[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

[Fred Bauder]

>
> Well, whatever he meant, it isn't his decision. The WMF's legal dept
> has recently published their draft policies, which includes one on
> subpoenas [1]. It basically says that, unless lives are at stake, they
> will only comply with US subpoenas. For US subpoenas, they'll decide
> whether to comply with or contest them based on the facts presented to
> them. Of course, if they contest a US subpoena unsuccessfully, they
> have no choice but to comply with it.
>
> 1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies#Subpoenas

I read that rather differently; to me what it says is that they will make
an optimum response tailored to the situation presented.

I'm not sure that would include refusing to release the ip address of an
account on the warpath against superinjunctions.

There is a distinction between trying, and perhaps failing, to comply and
aggressive defiance.

By the way, I think this NYT"s article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22gossip.html?ref=todayspaper

"The Gossip Machine, Churning Out Cash"

may be of some relevance. I don't think we should pander in this way,
regardless of public interest by the public, the media, or our editors.
Perhaps just a note on any article about a celebrity that there is public
interest by the tabloids in their personal affairs.

Fred