We’ve had this discussion before but it is probably worth having again since it does not appear that the problem will go away anytime soon. As reported in The Register, Google has agreed to handover the IP address of an anonymous blogger to a Tel Aviv, Israel district court. The case involves three Israel local politicians who are suing the blogger for slander. At first Google refused saying, "disclosing the blo We’ve had this discussion before but it is probably worth having again since it does not appear that the problem will go away anytime soon.As reported in The Register, Google has agreed to handover the IP address of an anonymous blogger to a Tel Aviv, Israel district court.The case involves three Israel local politicians who are suing the blogger for slander. At first Google refused saying, “disclosing the blogger’s identity violated rulings on the balance between freedom of expression and a person’s right to his reputation.”However, once the presiding judge ruled that the anonymous “blogger may be guilty of criminal conduct” in that what he was accusing the politicians of was an outright lie, Google consented. The question is, criminal or not, should an online identity be sacrosanct? Say as sacrosanct as client lawyer privilege or what is said in a confessional to a priest? Both, as far as I know, protects the lawyer or priest from criminal charges even if their client confesses to a crime.Clearly there are times when the Web site or ISP should not disclose the identity as in the case of the Shi Tao and Yahoo which resulted in the jailing of a dissident in China.In the case now working its way through the Israeli courts, the litigants and Google have agreed to give the anonymous blogger 72 hours to come forward or Google will disclose his IP address. Much to consider here. I’l like to hear some comments. Technology Industry