer scientist, unhappy with the attention his research papers have received on PubPeer, is suing some of our anonymous commenters for defamation." That's a third-party, who is not a government organization, suing PubPeer to de-anonyomize a commenter on PubPeer's site. "Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board. When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed." That's a third party, Dendrite, who is not a government organization, suing Yahoo to de-anonyomize a commenter on Yahoo's site. If Yahoo wanted to, they could turn that information over. The question was, could Dendrite compel Yahoo to do so if Yahoo didn't want to. And the answer is that there's a First Amendment issue which must be considered, so the answer is "sometimes." Yahoo didn't want to. And PubPeer doesn't want to. So I don't understand why you are bringing up first party actions (actions that Yahoo and PubPeer are free to do) when the issue is what third party actions may compel them to do.