Comments on: What would your hosting service do? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/ Same old blog, brand new place Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:15:54 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: 100GB Webhosting http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/comment-page-1/#comment-27882 100GB Webhosting Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:44:09 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/#comment-27882 This is a topic that also affects webhosts as well, by virtually serving the information that we store we in effect become liable to these laws. For instance I run a free hosting service at http://www.hostedwith.us where I on several occasions have received a C&D notice from people claiming everything from slander to copyright infringements. Personally I remove the offending sites but I know most dont.... The issue that we are faced with is a lack of clarity as to international level legislation on these issues. This is a topic that also affects webhosts as well, by virtually serving the information that we store we in effect become liable to these laws. For instance I run a free hosting service at http://www.hostedwith.us where I on several occasions have received a C&D notice from people claiming everything from slander to copyright infringements. Personally I remove the offending sites but I know most dont….

The issue that we are faced with is a lack of clarity as to international level legislation on these issues.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/comment-page-1/#comment-2319 Crosbie Fitch Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:42:44 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/#comment-2319 I'm not sure anyone can be defamed by an anonymous and unknown person. For harm to be caused by falsehood requires the falsehood to have some weight, i.e. someone's reputation behind it. An anonymous person has no reputation. Their arguments or assertions stand entirely upon their intrinsic merit. Look at it the other way around: an anonymous person cannot be defamed no matter the reputation of those defaming them (because the anonymous person has no reputation). Similarly, one could observe that a child's defamation has far less weight than an adult's. Defamation is inherently inegalitarian, and rightly so. I’m not sure anyone can be defamed by an anonymous and unknown person.

For harm to be caused by falsehood requires the falsehood to have some weight, i.e. someone’s reputation behind it.

An anonymous person has no reputation. Their arguments or assertions stand entirely upon their intrinsic merit.

Look at it the other way around: an anonymous person cannot be defamed no matter the reputation of those defaming them (because the anonymous person has no reputation).

Similarly, one could observe that a child’s defamation has far less weight than an adult’s.

Defamation is inherently inegalitarian, and rightly so.

]]> By: frank pasquale (the fac_p one) http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/comment-page-1/#comment-2312 frank pasquale (the fac_p one) Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:52:21 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/09/21/what-would-your-hosting-service-do/#comment-2312 The case becomes even more interesting when one examines the actual lawsuit. The suit attributes several comments to 'John Doe #1' that were specifically listed as coming from anonymous comments on the blog. Additionally, the supposed HIPAA violation published was again from an anonymous source--which in the telling, cannot be determined if they were a covered entity, or merely a passer-by. In either case, no PHI was released. The sum of these accusations was used by the plaintiff to justify the third-party order. Is there any doubt that the plaintiff should have to prove validity prior to release of identity? If not, then any accusation of impropriety could cause a similar disclosure, no matter how disingenuous the reasoning.... The case becomes even more interesting when one examines the actual lawsuit. The suit attributes several comments to ‘John Doe #1′ that were specifically listed as coming from anonymous comments on the blog.

Additionally, the supposed HIPAA violation published was again from an anonymous source–which in the telling, cannot be determined if they were a covered entity, or merely a passer-by. In either case, no PHI was released.

The sum of these accusations was used by the plaintiff to justify the third-party order. Is there any doubt that the plaintiff should have to prove validity prior to release of identity?

If not, then any accusation of impropriety could cause a similar disclosure, no matter how disingenuous the reasoning….

]]>