Editing Anonymity (section)

==Legal protection of anonymity==
Anonymity is perceived as a right by many, especially the anonymity in the internet communications. The partial right for anonymity is legally protected to various degrees in different jurisdictions.

===United States===
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[James Madison]], and [[John Jay]] wrote ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'' under the pseudonym "Publius" and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]] has repeatedly<ref>McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995)</ref><ref>Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960)</ref><ref>See TOMAS A. LIPINSKI, TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK: DEVELOPING LEGAL
STANDARDS FOR ANONYMOUS SPEECH ON THE INTERNET 942 (2002)</ref> recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment.]]
* The right to ''anonymous political campaigning'' was established in the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision in ''[[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission]]'' (1995) case: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority...It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html |title=U.S. Supreme Court decision "''McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n''" (93–986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995) |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |access-date=2012-11-22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121201041515/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html |archive-date=2012-12-01 }}</ref> The Supreme court explained that protecting anonymous political speech receives the highest protection however, this priority takes on new dimensions in the digital age.
* The right of individuals for "anonymous communication" was established by the decision in case ''Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, et al.'' (1999) of the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]]: "People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://legal.web.aol.com/aol/aolpol/seescandy.html |title=Decision ''Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, et al.'' of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California |publisher=Legal.web.aol.com |access-date=2012-11-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415042345/http://legal.web.aol.com/aol/aolpol/seescandy.html |archive-date=2012-04-15 }}</ref>
* The right of individuals for "anonymous reading" was established in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ''United States v. Rumely'' (1953): "Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the purchasers of his publications, the free press as we know it disappears. Then the spectre of a government agent will look over the shoulder of everyone who reads".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/345/41 |title=U.S. Supreme Court decision "United States v. Rumely" 345 U.S. 41 (73 S.Ct. 543, 97 L.Ed. 770) (1953) |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |date=1953-03-09 |access-date=2012-11-22 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130608173643/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/345/41 |archive-date=2013-06-08 }}</ref>

The pressure on anonymous communication has grown substantially after the [[September 11 attacks|2001 terrorist attack]] on the [[World Trade Center (1973–2001)|World Trade Center]] and the subsequent new political climate. Although it is still difficult to oversee their exact implications, measures such as the [[Patriot Act|US Patriot Act]], the European Cybercrime Convention and the [[European Union]] rules on [[data retention]] are only few of the signs that the exercise of the right to the anonymous exchange of information is under substantial pressure.<ref>[https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/512119/da_preface-toc.pdf Digital Anonymity and the Law. Tensions and Dimensions] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150208235845/https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/512119/da_preface-toc.pdf |date=2015-02-08 }}, by Nicoll, C.; Prins, Corien; van Dellen, M.J.M, 2003, Tilburg University</ref>

An above-mentioned 1995 Supreme Court ruling in ''McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission'' reads:<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html |title=McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) |access-date=2016-07-27 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706104957/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html |archive-date=2016-07-06 }}</ref> ''"(...) protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."''

However, anonymous online speech is not without limits. It is clearly demonstrated in a case from 2008, one in which the defendant stated on a law-school discussion board that two women should be raped, an anonymous poster's comments may extend beyond free speech protections.<ref>A [https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/28/autoadmit-suit-update-%20defendant-ak47-responds/?mod=WSJBlog mir Efrati, AutoAdmit Suit Update: Defendant "AK47" Responds, WALL ST. J.: LAW BLOG, Feb. 28, 2008],</ref> In the case, a Connecticut federal court must apply a standard to decide whether the poster's identity should be revealed. There are several tests, however, that the court could apply when considering this issue.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/430/vol5_no4_art16.pdf?sequence%3D1 |title=Archived copy |access-date=2015-02-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209000122/https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/430/vol5_no4_art16.pdf?sequence=1 |archive-date=2015-02-09 }}</ref><ref>Kristina Ringland, Internet User Anonymity, First Amendment Protections and Mobilisa: Changing The Cahill Test, 5 SHIDLER J. L. COM. & TECH. 16 (2009), available at <{{cite web|url=http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol5/a16Ringland.html |title=University of Washington School of Law |access-date=2015-02-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100622025741/http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/vol5/a16Ringland.html |archive-date=2010-06-22 }}></ref>

===European Union===
The right to internet anonymity is also covered by European legislation that recognizes the fundamental right to [[Information privacy|data protection]], [[freedom of expression]], freedom of impression. The [[European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights]] recognizes in Article. 8 (Title II: "Freedoms")<ref>{{cite book|author1=Serge Gutwirth|author2=Ronald Leenes|author3=Paul de Hert Springer|title=Reforming European Data Protection Law|date=September 11, 2014|publisher=Springer, 2014|isbn=9789401793858|pages=406|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EJdxBQAAQBAJ&q=Legal+protection+of+anonymity+eu|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150208235919/https://books.google.bg/books?id=EJdxBQAAQBAJ&dq=Legal+protection+of+anonymity+eu&hl=bg&source=gbs_navlinks_s|archive-date=February 8, 2015}}</ref> the right of everyone to protection of personal data concerning him.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT|title=EUR-Lex - 12012P/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex|access-date=13 June 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617030021/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT|archive-date=17 June 2016}}</ref> The right to privacy is now essentially the individual's right to have and to maintain control over information about him.

===International legislation===
One of the most controversial international legal acts, regarding this subject is [[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement|Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)]]. As of February 2015, the treaty was signed -but not all ratified- by 31 states as well as the European Union. Japan was on 4 October 2012 the first to ratify the treaty. It creates an international regime for imposing civil and criminal penalties on Internet counterfeiting and copyright infringement. Although ACTA is intentionally vague, leaving signatories to draw precise rules themselves, critics say it could mean innocent travellers having their laptops searched for unlicensed music, or being jailed for carrying a [[generic drug]]. Infringers could be liable for the total loss of potential sales (implying that everyone who buys a counterfeit product would have bought the real thing). It applies to unintentional use of copyright material. It puts the onus on website owners to ensure they comply with laws across several territories. It has been negotiated secretively and outside established international trade bodies, despite EU criticisms.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/21547235|title=ACTA up|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=13 June 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160809124805/http://www.economist.com/node/21547235|archive-date=9 August 2016|date=2012-02-11}}</ref>