Glassdoor Ordered to Unmask Anonymous Users in Criminal Inquiry

[monkeymagick]

Anonymity be damned. Glassdoor Inc. is battling the U.S. government in a dispute that will allow the courts to subpoena its anonymous online users. The website used as job recruitment tool allows members to post anonymously about businesses, most reviewers are employees who are either former or current workers of the companies.

Federal prosecutors originally requested the identity of more than a 100 users, but have since asked for eight to be identified. In accordance with the request, Glassdoor must reveal the IP, usernames, personal info and other identifying information of its users. The eight users may be witnesses to unlawful business practices as the government suggests it has no other way of identifying the employees.

Glassdoor is appealing the order as the company states the government is infringing on the users' First Amendment right, but the Judge notes that due to the website not having any political affiliation there is no violation of the First Amendment. As of now, Glassdoor has compromised by notifying the users in question and will only provide information from willing participants.

Glassdoor's underlying argument in the case rests on the idea that "its users have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously," the opinion said. The company is working with other organizations and businesses that are filing friend-of-the-court briefs in support of "First Amendment rights and protections as well as personal privacy," Brad Serwin, Glassdoor's general counsel, said in a June 16 blog post.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

"Privacy and security in our networked world are now a myth of epic proportions that will be spoken of for millennia to come..." -- Me

 

[RogueTadhg]

"Remember Napster? No? Neither does Metallica." -- Me

 

[captaindiptoad]

"but the Judge notes that due to the website not having any political affiliation there is no violation of the First Amendment."

Fucking what?

 

[prime2515102]

"but the Judge notes that due to the website not having any political affiliation there is no violation of the First Amendment."

Fucking what?

Yeah, that's what I said. Since when did first amendment rights require political affiliation?

 

[kirbyrj]

"but the Judge notes that due to the website not having any political affiliation there is no violation of the First Amendment."

Fucking what?

Reading FTW...Glassdoor was arguing that Bursey v. United States was applicable, however the Bursey case was about the 1st amendment in regard to political speech, and the judge noted that it is not a 1st amendment violation on Bursey grounds due to the lack of any political affiliation.

 

[nysmo]

So the gov't thinks a few reviewers may be witness to some crime. Can they force them to testify? I mean they could always plead the 5th or something couldnt they? Pretty annoying too that such persons would probably have to spend thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to protect themselves from discussing what they may have seen.

 

[kirbyrj]

So the gov't thinks a few reviewers may be witness to some crime. Can they force them to testify? I mean they could always plead the 5th or something couldnt they? Pretty annoying too that such persons would probably have to spend thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to protect themselves from discussing what they may have seen.

You can't plead the 5th amendment unless you're going to incriminate yourself. If you witnessed a crime and a valid subpoena is issued, you can be forced to testify (in most cases). By force, you could be charged with contempt of court.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

This is ass-hatery on both sides.

Employers want to stomp on employee rights by invading their privacy with no real proof of damage.

Employees are stupid enough to badmouth or leak information about the organization that feeds them.

If your employer is truly doing something unethical, then you report it anonymously to the various agencies. FEC, Homeland security, IRS, OSHA, etc...

Luckily the company I work for has an ethics hotline you an call anonymously on. We also receive ethics training every year.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

You can't plead the 5th amendment unless you're going to incriminate yourself. If you witnessed a crime and a valid subpoena is issued, you can be forced to testify (in most cases). By force, you could be charged with contempt of court.

In such cases outside of court, you can ask for immunity to testify.

 

[d3athf1sh]

another reason to use tor and/or vpn at all times when posting anything on the web.

 

[bigthoughts]

anything you type, anywhere, may be used against you...
whether you did anything wrong or not.

 

[nysmo]

If your employer is truly doing something unethical, then you report it anonymously to the various agencies. FEC, Homeland security, IRS, OSHA, etc...

I think the idea of using Glassdoor is to protect other would be employees from suffering the same pitfalls. Lets say you report something to OSHA, how does that protect John Smith from breaking his neck on the job when he gets hired next month? Maybe within a year or two OSHA does something about it? Maybe nothing? Reporting ethics violations to massive gov't bureaucracies is not necessarily someone's idea of saving the world.

Luckily the company I work for has an ethics hotline you an call anonymously on.

Anonymous huh, you mean until the gov't subpoenas the phone records from your hotline.

 

[TwistedAegis]

This doesn't seem crazy to me, they're going through due process under the law. It was posted in a public forum, if a judge agreed it should be released, it should be released.

It's the, "this is e-mail so it's electronic so we don't need a subpoena" BS is the main issue.

 

[modi123]

The eight users may be witnesses to unlawful business practices as the government suggests it has no other way of identifying the employees.

Any information on which business the feds are investigating that these eight may have seen unlawful practices?

 

[Deleted member 93354]

another reason to use tor and/or vpn at all times when posting anything on the web.

And that will give a reason for federal agencies to spearfish ya. (Applies to tor)

 

[Tawnos]

This doesn't seem crazy to me, they're going through due process under the law. It was posted in a public forum, if a judge agreed it should be released, it should be released.

It's the, "this is e-mail so it's electronic so we don't need a subpoena" BS is the main issue.

If a person anonymously pinned a note on a public bulletin board hosted at, say, Starbucks, should the content of what was posted be the basis for demanding security tapes and purchase records to deanonymize the person who posted? Isn't that anonymity fundamental to the concept of free speech?

 

[TwistedAegis]

If a person anonymously pinned a note on a public bulletin board hosted at, say, Starbucks, should the content of what was posted be the basis for demanding security tapes and purchase records to deanonymize the person who posted? Isn't that anonymity fundamental to the concept of free speech?

Depends on the speech, not everything is protected. There is due process to determine if, say, they can subpoena security cameras to see who pinned a bomb threat onto the board, or libel, or...etc.

 

[Rahh]

AHHH! Glassdoor, the YELP of businesses.

 

[BloodyIron]

Considering the government says this is because the people are witnesses to illegal activity, I'm torn about this.

On one hand it seems like the government is trying to pursue actual crime, which is a good thing as it's their job.

On the other it seems like these people should have the right to opt out of testifying, or whatever.

So it seems like this is something worthwhile to have figured out, for many different, very good reasons. I just hope we all come out on top, because I know there's plenty of shady businesses out there!

 

[Uvaman2]

Oh the basis of the anonymous comments in question alone, can't they just investigate the business in question? I mean investigate, not break doors arrest and shoot people.