Tweet
http://www.dwf.co.uk/news/xprNewsDet...etail&news=769
Disclosure of IP Addresses
Articles
Tuesday 2 February 2010
Courts willing to order disclosure of IP addresses to help find alleged wrongdoers and to hear matters in private in exceptional circumstances.
Every device which is connected to the internet is assigned a unique number known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address and an IP address can often be used to identify the location of the user of the device. In a world in which information can be disseminated instantly through the internet, the courts in England and Wales are willing to use their power to compel third parties, such as website operators and internet service providers, to disclose information that will lead to the identification of wrong doers who have used a website to cause loss and damage to a claimant by posting information on the internet which may be sensitive or confidential. These orders are known as Norwich Pharmacal orders, which is the name of the first case in which such an order was made by the courts.
DWF have acted for many clients in successfully obtaining Norwich Pharmacal orders and we have the expertise and experience to assist clients in taking legal action for the purposes of identifying wrongdoers and then using legal remedies to restrain them from disseminating further harmful information as well as obtaining monetary damages.
This article looks at a recent case in which the court used these powers: (1) G (2) G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (A company incorporated under the law of Florida, United States) (2009) [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB).
Facts
A registered user of the Wikipedia website amended an article on Wikipedia which the claimants alleged contained sensitive and confidential information about them.
The claimants' solicitors asked Wikipedia to provide the IP information of the registered user (the wrongdoer) who had amended the article. This information was required in order to identify the wrongdoer so that legal action could be taken to prevent any further breaches of the claimants' privacy and to stop any further disclosure of confidential information.
Wikipedia refused to disclose the IP address without a court order but explained that it would not oppose the application to court seeking such an order. Wikipedia also argued that it was not the publisher or author of the article or of subsequent amendments to the article and it agreed to refer the matter to its volunteer editors and they, in turn, agreed to remove the article.
An unusual aspect of this case was that the claimants asked the court to hold the hearing in private and to restrict access to the court file by non-parties. The usual position is that court hearings are open to the public and the public also has certain rights of access to the court file. The claimants in this case were a mother and her young child. The information in the Wikipedia article was private and confidential information of a sensitive nature concerning the mother and her child and they did not want this matter to be heard in public.
Decision
The court granted the order compelling Wikipedia to disclose the IP address of the alleged wrongdoer.
The court also granted an order giving anonymity to the claimants and agreed that, on the facts of this case (which are not known to the public) the hearing should take place in private. The court indicated that restricting public access to a court hearing was against the principles of open justice and would only ever be allowed in exceptional circumstances and at the Judge's discretion. The law provides guidance that it is reasonable for a Judge to exclude the public if the hearing concerns confidential information or issues relating to protecting the interests of a child.
For more information please contact Simon Price, T: 07825 343123
Disclosure of IP Addresses
Articles
Tuesday 2 February 2010
Courts willing to order disclosure of IP addresses to help find alleged wrongdoers and to hear matters in private in exceptional circumstances.
Every device which is connected to the internet is assigned a unique number known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address and an IP address can often be used to identify the location of the user of the device. In a world in which information can be disseminated instantly through the internet, the courts in England and Wales are willing to use their power to compel third parties, such as website operators and internet service providers, to disclose information that will lead to the identification of wrong doers who have used a website to cause loss and damage to a claimant by posting information on the internet which may be sensitive or confidential. These orders are known as Norwich Pharmacal orders, which is the name of the first case in which such an order was made by the courts.
DWF have acted for many clients in successfully obtaining Norwich Pharmacal orders and we have the expertise and experience to assist clients in taking legal action for the purposes of identifying wrongdoers and then using legal remedies to restrain them from disseminating further harmful information as well as obtaining monetary damages.
This article looks at a recent case in which the court used these powers: (1) G (2) G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (A company incorporated under the law of Florida, United States) (2009) [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB).
Facts
A registered user of the Wikipedia website amended an article on Wikipedia which the claimants alleged contained sensitive and confidential information about them.
The claimants' solicitors asked Wikipedia to provide the IP information of the registered user (the wrongdoer) who had amended the article. This information was required in order to identify the wrongdoer so that legal action could be taken to prevent any further breaches of the claimants' privacy and to stop any further disclosure of confidential information.
Wikipedia refused to disclose the IP address without a court order but explained that it would not oppose the application to court seeking such an order. Wikipedia also argued that it was not the publisher or author of the article or of subsequent amendments to the article and it agreed to refer the matter to its volunteer editors and they, in turn, agreed to remove the article.
An unusual aspect of this case was that the claimants asked the court to hold the hearing in private and to restrict access to the court file by non-parties. The usual position is that court hearings are open to the public and the public also has certain rights of access to the court file. The claimants in this case were a mother and her young child. The information in the Wikipedia article was private and confidential information of a sensitive nature concerning the mother and her child and they did not want this matter to be heard in public.
Decision
The court granted the order compelling Wikipedia to disclose the IP address of the alleged wrongdoer.
The court also granted an order giving anonymity to the claimants and agreed that, on the facts of this case (which are not known to the public) the hearing should take place in private. The court indicated that restricting public access to a court hearing was against the principles of open justice and would only ever be allowed in exceptional circumstances and at the Judge's discretion. The law provides guidance that it is reasonable for a Judge to exclude the public if the hearing concerns confidential information or issues relating to protecting the interests of a child.
For more information please contact Simon Price, T: 07825 343123
