To co-incide with the Yearly Kos Convention, Byron York of National Review Online wrote an "opposition research" piece on a prominent Daily Kos writer. The writer, having been "outed"... i.e. publication of his name, location, profession, law firm, and that firm's client list, announced his decision to quit blogging.
The right celebrated, while a significant number on the left claimed that the writer had "outed himself" by not being more careful. Added to this the writer had a long list of enemies and fair-weather friends, as they had in the past been insulted, down-rated, or banned by him. A lawyer on the left celebrated too "He's an asshole who deserved to get burned." Meanwhile, back at the convention the "outed" writer was being toasted and applauded at an occasion from which he was forced to withdraw.
Now all of this is pretty ugly, but another issue raised its weary head: There Is No Right To Anonymity or Privacy if One is an Internet Blogger The general consensus is that if one blogs on the internet and achieves a significant following sooner or later you will be "outed."
Following this line, there have been several strong statements against writing anonymously on the Net or using pseudonyms at all. This argument says that one should have the courage of one's convictions and be brave enough to sign one's own name to commentary just like letters to the editor, as if not to disclose one's identity is cowardice. But a poll
here says that the reason posters do not use their real name is not fear of cyber-stalking nutjobs, or right-wing freeper blogs, but that one's weblog writings might have negative impact on their professional life.
The controversy will die down, the writer will recover. As a result of what happened this blog community will have to change: either we will sign the Online Integrity Statement, or caution posters that they blog at their own risk.
What I find most discouraging about the whole matter is this: the attitude of surrender to lawlessness and acquiescense to lack of protection for privacy and fourth amendment rights.
ACCESS DOES NOT EQUAL ENTITLEMENT
* Your doctor, lawyer, and banker do not have the right to publish information about you.
* Why is it a federal crime for anyone to steal and read my letters through the U.S. Postal service?
* It is said that if I pay $110.00 I can find all the phone calls you made from your cell. Am I entitled to publish them?
People have argued that the law is outmoded because we are dealing with a relatively new communications medium. People have argued that the Internet is a lawless zone where no one is safe from being "outed."
People are arguing for what is essentially electronic emminent domain, except there is no suggestion that individuals be compensated for what is their identity, publicity, and intellectual property.... they are willingly giving up the laws that protect privacy and civil rights through our Fourth Amendment to be secure in their homes and their persons and their papers that originated with the Magna Carta. These laws go back to the year 1215!!
There is a great body of law that protects individuals from having their personal information used against them. For instance intellectual property laws as regards to publicity. If I take what you, blogger, have written here and post it on a site where i have advertisements that generate revenue, and as a result of what you have written here i make money off you, your writing, your story, your person..... there's a law that prohibits my doing that....
You and only you have rights to your publicity.... that's your name, your face, your details and your work. I cannot use your publicity for my gain.
THE CONSTITUTION, AGAIN
"the Fifth Amendment reflects the Constitution's concern for . . . the right of each individual `to a private enclave where he may lead a private life"'
That private enclave is here.
The rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights are considered so fundamental, nearly sacred, that they were spelled out as protections to citizens from encroachment by the federal government. State constitutions likewise protected the rights of citizens from encroachment by state government.
The rights enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights are connected by the thread of "natural rights" to Roman times. The concept of "natural rights" assumes that all humans are born with certain rights that cannot be transferred or taken away.
Some of these rights are specified in the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and the United States Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
to quote from a piece by an old-timer:
. . . The public does not realize that the crisis we face is a crisis of the rule of law, borne of the fact that the President of the United States has expressly arrogated unto himself the power to break the law, and is exercising that power on numerous fronts, not only with regard to eavesdropping. The reason they do not yet realize this is because this scandal has been depicted - by the media and, infuriatingly, even by Democrats - as being an eavesdropping scandal, not a law-breaking scandal. As a result, debate has centered over whether the government should be eavesdropping, not over whether the President has the power to break the law.
Former Daily Kos Blogger Before He Was Outed, "The Rule of Law;" Feb 28, 2006
Beyond our Constitution there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This Declaration is the basis of the Covenant to which the US is a signatory: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
There's plenty of law, just not enough lawyers.
What we need right here and now is a good lawyer who specializes in intellectual property, publicity, the internet, and the media. Someone who will go to bat for us on the issue of rights to privacy on the Net. Oh, yeah, we had one of them... looks like we just lost him.