Do we support the rights of our users to speak anonymously?

Millions of users of all ages rely on the Internet every day as an important resource to search for private information and as a forum for discussion and expression. Many choose to do so anonymously or pseudonymously. Whether it be a domestic violence survivor, an LGBT youth, a government whistleblower reporting an abuse of power, or someone who just wants to keep her online activities private, anonymous online speech is vital so individuals can access and share information without fear or embarrassment.

The courts have repeatedly affirmed that "protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse." In addition, users "who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identities." Have your company do its part by developing a clear policy that helps to safeguard the anonymous speech of users.

• Disclose user information only where required by law. Thoroughly review any subpoenas or demands for information, ensuring that they comply with proper legal process, and resist inappropriate or overbroad requests. Challenge requests on behalf of your users rather than complying by default.

Twitter: Twitter came out on top when Pennsylvania prosecutors subpoenaed the company seeking identifying information on two Twitter users. The anonymous users were frequent critics of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, who was also running for governor of the state. Rather than comply immediately, Twitter first notified the users to give them a chance to object. The demand was withdrawn after the incident received substantial press coverage and the ACLU intervened. Twitter emerged as one of the heroes of the story for giving its users an opportunity to defend their anonymity.

• Give users an opportunity to defend their anonymity. Provide notice, within no more than seven days of receipt of a subpoena, to each user whose personal information is sought, and inform the user of her right to file a motion to quash (fight) the subpoena. Give the user at least thirty days from the time notice is received to file a motion to quash the subpoena.
• Disclose only required information. Never disclose more information than is requested by a subpoena or other document.

Verizon: In 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) obtained a subpoena under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ordering Verizon to reveal the identity of a subscriber who had allegedly used peer-to-peer software to share music online. Verizon refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that it raised serious privacy concerns and was not in fact authorized by the DMCA. Verizon succeeded in defeating the subpoena on appeal, garnering praise for its commitment to user privacy.

YouTube/Google: As part of an ongoing suit against YouTube/Google for copyright infringement, in 2007 Viacom sought and obtained a discovery order forcing YouTube to disclose all "video-related data from the logging database," including information identifying the users who watched each video. YouTube continued to fight for the privacy of its users and in 2008 reached an agreement with Viacom to anonymize the IDs and IP addresses of non-Google employees in any data conveyed to Viacom.

Yahoo!: The search engine and email giant has been forced to settle multi-milliondollar lawsuits, grilled repeatedly during Congressional hearings, rebuked in the press, and targeted by international protests for turning over identifying information in 2006 about its users to the Chinese government. The Chinese government used this data to link users to pro-democracy activities and to imprison dissidents.