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 himeself” 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 the progressive blogging 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 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.

HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THIS?

The Online Integrity Statement of Principles is simple:

  •  Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.
  •  Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.
  •  Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behavior.
  •  Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.

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.

    This diary was deleted along with all its comments by me late last night.  No one told me to do it, and it’s unanimous that it was wrong to do it.  I was wrong to delete, and I’m sorry for it.  

    I’m also sorry for what is going on here.  As a community we’re better than this, and always have been.

    The community has been on a bender of bashing.  There’s a tone of nastiness, suspicion and conspiracy mindedness taking over in the on-going discussion.  Maybe it’s from living too long in Bush’s cold war on terrorism. Maybe it’s open season.  I really don’t know.  I do know that I don’t want to take part in it.

    What’s the solution?

    I think the answer is communities who live according to, not rules, but by principles.

    Now we see this all the time: “Don’t be a prick.” (Booman Tribune)  “Do no evil”(Google)

    Some individuals will always go outside the community principles, and some corporations will always go outside them.

    The cost of these principles lies in suffering and sacrifice.  And it seems to me our sense of justice is as strong as is our experience of suffering and sacrifice.  The process to develop and maintain these principles is struggle.  There’s no way around this.  Life is a struggle.  

    When life is good, it’s seeking balance and equilibrium…..

    The three prisoners who hanged themselves in Guantanamo…. well that’s about habeas corpus…. law that does, indeed go back to the year 1215.  All law derives from the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.

    There are two kinds of law: one that exists and is imposed on those who try to violate it, and another, the law to which one voluntarily promises  to uphold.  To be a signatory to the greatest laws of civilization, (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or code of ethics like the Online Integrity Statement: to do it voluntarily and to abide by it is a greater thing, in my opinion, than to either feel restricted by the law that is imposed, or to find that the law is lacking.  Law is created, based on the law before it.

    And out of this voluntary law, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights humanity and civilization progresses.  Now that’s progressive

So I’m going to stop now.  Anyone who wants to contact me, my email’s open.  Best regards,

M.Suskind