Websites to identify trolls & other data snooping

[davieG]

BBC

Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

[Finnegan]

Hard luck, Chandlermoosevan's Caveman.

[Fox92]

Can't see anything wrong with it? There are some sick trolls around, especially on social networking websites.

[stez]

fair enough. if you can't saw it to the person's face don't say it at all.

[Daggers]

It's pointless. Do you know where I am from my IP? I very much doubt it.

As I said in the Troll thread, any person with half a brain can cover their tracks and appear to be someone/somewhere else.

[ADK]

Terrible idea.

[danny.]

Better than the pointless EU cookie law

[Guest]

Does English law cover the entire world or will only people in certain countries be prosecuted?

[Danno]

Will Foxestalk be exposing me then?

[stez]

dave's right it'll be tough tracking people through their ips and that richard bacon thing a few weeks ago showed how long winded it is to track people down, but it can be done. it's whether the finance and the will is there to actually do it, or whether it's just fine words

[Captain...]

Can't see anything wrong with it? There are some sick trolls around, especially on social networking websites.

The problem is when it starts getting used to shut down freedom of speech, I am not saying it is, but it can give governments the legal power to silence/expose critics.

The thing I take away most from visiting places with an oppressive past is how when laws were passed and data collected it was all done under the guise of protecting the innocent, but then they changed the laws, so the previous innocent became the guilty for nothing more than their opinions.

The data was already collected, the evidence gathered and the means and power to convict was already in place so there was nothing that could be done.

I am not sure if I am explaining myself well, so for example on the census you are required to state your sexuality or beliefs, then they illegalise homosexuality or Judaism and they already have a nice list of people to go round and convict.

My point is, just because you can't see anything wrong with it now, being used in the way it is being explained (to convict internet criminals) doesn't mean it can't be abused in the future.

Fortunately it is so easy to get round, even I could do it.

[Dan]

We have become so soft in this country it's unbelievable.

[1964FOX]

Good, some vile gits out there. Some will be caught out when their service provider has to give details of the customer but others will be able to cover their tracks. Agood move forward though.

[Dan]

I personally think they should focus more on people who create and send viruses.

[Daggers]

Good, some vile gits out there. Some will be caught out when their service provider has to give details of the customer but others will be able to cover their tracks. Agood move forward though.

Are there really, or is it just a very, very tiny percentage of people who use social networking sites?

Louise Mensch could have killed off her recent troll by selecting the option 'block'. She didn't, she responded and upped the ante.

Facebook page admins could kill off their problem by deleting, blocking and reporting the contributors who offend...but they don't, they confront them.

The bulk of Facebook bullying exists between kids who go to the same school, they know who the bully is but they don't press 'block', they respond. You simply don't need a censorship law for this.

There are already tools out there to deal with the bulk of what is a very small but over-hyped problem.

Cases going to court will take resources away from the CPS which I'd rather see used for real crime.

Solutions to a very small problem don't include new laws - and certainly not badly thought out ones which are totally circumventable.

This is another piece of moronic decision making from a government which never found a plot to lose.

[Christoph]

The problem is when it starts getting used to shut down freedom of speech, I am not saying it is, but it can give governments the legal power to silence/expose critics.

The thing I take away most from visiting places with an oppressive past is how when laws were passed and data collected it was all done under the guise of protecting the innocent, but then they changed the laws, so the previous innocent became the guilty for nothing more than their opinions.

The data was already collected, the evidence gathered and the means and power to convict was already in place so there was nothing that could be done.

I am not sure if I am explaining myself well, so for example on the census you are required to state your sexuality or beliefs, then they illegalise homosexuality or Judaism and they already have a nice list of people to go round and convict.

My point is, just because you can't see anything wrong with it now, being used in the way it is being explained (to convict internet criminals) doesn't mean it can't be abused in the future.

Fortunately it is so easy to get round, even I could do it.

Totally agree. Internet is slowly starting to become more and more regulated and nationalised.

[Guest MattP]

Don't really see a problem with it, if it helps to nail a few more vile morons like this guy I'm all for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers

Far too many keyboard warriors and scrotes that find it funny to mock the dead etc over the internet, if this exposes a few more who think they can make peoples live a misery just because their own life is rotting away in their own bedroom then good.

[ADK]

Are there really, or is it just a very, very tiny percentage of people who use social networking sites?

Louise Mensch could have killed off her recent troll by selecting the option 'block'. She didn't, she responded and upped the ante.

Facebook page admins could kill off their problem by deleting, blocking and reporting the contributors who offend...but they don't, they confront them.

The bulk of Facebook bullying exists between kids who go to the same school, they know who the bully is but they don't press 'block', they respond. You simply don't need a censorship law for this.

There are already tools out there to deal with the bulk of what is a very small but over-hyped problem.

Cases going to court will take resources away from the CPS which I'd rather see used for real crime.

Solutions to a very small problem don't include new laws - and certainly not badly thought out ones which are totally circumventable.

This is another piece of moronic decision making from a government which never found a plot to lose.

This.

[MooseBreath]

Hard luck, Chandlermoosevan's Caveman.

Don't think I've ever posted anything seriously defamatory about an individual. This is bad news though. The law is obviously designed as a tool to clamp down on unpopular opinions and ultimately free speech. The internet used to be anonymous and that was why it was so powerful. We're rapidly heading for a situation where your every movement online is monitored and logged. Not to mention the mass scale personal data harvesting that has already been going on for years. If the internet is where you can air your thoughts, then thought-crime now exists. The real life equivalent would be forcing people to have mics and cameras in their houses. No privacy, no free speech, no human rights. Welcome to the internet in 2012.

[Finnegan]

Don't think I've ever posted anything seriously defamatory about an individual. This is bad news though. The law is obviously designed as a tool to clamp down on unpopular opinions and ultimately free speech. The internet used to be anonymous and that was why it was so powerful. We're rapidly heading for a situation where your every movement online is monitored and logged. Not to mention the mass scale personal data harvesting that has already been going on for years. If the internet is where you can air your thoughts, then thought-crime now exists. The real life equivalent would be forcing people to have mics and cameras in their houses. No privacy, no free speech, no human rights. Welcome to the internet in 2012.

One of the few times I'll agree with you.

I think people are prone to get a little bit overly excited when it comes to paranoia over being "watched" (I'm pretty sure the government don't give a shit if you're watching porn or ebaying handbags) but I do think people should be more concerned by the growing clamp down on the internet by the "powers that be."

[Guest]

Are there really, or is it just a very, very tiny percentage of people who use social networking sites?

Louise Mensch could have killed off her recent troll by selecting the option 'block'. She didn't, she responded and upped the ante.

Facebook page admins could kill off their problem by deleting, blocking and reporting the contributors who offend...but they don't, they confront them.

The bulk of Facebook bullying exists between kids who go to the same school, they know who the bully is but they don't press 'block', they respond. You simply don't need a censorship law for this.

There are already tools out there to deal with the bulk of what is a very small but over-hyped problem.

Cases going to court will take resources away from the CPS which I'd rather see used for real crime.

Solutions to a very small problem don't include new laws - and certainly not badly thought out ones which are totally circumventable.

This is another piece of moronic decision making from a government which never found a plot to lose.

Agree

[Captain...]

Don't think I've ever posted anything seriously defamatory about an individual. This is bad news though. The law is obviously designed as a tool to clamp down on unpopular opinions and ultimately free speech. The internet used to be anonymous and that was why it was so powerful. We're rapidly heading for a situation where your every movement online is monitored and logged. Not to mention the mass scale personal data harvesting that has already been going on for years. If the internet is where you can air your thoughts, then thought-crime now exists. The real life equivalent would be forcing people to have mics and cameras in their houses. No privacy, no free speech, no human rights. Welcome to the internet in 2012.

It all depends on how you view the internet, it is a source of media or free form discussion?

The BBC website can't say Wayne Rooney sucks off gibbons for fun on their internet page, they would get sued, just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it isn't as damaging as print media, what we are effectively doing in Forums such as this, is no different writing an opinion piece in a newspaper, anybody can read and see this, so should it follow the same regulations?

Take twitter for example, if you don't have your settings set to private, then everyone can see what you put, all celebrities know their twitter feeds are followed by national newspapers so any statement made on it is the same as a press release.

I can see the internet splitting in 2, the regulated and the unregulated, any posts made in the regulated sphere would need to conform to all rules and regs, official state approved log ins and IP addresses only no proxies, no porn no illegal downloading. All approved websites would need to conform to strict rules and regs. Any violations will see web sites or users kicked out of the regulated web.

Then there will be the undersphere, full of porn and smut and illegal file sharing, viruses and trolls, as well as opinions and free discussion, by going onto an unregulated web site you will be doing so in full knowledge of what you could end up reading, mostly it will be pictures of cats but it is the only way I can see any sort of regulation of the internet happening.

[Bellend Sebastian]

mostly it will be pictures of cats

What's not to like?

[Daggers]

This law is not about trolls, online bullying or eAbuse - it's about control. It's about a parliament which is being instructed to control the proles and their access to information by its paymasters.

Power is all about control, without it they have none, and to maintain it the institutions have restricted access to knowledge. The internet brings unregulated information to every household, it creates the possibility for business, religion and government to be questioned and held to account. They don't like it. They want to stop it.

They'll tell you it's for your own good. They'll tell you that you have nothing to fear unless you are doing wrong. They'll tell you that you can't take the wrong type of fizzy drink into the Olympics - they like to tell you what to think and do.

Wake up Britain.

Wake up and smell the Yorkshire tea.

[Daggers]

What's not to like?

The cats, mainly.