Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hospital Wants Critical Blogger's Anonymity Ended

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the privacy-not-always-right dept.

Privacy 181

rs232 sent in a link to this story about one's right to privacy, which opens: "An unlikely Internet frontier is Paris, Texas, population 26,490, where a defamation lawsuit filed by the local hospital against a critical anonymous blogger is testing the bounds of Internet privacy, First Amendment freedom of speech and whistle-blower rights."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frist Pots!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793123)

Is it?

Or else? :) (2, Insightful)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793125)

"Or else he'll end up in the hospital!"

Re:Or else? :) (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793427)

"Or else he'll end up in the hospital!"

Or take a little vacation like PJ of Groklaw for health reasons.

Re:Or else? :) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793885)

here's one for you all...

i had a very bad accident a few years ago in virginia. while incapasitated in Inova/Fairfax hospital in Virginia, USA, i was sexually molested by a male nurse (i'm a male so this wasn't fun at all). A few months later i reported the incident to the police. shame kept me from reporting it immediatly. the hospital waited until the statute of limitations had passed to release their findings.

by the time the year was up (the statute of limitations expired) they released the name of the perp and the fact that they had fired this man.

all facts are verifiable by contacting the local police department (at which time you could probably find out a lot more about me than i wish for you to know)

pass this post along to them and let's see if they have the nerve to ask that my name be released. ... an anonymous victim

Oh this could be fun (5, Funny)

Durrok (912509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793127)

"Hello slashdot, please provide me the name of this "anonymous coward" who posted about my mother's sex life and his role in it. I feel as if I've been defamed. What's that now? I can't hear you over all that laughter. Well you will be hearing from my lawyer!"

Re:Oh this could be fun (4, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793193)

Sorry, your lawyers busy, but your mother says hello.

Re:Oh this could be fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793209)

Dude you posted under your account name! You are so busted man, tell peaches in cell block 8 I said hello.

Re:Oh this could be fun (4, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793253)

But Dude, it's a deniable account.

Will Peaches remember you fondly? Were you one of his favorites?

Re:Oh this could be fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793313)

Watch out, Peaches likes crunchy peanut butter. :(

Re:Oh this could be fun (0, Offtopic)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793639)

I think you need to have a long, frank talk with your father...

Libel (5, Insightful)

FST (766202) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793139)

If he's spewing false information, then libel is libel. He can and should be punished. Just because he's on the intarwebz doesn't mean he has immunity.

On the other hand, if he's telling the truth, the hospital has no case.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Re:Libel (3, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793161)

Ahh, but how are they going to prove that it is the truth (or that it is libel)?

I mean, he might be an insider who may know some things that an outsider may not - things that may be true but may come across as libel.

I think that is the dilemma.

The hospital should be investigated then. (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793381)

If the blogger's accusations turn out to be false, the blogger's credibility will fall down like those wacky conspiracy theorists. Case closed. And if they turn to be true, cool, one point for justice.

But certainly I don't think the blogger should be arrested for libel unless he gives his name and accuses the hospital. See, he's anonymous and his credibility is null. Big deal.

I mean, it's like the rumour about a Coca Cola bottle with a rat inside. Nobody can verify it, and it's just hearsay. Or what about the people who say there are UFOs in Area 51? Are they going to get sued for libel, too?

Around 10 years ago, where a famous news agency reported on the Chupacabra according to some information they found "in the internet!" (lol). Gee, the internet became the Brittanica all of a sudden ;-)

If people start believing every freaking thing they see on the internet, then the problem isn't the blogger, or the hospital. It's the bunch of idiots behind the monitors of their compies. Why should people believe an ANONYMOUS blogger? Or everyone's guilty until proven innocent now?

It's the authorities' duty, not ours, to judge the hospital.

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (0)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793647)

Or what about the people who say there are UFOs in Area 51? Are they going to get sued for libel, too?
Of course not. Telling the truth is a defence for libel. Unfortunately it isn't a defence for spreading state secrets *no carrier*

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794101)

Unfortunately it isn't a defence for spreading state secrets *no carrier*

Must live in Burma....

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (2, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794041)

Oh I agree with you.

I was just questioning the stupidity of the hospital's stance. Imagine a traditional print media, with someone sending letters to a newspaper about something they think is true. How would they find out who the person was? Especially if the person took measures not to be found (i.e. cut paste words from the newspaper and avoid putting their fingerprints on it blah blah).

So why should it be any different on the Internet?

Anonymity is one of the fundamental tenets for the preservation of privacy. Your words may have consequences, therefore, sometimes people express their thoughts anonymously in the hope that doing so would protect them from the probable consequences. The downside to that, of course, is that people may not particularly take them seriously.

This guy expressed his thoughts anonymously. So?

Since they are the ones accusing the blogger, they should be the ones who d evidence to prove that it is libel. If not, they have no case against him and any half decent judge would throw their case through the window.

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794529)

Imagine a traditional print media, with someone sending letters to a newspaper about something they think is true. How would they find out who the person was? Especially if the person took measures not to be found (i.e. cut paste words from the newspaper and avoid putting their fingerprints on it blah blah).

The anonymous threat, the poison pen letter, doesn't get printed.

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (2, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794231)

"But certainly I don't think the blogger should be arrested for libel"

Considering libel is a civil matter, arrest would be improper. Lawsuit, on the other hand...

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (1)

drcagn (715012) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794363)

This issue isn't about protecting the people who read the blog from lies. Readers aren't the victims. The victim is the hospital. Stupid people are going to believe what they will believe, and for every potential hospital customer who reads libelous misinformation and goes elsewhere for medical treatment, the hospital loses business.

Re:The hospital should be investigated then. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794449)

But certainly I don't think the blogger should be arrested for libel unless he gives his name and accuses the hospital. See, he's anonymous and his credibility is null. Big deal.

You are not "arrested" for libel. Libel is not a crime, libel is a cause for action in a civil court.

"Freedom of speech" has to mean something more - demand something more - than the anonymity of the poison pen.

If the blogger's accusations turn out to be false, the blogger's credibility will fall down like those wacky conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theories have an extraordinary longevity and can do lasting damage. How many postings to Slashdot base their arguments on the urban legends that have become the geek's gospel truth?

Re:Libel (2, Insightful)

Courageous (228506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793163)


Well. It's not that simple. It's fairly routine practice for large organizations to summarily terminate employees in situations like this, putting an enormous legal burden on the employee for suing for wrongful termination. You're talking six figures to press a case like this. Do you have that lying around?

In the risk-versus-reward equation, the employer has a very high reward return through the suppression of similar activity by other employees, even if the specific employee wins their case. Fired is fired, and most people are rightly frightened of that, when a many-years-off reward of winning the lawsuit is their only recourse.

C//

Re:Libel (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793317)

It's time to start rewarding whistle-blowers, or at least giving them *SOME* legal protection. Yes, it may be abused, but firing someone for a good-faith reporting of something that is either illegal, morally indefensible, or a danger to people's physical or financial well-being, is also abuse. What ever happened to the idea of "checks and balances?" Or is it now "whoever can write the biggest check, wins in the balance."

Of course, since this is Paris, Texas, we can next expect to read that one or both sides beat a hasty retreat :-)

Re:Libel (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793963)

It's time to start rewarding whistle-blowers, or at least giving them *SOME* legal protection.

The fact that whistle-blowers need ANY protection is pretty much a sign of how bad corporate corruption has become. You'd think that people would be lining up to hire these outstanding young men and women who had the integrity and honor to stand against malfeasance, but no, I guess everyone's too busy trying to hire toadies who will look the other way as numbers get munged and people get poisoned.

Re:Libel (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794297)

Well. It's not that simple. It's fairly routine practice for large organizations to summarily terminate employees in situations like this, putting an enormous legal burden on the employee for suing for wrongful termination.
_________
It's fairly routine practice for whistle blowers to use TOR/free proxies additional to accessing the web from Starbucks before entering a false name into the blog login.

At least I hope so.

It's in TFA. (2, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793167)

Rodgers said the core question in the legal battle is whether a plaintiff in a lawsuit can "strip" a blogger of anonymity merely by filing a lawsuit. Without some higher standard to prove a lawsuit has merit, he said, defamation lawsuits could have a chilling effect on Internet free speech.

Can someone file a lawsuit and have your anonymity removed ... just because they filed a lawsuit?

A judge will have to "judge" whether the statements are libel or not.

Re:Libel (5, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793181)

The issue is that many plaintiffs file a John Doe lawsuit against somebody, get their identity, and then drop the lawsuit and pursue other means of retribution.

For example, a company suspects that a bloger saying bad but true things about the company is an employee. They know that they can't legally do anything about it - a trial will uncover the facts and show that the statements are true and thus not libel. However, they file a suit anyway to find out who the employee is. Then they drop the suit (since they'd lose it anyway). At this point that employee starts having performance problems, gets lousy assignments, and generally suffers until they quit - but of course nothing is attributed to the blog and nothing is done that would give the employee grounds to sue. Other employees of course get the message and learn not to post bad things about the company on the blog, which is what the company set out to accomplish in the first place.

That's the problem with these sorts of lawsuits - they aren't about using the courts to obtain justice - they're about using the courts as a tool to remove the shield of anonymity used by weak people confronting strong ones who are doing something wrong.

If the hospital were genuinely concerned about patient privacy they should go to the Feds and point out the issue and let them deal with it. The federal government would perform an investigation while protecting anonymity, and they'd be genuinely looking out for patients without an agenda of covering up hospital mistakes.

Re:Libel (1)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793291)

There is this awful `miguel (7116)' troll account. The account is an impersonator, I do not know who it is And his views have nothing to do with mine. The slashdot admins have said that they can not do anything about it.

This is a shame, because that person has been flaming everywhere

Re:Libel (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794379)

Very funny, I'm sure. The imposter account above ("Miguel de Icaza (660439)") has taken the real Miguel's words from this post [slashdot.org] and swapped the account name round.

Re:Libel (1)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794407)

So there you have it, a mouthful of personal opinions. I bet you wanted to spend your time doing something else, like making out with your girlfriend (haha, just kidding, if you actually reading my opinion you have no girlfriend to make out with).

Re:Libel fishing expeditions (2, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793391)

Yes, you bring up a very good point of the courts [powers] being misused this way. It probably doesn't happen very often, but it doesn't need to in order to have a strong chilling effect.

While the courts naturally have a tendency to see litigants agree and save them the burden of deciding, perhaps there are cases where such laxness is not in the public interest. IMHO, courts ought to approval all settlements (including withdraw/dismissals). Once the sword of public justice has been unsheathed, the public has an interest in how it was used.

Plaintiffs ought to be a bit afraid that they will be chastised if their case is frivolous or otherwise abusive. Smark defendants will lock the plaintiffs down by cross-filing, but this does not protect third parties who have no standing. So the judge ought to consider amicus briefs.

All true but so what (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793443)

All you say is true but so what. Why should people who criticize have an expectation of anonymity or escape libel charges? Were assured free speech by our constitution but that is emphatically not an assurance of anonymous speech. We (in the US) are free to associate with whom we please and exclude reporters. But if we do say something publicly it becomes public.

The fact that someone might fear retribution does not hold. People are obligated to testify in trials even though they might fear retribution. They don't testify anonymously. We do recognize extreme circumstances and conditions liable for abuse. That's why there's such things as the whistleblower protections laws and witness protection programs. But those are not for everyone.

Re:All true but so what (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793515)

Whistleblowers serve the public interest. They should be encouraged to speak up and shielded in any way which is just.

If somebody says something libelous (anonymous or otherwise) I'm fine with the courts having power to punish them. However, people should be subject to the courts and not the other way around - the courts don't exist simply to help you silence your critics.

Judges should be able to evaluate the merits and facts of a case, and choose to not grant discovery of an identity in cases where there are not sufficient grounds to win a lawsuit. It wouldn't be hard to do - if a blog is libelous then the company should be able to show that it is factually incorrect and caused harm. Neither of these require disclosure of the blogers identity.

Re:All true but so what (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793633)

Whistleblowers serve the public interest. They should be encouraged to speak up and shielded in any way which is just .
No they should be encouraged any way that is within the law. If you feel the law is inadequate then that is where you begin.

Re:All true but so what (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793723)

I'm more than happy to see this codified into law. What's your point? I'm arguing how courts SHOULD work - not how they currently do. The way the laws/courts operate SHOULD be just - and I'm perfectly willing to admit that sometimes they aren't in reality.

Re:All true but so what (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793637)

Were assured free speech by our constitution but that is emphatically not an assurance of anonymous speech.
If there's one thing that we can conclude from seeing the chilling effect in action, it is that anonymous speech is the only truly free speech.

Re:All true but so what (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793693)

Were assured free speech by our constitution but that is emphatically not an assurance of anonymous speech.
If there's one thing that we can conclude from seeing the chilling effect in action, it is that anonymous speech is the only truly free speech.
Right that's why we need to go to the east german system of informants, secret accusations, and secret witness testimony. That assures proper conduct.

Re:All true but so what (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793927)

I secretly accuse you of crime x.
I have nothing to back up this accusation but an appeal to authority upon myself "I am the witness".
I am anonymous, therefore my argument is self defeating.

When a doctor claims to be an expert on certain facts, you believe him because you can verify their expertise through tests. Of course, this is a trust issue. You're not really verifying the objective truth by trusting an expert. You're committing a logical fallacy, the appeal-to-authority, ipse dixit, or whatever you may refer to it as. Unless you can understand the experiment, you're really not qualified to decide what is true and what is not.

So why do we trust witness testimony at all? If something cannot be objectively verified through scientific experimentation, how can we not have reasonable doubt about most everything?

I thought it was common to ignore anonymous witness testimony. There's no argument to respect in it, its toothless.

I thought it was fine to accept information from an anonymous source so long as there was other channels to verify the objective truth through experimentation.

Am I out to lunch here?

Re:All true but so what (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794353)

It's not only common, it's the law of the land. At least in the US, you have the right to confront your accuser. (6th amendment).

Re:All true but so what (5, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794039)

Were assured free speech by our constitution but that is emphatically not an assurance of anonymous speech.

It's funny you say that. Mere anonymous speech is, in fact, protected. If there is something more to it, e.g. libel, then the anonymity might be lost, but otherwise it is as protected by the First Amendment as any other speech.

Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject in Talley v. California, 362 US 60 (1960) (internal citations omitted):

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.

We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity.


Again, sometimes it is necessary to pierce anonymity. But not all the time.

Mod Parent Up. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794399)

I was looking for a good court case illustrating the Supreme Court's view on anonymous speech being protected as free speech, and you found one first.

It seems to me that the way this should work is that the case should go to trial first, and if the hospital can prove (to judge or jury depending) that the the anonymous person did something illegal (libel, revealing private patient info), then he will be outed and punished. Otherwise he should keep his anonymity.

semantic hairsplitting but a good point (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794511)

I think the distinction here is that while one is free to speak, anonymously or not, the protection is on the speech not the anonymity. That is there is no right to expect your anonymity will be preserved or that anyone will be denied the right to expose or seek to expose your identity. You may certainly publish your pamphlet, and the fact that you try to do so anonymously may not restrict the act of publishing. ( I realize There are legal situations where the act of exposure might itself be illegal--e.g. a protected witness or CIA operative. But that's an exception).

Your case dooes however raise a different issue. One of prior restraint on the attempt to publish anonymously. prior to reading the case you cite I would have believed that it might be legal for the government to enforce a ban on anonymous speech. Now I see that they can't apriori do so. THey can expose you after the fact or perhaps compel other to do so. But they cannot prevent your speech in the first place because it is anonymously authored.

Re:Libel (2, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793751)

However, they file a suit anyway to find out who the employee is. Then they drop the suit (since they'd lose it anyway).

So we need a mechanism with which a defendant can demand that the case be seen through to completion. That would seem to be the best whistle-blower protection of all. Finish the trial, complete with discovery and documentation of evidence of the validity of the claims.

Re:Libel (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794159)

Then they drop the suit (since they'd lose it anyway). At this point that employee starts having performance problems, gets lousy assignments, and generally suffers until they quit - but of course nothing is attributed to the blog and nothing is done that would give the employee grounds to sue.

I don't know about the US, but over here in the UK if that happened then you may well have a case for constructive dismissal [direct.gov.uk] .

Re:Libel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793431)

If he's spewing false information, then libel is libel. He can and should be punished.
If he's spewing false information, perhaps people shouldn't be believing the words of some random blogger on the internet. Unless the law's going to step in and regulate all untruthful positive as well as negative speech (I'm looking at you, advertisers), why not let people say whatever the hell they like, and let other people believe them or not as they see fit?

We could call it "free speech".

Re:Libel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793805)

The case is that "IT'S AN ANONYMOUS POST!". He/She/It should not be punished for free speech?! If freedom of speech is to be punished and revoked then start with identified defamers a character like PEREZ HILTON! He's just plain mean and nuts!

Re:Libel (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793997)

While truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel or slander, it can be very expensive to defend against in court. And the allegedly libeled party can, and often does, engage in serious harassing behavior against their target. This is often enough to put an individual out of work, cost them a mortgage, ruin their career from negative publicity, destroy their professional accreditation (which is a huge deal in nursing or doctor work), or even wind up with their assets in the hands of their attacker, including their confidential records.

If you'd like to see a good example, take a look at the thousands of harassing lawsuits filed by Scientology against the Cult Awareness Network, especially those based on libel or slander. When the cult finally found a lawsuit from someone else that their well-funded lawyers were able to use to bankrupt CAN. (Then that lawyer got sued by his client for misrepresenting him in court, using the case to destroy CAN instead of protect his client's interests.) Then they bought up the office space, phone numbers, etc. If you call Cult Awareness Network these days, it's actually the cult of Scientology manning the line.

Re:Libel (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794485)

If he's spewing false information, then libel is libel. He can and should be punished. Just because he's on the intarwebz doesn't mean he has immunity.
On the other hand, if he's telling the truth, the hospital has no case.


From the hospital's perspective, it's totally irrelevant whether they win or lose the case. Their intent in filing is to find out which of their employees posted comments so they can be fired in retaliation.

Hospital Blogging (4, Insightful)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793141)

That was one of the reasons that I would previously let doctors post anonymously on carotids.com [carotids.com] . Medical systems are huge, reputation-based systems. If a hospital doesn't have a good community name, people will take their personal business elsewhere. So hospitals will sue and sue to protect their reps.

Carotids has not thrived even with anonymous postings because docs are still scared. I still get frequent contacts with people considering posting... however, most never pull the trigger.

Sad.

Re:Hospital Blogging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793577)

Carotids has not thrived even with anonymous postings because docs are still scared. I still get frequent contacts with people considering posting... however, most never pull the trigger.

It is easy to post anonymously. Just drive around and find a distant, but reachable open wireless access point. And either change your "MAC" address or use a wireless card that they have no access to get the MAC by. This way even if the services provider cooperates it's mute, they will only know the city and your access point. Which is a hint, don't use a pattern or same access point. Also stay away from places likely to have cameras. When your done the post, reinstall your PC wiping out any registry bits containing the MAC. Pretty hard to catch someone that does this.

Another good old fashioned way is snail mail post. Just keep your DNA off of it.

Re:Hospital Blogging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793785)

reinstall your PC wiping out any registry bits containing the MAC
Your post would make more sense if you learned what a hardware-based MAC address is. Start here [wikipedia.org] . Hint: swap the NIC card, not the registry.

Re:Hospital Blogging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20794499)

If he was using an OS that didn't have "registry bits", it's possible that the OS might let him override the hardware MAC address of the NIC.

Throwing in use of Tor would also add another layer of protection.

Re:Hospital Blogging (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794503)

hes not exactly all the way off base since its possible for the registry to have bits referencing the MAC of any and all network cards (note the winXP/Vista DRM is partly keyed to your MAC(s)). Also its very possible to in software scramble the MAC of your network card (and or change it to some other nonrandom number)
(wanna have a MAC of DE-AD-BE-EF-DE-AD ? it can be done)

Re:Hospital Blogging (1)

flonker (526111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794169)

No $50 wireless access point will record the MAC address anyway. Why bother?

Re:Hospital Blogging (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793593)

Carotids has not thrived even with anonymous postings because docs are still scared. I still get frequent contacts with people considering posting... however, most never pull the trigger.

I suspect it hasn't thrived because it's mostly muckracking and/or tinfoil hat nonsense. If I were a doctor and wanted to break story, anonymous or not, I'd avoid your site too.

wellll accttualllyyy (5, Informative)

Valar (167606) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793147)

From reading the FA, it seems like a big part of the hospital's lawsuit is that the blog has been disclosing patient information. In some cases, enough patient information that the patient could be personally identified from the posting. So yes, part of it is your standard 'they are saying bad things about me and I don't like it and I want to know who it is!', but I think part of it is perfectly reasonable-- stop writing about the patients without their consent.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1)

forand (530402) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793295)

I agree. BUT I don't think it is the hospital's job to be enforcing such laws. Seems like it should be given to a policing agency.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (2, Insightful)

BVis (267028) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793597)

All things being equal, I would agree; it's not a private institution's job to enforce federal regulation.

However, HIPPA is a very fucking scary piece of legislation. If the hospital isn't doing EVERYTHING in its power to determine who's leaking this information, the patient and/or the patient's family (or survivors) can sue the hospital into oblivion. It's in the hospital's financial interest to destroy this guy by any means necessary (both because they'll lose business from negative publicity and the fear of a civil suit); whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' never enters into the discussion.

This leaves aside the fact that the hospital should actually FIX things if they don't like what's being said (and if it's even partially true). It's kind of like the RIAA trying to solve the problem of declining record sales; instead of fixing what's wrong (the product sucks, CDs are an order of magnitude too expensive), they try to use the courts to enforce the status quo.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793403)

Did all of the bloggers expose personal data, or did just one or a few do so ?

I suspect it was a few, the hospital is using this as an excuse to go after all of the bloggers and get their names. The hospital management is more interested in shooting messagers than fixing issues in it's health care.

That's where you violate HIPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793665)

If they are exposing patient information, that's a violation of HIPAA and they very well should get in trouble. Just like my girlfriend can't tell me who is taking what drug at the store where she's a pharmacist (which I really don't want to know anyhow... and with the way the information is all linked together there's access to tons of peoples info)

Re:That's where you violate HIPAA (1)

Dr_Art (937436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794097)

I started reading your post and the fact that you're posting to slashdot AND you say you have a girlfriend made me confused. What were you saying again?

:-)

Regards,
Art

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1, Troll)

dashslotter (1093743) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793683)

So all I have to do to completely circumvent the constitution and/or any privacy law is to accuse someone of breaking a law? Suppose your post made me angry. Suppose I want to hunt you down. Suppose I accuse you of doing bad things to children just to find out who you are. Suppose ur fucked.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793843)

I didn't get that impresson. Supposedly the blogger has claimed to have seen patient records provided by employees of the hospital. No one says the blogger released this information. It's still a crime, if it occured.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794083)

Supposedly the blogger has claimed to have seen patient records provided by employees of the hospital. No one says the blogger released this information. It's still a crime, if it occured.

If this occurred, the culpability is with the employees, IF they were healthcare professionals bound by HIPAA constraints. IF these employees were janitors, food service workers, or the like, the culpability would be on the hospital for failure to develop and utilize effective procedures for securing confidential information. In any event, the person who receives this information, the blogger in this case, is not bound by any law except his own good judgment.

The other means by which the blogger could have seen patient records is if a patient requested a copy of their records and then shared it with the blogger, or with someone who passed it to the blogger.

Essent Healthcare has, or is supposed to have, an effective method for identifying and closing its security leaks. The existence of this lawsuit demonstrates on several levels that they are incompetent at hospital management: they have no conception of the issues that are involved. They should take their Swim with the Sharks skills [amazon.com] back to selling envelopes, where the important things of marketing and capitalistic pursuits are not going to be polluted by matters of professional conduct, altruism, etc.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794167)

It gives the hospital cause to subpoena the ISP for the blogger's identity.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794383)

It gives the hospital cause to subpoena the ISP for the blogger's identity.

Please explain why the hospital's negligence in conforming to HIPAA regulations can be the basis for them to interfere with a blogger's rights to anonymity.

While you are doing this, please point me to where the hospital has asked the blogger to voluntarily cooperate with their investigation of their failed internal procedures, because I don't see that anywhere. Certainly that should be the first step in the process.

You might also explain to me why the blogging equivalent of an anonymous coward should be accorded more veracity than ACs on slashdot enjoy. This guy apparently claims he has seen patient records; what happens if he now says, "No, I never saw such things, so go away please"? It would seem that the court would have to accept both of these as equally valid, or dismiss both of these as so much hot air. Since there is no basis for establishing the validity of either.

In fact I think I'll go ahead and post an AC comment here on slashdot that I am in fact the blogger and I now deny that I have ever seen any patient records. That should have the same weight in a courtroom as the conditions that Essent Healthcare claims are sufficient for this discovery motion. In fact, since slashdot has a much wider readership, my AC comment should clearly have more authority.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20794453)

I am the Anonymous Blogger.

I have never seen any patient records from any hospital currently owned by Essent Healthcare, who are in turn owned by the Healthtrust Purchasing Group, whose business is buying up healthcare delivery systems for fun and profit.

So, Essent Healthcare, go away please.

--
I hereby put this message in the Public Domain. You are free to copy it and post it, especially as yet another AC comment on slashdot.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy.... No. (2, Informative)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793871)

I've read TFA, and went beyond that to find the blog (the paris site blogspot [blogspot.com] and google a little on Essent Healthcare.

I did not see anything suggesting a violation of HIPAA on the web site (my background includes several years as the Information Security Officer for Nursing Service at a largish hospital: I'm reasonably familiar with HIPAA requirements). There is nothing illegal about a third party discussing the particulars of someone's treatment at a hospital, even when that includes information that could allow someone to identify the patient. It is illegal for a hospital or healthcare professional to release identifying information, even unintentionally, but if that occurred here, it would have occurred before the blog posted about it.

In other words, if there was such a violation, it would have involved the hospital employee who leaked the data to the blogger, not the blogger or the blog. HIPAA governs healthcare providers and the policies and procedures they use: its scope does not extend to information that has gotten out into the wild.

If the hospital had adequate information security and HR policies in place, the alleged leak could not have occurred without triggering flags that would identify the staff person who leaked the information. Essent's pursuit of this blogger on the basis of HIPAA violations is a tacit admission that they are negligent— not exercising due diligence— regarding confidential information. Maybe they need to spend more money on paper shredders, enforce policies about logging out of the system when leaving a workstation unattended, disallow corporate officer access to confidential patient files, and so forth.

A noteworthy tidbit is that Essent Healthcare is a small part of the Healthtrust Purchasing Group [healthtrustpg.com] , which seems to be buying up hospitals and clinics all over the country for the purpose of making profits. This is capitalism at its finest, but it does mean that improving patient care is no longer the highest concern of those running the show.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy.... No. (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794007)

I checked out his blog (thanks for the link) and I'm a little concerned for him:

"I delete emails, so discovery is moot."

IANAL, but I could see a situation where someone with enough influence could convince a prosecutor to go after him for deliberate destruction of evidence or obstruction or whatever they want to call it.

Of course, that brings up the question "is the deliberate deletion of logs and/or emails in order to protect anonymity ok?" Obviously, if you are embroiled in a lawsuit or are under investigation, this could be construed as destruction of evidence, but if you do it as a matter of course and are not under some ISP free harbor agreement (we won't hold you responsible for the actions of your users so long as you don't take deliberate actions to destroy logs/emails/whatever and you cooperate with any court orders).

I really don't know the answers, but others might.

Re:wellll accttualllyyy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20794375)

From reading the FA, it seems like a big part of the hospital's lawsuit is that the blog has been disclosing patient information. In some cases, enough patient information that the patient could be personally identified from the posting. ...

Whistle blower: They need sometimes 6 weeks before they notify the family about the death of ther loved one. There is one electrocuted guy in the morgue right now in the third week without notification and his brother lives on the other side of the road!

Hospital: There was only one electrocuted case in the last 5 years and the name was in the paper, so the blogger actually disclosed the identity before we could notify the family.

Interviewer: Did you notify the brother in the meantime?

Hospital: Mmmm, not yet, but we'll do it real soon now.

HIPAA Violation! (3, Insightful)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793185)

FTFA: Fox said Essent's biggest concern is that the blogger has said some hospital employees have given him patient records. Even though they have not been posted on the blog, Fox said this represents a violation of federal law and the company needs to find the employees who are doing it.

IF that is true, then there absolutely needs to be an investigation. I'm all for allowing folks to honestly criticize care and use medical documentation that was authorized by the patient, but getting it without patient authorization?! I would have a problem with the employees that gave it to him. If the blogger is on to something, then he should approach the patients involved and ask them for the information. In this day of litigation, I'm sure most patients would jump on board for the chance of suing for $$$.

Re:HIPAA Violation! (1)

tuomas_kaikkonen (843958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793523)

What if the patient has died, and had no family. Who would then have the power to give away his "patient records". The hospital could in theory get away with letting people, who have nobody to protect their rights, to die of malpractice and nobody would never know, unless some "whistle blower" would talk.

Re:HIPAA Violation! (2, Informative)

$pace6host (865145) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793649)

FTFA: Fox said Essent's biggest concern is that the blogger has said some hospital employees have given him patient records. Even though they have not been posted on the blog, Fox said this represents a violation of federal law and the company needs to find the employees who are doing it. IF that is true, then there absolutely needs to be an investigation. I'm all for allowing folks to honestly criticize care and use medical documentation that was authorized by the patient, but getting it without patient authorization?! I would have a problem with the employees that gave it to him. If the blogger is on to something, then he should approach the patients involved and ask them for the information. In this day of litigation, I'm sure most patients would jump on board for the chance of suing for $$$.
If this is true, then it's a HIPAA violation, not defamation. And while I would agree it needs to be investigated, HIPAA violations, as it says here [hhs.gov] are enforced civilly by HHS (not the hospital) and criminally by the DOJ (obviously not the hospital). So, I reject the assertion that Essent's legal action has anything to do with the patient privacy issues. All the hospital should need to do for that is contact the federal prosecutor's office and/or the HHS, and cooperate with information requests. Texas may even have its own state laws (and offices) that have jurisdiction. We don't need hospitals playing DA, and we certainly don't need them filing defamation suits unless they have defamation issues to address. So I hope they really think they have defamation issues, and this isn't some legal ploy to smoke out the name of a critic for retaliation.

I also think the best defense to anything said by an anonymous blogger about a corporation is for the corporation to post their own statements, not to sue for defamation, at least not until other avenues have been exhausted. Open dialog and fight bad speech with more speech, not with actions that could be interpreted as an attempt to silence whistle-blowers or retaliate against what might be valid criticism. This is likely to call more attention to the claims (compounding the damage if they are false) and lead even more area residents to question the hospital's reputation.

Re:HIPAA Violation! (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794215)

I'm not so sure. Malpractice and poor care are hideously difficult to prove, and HIPAA's constraints on staff providing medical details make it even worse. While you're supposed to be able to respond to a subpoena or provide records for a court order, it's extremely unsafe to reach out and blow the whistle on misconduct. If you do, if no lawsuit results or if the lawsuit fails, the whistle-blower is vulnerable under HIPAA to even more serious damage than merely a non-disclousre agreement or reputation problems.

While HIPAA has its uses in theory, in practice it's created a nightmare of semi-centralized recordkeeping that seems to make it actually *HARDER* to track back records for patients, and helps hide records for hospitals for long-term research on their effectiveness and quality of care.

Wouldn't want to get sick there, but Holiday Inn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793189)

I wouldn't want to get sick in Paris Texas but the Holiday Inn restaurant makes the best hamburgers I've ever had. Granted, that was 1970, but I'd give it a shot if I were in the area. If you get sick... well, uh,...

Paris, Texas ? (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793215)

I wonder if the blogger kept his anonymity by dictating his message through a one-way mirror to a woman in a strip joint ?

(In case you are wondering what the hell I am talking about, click here [imdb.com] and see the movie; it`s great !)

Re:Paris, Texas ? (1)

Gen.Anti (1089529) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794257)

I came here to make this exact obscure reference! I still love Nastasia Kinsky and Harry Dean Stanton too ;-) Only boring movies are interesting! (That's more of a general reference to Wenders' early works). That's such a strange coincidence. I'm surprised the city has that many inhabitants, from the movie I remembered it as just a point on the map. Possibly though, only the piece of ground he bought was in the middle of nowhere.

Then, I watched the movie for the last time many years ago...

Cool (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793217)

I just imagined Nastassja Kinski as a nurse... any chance for a 21st century remake, featuring privacy deprivation instead of social isolation, Wim Wenders?

I could see it now... (3, Funny)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793275)

Yes, your honour we have the information you wanted. It's right here, just as they typed it in to our "set up your blog" javascript form:

First Name: George
Middle Initial: L
Last Name: Tirebiter
Name of Blog: LawyersHospital
URL for blog: lawyershospital.blogspot.com
Your email address: napalmoliveXXX@yahoo.com
City: West Gommorah
State: TX

Now, your honour, we also have the IP address, but it was dynamically allocated to an internet cafe in Austin Texas. We asked yahoo for info, and the info came back for the email address:

napalmoliveXXX
First Name: George
Last Name: Tirebiter
Sex: M
Birth date: March 15, 1984
Mother's Maiden Name: Betty Jo Bealovsky"
Secret Question: Why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
Answer: Crocagator pair, alligator pair - that's they so mean!!!

And the IP address was too a different internet cafe, this one in Dallas."

So, how much do you know about him? NOTHING!!!!

You'd think someone at the hospital would know this is a fools errand...

RS

For those who aren't Fireheads: George Leroy Tirebiter and Betty Jo Bealovsky are a characters from the LP (now CD)How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all" by the Firesign Theatre and the terms "Napalmolive" and "Lawyer's Hospital" are also inventions by the FT. As is my name, Ralph Spoilsport, and my tag line, "Shoes for Industry, Shoes for the Dead".

Re:I could see it now... (1)

NuclearKangaroo (768480) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793441)

^----- It's him!! It's himmmmmm!!!

Re:I could see it now... (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793617)

You must have created an account just like me. Under preferences, the real name is listed as (no real name given)

Medical Records? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793353)

"Fox said Essent's biggest concern is that the blogger has said some hospital employees have given him patient records. Even though they have not been posted on the blog, Fox said this represents a violation of federal law and the company needs to find the employees who are doing it."

If he hasn't posted them on the blog, how are they so certain he's been given patient records?

This sounds to me like maybe some of the employees told him something, probably *without* giving him access to the patient records, and possibly without any specifics (e.g., "we had a patient where x happened, and that was messed up"), and the company is crying 'he's been given medical records!' to make it seem like they have a better reason to get the employee names than they actually do.

Re:Medical Records? (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793661)

And if he has medical records provided to him through the patients? Then the hospital has nothing to come with?

Some court cases should be allowed to proceed without the prosecuted persons identity revealed until after conviction to avoid unpleasant side-effects. And even if medical records were given out - but without the patient's identity revealed - are they still a problem since a specific person can't be directly identified through them. The only thing that may be possible to reveal that way is if the hospital is doing a good job or if they are incompetent.

Re:Medical Records? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794079)

The only thing that may be possible to reveal that way is if the hospital is doing a good job or if they are incompetent.

That, ultimately, is the issue. Keep in mind, however, that having the records may mean less than you think it does.

A certain local hospital in my area, a number of years ago, screwed up bigtime on one of my family members. It was pretty serious (major lawsuit material, had we chosen to pursue it) and involved flying my relative out the next day (via air ambulance) to a hospital in another state in order to get proper treatment. He lived a few more years, but never really recovered from what was done to him.

My uncle, an attorney, insisted that we get complete copies of all medical records so that the doctors at the new facility would have immediate access. Good advice, really: he didn't trust the hospital to do anything at that point. As it happened, the records people fought bitterly against releasing that information ("I'm sorry sir ... it's against hospital policy.") My uncle had to get involved and told them flatly, "Federal law supersedes hospital policy. We want the records now." They complied, and at his suggestion a few months later I requested duplicate copies. Guess what ... all reference to their mistake had been censored, new pages substituted.

So yeah, you can bet that hospital is trying to cover someone's ass. Probably many someones.

I sure hope he isn't using AT&T (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793407)

T'would truly suck.

Anonymity is not a right. (1)

Rhyas (100444) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793447)

You have a right to free speech, but you are not free of any and all consequences of said speech. FTFA, the hospital seems to have valid concerns, that can only be addressed by digging deeper. Digging deeper involves finding out names of people trying to be anonymous on the internet. There are laws that will protect hospital employees if they haven't done something illegal like give out patient information, or haven't been posting blatant lies about their employer. If they have been honest in their "free speech", then they have protection, and shouldn't be afraid of suddenly not being anonymous.

Free Speech is raw, and out in the open. Everyone is free to use it, but everyone has to realize that there are still things they can say that get them in trouble, even if they have the right to say it.

Re:Anonymity is not a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793497)

What part of "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech;" do you not understand?

Re:Anonymity is not a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793601)

Anonymous free speech, including libel and defamation, ought to be protected. If you can't deal with the fact that an anonymous coward has something to say about you, you are either a pussy or a corporate fascist.

Re:Anonymity is not a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793803)

You have a right to free speech, but you are not free of any and all consequences of said speech.
If there are consequences, it isn't free speech. You're free to criticise the government anywhere in the world, but there are lots of places where there will be consequences, including jailtime, beating, etc.

Re:Anonymity is not a right. (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793915)

If the speech is defamatory, the hospital's concerns can be addressed by digging deeper. But at this point we have only the hospital's assertion that the speech is defamatory. So. The speech is public. The words are right there. Let the hospital address that first. Let them show in court that the blogger did in fact defame them. If they can show that, then let them find out who defamed them so they can collect damages. And if they can't, if the blog posts aren't in fact defamatory, then they have no need to know who made them in the first place.

As far as not being afraid of not being anonymous, how about that comment you made to your wife/girlfriend about how stupid your boss is? You've a right to free speech, you were completely honest in it, do you really want your boss knowing it was you made that statement? After all, you shouldn't be afraid of being anonymous to him, should you?

Re:Anonymity is not a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20794009)

I think one of the Federalist Papers discussed this. I think it was one of the ones written by "Publius".

Yo, bloggers: Ever heard of Tor? (1)

BarnabyWilde (948425) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793463)

You need to become familiar with it, if you're going to blow the whistle.

Re:Yo, bloggers: Ever heard of Tor? (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793715)

What about if they're just blowing Clinton?

We need to know whistle-blowers identities (2, Insightful)

Trikenstein (571493) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793609)

That way if they are unattractive they can be sued into poverty.
And if they are hawt, they can be made into media darlings.

Boiling frogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20793613)

Anonymous speech isn't free speech. Free speech means you can own what you say.

Paging Mr Orwell... Call for Mr Orwell on the black discourtesy phone...

Re:Boiling frogs (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793887)

Free speech means you can air your opinion without fear of reprisal.
It means as long as you don't construct your speech to deprive others of Life ,constitutional rights or stampeed a movie theatre.All is fair game.
You do NOT have a right to not be offended.

Hmm (1)

acro85 (1164045) | more than 6 years ago | (#20793965)

Unless the person is actually lying and the hospital can prove it, I don't see how they have a case. Being anonymously critical of something isn't a crime.

Link to court documents and blog (4, Interesting)

Dr_Art (937436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794043)

Here's a better link that includes links to the actual court documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/texas-judge-orders-discovery-anonymous-bloggers-identity [citmedialaw.org]

The blog is here: http://the-paris-site.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

I don't see how the blogger is liable for anything HIPAA related. The complaint references criminal law and Essent's own responsibility to keep patients' information private, nothing relevant to a blogger or the independent actions of Essent's employees. E.g., Essent could fire the employees under the confidentiality agreement, but they reference no matter of law that says the employees are otherwise liable. There may be some other documents or law not mentioned by the complaint, but I don't see how the blogger is a party to such matters, especially since he/she likely never signed the employees' confidentiality agreements. Also, I don't see how Essent has standing to prosecute federal HIPAA violation in state civil court.

I don't know why the blogger and the other Does are joined in a lawsuit as well. Any HIPAA violation between Essent and employees would be a distinct event from the publishing of any such information on the blog. As in the RIAA lawsuits, it seems this would be a valid way to appeal the imminent order from the judge. (Although remember this is state district court and the RIAA lawsuits are federal district court.) Also note that the blogger's lawyer has come forward (see lawyer's Aug letter, although the judge's Sept order says he has not), so the case can continue on it's merits without the need to disclose the blogger's identity.

I also don't see any specific allegations of defamation. Defamation is hard to prove, and I don't see anything in the complaint that couldn't be interpreted as opinion by a reasonable person, or is simply disclosing internal happenings in the hospital, which would be known to a lot of the hospital's employees and patients. If a hospital employee relates false information on the blog or to the blogger, then that employee would be the defamer, and not the blogger. E.g., who would reasonably assume that an anonymous blogger would be an authority on the inner workings of Essent, and use that one blogger's opinion to judge Essent? Of course, it's possible the blogger is an employee. It's also possible that the blogger and all other Does are patients.

Finally, I was amused by a couple of things in the complaint. First, to see an employer refer to the employees' "breaches of the employees' duty of loyalty". What?!? Employers and employees have a legal obligation of loyalty? I sure haven't seen many employers show loyalty to their employees, but then that's another thread... Second, the complaint says the blog is publicly available (that's how the hospital's business would supposedly be harmed), and that "...the blog has as it's sole purpose to conduct a one-sided attack and disparagement of the Hospital, PRMC, and their employees and doctors, and is in no manner intended to be an open and fair discussion of issues." OK, so that's why you filed a lawsuit instead of posting to the publicly available blog your open and fair rebuttal of the issues raised?!?!

I don't know the blogger, the other Does, or Essent, and IANAL, so I can only hope the truth of this matter comes out in court.

Regards,
Art

where is the blog?! (1)

nester (14407) | more than 6 years ago | (#20794151)

The /. and the linked story, neither one has a link to the damn blog!

The blog in question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20794235)

is here: http://the-paris-site.blogspot.com/
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>