Danno Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 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. Most people use Facebook 'as a page' if they don't want to be found out, and that page can't be blocked by you.
Daggers Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 Most people use Facebook 'as a page' if they don't want to be found out, and that page can't be blocked by you. Eh? You can block individuals from accessing your personal timeline, you can restrict your timeline to be viewable by just friends, you can unfriend someone and admins can block individuals from group pages. Plus, individual comments can be reported very easily. I don't get what your point is.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 The cats, mainly. TROLL! No more internet for you. Has anyone seen Troll Hunter? It does look pretty scary, I can see why people are so keen to sort them out
BoneDog Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 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. This is the future. Our children will grow up thinking that it is normal to be monitored 24/7. We've already had mics in our houses for years. An old house phone that is not even picked up can be listened in to. The mic is there and it is connected to electric cables. Anybody at the company that provides the lines could listen to us at home all day if they wished. For some reason the police have always said the only way to listen in to a landline is to bug the line, which is baloney. The same can be said of mobile phones, even when switched off or not in use, as long as there is a battery in them. The mic is there and is in easy reach of any agency connected to the snoopers at GCHQ etc.. I also read a report recently that says that cameras and mics will be a legal requirement in new cars soon. They'll pretend that it's just for safety and that they haven't got the power to listen or watch us whenever they please, but that excuse is just more baloney. The only thing we can do is accept that our private lives will be watched. I've accepted it and now put on a nude, bar socks, steamy workout 'show' every evening for them to enjoy. 15 press-ups and some star-jumps. The helicopters that hover over here with their Predator type cameras every day have some awesome footage. I was thinking recently about making a toy RPG out of wrapping paper tubes and stuff, and going outside with it next time they're here to see if they speed off. But it's not worth the risk so I think I'll leave it. 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. Good posts that I agree with from you in this thread. The only thing I disagree with is the religion bit for a couple of reasons. I don't think that there are any actual religious people in real positions of power. Just the phoneys who are and have always been up for a bit of control over populations. All the proper religious folk I know have a love for debating! They wouldn't want freedom of speech banned. Although I agree with folk that this law is over the top, a waste of money and time, and maybe even useless, I'm happy to see the people responsible for extreme and purposely hurtful trolling to be punished. The shits. Mind you, when I first got the internet a few years ago, I didn't treat it as real life. I'd been round a few peoples houses where they were on chatroom things where everybody was just insulting eachother outrageously. So when I got the internet I acted the same, gave it the big un and just thought it was all a mental entertainment experience full of nutters. It's only the past 18 months or so that I thought, "Hold on, you're actually talking to normal real people here", at the end of the day sort of thing.
1964FOX Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 Lots of paranoid people worrying that laws are being put in place to clamp down on freedom of speech. If you are worried about the government being able to monitor you and know your details, likes, Internet preferences then too late. Also there are laws already in place to be able to trace anything about you. Everybody leaves some form of footprint that can be traced if needed. This legislation purely makes it easier for the average person to do something about trolls. Clearly if Facebook and similar tightened their acts up it wouldn't be required but may be that's the intention of it.
Daggers Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 The only thing I disagree with is the religion bit for a couple of reasons. I don't think that there are any actual religious people in real positions of power. Just the phoneys who are and have always been up for a bit of control over populations. All the proper religious folk I know have a love for debating! They wouldn't want freedom of speech banned. Look at the property and wealth of the C&E and the Catholic Church, then look at who gets a free ride to input into the laws of the land... Faith systems have always been about control of the people and centralisation of wealth.
Daggers Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 Lots of paranoid people worrying that laws are being put in place to clamp down on freedom of speech. If you are worried about the government being able to monitor you and know your details, likes, Internet preferences then too late. Also there are laws already in place to be able to trace anything about you. Everybody leaves some form of footprint that can be traced if needed. This legislation purely makes it easier for the average person to do something about trolls. Clearly if Facebook and similar tightened their acts up it wouldn't be required but may be that's the intention of it. Yep, you've said that already, repeating your point doesn't make it any less wrong.
1964FOX Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 Yep, you've said that already, repeating your point doesn't make it any less wrong. In your opinion, which of course you ar entitled to as we have freedom of speech.
Guest ttfn Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 Mics in mobile phones allowing the government to listen in? What a load of shit. Honestly.
sphericalfox Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 Mics in mobile phones allowing the government to listen in? What a load of shit. Honestly. That's not a load of shit http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/12/can_you_hear_me/
Guest ttfn Posted 12 June 2012 Posted 12 June 2012 That's not a load of shit http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/12/can_you_hear_me/ I stand corrected. That said, it's no different in terms of how it has to be applied under law to a phone tap, so it's not like someone's listening to everything you're doing.
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 Trolls will just get around the law by using a cheap, unregistered mobile phone to post their sick comments, which will then be conveniently disposed of. This law will not stop trolling one bit. You have to assume the government are intelligent enough to know that, so this law has to be for reasons stated in other posts
davieG Posted 13 June 2012 Author Posted 13 June 2012 Governments on the back foot often look for 'popular' legislation to earn a few brownie points, most of it is either pointless, impossible or too costly to police or too costly for the victim to take action.
Webbo Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 Trolls will just get around the law by using a cheap, unregistered mobile phone to post their sick comments, which will then be conveniently disposed of. This law will not stop trolling one bit. You have to assume the government are intelligent enough to know that, so this law has to be for reasons stated in other posts Most of this trolling is just sick jokes, do you really think people will get an unregistered mobile phone just to troll?
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 Most of this trolling is just sick jokes, do you really think people will get an unregistered mobile phone just to troll? We're not talking about people making the odd sick joke though are we? We all do that when the occasion demands it. We're talking about the really sick deranged people who get their amusement from causing distress to people. If they go to all the trouble of hiding their identities in the first place and this law comes into force, yes I do, as this way is totally untraceable.
1964FOX Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 We're not talking about people making the odd sick joke though are we? We all do that when the occasion demands it. We're talking about the really sick deranged people who get their amusement from causing distress to people. If they go to all the trouble of hiding their identities in the first place and this law comes into force, yes I do, as this way is totally untraceable. No it's not totally untraceable, difficult to do and trolling would probably not warrant the effort but somewhere along the line something is done that reveals an identity.
davieG Posted 13 June 2012 Author Posted 13 June 2012 Related to the privacy issue. BBC An EU data watchdog has warned of the "considerable risks" to privacy posed by new energy smart meters. The European Data Protection Supervisor said safeguards were needed over how firms used the "massive collection" of consumers' data uploaded by meters. The technology is able to track when consumers are at home, how they spend their free time and even what medical devices they use. UK energy firms and ministers say consumers' privacy will be protected. But campaign group Privacy International said proposed safeguards did not go far enough. Fraud detection The government is currently consulting over privacy safeguards on smart meters, due to be installed in 30 million UK homes by 2019. It says consumers should have the option of deciding whether they share detailed information about their use of gas and electricity. Consumers may be able to opt out of sharing their information on a daily basis, and opt in to sharing more frequently gathered data. But the EDPS proposed safeguards go further, recommending "freely given, specific, informed and explicit consent" of all use of their data that goes beyond the need for energy billing, fraud detection and the information necessary to run an energy-efficient grid. The EDPS report voices concern over the "potential intrusiveness" of smart meters, which it says can track what members of a household do in the privacy of their homes. It says smart meters are useful because they help suppliers plan the supply of electricity and gas more effectively, as well as allowing consumers to take advantage of lower price tariffs. But the report highlights fears that regular frequent smart-meter readings, unless safeguarded, might also tell criminals when a house was unoccupied. Third-party companies - like marketing firms - might be able to learn about consumers' sleeping patterns, whether they watched television or used certain tools, entertain guests or even used medical devices like dialysis machines. The report adds: "Information about energy usage can have high commercial value." 'Consent' A spokesman for Energy UK, which represents gas and electricity suppliers, said: "Consumer privacy is key to the introduction of smart meters and will be built in from the beginning. "Customers will be able to get real-time information on their energy usage, but that will not be sent to their energy supplier. "Only if they give their consent will more granular information be sent to the data communications company." A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Under our proposals, suppliers would be able to access daily consumption data (for example to provide energy efficiency advice), but consumers would have the chance to opt out of this. "Suppliers would need explicit (opt-in) consent to access the more detailed half-hourly data, or use data for marketing." But Anna Fielder, from Privacy International, said the proposed safeguards needed to be toughened up in line with the EDPS recommendations. She said: "As things stand, if you don't want your daily data uploaded you have to opt out. "Suppliers will go for daily data collection and our experience tells us many people won't bother to opt out. "We think people should have the right to opt into frequent data collection at every stage."
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 No it's not totally untraceable, difficult to do and trolling would probably not warrant the effort but somewhere along the line something is done that reveals an identity. Do you seriously think that in the space of a month, anyone can trace a second hand, internet capable phone, with a new sim card every time( they only cost a quid) before the phone is destroyed and they get another one. Altogether, it doesn't cost much more than home broadband to carry out trolling if they really want to do it and hide. How are they going to trace it?
1964FOX Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 Do you seriously think that in the space of a month, anyone can trace a second hand, internet capable phone, with a new sim card every time( they only cost a quid) before the phone is destroyed and they get another one. Altogether, it doesn't cost much more than home broadband to carry out trolling if they really want to do it and hide. How are they going to trace it? It's not easy as I said but it can be done and most within a day, can't tell you how I'm afraid, don't want to lose my job.
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 It's not easy as I said but it can be done and most within a day, can't tell you how I'm afraid, don't want to lose my job. Am I right in thinking that they can only pinpoint the phone if the battery is in it?
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 I don't want to be giving potential trolls any ideas but i'm just pointing out that there are ways around the law, and I don't think they'll bother trying to trace phones as the evidence can be easily disposed of
1964FOX Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 Am I right in thinking that they can only pinpoint the phone if the battery is in it? When ever it sends data of any sort it can be traced, and this can be done historically. Of course switching it off and/ or taking the battery out and it can't be seen but pinging it is not the best way to trace it, there are numerous other ways to find out who has it. A super aware and clever user would prove very difficult to find but you would be surprised at the stupid things that do identify the users.
1964FOX Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 I don't want to be giving potential trolls any ideas but i'm just pointing out that there are ways around the law, and I don't think they'll bother trying to trace phones as the evidence can be easily disposed of As I said probably wouldn't use most of the methods for run of the mill trolling cases, just pointing out it can be done. Most of these trolls think they are super clever and can cover it up but don't think wide enough and are usually easily caught out.
Leicester_Numan Posted 13 June 2012 Posted 13 June 2012 As I said probably wouldn't use most of the methods for run of the mill trolling cases, just pointing out it can be done. Most of these trolls think they are super clever and can cover it up but don't think wide enough and are usually easily caught out. I agree with you, and the law will catch the casual trolls and idiots like the student making the Muamba comments. The serious ones, which are the worst, are comparable to paedophiles in that they'll go to any lengths to get their kicks and avoid detection, and it can be done easily and cheaply. While there is a second hand trade in mobile phones, we can't force people to register them
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.