Comments on “Judge safeguards anonymous web commenters” • The Register

Comments on: Judge safeguards anonymous web commenters

Back to the article
Comments on this article are now closed

So in Montana #

By Peyton Posted Monday 15th September 2008 18:27 GMT

I'm "connected with" The Register just by posting this comment. Wow, I'm honored =)

I imagine this is yet another case of a law being applied to a circumstance that its originators never envisioned.

@Peyton #

By James Posted Monday 15th September 2008 22:14 GMT

The law of unintended consequences...

Happens a lots these days.

eg. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article33928.ece

Not that I read the sun of course. I remembered the story from somewhere else and searched it.

I want to be orderchy. #

By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 16th September 2008 06:26 GMT

Yes disorder, very bad. Everything is ordered, interesting to see they didn't have the cheek to put in maintaining the status quo :)

Anonymity is a right, especially in this day and age. Free speech is a right, words cannot hurt, but tazers, bullets, battons all of those can. And that is the gamit people run to express opinion or ask questions in today's society.

Don't taze me bro.

What would the newspaper know anyway? #

By Dave Bell Posted Tuesday 16th September 2008 08:24 GMT

On the one side, they have been asked for information about two very specific instances, and the court should be able to judge whether the particular comments matter.

But what does the newspaper know? They maybe have an IP address logged, and they also are likely to have an email address. Connect from a wifi hotspot, and have a few email addresses trawled, spammer-like, from the net, and you can make that useless.

The trouble is that the old-style anonymous informant is filtered by a reporter. There's a choice made, and often the reporter ends up knowing who the informant is. That relationship, and that knowledge, deserves protection.

If I choose to "post anonymously" here, I don't feel I should expect the same protection. This is still me in a public place. If I want that protection, I think I should be sending a personal email to a reporter.

GOOD. #

By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 22nd September 2008 08:00 GMT

"old-style anonymous informant is filtered by a reporter. There's a choice made, and often the reporter ends up knowing who the informant is. That relationship, and that knowledge, deserves protection. "

um, why exactly?

I am sick of being a law abiding citizen, watching programmes that feature druggies and other criminals behind a screen, with their voice changed, talking about how exactly they break the law and all the things they do and all the money they make. Then when I want to post something online, just because the information is logged in digital form and easy to retrieve, people think it's there for the taking.

No.