4월 20일자 Zdnet 기사입니다.
노뉴단에서 발행하는 에서 퍼왔습니다.

시애틀 법원이 익명의 이용자 23명의 신분을 밝혀달라는
회사의 요구를 거절했답니다.

미국에서도 인터넷서비스 실명화 바람이 불고 있는데,
그에 대해 제동을 건 것이죠.

"익명의 게시자를 실명화하고 싶다면,
그의 실명(신분)이 꼭 필요하다는 것을 
(회사측이) 증명해야 한다."

당신이 언제 간첩이나 범죄자가 될지 모르니까
국가에 지문 열개를 등록하라는 것이
당연하게 여겨지는 이 나라에서는
이런 권리의 주장은
아직 요원한 것이겠지요.

국민마다 신분을 드러내는 주민등록번호를 하나씩 가져야 하며
주민등록 없이는 복지서비스 혜택에서도 제외되고
(복지를 위한건지 통제를 위한건지가 드러나죠)
결국 그 주민등록번호가
사업자들이 개인정보 가지고 장사하는데에만
아주 유용하게 쓰이고 있는데,
정작 우리한테는 무슨 덕이 있다는거죠?


Court backs right to free speech on Web

 By Stefanie Olsen
Special to ZDNet News 
April 20, 2001 1:31 PM PT
 
A federal judge in Seattle has ruled in favor of upholding the right to
speak anonymously on the Web, marking victory for those seeking to protect
online speech from legal dragnets. 
U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly struck down a subpoena that would have
required Web service InfoSpace to disclose the identity of nearly
two-dozen people who posted anonymous comments on message boards. 

The decision will make it harder to obtain the identities of people who
post messages on the Net unless they are directly named in a lawsuit or
are essential to a claim. 

The ruling comes at a time when it's increasingly common for companies to
try to silence critics on Internet message boards by obtaining the real
identity from the Net service, such as Yahoo, that hosted the chat board.
Lawsuits implicating such anonymous online posters, or John Does, have
been on the rise, and the debate has turned into a flash point for civil
libertarians. 

While Thursday's decision limits the types of people who can have their
identity revealed, it does not completely end such disclosure. 

"The issue becomes: What is that standard under which someone's anonymity
should be breached?" said Lauren Gelman, attorney at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF). "We want the courts to step in to say, 'If you
want to unmask an anonymous poster, you need to show that this person's
identity is central to your claim.' That's what Judge Zilly did." 

So far, the courts have been split over whether companies running the
largest message boards--including America Online and Yahoo--must unmask
the identities of anonymous posters. Judges have sided with free-speech
advocates in some cases and the companies seeking the identities in
others. 

In this case, 2TheMart.com was seeking a subpoena that would reveal the
identities of several online posters. At the time, 2TheMart.com was
defending itself against a class-action lawsuit alleging the company
engaged in securities fraud. 

2TheMart.com asked that InfoSpace be required to turn over the identities
of 23 posters who used pseudonyms on one of its investor-related message
boards. Such requests are fairly common, but in this case the 23 people
weren't being sued, nor did they have a central role in the case. 

The proper Does 
"It's a huge fishing expedition," said Gelman, who represented the
defendants. "Our Does weren't being sued. They weren't accused of being
wrongdoers. They were just people who posted on a message board." 

2TheMart.com hypothesized that people posting on the message boards were
short-selling its stock, meaning that they made investments based on the
idea that the stock would decrease in value. Proving this theory,
2TheMart.com believed, could help the company defend itself against the
securities-fraud suit. 

"We’re adamant about protecting the privacy interest of our subscribers.
However, under our privacy policy we do reserve the right to access and
disclose individuals' information in order to comply with the law," said
Adam Whinston, an InfoSpace spokesman. 

A representative of 2TheMart.com could not be immediately reached for
comment. 

Whether 2TheMart.com had access to the identities was clouded by the fact
that there are no federal laws protecting anonymous speech online. The
only law connected to this issue is the Electronic Communications Act,which
sets out the standards for the government to request a person's
identity from an Internet service. 

Civil libertarians would like to see legislation enacted to protect
people's anonymity online or the establishment of court standards
restricting access to such information. 

Rob Courtney, policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology,
said that courts have granted a lot of authority to plaintiffs at the
expense of people's privacy. This is largely because of a lack of new
controls over what kind of information can be sought during the discovery
process of a legal case. 

"In the online world, we need to have an updated view about what privacy
means, what the expectation of privacy means," Courtney said. 

"This points to the need for legislation that secures rights to anonymous

speech on the Internet." 

The case also highlights a growing tendency for failed Internet companies,
under attack from investors, to blame their critics on message boards for
their woes. Many such companies are fighting legal problems of their own
and in the process looking for a scapegoat. 

As these kinds of cases become more prevalent, groups such as the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Privacy Information Center
and the EFF join the fight to preserve online anonymity. 

Earlier this year, the ACLU argued along with free-speech group the
Liberty Project that a court should not release the names of an ambulance
company's online critics citing free-speech protections. 

In addition, AOL became the first message-board company to use a legal
filing to criticize attempts to force it to squeal on posters. In a
brieffiled in a separate John Doe case, AOL argued that such lawsuits
threaten
free speech on the Web. 
 
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5081526,00.html