I thought this excerpt was indicative of why the case is interesting beyond the secretive seal:
> The case arises from a subpoena served by the United States on the employer-rating site Glassdoor,
originally demanding identifying information about the owners of more than one hundred pseudonymous accounts
that had, it appears, been used to post reviews of a particular employer whose contracting practices were subject to a federal criminal investigation.
In an effort to compromise, the government limited its production demand to eight specified reviewers.
Glassdoor responded to that offer by proposing that it notify the users of the subpoena and provide identifying information for such of its users who were willing to be identified to the prosecutors.
After the government rejected this offer, Glassdoor moved to quash the subpoena, invoking its users’ First Amendment right to speak anonymously
1 comment
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 10.1 ms ] threadI thought this excerpt was indicative of why the case is interesting beyond the secretive seal:
> The case arises from a subpoena served by the United States on the employer-rating site Glassdoor,
originally demanding identifying information about the owners of more than one hundred pseudonymous accounts
that had, it appears, been used to post reviews of a particular employer whose contracting practices were subject to a federal criminal investigation.
In an effort to compromise, the government limited its production demand to eight specified reviewers.
Glassdoor responded to that offer by proposing that it notify the users of the subpoena and provide identifying information for such of its users who were willing to be identified to the prosecutors.
After the government rejected this offer, Glassdoor moved to quash the subpoena, invoking its users’ First Amendment right to speak anonymously