So much for my plans for Ann Coulter...
August 20, 2009 5:41 AM Subscribe
Google Reveals Identity of Anonymous Blogger In August 2008, a blogger (STNBAB) created a Google blog called "Skanks in NYC", with model Liskula Cohen as its primary (read: only) target. She sued for the identity of the blogger.
Last Tuesday, Google complied, and Cohen has reportedly forgiven them. This may have a chilling effect on anonymous blogging in the future.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Yeah, as posted this kinda reads like something that didn't actually happen. -- cortex
This was a completely adequate post of an interesting nature.
Metafilter is not responsible for my comments, nor is the Codswallop Corporation nor any of its heirs or assigns in perpetuity.
posted by codswallop at 5:55 AM on August 20, 2009
Metafilter is not responsible for my comments, nor is the Codswallop Corporation nor any of its heirs or assigns in perpetuity.
posted by codswallop at 5:55 AM on August 20, 2009
This post is a bit misleading. Google initially denied the request, then a court order forced them to ID the blogger. So really, it isn't so much "Google reveals ID of blogger" as it is "Google forced to reveal ID of blogger by judge."
posted by billysumday at 5:57 AM on August 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by billysumday at 5:57 AM on August 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
Does anyone know if Google released data voluntarily or due to court order? The articles are lamentably short on legal details.
posted by jaduncan at 5:57 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by jaduncan at 5:57 AM on August 20, 2009
jaduncan, it's not that specific, but the first link does say, "Cohen sued the unknown blogger and demanded Google turn over the information, which it resisted. It took a judge’s order to get Google to turn over a name and email address..."
posted by billysumday at 6:00 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by billysumday at 6:00 AM on August 20, 2009
Thanks, billysumday. I would agree that this isn't really a story at all then. Also she didn't forgive 'them' which in the context of the sentence ' Last Tuesday, Google complied, and Cohen has reportedly forgiven them. This may have a chilling effect on anonymous blogging in the future' can only be read to mean she has forgiven Google. The linked article indicates Cohen in fact forgave the blogger.
This post is misleading in more than one respect.
posted by jaduncan at 6:02 AM on August 20, 2009
This post is misleading in more than one respect.
posted by jaduncan at 6:02 AM on August 20, 2009
Misleading post. Pro Tip: Ann Coulter is a public figure. Liskula Cohen, not so much.
posted by applemeat at 6:11 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by applemeat at 6:11 AM on August 20, 2009
Hrm. Rough crowd today. The points are valid, though. If the mods could kill this and whatnot, I'd be eternally grateful.
posted by Pragmatica at 6:12 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by Pragmatica at 6:12 AM on August 20, 2009
Nobody grants you anonymity; you only have as much of it as you are willing to fight for.
Logs can be stolen, judges can issue orders, inside sources can leak. Proxies, get behind seven of them. If you want anonymity, give incorrect information everywhere, and never use your real name. Flagrantly violate the Terms of Service. Mislead.
The more you are likely to tick someone off, the harder you must work. The lesson has yet to sink home.
posted by adipocere at 6:15 AM on August 20, 2009
Logs can be stolen, judges can issue orders, inside sources can leak. Proxies, get behind seven of them. If you want anonymity, give incorrect information everywhere, and never use your real name. Flagrantly violate the Terms of Service. Mislead.
The more you are likely to tick someone off, the harder you must work. The lesson has yet to sink home.
posted by adipocere at 6:15 AM on August 20, 2009
This isn't some politcal blogger in China
The next time maybe it will be. I don't think what Google did was at all wrong in this case, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
posted by Flashman at 6:17 AM on August 20, 2009
The next time maybe it will be. I don't think what Google did was at all wrong in this case, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
posted by Flashman at 6:17 AM on August 20, 2009
What a disgusting human being, and what a chilling thing to do. ... This was a bitchy model being angry that a little person said something mean about her.
Yeah, I heard she was a real skank. And people who accept apologies are the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth. I hate them so much.
posted by billysumday at 6:18 AM on August 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I heard she was a real skank. And people who accept apologies are the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth. I hate them so much.
posted by billysumday at 6:18 AM on August 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
GYOAB - Get Your Own Anonymous Blog. Maybe.
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 6:29 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 6:29 AM on August 20, 2009
The irony will be when Google sues MetaFilter to reveal Pragmatica's identity because of his/her libelous misrepresentation of this story.
posted by DU at 6:29 AM on August 20, 2009
posted by DU at 6:29 AM on August 20, 2009
I don't think what Google did was at all wrong in this case, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
What precedent? I think it's already pretty firmly established thAt courts can compel a wide range of behavior from parties in lawsuits. There's certainly nothing new about a court ordering an internet service provider to identify a user who is party to a suit or under criminal indictment. It's pretty standard, in fact, as I understand things.
Did Google really even have a choice here? I think it's good when companies comply with the law, and it seems that Google acted appropriately in waiting for a court order before revealing the information.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:30 AM on August 20, 2009
What precedent? I think it's already pretty firmly established thAt courts can compel a wide range of behavior from parties in lawsuits. There's certainly nothing new about a court ordering an internet service provider to identify a user who is party to a suit or under criminal indictment. It's pretty standard, in fact, as I understand things.
Did Google really even have a choice here? I think it's good when companies comply with the law, and it seems that Google acted appropriately in waiting for a court order before revealing the information.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:30 AM on August 20, 2009
The story says Cohen contacted the blogger after finding out her identity. What kind of sick shit is that?
She contacted them? That's some sick shit right there and no mistake.
posted by cillit bang at 6:31 AM on August 20, 2009
She contacted them? That's some sick shit right there and no mistake.
posted by cillit bang at 6:31 AM on August 20, 2009
This was a bitchy model being angry that a little person said something mean about her.
Is Cohen famous or sucessful? I don't know much about the world of high fashion, but I do know that there are plenty of "models" who are "little people".
posted by mr_roboto at 6:35 AM on August 20, 2009
Is Cohen famous or sucessful? I don't know much about the world of high fashion, but I do know that there are plenty of "models" who are "little people".
posted by mr_roboto at 6:35 AM on August 20, 2009
Actually, this story has been on the front page of a local newspaper here in New York, and I was idly wondering what the headlines screaming "skank blog revealed!" were all about.
So, this post explained that to me, and I am in a small way grateful. Yay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:35 AM on August 20, 2009
So, this post explained that to me, and I am in a small way grateful. Yay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:35 AM on August 20, 2009
The next time maybe it will be. I don't think what Google did was at all wrong in this case...
Of course they had to follow the judge's order. You can't fault Google for that. But what I can fault Google for is being able to identify the blogger.
It'd be nifty if Google's Blogger infrastructure was set up in such a way that they could not identify the blogger in question.
Someone should start something like that. Just like Google, plus "don't be evil."
posted by rokusan at 6:37 AM on August 20, 2009
Of course they had to follow the judge's order. You can't fault Google for that. But what I can fault Google for is being able to identify the blogger.
It'd be nifty if Google's Blogger infrastructure was set up in such a way that they could not identify the blogger in question.
Someone should start something like that. Just like Google, plus "don't be evil."
posted by rokusan at 6:37 AM on August 20, 2009
I do know that there are plenty of "models" who are "little people".
All the models I know are very tall.
posted by rokusan at 6:37 AM on August 20, 2009
All the models I know are very tall.
posted by rokusan at 6:37 AM on August 20, 2009
I don't see how she can be in one breath "a supermodel" and in another "not a public figure" and therefore ineligible for the level of defamation protection that would be afforded a nobody like me.
Can a lawyer, or Perez Hilton, please help me out here?
posted by rokusan at 6:38 AM on August 20, 2009
Can a lawyer, or Perez Hilton, please help me out here?
posted by rokusan at 6:38 AM on August 20, 2009
Fine. This story ranks somewhere below my morning poop in relevance toward the rest of my day so if you just want to snark have at it.
Wait, I just want to get this straight. First you call someone a disgusting human being and a bitchy model, then you castigate her for contacting the person who wrote horrible things about her and accepting that person's apology, and now when people naturally raise their eyebrows to such an odd (and oddly strong) opinion, you want to take your ball and go home?
posted by billysumday at 6:40 AM on August 20, 2009
Wait, I just want to get this straight. First you call someone a disgusting human being and a bitchy model, then you castigate her for contacting the person who wrote horrible things about her and accepting that person's apology, and now when people naturally raise their eyebrows to such an odd (and oddly strong) opinion, you want to take your ball and go home?
posted by billysumday at 6:40 AM on August 20, 2009
« Older Caster Semenya and sex varification controversies | See, you want to go fast and not crash... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If the threat of slander or libel encourages a more civil, thoughtful internet, then go forth and de-anonymise I say.* I think enough people got called skanks before the web.
the merits of defamation law, in Australia at least, is another, less clear cut discussion entirely.
posted by smoke at 5:52 AM on August 20, 2009