Jeff, let's hope that the stir over the Yahoo! suit inspires SI to reconsider their policy with regard to providing members' identities pursuant to subpoena.
As I understand it, SI's policy has been to turn over the info, not only without prior notice to the members that their identity has been requested, so that they might move to quash the subpoena, but without any notice that SI has turned over their identity to a third party.
In my opinion, this policy of SI's is unacceptable. After all, many of us paid to be members, one fundamental difference with Yahoo! posters.
In the past, SI management has been quoted as saying that it's just too difficult to provide notification. This is hard to accept. How hard is it to type a PM to a member saying, "we have been commanded by subpoena to provide your identity in the such-and-such matter by the so-and-so law firm in San Diego. If you oppose the subpoena, please supply us with a copy of your motion; if we do not receive a copy of a motion in opposition, we intend to comply with the subpoena on April 12."
These days, many corporations and individuals are on "fishing expeditions" with regard to who is posting about them on the Internet. Many have no intention of completing their litigation; they simply want to know who's doing it so that they can convince them to stop. Moreover, many subpoenas are issued improperly and are not upheld when challenged in court.
In short, the subpoena problem is not going to go away; it is only going to get worse. Since it may take a long time before it is clear whether SI's policy is acceptable as a matter of law, we need to encourage SI to change their policy as a matter of good business dealings with their members. In this era of diminishing benefits for SI's paid members, this would be a nice one.
Perhaps if more SI members weigh in on this point, SI will reconsider their policy.
}=>------->>>> |
