This case comes at a time when people are starting to recognize that the information they put into their computers creates a record. In the bigger picture, as people input more information into computers, they are losing control over that. We're leaving a digital footprint with all sorts of information about ourselves.

It's a functional test: Is what you are doing journalism?

I have spoken to at least 20 or 30 people [who have dealt with this], and I have seen subpoenas that have hundreds of names on them.

It's going to be an important case, because it will go forward in raising a lot of questions ranging from rules that all journalists should follow when protecting their (sources) to the very definition of what a journalist is in the digital age.

Just because we are talking about the Internet does not mean we should lose the right to speak anonymously.

If the judge rules as it's reasonable to expect at this point, it will leave the question for another day. It's something we're going to see come up again and again.