Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

Court case to test 'anonymous' Internet (news item)

samoth

New member
(Follow up from this thread: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/c...d-issuing-summons-site-heatherrae-552878.html)



Court case to test 'anonymous' Internet

By Jason Szep in Boston

June 16, 2007 10:29pm


IT bills itself as the world's "most prestigious college discussion board", giving a glimpse into law school admissions policies, post-graduate social networking and the hiring practices of major law firms.


But the AudoAdmit site, widely used by law students for information on schools and firms, is also known as a venue for racist and sexist remarks and career-damaging rumors.

Now it's at the heart of a defamation lawsuit that legal experts say could test the anonymity of the Internet.

After facing lewd comments and threats by posters, two women at Yale Law School filed a suit on June 8 in US District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, that includes subpoenas for 28 anonymous users of the site, which has generated more than seven million posts since 2004.

According to court documents, a user on the site named “STANFORDtroll” began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit, entitled “Stupid Bitch to Enter Yale Law”.

Another threatened to rape and sodomise her, the documents said.

The plaintiff, a respected Stanford University graduate identified only as “Doe I” in the lawsuit, learned of the Internet attack in the summer of 2005 before moving to Yale in Connecticut.

The posts gradually became more menacing.

Some posts made false claims about her academic record and urged users to warn law firms, or accused her of bribing Yale officials to gain admission and of forming a lesbian relationship with a Yale administrator, the court papers said.

The plaintiff said she believed the harassing remarks, which lasted nearly two years, cost her an important summer internship.

After interviewing with 16 firms, she received only four call-backs and ultimately had zero offers - a result considered unusual given her qualifications.

Another woman, identified as Doe II, endured similar attacks.

The two, who say they suffered substantial “psychological and economic injury,” also sued a former manager of the site because he refused to remove disparaging messages.

The manager had cited free-speech protections.

Lifting the mask

“The harassment they were subjected to was quite grotesque,” Brian Leiter, a professor at University of Texas Law School, said.

“Any judge who looks at this is going to be really shocked, and particularly shocked because these appear to be law students.”

The suit is being watched closely to see if the posters are unmasked, a step that could make anonymous chat room users more circumspect.

It also underlines the growing difficulty of protecting reputations online as the web is used increasingly to screen prospective employees and romantic partners.

“They can't hide behind anonymity while they are saying these scurrilous and menacing things,” Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said.

He said the site was not liable under federal protections that are more lenient on websites than TV and newspapers.

Prosecuting the manager could also be difficult because he did not write the posts, Mr Volokh added.

But the anonymous posters look liable and their careers could be jeopardised, he said.

“This ought to be a warning to be people that if you say things that are not just rude but arguably libelous and potentially threatening and perhaps actionable on those grounds then their identity might be unmasked,” he said.

Finding and identifying the posters - including one called “The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah” - could be tough but is not impossible.

The process involves subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers for records, and then more subpoenas to companies, institutions or people identified on those records.

“I've said in my blog the most vile posters on that board are two subpoenas away from being outed,” said Mr Leiter.

“This led to much amusement by the anonymous posters on the board.

“But they are about to find out that this is how it works.”

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21918902-5005961,00.html




:cow:
 
jh1 said:
I hope they used EFF's Onion Router.

STicky from the owner of the site:


Date: June 15th, 2007 12:42 PM
Author: rachmiel

I understand there is some suspicion as to why I wasn't named in this complaint, which, given its level of quality and my sense that professors would not want to waste their time writing such a thing, I suspect either Mike Fertik or Brittan Heller was at least partly responsible for drafting. The inclusion of the copyright claims also sounds to me like something a student would come up with.

I admit I'm curious why I wasn't named in this sham, too, seeing as the whole purpose of the suit seems to be to name as many people as possible. What I can tell you is that I'm not "conspiring" with anyone, and I'd have no interest in doing so. My only interest is in offering what I've already offered in the past to these girls, but oddly enough, could never get a solid commitment in return toward putting the issue to rest.

After talks with Reputation Defender died, I contacted Heide Iravani by e-mail. I gave her my personal cell phone number and explained I wasn't comfortable corresponding with her via e-mail, as I didn't want to have to worry about my e-mails being forwarded off to some third-party, but that I wished to resolve the issue for her. I suggested that, if she were concerned about her privacy, she could use a blocked caller ID when calling me. She told me she was too tired to talk. Maybe she really is an insomniac after all, I don't know. But she never made any attempt to contact me, even though I had very clearly stated that I wanted to resolve the issue, meaning take down the threads.

Just as I offered in the past, I have reiterated my offer to these people: I will take down the threads in question and implement some level of community moderation, as I was already going to before this mess occurred. In fact, I will even make a special effort to oversee that these two people do not feel harassed anymore. If their chief concern is to remove threads and feel safe, then by this point they surely know I'll gladly help them.

If, however, they find themselves more motivated by vengeance, and wish to try to obtain IPs for the sake of actually trying to harm people's careers (in contrast to their own dubious claims of personal injury to their careers), I suspect they won't be successful. For a long time it has been widely known my policy is not to collect personal information, including IPs, unless someone is spamming. If the next step is that I should be accused of negligence for failing to collect this information, then so be it. I was never aware of any regulations mandating the collection of this data.

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&mc=121&forum_id=2#8258491



:cow:
 
samoth said:
cost her an important summer internship


I wonder if you can sue for lost wages if it is an internship.


Has this bish thought maybe the reason she isn't getting jobs is because she doesn't interview well, or possibly she isn't attractive enough to sexually harass?
 
Top Bottom