Stardate 20040323.1836

(Captain's log): Andy writes:

A lively debate at work sparked a question for you in regards to internet privacy and libel. There is a site called www.perverted-justice.com which, in short, targets and entraps perverts in internet chat rooms who target children, then attempt to expose the would be pedophiles to their spouse, work, and the internet in general. They are like vigilantes who post the picture and transcript of the offender, with some personal information.

Now, one of my office mates said that the collected information can't be used criminally, which I kind of agree with, but also that the site is violating the rights of the perverts by posting their information. My argument is any information provided by an individual on the internet becomes public domain. She (a frequent chat room participant) feels that a chat room conversation constitutes a private conversation between two people and this site has no right to release information on the perverts, no matter how screwed up they are. Although she wouldn't say that a pervert could claim libel, she did say it was an invasion of privacy and harassment causing "grievous harm to employment and personal relationships" and could file a lawsuit. Is this a legitimate complaint? On the internet, are you a public person, or still a private person? I say all information on the internet, except copyright material, is public domain.

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). The right guy to ask about this if you want a definitive answer is Eugene Volokh, a law professor specializing in First Amendment jurisprudence. All I can do is give you my layman's understanding.

There are multiple levels on which this can be evaluated. One of the problems in Andy's discussion is a basic confusion between constitutional rights, laws, explicit conventions, unspoken customs and common courtesy. They're not all the same, and most of them are not binding.

First off, many people deeply misunderstand what the Bill of Rights truly means and what it applies to. Take, for example, the question of whether information collected as described would be acceptable in court.

There's a relevant case involving shoplifting. Someone was nabbed by security guards at a store, and the guards questioned the guy before giving him to the police. In the course of his questioning by the guards, he confessed to shoplifting. It was all videotaped and the state produced the videotape in court.

His attorney tried to get the confession thrown out because he had not been read his "Miranda rights" before he was questioned. The court rejected that. The reasoning was that the critical constitutional clause from the Fifth Amendment which was the basis for the Miranda decision applies to how the government and its agents dealt with suspected criminals. It does not apply to how citizens deal with one another, and legally speaking the guards had made a "citizen's arrest" and could not be considered agents of the state. Even though police read people their Miranda rights before questioning, private citizens including these kinds of guards do not have to. Even though a citizen has a right to a lawyer being present when questioned by the police, he has no such right when being questioned by other citizens. His confession to the guards was ruled to be admissible evidence, and he was convicted.

On the other hand, there are limits to the extent to which citizens can detain other citizens and question them without violating laws relating to kidnapping, for instance. The reason there are more limits on government action is that the government also is granted more power to detain people and hold them.

The First Amendment includes protection for freedom of expression. If someone is prevented from posting comments on a blog, does that infringe their right of free expression? No, it does not. As I wrote here:

Your right to free expression in a privately owned forum

You don't have one.

By the same token, there is no direct constitutional right I'm aware of to privacy online as such. When Andy's friend says that the site in question is violating the rights of the perverts by posting their information, I'm afraid she's not correct. There's a long-standing convention online that such things should be kept confidential, but no absolute requirement I've ever heard of either in convention, or in applicable law. And there is definitely no constitutional right.

There may be aspects of commercial law which apply, but I'm skeptical. For instance, the phone company does not have the right to snoop on what people say over their phones. If the users of this chat site paid in order to gain access, then commercial law would kick in. But if the chat site was provided as a free service, I don't think those laws apply.

The entire question of law and constitutional rights relating to online communication is an extremely fuzzy area right now; precedents are few and far between and most are not comprehensive.

One potential issue Andy mentioned is copyright. Andy is not correct in saying all information on the internet, except copyright material, is public domain. Or rather, he is, but I infer that he thinks copyright material is the exception rather than the ru