31 votes

The Court of the Hague orders Meta to unmask anonymous Dutch user accused of repeated defamatory posts

Posted by boxer_dogs_dance
Tags: social media, facebook, privacy, netherlands, meta, crime, legal, defamation, author.ashley belanger, source.ars technica
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/facebook-to-unmask-anonymous-dutch-user-accused-of-repeated-defamatory-posts/

Link information

This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.

Authors
Ashley Belanger
Published
Jul 31 2023
Word count
684 words

10 comments

  1. [10]
    DanBC
    Link
    I feel like the article has an odd framing. Here's the first line: And here's the last couple of lines: This is well established law, and the only interesting thing here is Meta spending the money...

    I feel like the article has an odd framing.

    Here's the first line:

    Starting today, Facebook users may feel a little less safe posting anonymously. The Court of the Hague in The Netherlands ruled that Meta Ireland must unmask an anonymous user accused of defaming the claimant, a male Facebook user who allegedly manipulated and made secret recordings of women he dated.

    And here's the last couple of lines:

    Although the key concern for The Court in the Hague appeared to be that the statements posted anonymously were plausibly defamatory, the order also noted that the content would not have to necessarily be unlawful for Facebook to be ordered to identify the user posting it.

    "According to settled case law, under certain circumstances Meta has an obligation to provide identifying data, even if the content of the relevant messages is not unmistakably unlawful," the court order said.

    This is well established law, and the only interesting thing here is Meta spending the money to drag it through the courts.

    What would be more interesting is if Meta were unable to identify the user - how would the courts handle that case?

    It is good that Ars linked to the court document: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:11254

    14 votes
    1. [5]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      It's always framed like this. There was basically the same article with Meta and a subpoena from a court in the US for a state where abortion care is illegal. The framing was "Meta is helping X...

      It's always framed like this. There was basically the same article with Meta and a subpoena from a court in the US for a state where abortion care is illegal. The framing was "Meta is helping X state stop abortions". While I personally think those anti-abortion laws are abhorred, I'm not exactly sure what you want Facebook to do? As a US entity, they are beholden to US laws? If they get a subpoena, they have to provide the data? Go vote out the people that passed the bill and vote in people who will repeal it.

      Do you want Facebook to go rogue and ignore US laws? I thought we didn't want that?

      16 votes
      1. [4]
        FeminalPanda
        Link Parent
        I would like them to ban all conservatives world wide and tell them to get fucked. We don't need to tolerate the intolerant. But rejecting the subpoena is a good thing for new cases like this so...

        I would like them to ban all conservatives world wide and tell them to get fucked. We don't need to tolerate the intolerant. But rejecting the subpoena is a good thing for new cases like this so the courts have to come out of the shadows and prove why it's a lawful request.

        8 votes
        1. [3]
          dutch
          Link Parent
          Did you actually just wish that Meta banned half the population and then call them intolerant? Does that really not raise any alarm bells in your mind?

          Did you actually just wish that Meta banned half the population and then call them intolerant? Does that really not raise any alarm bells in your mind?

          5 votes
          1. kru
            Link Parent
            Implicit in the GP's message is that conservatives fall under the paradox of tolerance. More specifically, due to their own intolerance, conservatives broken the social contract of reciprocal...

            Implicit in the GP's message is that conservatives fall under the paradox of tolerance. More specifically, due to their own intolerance, conservatives broken the social contract of reciprocal tolerance, and thus are no longer protected by said social contract.

            4 votes
          2. FeminalPanda
            Link Parent
            i wouldn't do it but i still have the feelings because yourtube and other places trying to get me to watch conservative hate stories, thats why i don't have cable. i want to enjoy scrolling or...

            i wouldn't do it but i still have the feelings because yourtube and other places trying to get me to watch conservative hate stories, thats why i don't have cable. i want to enjoy scrolling or watching video, not be shown some crackpot that thinks the atom boms don't exist.

            2 votes
    2. [3]
      Skyaero
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      The English article on arstechnica is a poor representation of the actual court case (dutch only unfortunately). In ELI5 terms, a Dutch individual says he is getting defamed in dating groups and...

      This is well established law, and the only interesting thing here is Meta spending the money to drag it through the courts.

      The English article on arstechnica is a poor representation of the actual court case (dutch only unfortunately).

      In ELI5 terms, a Dutch individual says he is getting defamed in dating groups and wants to be able to take (legal) action against the suspected defamer. To be able to do so, the potentially defamed needs to know the identity of the suspected defamer in order to start e.g. legal action. Additionally the potentially defamed wants to have the respective posts on Facebook removed.

      The court rules that, although it cannot be yet established whether there is a case of defamation or not, the potentially defamed should be given the opportunity to bring this to court (or handle it outside of court, the Court text uses the Dutch term 'debate') to determine if defamation is in order. The only way to do that is for Meta to provide the identity of the other person. The Court ruled the interests of the potentially defamed weighs higher than that of Meta and the other person.

      The Court also ruled that Meta does not have to remove the respective posts as there has yet not been established if defamation is in order.

      Meta needs to provide:

      • The username
      • The closing date of the account if applicable
      • Name, email address and/or phone number(s) known to Meta at the time of the court order
      • Date, time and IP-address of account registration
      • Date time and IP-address of logins/logouts after January 2023
      14 votes
      1. [2]
        DanBC
        Link Parent
        Thank you for the clarification, but that's what I thought was happening. This bit is well established, isn't it? In the past I imagine the same thing has happened many times. A person feels they...

        Thank you for the clarification, but that's what I thought was happening.

        The court rules that, although it cannot be yet established whether there is a case of defamation or not, the potentially defamed should be given the opportunity to bring this to court (or handle it outside of court, the Court text uses the Dutch term 'debate') to determine if defamation is in order. The only way to do that is for Meta to provide the identity of the other person. The Court ruled the interested of the potentially defamed weighs higher than that of Meta and the other person.

        This bit is well established, isn't it?

        In the past I imagine the same thing has happened many times. A person feels they were being defamed by an anonymous poster, they want to take that person to court for defamation, they go to court to get an order that forces an Internet company to provide identity information, and they then use that information to take the person to court for defamation.

        Were the Dutch courts saying "No, we won't issue those orders, the Internet company does not need to reveal the identity of this person"?

        2 votes
        1. Skyaero
          Link Parent
          I have no background in law, so I may be guessing here. As far as I know, it has always been established that in these cases Meta (or any other tech company) would have to hand over personal...

          Were the Dutch courts saying "No, we won't issue those orders, the Internet company does not need to reveal the identity of this person"?

          I have no background in law, so I may be guessing here.

          As far as I know, it has always been established that in these cases Meta (or any other tech company) would have to hand over personal information. I found a similar case from 2016 with the same end result.

          What may be the issue is that Meta cannot give personal information without Court order. I could argue that if Meta would do so without Court order, they violate the GDPR. Basically, the Court needs to decide if the request for personal information is legit.

          5 votes
    3. unkz
      Link Parent
      It’s probably not really very interesting if meta can’t identify the user. Based on my experience with unmasking users (in fraud cases in Canada, so maybe a little different) What they are...

      It’s probably not really very interesting if meta can’t identify the user. Based on my experience with unmasking users (in fraud cases in Canada, so maybe a little different) What they are actually obligated to do (if they lose the court case) is hand over what they know, so things like known IP addresses, account information, etc. If the user has been diligent about protecting their real identity by providing false information, that’s irrelevant to Meta — they will have fulfilled their legal obligation.

      5 votes