Slashdot Mirror
Cyber Bullying Destroys Anonymity
aussie_a writes "The BBC has an article on online bullying in South Korea. The problem has grown so large that in addition to the police having dedicated cyber terror units, the South Korean government will enact a law next year forcing South Koreans to reveal their name and ID before posting online. However some ISPs want the government to go further and to ban some people from being able to log onto the internet at all."
Anyone that post's will get a slap!
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Your suggestion that we should take information from anonymous and semi-anonymous posts with a pinch of salt is a good one, unfortunately most people are stupid and believe anything they read. Anonymous postings CAN cause real damage to a person's reputation.
There clearly need to be protections in place, so people can speak "anonymously" where this has public benefit, e.g. whistleblowers, people being more open with the truth, etc. This should not, however, mean people should be free to spread malicious lies.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Doesnt seem to be a right in their country. Oh well, it is their country, their rules, nothing to see here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Haven't the South Koreans heard of self-policing online communities? Why don't these communities take care of their own problems? And if the community won't take care of the problem, then why be part of that community? Go somewhere else, it's a big (world wide) world out there.
I wrote a document on the possibilities of someone having their lives shattered via e-Framing a while back Breaking Point. I saw it then as a method someone could screw someone else's life up in hopes to revise the document on how to protect one's self. I can see a black market economy in the shadows revolving around this same thing.
Infiltrated dot Net
Perhaps the South's plan for reunification involves taking away the freedoms their northern neighbours lack one by one. The right to freely associate is a good place to start. Next, maybe they can make critizing the government a crime.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
"Because on the internet information spreads quickly we need a system which blocks individuals from using the net in cases of defamation - something that will stop the spread of information before it happens, to save the victim."
Uh yeah... or maybe you could teach people not to believe everything they read online.
I love this "stop the spread of information . . . to save the victim".
What perspective.
Let them collect numbers. If it stops cyber-bullying, which is a *real* problem in our world, good for them. As an aside, I'm teaching English here in SK at the moment, and the whole social networking side of the country is pretty much invisible to me. The article was an interesting insight into a culture that, as a non-Korean speaker, I can never be a part of.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Does South Korea have a civil court system where someone can sue for libel and/or slander? It isn't a new problem. All you need is one psychopath with a grudge and a lot of free time to make your life miserable.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
What are the chances of this being, at least in part, due to North Korea trying to sow disunity and chaos amongst the South?
For some reason, the mental image of Kim Jong-Il yelling across the DMZ: "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!" seems rather appropriate.
We've already hashed this out once.
We were talking about the Internet, so I thought this would kind of be implied. It would be possible to stop a lot of problems online if we could come up with a secure way to link Internet-based accounts to individual people. It would also cause a whole host of other problems, which is why I didn't say this should be the solution. My point was simply that any solution offered shouldn't prevent "good"* anonymous speech.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that speakers, once identified, have the *right* to spread lies. To take examples from the article, people are having their phone numbers, boss's phone number, and credit card details posted. Pretty much anywhere, posting somebody else's credit card details would be illegal, and it would be perfectly reasonable to expect somebody doing that to get arrested for it. So, the other fork of the dilemma is, if people are going to behave in this manner, there needs to be a way to deal with this.
I don't think anyone has the right to spread lies, but the problem is, there is no agreement on what the truth is. I'd be delighted if people calling their horoscopes "accurate", for example, were prosecuted under the Trades Description Act, as "pulled them out of a hat" is probably closer to the facts. What we don't want is a Ministry Of Truth that goes around enforcing any deviation from their version of the truth. Especially as the Ministry of Information would now be telling us there were WMDs in Iraq, what insurgents?, etc. In fact, I'd go as far as suggesting that posting Blair's address on the Internet would be perfectly reasonable.****
As I point out many times, everything is a compromise. We have to let be large portions of lies in order to protect the rights of other people to say things that would be denied under a "truth-only" society. So, we have the compromise of libel, slander, harassment, data protection**, etc. that chips away at specific acts of speech that cause harm. Just like "X... but on the Internet!" shouldn't be patentable, "Y... but on the Internet!" should still be prosecutable***.
Finally, with regards to your "huffing kittens" remark... this shows it's fully possible to disagree with somebody, take a dig at them, and not ruin their life in the process.
* I hesitated to use this word, as it could invoke the old "free speech means people you disagree with, too" principle. Be clear I don't mean "the free speech I like". I could also have said "legal", causing people to remind me the law isn't the judge of what's right and what isn't. I could also have said "non-harmful", but plenty of hate speech is clearly harmful and not the stuff we are discussing here. I hope people will understand that I mean that I'm desiring a minimal impact.
** Well, in Europe, anyway.
*** Yes, I know somebody can come up with a nice counter-example, but here I mean the harmful acts under discussion, not "Where Y is shooting somebody and on the Internet you're just drawing red pixels on a photo".
**** Yes, this one's a joke.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
It's not cyber bullying that's destroying online anonymity... it's the SK government.
Find something that everyone finds bad (bullying) and use it as an excuse to prevent anonymous free expression! I wonder how long until the US mandates this?
Just think about it, mandatory identification for your protection. It's just like the passport idea but on-line.
Gee, I wonder what company will win the bid to design and build the huge database for everyone's name and login id's?
No. We have the same social problems we've always had. We're just seeing them in these new places we've created.
We've always had anonymous gangs.
We've always had mob culture.
We've always had people reacting by suppressing expression and freedom.
(I feel like David Byrne.)
The good news is that the people who've been studying human behavior in "the real world" are now waking up to the fact that the internet is also "the real world." The separation was always artificial, and it's ending.
The person that is affected by a bunch of people believing an online attack on them is not the mob, it is the subject of these attacks. So, the *problem* is that a bunch of stupid people can affect other people. Whether the solution causes its own problems is another matter.
My point about protecting whistleblowers was about the desired result of any solution, rather than suggesting this should be the aim of a solution. To put it another way, I was saying that while identifying all people all the time would (theoretically) solve people anonymously posting other people's personal details (as the perpetrators could be identified), it would also prevent the whistleblowers. So, a solution of this nature would not be desirable.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
What with this, and the terror of fan death, South Korea is a dangerous place indeed...
I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
. . .we are fully capable of managing that ourselves.
Now if we could only figure out a way to manage managing the managers.
KFG
Hmm, I read the article, but I'm having difficulty imagining the problem. So people can defame you and make threats to you online, right? But in what form? Do they send you messages on your personal account (not email, obviously ;-) )? Do they post messages on public fora? Do they post material on their own blogs or websites? All of the above? I think the form this "bullying" takes is quite important for understanding and dealing with the problem.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/
Incitement to commit offences is quite often illegal, so placing credit card details in a "let's get this person" post is likely to be prosecutable one way or another. Requiring somebody to cancel all their cards, re-set up any CATs***, etc. is a clear example of actual harm being caused to somebody, though "causing somebody a bit of inconvenience" itself may not be illegal.
It's fairly ridiculous to claim that people exploiting flaws in reality**** aren't responsible for their actions. My point is that people can cause harm to others with what they say, and _ideally_ they should be held account for it*. I also point out a bunch of problems if this is attempted to be done without causing more harm than good. I'm not claiming to have the magic formula that achieves this goal.
* And this means stuff like "organising a mob to make 200 phone calls to their house", not "calling them a big doodie head". Clearly, some judgement needs to be exercised**
** And by this, I don't mean "Wow, the courts sure are a great place to solve all of this, and certainly won't result in deep pockets silencing people". I mean that people actually have to do some thinking here, as I'm not talking in absolutes.
*** Continuous Authority Transactions, e.g. monthly payments for a subscription
**** I'm including things like banks and credit cards here, even though some people may make the philosophical argument that they are artificial constructs. By "reality", I mean "the universe that we live in" rather than some ideal world where doing bad things to people isn't possible.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
...this pretty much counts as the nuclear option in South Korea's war on cyberbullies. Sure, it should certainly annihilate the target, online bullying, along with legitimate criticism of the government, corporate and civil corruption whistleblowers, and, heck, probably even cybering rooms. It's a huge step backward for free Korean society.
On the plus side, I'm not quite so hopelessly envious of their median residential bandwidth anymore...
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Sounds to me like 21st century book burning. South Korea doesn't have the capabilities to destroy the collective knowledge of the internet, so they restrict its own population into ignorance and loss of impartial ideas. This is step #1 to mobilize minds under false pretense. There was another superpower who did this...
I could see getting moderated overrated, but how the hell does this get modded troll? Obviously by someone who hasn't been on slashdot long enough to see the story about the old people in Korea who are the only ones still using email...
You mean like static ips and identd? Well, MS and dialup isps screwed that one. Then again sending a subpoena to the isp will at least give you the owner of the dialup account.
Damn, I almost came up with a legal requirement to force ISPs to give everyone static ips.
If you're trying to persuade politicians to give everyone static IPs, I have a much better way to argue it:
Static IPs provide a valuable deterrent to digital crime by easily identifying the perpetrators. These crimes could include hacking attempts on important national infrastructure.
You're with static IPs, or you're with the terrorists!
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
"Cyber Bullying Destroys Anonymity" should read "Government Outlaws Internet Anonymity in Response to Cyber Bullying". Laws don't magically spring forth from citizen's bad behavior.
-Peter
So, under your world view, is breaking into computer systems OK if they have flaws in them, as long as you just look around a bit?
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
If the problem is a bunch of stupid people, the solution is not removal of anonymity, or censorship, but education. Even if you succeed in removing most untrue statements, you would only have reinforced the dangerous tendency of people to believe everything they read. Hence requiring even more censorship. It's kind of a vicious cycle.
To be clear, I'm not advocating an attack on *all* untrue statements, as that would, of course, cause issues on who gets to decide the truth. I'm strictly discussing personal attacks, as seen in the linked article. Are you suggesting, say, that if I made a webpage, say, "BillyBlaze ate my hamster", and it wasn't an obvious parody, you shouldn't have the right to get it taken down, despite the fact I've never owned a hamster, and (I presume) you've never eaten one? If so, how far would you personally let it slide against a site spreading lies against you before you'd want to take action?
Your "cycle of censorship" as confirmation reminds me of a letter to a popular science magazine I saw once. The author had noted that NASA wasn't suing people that claimed the moon landings were a hoax, which was clearly proof enough - NASA surely wouldn't let its pride be insulted like this. The magazine's reply was that if NASA had being suing people, the same people would be screaming "cover up".
On your education point, I propose a new song to be sung in school:
Things written on the Internet might be lies,
Things written on the Internet might be lies,
Things written on the Internet might be lies,
Pictures can be altered,
And quotes from people who misheard,
Things written on the Internet might be lies.
(This is evidence on why I'm not a rock star)
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Agreed. So what do YOU suggest get done for the victims of this cyber bullying who have their privacy invaded?
Really? Can you link to an example of someone getting their street address, bosses phone number and credit card number placed online by a cyber bully from slashdot?
Sadly, the ISPs have a lot of lobbying power (read: money), and they make a huge profit hosting websites because we can't host them ourselves. If everyone had a static IP, it would essentially destroy the web hosting industry as we know it. You'd better believe that GoDaddy has a problem with end users getting static IPs at all, never mind that being the only option.
So, you're either with the self-perpetuating ISP/registrar monopoly system, or you're with the terrorists.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Quite a transparent attempt to collect info on people , just give a look at the article
..or even more probable, your opinion about people having actual human rights isn't appreciated in this company, we value profit above all thank you.
Online mobs first demonise those they disagree with, then the victim's home address, credit card details, and even their boss's phone numbers get passed around.
Yeah it is possible, it ALWAYS was possible, it's hardly news. Why don't people do that all the time ? Because they a LOT better and more entertaining stuff to do , only a few deraged psycopaths looking for attention do that stuff routinely.
Chun Seong Lee, Liaison Officer at the Cyber Terror Response Centre."It's happening a lot. In these situations people could lose their job, or it could affect their social life, even causing mental illness. That's all happening because of the development of the internet, of course."
That's insane, that's blaming internet for the trouble caused by few psycopaths. One can see a close parallel in american paranoid obsession for terrorism and the damage caused by this obsession, such as attacks on citizens accused to be "terror supporter" for merely DISAGREEING with the obsessed people, accusation of treason by keyboard warrior chickenhawks, incitation to hate. Some people profited on this obsession, expecially these around the "jingoism" business.
Similarly, the obsession with people exposing your personal data on the internet isn't CAUSED by the possibility of remaining _partially_ anonymous on the internet, but is caused by terrorizing tactiques of few "bullies" that can be traced with a little effort from police, without forcing the whole population to give up personal relevant information WHICH could also be easily hacked into and _really_ abused.
Next year a new law will come into force which will force Koreans to reveal their name and ID number before they share their opinions online.
Sure and if another iunta governemt, or quasi fascist government a-la GWB reach the power, your opinions may come back to haunt you. Or more probably, your employer doesn't like your exposing wrongdoing
And if the cyberbully harrasses you tell him to fuck off and then leave them alone..without attention, they quickly go find themselves an easier target...maybe you can also pretend to be scared and then scare them back, if you really wanna be so frivolous to waste time with them.
report it to your telephone company / credit card company and get those numbers changed. Then be a bit more careful with them?
Stop reading those particular fora (they can say bad things about you all they like - if you don't read it it won't affect you) and sign up for at new fora with a different screen name. On the internet you have anonymity too - use it to disappear.
FGD 135
The article says,
Am I missing something? How could you lose your job because of something somebody said about you on the Internet? How could you lose your job because of something somebody said about you off the Internet?
Boss: Hey, I heard on the Internet that you eat babies.
Employee: I never did that. Some people who hate me for no reason accused me falsely. Look, here's their website just for defaming me. Behold their lies.
Boss: Wow, they are pretty crazy. Now that I think about it, it doesn't make much sense that you would eat babies anyway. And to think that I was going to fire you...
Exactly what kind of mental illnesses is he talking about? I don't really understand how that would work. I mean, I guess being made fun of by people hurts your feelings, but that's not really an illness in my book. I seriously doubt that people are being so injured by the words brought against them that they become hysterical any time they get near a computer or anything like that.
I don't know where he gets off saying that all of these things, even if they do happen, are happening because of the Internet. People have been slandering each other since they learned how to talk. The Internet is just one of the many things that makes it easier to talk. It doesn't even make it that much easier for a would-be offender to reach the target, in that the target can just press the "Block"/"Warn"/"Report inappropriate content" button.
As for his claim that cyberbullying "could affect their social life," I wasn't aware that it was anybody else's job to look out for my social life.
This space reserved for administrative use.
some ISPs want the government to go further and to ban some people from being able to log onto the internet at all.
Hell, that's a great idea -- I definitely know several people who should be banned from logging onto the internet at all...
(This is a joke, for all you "Flamebait" and "Troll" moderators devoid of any sense of humor).
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Why must free speech be equated to "no responsibility" speech?
If you are reporting about government or bad-employer activities, that's an area where free speech is needed to protect the speaker, but when it comes to personal sniping against other individuals -- individuals need protection against anonymous sniping.
Taking responsibility for personal attacks is part of learning "responsibility for having free speech". To encourage irresponsibility is too encourage the death of freedom (witness America)...
Oh I can see my boss loving that one.
Seems to be a vicious extension of the clique mentality at the junior to senior high level. Some bad people post web gossip about other people. Female victims are criticised for appearance and friends. Guys are often called fags.