Did I just get a cart00ney legal threat from Canis Claxis?

[giza]

 
So, I haven't been too active on WikiFur lately, other than checking the Recent changes page on a daily basis to make sure there aren't any major vandalism sprees. It was during my daily check yesterday when I saw this edit. Now on WikiFur, we take issue when people remove content from articles without any explanation. Such edits are almost always reverted because they go against the discussion-oriented nature of how the Wiki works. So, the individual came back and did the same thing, and it went back and forth until the article was finally protected. Then the individual proceeded to pull the same stunt over the article's Talk page until we protected that page too.

Quite persistent of them, aren't they?

So then this appeared in my mailbox:

X-Originating-IP: [4.224.114.123]
From: peg chernicky <jhegalk@hotmail.com>
To: <doug.muth@gmail.com>
Subject:
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:06:06 -0600

Here's something you should read;

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 12, states:

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.

Countries such as France protect privacy explicitly in their constitution (France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), while the Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Other countries without constitutional privacy protections have laws protecting privacy, such as the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act 1998 or Australia's Privacy Act 1988. The European Union requires all member states to legislate to ensure that citizens have a right to privacy, through directives such as Directive 95/46. If the privacy of an individual is breached, the individual may bring a lawsuit asking for monetary damages.

Keep my real name OFF wikifur or I WILL drive to PA and SUE your godamn ass

Wait, what? France? Did I just move to France? balinares, get the car, we're going drinking in Paris! And when did the US join the European Union? I don't think I got the memo...

What's even more amusing here is that the individual failed to state the basis for their claim (no specific edits were cited, zero matches for "peg chernicky" on Google, etc.), there is not much I can reasonably be expected to do here. It's a shame, because they went to all that trouble to try and intimidate me... you'd think they would at least have the decency to make specific demands. In fact, had I not noticed the last line of that email, I would have thought that it was just some random spam that used captcha evasion techniques.

So, do any folks out there know if "peg chernicky" is an actual alias of this "Canis Claxis" fellow? Should I be concerned? Or should I just keep up with the uncontrollable giggling I've had for the last 5 minutes?

[Edit, 18 Nov 2009: Changed links to point to WikiFur's new location.]

Comments

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Dear Peg/Canis/WiddleWilly/$Name,

In the matter of the first part, the inclusion of your real life name in a wiki. No doubt as you seem to be all knowing, you understand that a Wiki is editted and submitted by many, many people all over the world. It is not I who have included your real name on the Wikifur page. Thus you are threatening the wrong person. Who should you be threatening? Gee, I don't rightly know - after all, what could you have possibly done in the past that would alienate anyone into wishing to harass you? Narrow that list down and talk with them.

IN the matter of the second part, human rights. I rather doubt the Haigue court is going to give your claim as much weight as, say, the genocidal attrocities of the Nazis last century. Having ones name on a webpage has all the human rights abuse as being served a warm beer at lunch. But if you are willing to give it a shot, go ahead and make your legal challenge.

Which brings up the third point. For all that people laugh about the poor geographical knowledge of US citizens, at least our population understands the simple concepts of HERE and THERE. I, you see, and my webpage, are HERE. You, your courts, and the EU laws you mention are all the way over THERE. The laws of THERE no more apply HERE as the laws of HERE apply THERE. If you care to fly from THERE to HERE and charge me with a crime, you'll need a law from HERE first. And as I've broken no HERE law and your THERE laws have no weight HERE, you may as well save your 250 frequent flier miles (okay, 402 kilometers - geez) and stay home all day watching the french version of Cartoon Network like you usually do.

You can, of course, try to charge me with a crime THERE in a THERE court of law. But since I am not a Citizen of THERE nor do business THERE or even visit THERE, I strongly doubt you'll be able to press for extradition from HERE to THERE.

But don't be too sad about it. I'll TRY to keep your real name off the wiki posts. Note that this does not guarantee compliance and no warranty is implied, your mileage may vary, do not taunt happy fun ball, close cover before striking, use only in a well ventilated area, not intended for internal use, follow directions carefully, contents may explode if heated, not for public viewing with explicit written consent of the National Football League.

To summarize: Piss off.

[tryphina13.livejournal.com]

Oh it's better than that. I don't think they understand here and there, either. See...they say they are going to DRIVE to PA. So unless they are going to buck up for the ferry passage and a fuckton of gas to continue driving around the deck I'm guessing this mouthbreather is reaching a little.

[bigtig.livejournal.com]

The person being an idiot and a frothy legal-threat aside, it is an interesting side effect of the wiki concept.

People will talk about you on this new wiki site. They will post details. They often want to post fully detailed accounts of things you might consider private.

When you try to remove it, they won't let you. You must participate in their system and "discuss" things the way they want.

I've seen several people this has irked. Think of it from their perspective:

Unless you play exactly by the rules of some system you don't know about, and don't want to be a part of, the folks who run it feel it's free license to be an asshole back at you for not participating.

The very nature of a wiki almost breeds tiny little doses of Streisand effect.

[giza.livejournal.com]

Actually, we try to be pretty flexible on the "discussion" bit. We've had people contact us via email and IRC before and have discussed the matter with them if they don't feel comfortable doing it on the Wiki. Many times we'll just honor the person's request and remove their name from the Wiki without much in the way of discussion. greenreaper handles most of that, so you'd have to ask him if you want numbers.

Respect is a two way street

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

You're right. But that's true of a lot of websites. Indeed, online communities in general tend to get picky if you demand a favour rather than ask for it. Perhaps it doesn't sound like much of a favour, but these requests usually involve the community doing something that is contrary to its goals - removing relevant information - for a person's own benefit.

Problems arise when people think the community owes them without being a member - usually reasoning "if it's about me, I should be able to control it" - and so they are pissed when the community doesn't immediately honour that belief. I sympathize with that to an extent, especially when they honestly don't know how they should put their request, but as Drew Carey (http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/The_Drew_Carey_Show) said, "it's a problem . . . but it's not mine."

Asking nicely and in the "right" way eases the process for existing community members; but as such interactions are often one-time, there are few ways to positively encourage outsiders to do so - why should they make your life easier? Therefore, communities also tend to discourage asking in the "wrong" way instead. This extends to laws like the DMCA, which allows web hosts to discard requests that are not made in the proper form. The implication is that if you're asking for something, it's your duty not to make things harder than they need to be. As Giza has noted, WikiFur is more flexible than that, and there are many potential avenues of communication.

So yes, people do feel they have that license. This is our site. If you don't play by the site rules, then it is possible you will get less of a say in what we say on our site about you, or that community members will discount your views. Balancing that out, if you do follow the established procedures, then you get quite a significant say; more than any other individual editor. To put it another way: if you do us the favour of asking nicely, we'll do you the favour of responding politely. I don't think this is particularly unreasonable. Respect is a two way street, after all.

I personally deal with about one or two privacy-related matters every fortnight. For the record, most people do ask nicely, and they usually get what they want - but you don't tend to hear about it, because they leave satisfied. It is usually when people feel (sometimes rightly) that the community won't actually agree with what they want that problems occur.

[giza.livejournal.com]

Who should say something? Me or him? (Sorry, it's unclear to me who that was directed to.)

[ashmcairo.livejournal.com]

If he wants his name removed then remove it. WikiFur has allowed other users to remove their identify for the site, so why not his?

[giza.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem is that he tried removing content from an article without explanation. That doesn't sit too well on many Wikis, WikiFur included. After it was restored, he began removing larger and larger portions of the article, and then the talk page, which is basically vandalism, and not permitted on the Wiki.

Had he been less of a jerk his email to me, things would have went much differently.

[puctiger.livejournal.com]

Problems with the supposed lawsuit claim that make it impossible to sue for.

#1: The United States does not have any privacy laws on the books that protect one's name from being used if someone is considered an adult and not a minor.

#2: The claim isn't false, thusly one cannot sue for libel or slander. If someone claimed the person was, in fact, someone that he wasn't, then it would be FALSE information. However, this country protects the right to receive information more than it protects the right to hide it.

#3: Though the U.S. is a signatory on the U.N. Declaration of Universal Rights, it is not considered a piece of law which must be followed. It is not a treaty that has been accepted into law by Congress nor ratified by any of the states. Thus, it is not law, but rather as the name states -- a declaration.

#4: Proving monetary damages is somewhat improbable if not impossible. Proving that one was harmed in some way by having one's name posted on a website has been proven time and time again to be useless and frivolous. Was the person hindered in any way to receive a promotion or job opportunity? Can you prove mental damages? I mean, the person sounds mentally unstable as it is -- how can one prove he was pushed 'over the edge'?

#5: Internet threats are about as meaningful as flicking someone off in traffic. Until wikifur receives a certified letter from an actual attorney's office, the threat is worthless. So if you get contacted by the guy again, tell him to grow some nuts and make a real plausible threat.

[thraxarious.livejournal.com]

#3- Yeah, I was thinking that too. It was a group of countries who signed to attempt to push for the expansion of human rights. Though for some countries(ie: the US), it was just a photo op. The US has made quite a few violations of this decleration since its inception. Just ask Noam Chompsky.

#5- Except you get shot at less online...

[sethb.livejournal.com]

If the sender is someplace where French law applies and can drive to PA, you should worry.

Make that if and only if.

If you want to be nasty, inform them that they are prohibited from modifying your wiki, and therefore any further changes they make violate laws against unauthorized access to federally protected computer systems. (That one is at least moderately true, unlike their whines.)

[redrob.livejournal.com]

Certainly! Take the ferry from Saint-Pierre (Saint-Pierre et Miquelon) to Fortune, Newfoundland. Drive to Port aux Basques, then catch another ferry to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Drive west, and eventually you connect up with I-95 in Maine, and then it's a straight shot down to Philly. Granted, you'd probably be wise to dodge west to avoid Boston and NYC, but I'll leave that to someone more local.

Hrm. Oh, well. Apparently not - the St. Pierre ferry does not take cars.

So, I guess you're safe.

Alex

[ilthuain.livejournal.com]

That, sir, is some Prime Time Furry.

High-larious!

[tgeller.livejournal.com]

Some of the legal opinions expressed here contradict my (admittedly flawed) knowledge of publishing law. For example: I believe a publisher *can* be held liable for contributor's statements, if the publisher has shown a previous pattern of editing (which implies control). So saying "It's a wiki, don't blame us!" wouldn't fly.

And the U.S. has plenty of legal precedent to protect one's name from appearing in a public place -- especially if its mere appearance in the context could be considered damaging. Tort, anyone?

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, brush your teeth. And don't rely on furry community advice in matters of life or law. :)

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

My argument there would be that we're reporting, and therefore have protection under the first amendment, as long as we attempt to do so accurately. I ended up reaching the same point as you did - that it'd have to be a tort over invasion of privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy). However, I think we're pretty safe from those:

Appropriation wouldn't be an issue (for us, anyway) as we do not seek to gain from WikiFur.

Intrusion of solitude and public disclosure might be issues, but I think most cases of these (e.g. X plays a transsexual hooker on Tapestries) would be removed by admins. We tend to limit our disclosures to things that we consider to be in the public interest, and we don't force intrusion of solitude unless we feel there is a good community-based reason to do so. Hopefully our editors are roughly equivalent to reasonable people.

WikiFur putting you into a false light is a potential problem, but like defamation: a) if a light is not actually false then it isn't a problem, and b) you have to act with malice, which is hard to prove and pretty much rules out most wiki editors who are actually acting in good faith (hopefully including our administrators).

These concerns are one of the reasons why we seek hard references for contentious statements, or at least try to attribute it to someone rather than just saying it ourselves. There are some sites that do a lot less in this area and appear to get away with it.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

A publisher was held responsible for stuff other people wrote, because it edited. As a result, Congress changed the law to provide safe harbor for someone who hosts other people's words. The author bears sole responsibility.

You have no right to have your name not appear in some public place. If you don't want your phone number published, you have to pay extra.

"To consider" is a state of mind. Anything can be considered anything. Defamation law is very specific.

[whitefeet.livejournal.com]

*chuckles and wonders why he never responds to threads like these, despite being qualified to do so*

Maybe because it reminds me of work >.

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

I can understand that. For many of us, dealing with complex ethical conundrums while writing good encyclopedia articles is about as far away from our real jobs as you can get. It's a nice change, but if I were doing it all day I don't imagine I'd want to come home and do it all night as well. I certainly did a lot less hobby programming once I started doing it eight hours a day.

[alohawolf.livejournal.com]

Personally, I dont think anyone should be allowed to remove them self from wikifur, I think wikifur is essentially in some instantces our primary history book, and for someone to be allowed to remove them self from it, is tantamount to giving them the freedom to rewrite history.

[eddiddiums.livejournal.com]

I know that popular etiquette on Wikipeda is that you should never modify your own entry. To do so is considered vain and a conflict of interest.

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

You might want to have a look at this, then. Shows just WHO is making edits to a wiki, although in this case, I think it's pretty easy to figure it out.

[eddiddiums.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the Wiki Scanner program can be applied to WikiFur.

[crux-lo.livejournal.com]

The guy stole my art.

He commissioned me for half the price I charged, agreed to pay the rest after I finished. He threatened me through an e-mail. He didn't pay me when I finished his commission to make sure he'd stay off my back. Now he's wearing the design I drew on a shirt.

I think you ought to be concerned.

[crux-lo.livejournal.com]

Oh jeez, I didn't see how old this was D: