The following article illustrates the potential for unethical use of information in an electronic format.

Self-Styled Critics Cause Headaches For Site Managers 
By Lisa Hamm-Greenawalt 
Internet World v.5 I.24 June 28, 1999 (http://www.internetworld.com) Used by permission. 

WHILE READING customer reviews of her book on writing successful Internet business plans at Amazon.com recently, author Lynn Manning Ross was shocked to find a scathing review purportedly written by "jeff@amazon.com, Seattle, WA," a clear reference to Amazon.com president Jeff Bezos.

"Stupid Book--Don't Waste Your Time!" the review declared. "Ask yourself one question. Did Jeff Bezos need a book like this to create amazon.com? NO! Neither should you. Save your money." 

Manning Ross' experience illustrates a tough dilemma: One of the most popular facets of the Internet--the freedom to air opinions far and wide with the click of a mouse--also creates the most potential for abuse. 

An embarrassed Manning Ross, afraid people would be dissuaded from buying her book by a fraudulent review, quickly e-mailed Amazon.com expressing her concern. Leah Ball in the merchandising department responded by promising to investigate, but it wasn't until five days later, after several more e-mails from Manning Ross, that the review disappeared. 

Manning Ross was outraged at the delay in removing the review, and even more so by her discovery that reviews are not prescreened. "If you're not minding the store, you're damaging the whole publishing industry" she said. "Hackers have been permitted to go on Amazon and post anything they want."

Amazon.com is far from alone in letting people post comments online without vetting them. Internet-wide, portals such as Deja.com encourage visitors to rate everything from authors to luxury cars. E-commerce sites such as Amazon.com and CDnow solicit customer reviews. And the most popular feature of many financial Web sites is message boards where users can post their opinions of various stocks. 

The problem is that anyone with access to a plugged-in computer can sign in to a chat room or onto a bulletin board under an anonymous screen name. Forums generally provide guidelines for postings, but don't filter comments.

"People used to say things around the water cooler," said Daniel E. Johnson, an attorney with McKenna & Cuneo in Washington, D.C., who has a number of high-tech clients. "But now, with e-mail, everyone has a much easier opportunity to spread their opinions far and wide."

Amazon.com spokesman Paul Capelli said the huge volume of reader reviews makes it impossible to screen them. "It's a self-policing community," he said. "Our policy is, if an inappropriate review is brought to our attention, we'll investigate, we'll look at it, and we'll remove it if it's not appropriate." He said that although Amazon.com encourages visitors to follow guidelines, abuse is inevitable on a site that features 2.5 million reviews.

Judith Platt, spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers, said she hadn't heard of any trend of abusive online reviews and didn't think it was a widespread problem. Maureen Donnelly, publicity director of Penguin Books, agreed, but speculated that such a situation could potentially hurt a smaller publisher. Online chatters share the same First Amendment right to free speech as the water-cooler crowd, but also the same legal restrictions. In the Amazon case, for instance, Bezos could press fraud charges against the reviewer who pretended to be him, said McKenna & Cuneo's Johnson.

Expressing opinions online also exposes users to the laws of other jurisdictions outside their own, Johnson said. "A statement that's not defamatory in your hometown could be [defamatory] in the jurisdiction where someone picks up the e-mail or the chat room," he explained.

Malice is another key consideration in measuring whether a statement has legal implications.

"If a statement is made maliciously about the person, then the author might have a claim against the critic," explained Johnson, using the bookselling industry as an example. "If, on the other hand, the statement is regarding the author's work, it's unlikely it's actionable." 

In the financial arena, inappropriate online statements can have serious repercussions. Two Raytheon employees resigned earlier this year after they posted what the defense contractor called "proprietary and confidential information" to Yahoo message boards. Last September, Itex Corp., which operates an online trade center, sued 100 "John Does" for allegedly posting untrue and defamatory statements about the company on a Yahoo board. 

The National Association of Securities Dealers regulates brokers' online statements, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has created an Internet enforcement unit to prosecute fraud on the Net. 

"Every employee has a duty of loyalty to his or her employer," Johnson said. "If the employee is spreading false information intentionally, or spreading proprietary information, he can be found liable for breaching that duty." 

But Johnson said people often don't have a financial or malicious motive when they make potentially litigious statements online, he said--they just like to talk. "That's the danger of the Internet," he said. "The blabbermouth in the office now has an audience that stretches far beyond the company itself." 

The Telecommunication Act of 1996 protects Internet site providers, saying they aren't responsible for information provided by others as long as they have no reason to believe posted information is false or libelous. "But a provider may be held liable for defamation if it knew it was defamatory and failed to take action or has reason to know it's defamatory," said Johnson. Moderated chat rooms, therefore, place themselves at slightly higher risk than unmoderated ones. 

For more information contact:

Reference Services, Hilton M. Briggs Library, Box 2115
South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007-1098
Telephone: (605) 688-5570, Fax: (605) 688-6133
E-mail: sdsu_blref@sdstate.edu

Last updated on 13 August 2001 by da