The Wikimedia Foundation said that it would not help to identify
the user unless a court order was made, but that if the Court
ordered it to release the information it would.
The businesswoman, known as G, claims to be the subject of a
blackmail plot and the victim of the publishing in a Wikipedia
entry of private and confidential information about her and her
young child.
One of G's companies is in dispute with a person whom she
believes is also behind a smear campaign against her. An anonymous
letter she received appeared to be a threat to claim that her
expenses claims amounted to theft. Another anonymous letter
disclosed the information that was later published on the Wikipedia
page.
G suspects that the same person is behind the letters, the
business dispute, the Wikipedia entry and attempts to sell the
private information to newspapers.
She asked the High Court to force Wikimedia to reveal the
internet protocol (IP) address of the person who made the change to
Wikipedia. An IP address can be used by an internet service
provider (ISP) to identify which internet connection was used to
perform certain functions or view certain pages. This can help to
connect a user with certain online activity.
"In ordinary language, the mother believes that she is the
subject of an attempt at blackmail," said Mr Justice Tugendhat,
granting her order. "On the information before the court, she has
reason to believe that."
He said that the IP address should be revealed, even if all of
G's suspicions turn out not to be correct.
"Even if there is no link between the person making the claims
against the company, the two anonymous letters, and the amendment,
[G's position] is no weaker," he said. "If there is no such link,
there remains a very strong case that private information has been
disclosed by someone. The range of suspects would then include
professional advisers."
The Wikipedia article in question is about G and the amendment
made was about her and her child. That amendment was deleted from
the article after a short time.
Wikimedia told the Court that it would comply with an order, but
that there had to be an order before it released user details.
"[Wikimedia] referred to the immunity they claim under section
230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil
liability for content they did not originate or develop," said the
ruling. That law gives information service providers immunity from
responsibility for illegal information or activity that they do not
know about.
"They stated that it is the policy of [Wikimedia] that such data
be released in response to a valid subpoena or equivalent
compulsory legal process," said the ruling.
"Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United
Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we
nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court
order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter,"
Wikimedia told the Court.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
