House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

Posted by timothy on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @02:54AM from the we've-found-a-troll-may-we-burn-her? dept.

concertina226 writes with this news snipped from Techworld UK: "Websites such as Facebook and Twitter could be forced to unmask so-called internet trolls, under new government proposals in the Defamation Bill. The move comes after a British woman won a landmark case to force Facebook to reveal the identities of internet trolls. On 30 May, Nicola Brookes from Brighton was granted a High Court order after receiving 'vicious and depraved' taunts on Facebook. The bill, which is being debated in the House of Commons [Tuesday], will allow victims of online abuse to discover the identity of their persecutors and bring a case against them. The move also aims to protect websites from threats of litigation for inadvertently displaying defamatory comments."

216 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't think this will ever work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 02:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Sure you can get IP addresses, trace them back but anyone trolling professionally will do so in such a way that they'll be anonymous still. Internet cafes, 3G broadband, open wifi in the middle of times square.
It's not as if they're going to be able to use the intertubes to locate which Starbucks you're in instantly and send in the black helecopters so you are cut of mid sen
1. Re:I don't think this will ever work by SJHillman · 2012-06-12 03:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What if they use a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track your IP address?
2. Re:I don't think this will ever work by Fixer40000 · 2012-06-12 03:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't worry. That's what Norton Internet Security is for.
3. Re:I don't think this will ever work by million_monkeys · 2012-06-12 03:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Sure you can get IP addresses, trace them back but anyone trolling professionally will do so in such a way that they'll be anonymous still. Internet cafes, 3G broadband, open wifi in the middle of times square.
  It's not as if they're going to be able to use the intertubes to locate which Starbucks you're in instantly and send in the black helecopters so you are cut of mid sen
  Damn. Those bastards. They got him before he even had a chance to check his post for spelling and grammar.
4. Re:I don't think this will ever work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Trolling professionally? We're not talking about criminal masterminds for the most part, we're talking about people who decide to be douchebags to other people on Facebook. The majority of them are idiots.
5. Re:I don't think this will ever work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Or even simpler, bounce TOR through your neighbours unprotected wifi...
6. Re:I don't think this will ever work by Angrywhiteshoes · 2012-06-12 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  What if they use a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track your IP address?
  LOL, I saw that episode.
7. Re:I don't think this will ever work by Grumbleduke · 2012-06-12 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this defamation stuff is about websites not allowing people to post things unless they can be identified by readers, rather than anything to do with the website being able to identify them via IP addresses.
  But it's not your fault you misunderstood, most of the media (and many MPs) have completely screwed this story up, conflating it with a completely separate issue from last week of criminal harassment. See my comment below for more details.
8. Re:I don't think this will ever work by interkin3tic · 2012-06-12 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  They don't need to do that, they can just chase you in "Second life."
  
  (CBS seems to have pulled the scene from youtube out of embarrassment.)
9. Re:I don't think this will ever work by jellomizer · 2012-06-12 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I am wondering how you decide if you are a Troll or not. There have been times I had stated an unpopular opinion, and have been moderated as a Troll, because they just didn't like what I was saying.
  For most sites they are populated by people who are not really interested in debate but reassurance in their beliefs. So anyone who disrupts that ideas will be considered a Troll.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
10. Re:I don't think this will ever work by Bucky24 · 2012-06-12 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  There have been times I had stated an unpopular opinion, and have been moderated as a Troll, because they just didn't like what I was saying.
  You're talking about /. aren't you?
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
11. Re:I don't think this will ever work by tehcyder · 2012-06-12 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sure you can get IP addresses, trace them back but anyone trolling professionally will do so in such a way that they'll be anonymous still. Internet cafes, 3G broadband, open wifi in the middle of times square.
  Most internet trolls are as stupid as they are pathetic, so you can probably catch most of them easily enough. After that, they should be subject to the same laws about defamation and so on as anyone else in real life.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
12. Re:I don't think this will ever work by tehcyder · 2012-06-13 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or even simpler, bounce TOR through your neighbours unprotected wifi...
  I hope your neighbour catches you and decides to decorate your walls with your brains.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Troll is in the eye of the beholder by hessian · 2012-06-12 03:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

The problem is that "troll" is a term used to mean anyone who says something unpopular, as well as anyone who deliberately provokes other people into tantrums.
The better question is whether we will have anonymity at all. I know from looking at the comments on CNN and other newspapers that a lot of sites would rather dispense with anonymity entirely.
The problem with this is that it is de facto censorship of important opinions. Racial information (the ultimate taboo), anti-democratic thought, anti-mainstream culture and even occult religions all need protection.
When we call declare someone with unpopular opinions a "troll" and look up their IP, these ideas won't get expressed on the big sites, leaving only small dissident blogs that 99% of the internet audience will never see.

--
Futurist Traditionalism
1. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Dan541 · 2012-06-12 03:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I found someone on youtube who has the right idea about cyberbullies.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ZiRT8Nwkk
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
2. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The problem is that "troll" is a term used to mean anyone who says something unpopular, as well as anyone who deliberately provokes other people into tantrums.
  No. That's what dummies have come to imply it means. They are using the world wrong. Sadly, many of these dummies are also slashdot moderators.
  A troll is someone who attempts to elicit an emotional response by using a seemingly sincere platform. As such, many see this as merely "unpopular" but they completely miss the entire point of the discourse. Some trolling is done to lead the ignorant and stubborn by the nose to an obvious conclusion to which the audience is seemingly too dense, ignorant, or stubborn to find on their own. This is pretty rare these days. In other cases, trolling is done by pathetic people who enjoy sucking the life out of beneficial dialogs. Meanings, its a sad, sad cry for attention. Usually the later are people who are seriously emotionally damaged and trolling is their primary source of social interaction.
  Which basically means, those who believe trolling means someone disagrees or finds a post unpopular are themselves likely a troll. Trolling does NOT simply you they have a different point of view or that an opinion is unpopular - ignoring the fact that most slashdot moderators these days are far too dense to comprehend the distinction.
3. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Grayhand · 2012-06-12 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  Actually they specify people that are targeting others and harassing them not just people being obnoxious.
4. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by deathtopaulw · 2012-06-12 03:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ...someone who attempts to elicit an emotional response by using a seemingly sincere platform.
  This sounds like a definition of "art" I heard once.
5. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  This sounds like a definition of "art" I heard once.
  Well, modern art is a lot like trolling, and trolling is pretty much an art.
6. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Regarding actual trolls, it's not that difficult to find them, because they typically spew the same rhetoric , on the same sites.
  Even if they change their names, after a number of posts, it's easy to find out.
7. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-12 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I would argue that you are both correct - yes, the classical (that being a relative term. . . .) definition of troll is what you have stated, AC, but hessian points to the current and popular definition of 'troll'.
  As the English language is a fluid language, the American version especially, we really only have rules that are based on current, popular usage.
  For example, define 'cool' -- I can think of two ways off-hand, both are correct.
  So, while you may not want 'troll' to be defined as an unpopular opinion, that's where we are today.
8. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by cjc25 · 2012-06-12 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  As an interesting semi-related question, where does this logic lead when applied to disclosure of political donors?
  
  It's interesting when something "obvious" in one sphere is much more complex in another because someone else's money is involved.
9. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by lxs · 2012-06-12 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes. Trolling is a art.
10. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by AbRASiON · 2012-06-12 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm an internet contrarion, it's simply "what I do" - it's how I function.
  Be it for entertainment, debate or genuine opinion - more often than not it's simply because I'm different and dislike things most like and like things most dislike, it works out kind of bad for me.
  At a recent family function I realised all the males on my side of the family are the same, we're ALL smartasses but in a hysterical ridiculous humour kind of way, frequently exaggerating what we say for comedy effect, not because we mean it. This too gets me the troll label, even if the underlying message was my real and valid opinion.
  I certainly dislike the idea of being singled out more than I already am online because people don't like it when we have an internet debate.
11. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem with this is that it is de facto censorship of important opinions
  You come into my house, or local pub, and start laughing and mocking someone who has just lost a relative and if you're lucky you'll be asked to leave and not return. That's not censorship, and transferring the situation to a virtual venue like a forum doesn't make it censorship either.
  There's always the risk of the slipperly slope, and personally I think that the vast majority of what people can say should be legal. I think Voltaire had it right; but that doesn't mean that you should be able to go wherever you like and say anything no matter how hurtful or depraved and expect to be welcome. Even Slashdot uses moderation to hide 'troll' views. A lot of shit still gets through but I doubt it'd be usable if they refused to allow filtering by moderation.
12. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by angel'o'sphere · 2012-06-12 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, what you write is nonsense.
  If the person in question is in fact a troll will be determined by the Jury/Judge when he is brought to court.
  Very likely you will need a court order before you even can get his IP, for that you need to provide convincing evidence.
  I don't call this "censorship".
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
13. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-12 03:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You should probably respond less to the headline and more to the article - this isn't a bill "to identify trolls", it's a bill about harassment and defamation. The very first thing in the bill, which is an amendment to existing defamation law, is that the statement has to have cause or be able to likely cause serious harm. And that's followed by exceptions for just what you're concerned about - matters of public interest, honest opinions, truthful statements. Even those of us who strongly advocate the freedom of speech don't deny that it can be abused, and that things like threats and slander should be legally actionable.
14. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-06-12 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  No. That's what dummies have come to imply it means.
  Infer. "That's what dummies have come to infer it means."
  Note that calling other people dummies is a bad thing when you show your illiteracy in the same sentence. They might decide that YOU are the dummy.
  Oh, and this was (almost certainly) a troll....
  Or not.
  Saying that someone was wrong on the internet isn't necessarily trolling, according to you...
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
15. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by cdrguru · 2012-06-12 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Since the beginning of the Internet is has been the right and privilege of the masses to annoy, pester, defame and even drive to suicide anyone at all. Nobody is immune to this today and a lot of people are just beginning to figure out they have this power. When the Internet was populated exclusively by academic types and the military, it really didn't mean very much. Turning the average Joe loose has been quite an adventure, hasn't it?
  This is kind of a joke because as others have pointed out the maximum tracking that can be done externally is getting an IP address and anybody could be at the other end of that IP address. Of course it would be possible to pass a law saying that the account holder for an IP address is responsible for whatever happens using that IP address - but until that happens it could be Sam next door, it could be little Suzy or it could be the dog.
  Now the other way this makes sense is to have some sort of required secure identity required for use of the Internet. Remove the anonyminity and you have a whole different environment. Suddenly, you can't annoy, pester, defame or even drive to suicide anyone else while being safely shielded by supposed anonyminity and the good graces of your ISP. So far we have been pretty well isolated from the ravages of what might be possible in today's environment and I'd call that lucky. Should more people figure out their power to do harm and actually start doing it I would expect a pretty swift response that eliminates anonyminity permanently.
  You know it has to come and it is just a matter of time before a few lives are ruined... while the perpetrators are shielded from any consequences. I think it will be interesting to see just how this plays out and how many high school girls kill themselves over this sort of thing. My guess is you could probably drive your average housewife to either leave the country or kill herself based on enough volume of lies and viral spreading of vicious rumors. That might be fun to watch also.
16. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  AN art
17. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  Labels can be dangerous. We should use fewer labels and more descriptive language, especially when it comes to matters of labeling people as trolls or terrorists.
18. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Reverand+Dave · 2012-06-12 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  So what is the difference between harassing and being obnoxious?
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
19. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Artifakt · 2012-06-12 04:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's a linguistic artifact. Trolling in the sense of dangling bait in front of a 'fish' was pretty much what the word meant for those examples of trying to lead somebody to a conclusion, perhaps even with a quite decent purpose if you count getting ignorant people to fully expose their ignorance so it could be corrected, or similar purposes. But, when this word also conjured up images of a Troll in the mythological sense, of course it came to mean an ignorant, rude or uncouth lout., or even a monster . Thanks to Phishing, we can't go back to calling the first form 'fishing' either, not without confusion. All that's left is to start calling the first form of trolls "Wishniks", which I propose we start doing immediately.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
20. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that "troll" is a term used to mean anyone who says something unpopular, as well as anyone who deliberately provokes other people into tantrums.
  No. That's what dummies have come to imply it means.
  So, by "no" you mean "yes"?
21. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by NatasRevol · 2012-06-12 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Spelling, obviously.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
22. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by NonUniqueNickname · 2012-06-12 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  Must. Resist. Urge. To Mod. -1 Troll.
23. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by buglista · 2012-06-12 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well played sir!
24. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  So what is the difference between harassing and being obnoxious?
  The same as the difference between throwing bottles at a wall (obnoxious) and throwing bottles at a specific person (harassing).
25. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by mcgrew · 2012-06-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  No. That's what dummies have come to imply it means. They are using the world wrong. Sadly, many of these dummies are also slashdot moderators.
  You would think people would read the FAQ. You would also think that slashdot would go back to the old metamoderation system that actually worked. I see far more bad moderations these days than I used to. But maybe that's because when I first started reading slashdot, few except nerds were on the internet. Now every damned idiot is, and many of them post here.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
26. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  YHBT
27. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  oh your family sounds like a real hoot. the whole family is hysterical? what do you do ramrod grandma's sphincter with rancid hot dogs? you naughty devils. an internet contrarian? you just sound like a fucking hipster. shut the fuck up.
28. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  meow.
29. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by mcgrew · 2012-06-12 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  Then you might want to (attempt to) edit the current wikipedia definition, because they disagree with you, and so does /.'s FAQ (which says pretty much the same thing as wikipedia). Just because you're too ignorant to know shit from shinola doesn't give you the right to smear shit on my shoes. Just because you think a dog is a rat doesn't make it one. Not even if most ignorant people think dogs are rats.
  Ignorance should be fought. Period. Especially in one's self. Following the example of someone you know to be ignorant is just stupid. Educate them instead.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
30. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by jzuccaro · 2012-06-12 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  whooooooshhh!
31. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Giving words single correct definitions works great in theory. But people can be very stubborn in their mis-use of a word, to a point where the word attains multiple meanings whether it really should or not.
  Using a word wrongly, and repeatedly, until this wrong use is generally accepted as a right use, is NOT progress. It is damaging to our efforts at clear communication because people must now use even more words to disambiguate the words they are trying to use.
  These facts, however, do not stop people from doing precisely this, nor do they prevent us from having to deal with the fact that all common-use words always wind up becomming ambiguous.
32. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Reverand+Dave · 2012-06-12 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't necessarily agree. Someone might feel that you are harassing them by throwing bottles at a building they happen to be in or if they happen to like the building you are throwing the bottles at.
  
  I guess really you're defining the difference between being obnoxious and assaulting some one. Throwing bottles does actual harm where most online activity is really just obnoxious regardless of how pointed the language may get.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
33. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  A troll is someone who attempts to elicit an emotional response by using a seemingly sincere platform.
  Wow, I would have never thought anyone would be so serious and sincere about trolling.
34. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by mcgrew · 2012-06-12 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  No wonder you have five times as many freaks as friends.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
35. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-12 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's not ignorance; it's evolution. For example - did you know that a 'nice person' was originally intended to mean 'someone who is ignorant'?
  The only languages that are unchanging (or changed by ignorance if you prefer) are dead languages - Latin, Sanskrit, etc. As there are many, many, many speakers of the English language, I am sorry to say that it is not dead, yet.
  You do also realize that languages like English form because of the bastardization of other languages, correct? Why do so many of our words have roots from different languages? Because we took them, we used them, we changed them, we evolved.
  Wikipedia? Really? That is the definition of an evolutionary database - it constantly changes.
  And if you are trolling me, congratulations, you got me.
36. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Darinbob · 2012-06-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  But according to this ruling that is not what a troll is. It is a decision in a case where someone can legally be prosecuted for defamation (in the UK with its laws). Someone calling you a name does not fit that ruling, but someone seeking to ruin your public or professional reputation. While I don't agree with the UK laws regarding free speech, I don't think this particular speech would be considered "important opinions".
37. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Darinbob · 2012-06-12 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Except that this bill would most likely not use a vague term like "troll", that's the term used by media.
38. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by ultranova · 2012-06-12 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  In other cases, trolling is done by pathetic people who enjoy sucking the life out of beneficial dialogs. Meanings, its a sad, sad cry for attention. Usually the later are people who are seriously emotionally damaged and trolling is their primary source of social interaction.
  
  Effective trolling requires understanding people and how your messages look to other people. People who have little social interaction are typically very bad at this. Thus, basement-dwellers make bad trolls.
  
  Which basically means, those who believe trolling means someone disagrees or finds a post unpopular are themselves likely a troll.
  
  More likely, they are taking the easy way out: since you are not only right, but obviously right, anyone who disagrees with you is either evil or stupid or both. So, if their message is typed coherently, they must be evil people who are disagreeing with your obvious truth just to be contrary - in other words, trolls.
  The real trouble starts when people take this outside the Internet, and start assuming that anyone who disagrees with them on economy, sociology, morals or whatever is arguing in bad faith. It becomes impossible to reach any kind of compromise or even intelligent debate when both sides assume that the other is a card-carrying villain. The Anti-Life/Anti-Choice abortion debate is a classic example.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
39. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  I found someone on youtube who has the right idea about cyberbullies.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ZiRT8Nwkk
  I think this guy summarizes better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
40. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know U.K. law, but libel is illegal whether it's anonymous or not, right? But doesn't libel have to create a situation where someone loses out financially because someone said something?
  I am not sure if there is anything wrong with giving up the IP address of the person who posted something provided there's a warrant for that information. But they better be sure they know who posted it, not just the IP address.
41. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by AbRASiON · 2012-06-12 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  I friended 2 people long ago, now I would feel bad de-friending them but I see no value in the circle jerk system - if anything, anyone who follows and uses it is a sad little person.
42. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by tehcyder · 2012-06-13 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with this is that it is de facto censorship of important opinions. Racial information (the ultimate taboo), anti-democratic thought, anti-mainstream culture and even occult religions all need protection.
  
  When we call declare someone with unpopular opinions a "troll" and look up their IP, these ideas won't get expressed on the big sites, leaving only small dissident blogs that 99% of the internet audience will never see.
  Good luck getting your racist, fascist, satanic thoughts published on big sites now anyway.
  
  Seriously, it isn't censorship for someone like the BBC to refuse to publish your vile shit. And if you're breaking the law, why should you expect anonymous protection just because it's on the internet?
  
  If you're a dissident in Syria or somewhere, well, you have made your choice to defy the government and good luck to you, but it would be foolish to think that once the shooting starts you're going to be able to stay anonymous. In real revolutions, you have to choose sides, and a lot of people die on both sides.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
43. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  You're suggesting the person who walks into your pub should be subject to government action, etc.? In your scenario, the community deals with the issue--not the courts.
44. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by mcgrew · 2012-06-13 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm not trolling, and I do understand that language evolves. But it's "evolving" far faster than it has in the last half century (I know from experience, I was ten a half century ago). "Troll" is from the internet age, it's not nearly old enough to change meaning. And I specifically cited wikipedia because of the fact that it is an evolutionary database. When the meaning of "troll" actually does change, that change will be reflected in wikipedia. But as you see, it hasn't.
  Troll still doesn't mean "I disagree with you". I imagine the reason is that would make the term just about meaningless.
  I've written a couple of things concerning offline trolling, you may find them amusing.
  Fun with offline trolls
  (this one actually mentions the evolution of language, specifically the word "gay")
  Trolling at the Springfield St. Patrick's Day Parade
  Trolling for Dollars (and other Springfield nonsense)
  (the offline trolling is at the end)
  Here's one about Troll Biting (still the #1 result for a google search for "biters anonymous".)
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
45. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-13 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  But it's "evolving" far faster than it has in the last half century (I know from experience, I was ten a half century ago). "Troll" is from the internet age, it's not nearly old enough to change meaning.
  The issue that I have with your claim is that it is currently the internet age. It was not the internet age a half-century ago. How quickly did information pass from person to person 50 years ago? Was that faster than 150 years ago? 1,000 years ago? I firmly believe that Moore's law (without the less expensive part. . . ), in today's world inherently applies to languages. The more we connect, the faster they move. Because of how quickly we communicate today, fads change overnight, slang translates to other languages instantly, and words can change meaning almost in the blink of an eye.
  
  And I specifically cited wikipedia because of the fact that it is an evolutionary database. When the meaning of "troll" actually does change, that change will be reflected in wikipedia. But as you see, it hasn't.
  I assumed that this is exactly why you chose that database, I just thought that I could try to make my own point with it. The larger point, though, is that media/reference can't keep up with culture. It was true when your reference was a 5000 page book that sat on a stand in the local library; it was true when encarta had their handy cd's; it's true now, even though we can edit it on the fly. It will always be true, because updating reference is an additional step that many people don't think about, and the ones that do aren't necessarily at the forefront of popular culture.
  What my argument is, is that claiming that using the popular definition of a word is ignorance, and therefore invalid is equal to claiming that scientific theories can never be changed (as a side note, there are concrete examples of this: see evolution, plate tectonics, ummm, pretty much anything else new). Established thought (in any discipline, culture, group or science) exists for two purposes: (a) to provide a baseline for those just entering the field; and (b) to be the baseline for change.
46. Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder by mcgrew · 2012-06-14 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  The larger point, though, is that media/reference can't keep up with culture.
  The next time a celebrity dies, look him or her up on wikipedia as soon as you hear about it -- the wikipedia article will already be updated about the death.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
That's not going to do much good. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-06-12 03:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

People will just start trolling behind proxies/on public networks.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
1. Re:That's not going to do much good. by gnasher719 · 2012-06-12 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  People will just start trolling behind proxies/on public networks.
  In the case in question, it seems that the trolling was done by a bunch of mindless idiots. So no reason to believe they would do anything remotely clever.
House of Commons by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-06-12 03:03 · Score: 5, Funny

House of Commons? The august body that allows heckling during speeches? Cracking down on trolling?
Hmmm...
1. Re:House of Commons by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not only that, but Members of Parliament have unlimited freedom of speech within the chambers. They can troll anyone they so please and no statute can be brought against them.
  Hypocrisy, thy name is a Member of Parliament.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:House of Commons by BasilBrush · 2012-06-12 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  Of course the parliamentary hecklers aren't anonymous, and there are rules about "unparliamentary language", which can be punished by a suspension from the house for some days.
  So there's no argument by analogy there against unmasking internet trolls and making them subject punishment where they overstep the legal line on harassment.
3. Re:House of Commons by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the Speaker can moderate language and can certainly expel any MP for unparliamentary language or conduct. But an MP cannot be sued for what he says in the House, which is how Trafigura's dumping of toxic waste was fully outed even though a super injunction banned any mention of it. MPs enjoy a pretty much unlimited degree of freedom of speech, with only the rulings of the Speaker as the moderating force.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:House of Commons by BasilBrush · 2012-06-12 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. But that's the point. They have freedom of speech for use in whistleblowing etc. But using it for trollish purposes is punished.
5. Re:House of Commons by digitig · 2012-06-12 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  Not exactly. There are rules on what can and can't be said in the House of Commons, and although they're enforced by parliamentary procedure, not by statute, they are enforced.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
6. Re:House of Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  "They can troll anyone they so please"
  They can but it is not anonymous! Everybody in the room knows who is heckling.
7. Re:House of Commons by Young+Master+Ploppy · 2012-06-12 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly. There are rules on what can and can't be said in the House of Commons, and although they're enforced by parliamentary procedure, not by statute, they are enforced.
  The famous example being that you are not allowed to accuse anyone of lying. The verbal tricks and convolutions that Commons veterans employ to get round this restriction are a connoisseur's spectator sport in their own right. For instance, Dennis Skinner :
  Dennis Skinner: Mr Speaker, half the members opposite are liars!
  Speaker: You will have to apologise, Mr Skinner.
  Dennis Skinner: I apologise, Mr Speaker. Half the members opposite aren't liars!
  
  --
  http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
8. Re:House of Commons by Dracophile · 2012-06-12 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Notwithstanding what digitig said, it's necessary for parliamentarians to be able to speak freely. Imagine being able to muzzle legislators.
  
  --
  Athy, athier, athiest.
No they are not forced.... by Lumpy · 2012-06-12 03:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

They can also simply block all users FROM the UK and solve it that way as well....
Companies always have the option to ignore laws from other countries and block the freedom hating country as a whole.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:No they are not forced.... by iserlohn · 2012-06-12 03:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
  Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
2. Re:No they are not forced.... by Lumpy · 2012-06-12 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I know you guys love your cameras everywhere, but a lot of other places people prefer EXISTING laws to catch criminals. If it's Harassment, then get off your arse and do detective work, Should we install cameras outside of your hose if someone sneaks up and sticks "WANKER" notes on your door?
  it's the same thing. Hire someone to find the jerk that is harassing, or the police can get off their butts and stop eating doughnuts long enough to do their job. It is not hard to locate someone who is doing this online without making new laws to force a company to roll over and do the cops job for them.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Where do we stop with prohibiting people from causing harm? Do we demand that borderline people be outed and arrested?
  Where does it stop? Do we ball-gag and handcuff the entire UK populace so that libel is impossible?
  Libel and slander have their own laws, and in the UK, truth is not a defense. Those laws have "worked" for centuries.
  Why add new laws? Even on the Internet, it still doesn't matter -- records can still be obtained by the courts.
4. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that truth is not a defense is the single most fucked up thing I have ever heard and pretty much destroys any faith I have in the legal system.
5. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Your freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose.
  Nice to see this cliche used in the proper context, for once.
  
  Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
  You mean there aren't already laws on the books which criminalize slander and libel?
  
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
6. Re:No they are not forced.... by azalin · 2012-06-12 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  They can also simply block all users FROM the UK and solve it that way as well....
  Companies always have the option to ignore laws from other countries and block the freedom hating country as a whole.
  Like Hulu does with the non US parts of the world?
7. Re:No they are not forced.... by BasilBrush · 2012-06-12 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  If it's Harassment, then get off your arse and do detective work
  That's what this law is allowing. Police to do detective work to find out who those indulging in harassment on the internet are. Gathering information from an individual or company that has incriminating evidence IS detective work. It's not wandering round with a magnifying glass looking for clues you know. Well not for the most part - that's for forensic and SOCO specialists.
  
  Should we install cameras outside of your hose if someone sneaks up and sticks "WANKER" notes on your door?
  Clearly not. This isn't about the occasional robust insult. It's about dealing with people who for example seek out Facebook tribute sites for people that have died, and post offensive comments about the person they never met, for no better reason than to get a reaction from grieving relatives.
8. Re:No they are not forced.... by azalin · 2012-06-12 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that what the whole thing is about? Some idiots harass a woman, she wants to sue them, but doesn't know who they are. Has the options to either drop it, go to the police and demand an investigation (yes mam, of course we'll do that first thing in the morning *cough*) or contact facebook to get the info on the guys. Fb declines to answer without a court order, so she sues them in order to get one.
9. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  If it's enough for a new patent, it's enough for a new law.
  I plan to be the first to outlaw libel by way of holograms.
10. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's dangerous and irresponsible -- like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater! People could get hurt! There may well be a fire, but that's completely immaterial. The responsible thing to do is to assume that the authorities are already aware of it and are working on the situation in a way that best serves the interests of the state. Don't go playing hero, trying to encourage the good-eared and strong to escape by trampling the deaf and the weak.
  
  (The above paragraph, BTW, may accurately called "trolling." It is insincere. Insincerity is a necessary ingredient of trolling. Take note, mods! If you think someone is actually moronic enough to hate whatever they're hating on (blacks, gays, linux, whatever) then you need to mod "flamebait".)
11. Re:No they are not forced.... by Shagg · 2012-06-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
  There are already laws prohibiting that.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
12. Re:No they are not forced.... by angel'o'sphere · 2012-06-12 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  it's the same thing. Hire someone to find the jerk that is harassing, or the police can get off their butts and stop eating doughnuts long enough to do their job. It is not hard to locate someone who is doing this online without making new laws to force a company to roll over and do the cops job for them.
  
  Ah, ha, so you can easy figure from which IP I'm posting this? And you know who am in real live (besides my signature gives it away, ofc.), so how would you figure who am I if I had not my sig?
  Or how would a professional detective be able to do it?
  Sorry, you simply write nonsense.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
13. Re:No they are not forced.... by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-12 04:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The fact that truth is not a defense is the single most fucked up thing I have ever heard and pretty much destroys any faith I have in the legal system.
  It's also shenanigans, because the very first defense listed in the bill is truthful statements:
  
  (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
14. Re:No they are not forced.... by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-12 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  There isn't. This bill is an amendment to the current law.
15. Re:No they are not forced.... by SandorZoo · 2012-06-12 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard this factoid of "truth is not always a defence" about English libel law before before. I have no idea how true it is (IANAL), but the proposed bill says this:
  
  It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
  The reports on the bill suggest this is already the case. It might
  
  The courts have for many years recognised the common law defence of "justification" which protects publications that are substantially true.
  See AC's comment downthread for links to PDFs of both.
16. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  You mean there aren't already laws on the books which criminalize slander and libel?
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  I had the same reaction as many people here when I read the headline, but the detail is actually considerably better. At the moment websites that allow user comments can be sued as the "publisher" of libellous comments from users. If the proposed law is drafted as it has been described, it will give immunity to websites provided they provide information to victims on users who have made libellous allegations.
  This is also about civil defamation, not criminal defamation, BTW.
17. Re:No they are not forced.... by cdrguru · 2012-06-12 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but the way the Internet is constructed right now everyone has the right to cause harm - it is just that they aren't exercising that right very much. Sure, people get hurt. People get hurt in bar fights also, but you don't see anyone making those illegal, do you? Well, maybe in some places but not everywhere. Think of the Internet as a way to have a bar fight with the lights out.
  No, sorry, today you can't pass laws saying that nearly untracable people and unprovable identities are responsible for anything at all. The best you can get is catching people when they brag about the harm they have caused. This means the smart ones - the ones that do not brag - are untouchable.
18. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  There isn't. This bill is an amendment to the current law.
  Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
19. Re:No they are not forced.... by SandorZoo · 2012-06-12 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Why add new laws? Even on the Internet, it still doesn't matter -- records can still be obtained by the courts.
  The fine article touches on that - this is an update to a law from last year, and adds provisions to protect operators of websites hosting user generated content. At the moment they are still the publisher, and could in principle be held liable. From the proposal:
  
  (2) It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
  (3) The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that:
  (a) it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
  (b) the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
  (c) the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
20. Re:No they are not forced.... by cdrguru · 2012-06-12 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  Hire someone to find the jerk that is harassing, or the police can get off their butts and stop eating doughnuts long enough to do their job. It is not hard to locate someone who is doing this online without making new laws to force a company to roll over and do the cops job for them.
  Hire someone? Sorry, can't be done. At least not today. So maybe you have an IP address and can trace that to an ISP. Great. The ISP says they aren't turning anything over except under subpoena or to law enforcement. Fine, you get a lawyer and file a lawsuit against John Doe - who's identity will be disclosed by the ISP. Except they do not have the identity, all they have is the account holder and (maybe) an address. Oh, and don't take too long filing your lawsuit - some ISPs keep their DHCP history for a very short period of time - so the response to the discovery subpeona is "Sorry, we don't have that information."
  I assure you without some kiddy porn or a bomb factory nobody is going to allow examination of the computers at that address to figure out if one of them was used. You just don't have the weight of a RIAA lawsuit on your side. If there are multiple people living at that address you can NEVER figure out which one it was conclusively, not even with the standards of a civil lawsuit.
  Unless of course the perp brags - which is so incredibly common that it does make everyone's life easier. But we're assuming here they aren't bragging on IRC or AIM about what they have done and leaving chat logs all over their computer.
  I have tried this approach before and found out that it would take literally tens of thousands of dollars to get nowhere. It is an endless series of doors each one leading to a dead end and prying those doors open gets real expensive real fast. Half of the problem is the ISP which today believes it is their customer's right to do an unlimited amount of damage to other people while they shield the perp's identity.
  Law enforcement considers the whole issue to be a civil problem and will not participate in any way so you can forget about the cops as well.
21. Re:No they are not forced.... by iserlohn · 2012-06-12 04:25 · Score: 2
  
  You mean there aren't already laws on the books which criminalize slander and libel?
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  If you bothered to read TFA, you'd discover that it is a bill amending the existing law of defamation - effectively modernisation of the law as it stands currently.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
22. Re:No they are not forced.... by cdrguru · 2012-06-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Understand that there are no laws against libel or slander - they are not criminal acts. They are actionable in civil court only. Law enforcement has no part in the civil court system.
  Having a law that made libel or slander a criminal act would be a whole different sort of environment and as far as I know this isn't the case anywhere on the planet. Oh in some countries it is a criminal act to libel or slander certain public officials. And some religious ones as well. But the average Joe (or Jose) has to fight his own battles and get his own discovery done for the lawsuit.
23. Re:No they are not forced.... by Monchanger · 2012-06-12 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."
  All iserlohn said was "need some sort of law". If you agree on the point of a law's necessity, where exactly is the disagreement?
  Is your objection purely with regards to the legal code's table of contents? That would seem a little pedantic to me. If the old law didn't provide for something you now want, you can't avoid passing an Act in Parliament, or a Bill in Congress. Whether you want to call these a "new law" or a "correction" isn't important. Especially in England, where I believe the law has never been codified, so there would not even be a technical difference.
24. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I did not; in all honesty, my interest in foreign legal matters is minimal.
  
  My main purpose in replying was to congratulate you on using the fist/nose idiom in proper context, which is seldom ever done.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
25. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Half of the problem is the ISP which today believes it is their customer's right to do an unlimited amount of damage to other people while they shield the perp's identity.
  That's kind of the definition of common carrier.
26. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Understand that there are no laws against libel or slander - they are not criminal acts.
  Just because something is not a criminal offense, does not mean it's not against the law; there is such a thing as a civil infraction.
  
  I believe you're thinking of torts, in which no particular law has been broken but one party has suffered some sort of harm.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
27. Re:No they are not forced.... by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-12 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
  Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much? That's not what it does, and "the internet" isn't the only thing it's trying to address. But since that's the meat of your argument here, let's pretend it did - it would only have to amend the law if the existing law specified methods that were not covered by that mediums or process. Plenty (if not an overwhelming majority) of laws detail ways or mediums in which the violation has to occur, why is updating a grossly outdated standard that unreasonable to you? That's what happens when new technology creates new ways to do things. The legal system isn't a set of basic commandments, "thou shalt not slander" - laws explicitly enumerate the ways in which they can be broken, what damages can be assessed and how they are substantiated, etc. For example, let's say a spam law about postal mail was created a couple decades ago - it would explicitly describe conditions relevant to postal mail, why shouldn't it be amended to include email when it came out? Why should a law explicitly about telephones not have been amended to cover cellphones? The only time anyone talks about changing a law for new technology is because the existing letter of the law doesn't cover it. I don't know how a community with as much development and programming experience as /. always seems to assume laws "just work" like users think a program does. The new technology is outside the scope of the current code's conditions, and has consequences the old developers could not have forseen. Whether it's a script or a law, code for a growing and changing environment will likely need to be patched and updated.
28. Re:No they are not forced.... by Artifakt · 2012-06-12 05:02 · Score: 2
  
  As I understand it, the concept that "Truth is not always a defense" in English libel and slander laws relates to cases where other, innocent parties may also be damaged and particularly where the person who committed the libel or slander knew ( or should reasonably have known) of such damage. If there's a slippery slope there, it's probably because the general public can evidently count as the innocent party - so someone could, in theory, claim that the police are incompetent, and while true, this could cause damage by undermining public confidence and inspiring criminals. But, even if the letter of the law may allow such an interpretation, has anyone seriously tried it in court?
  Consider, for a more basic example, a person suddenly becoming famous as an athelete, and somone else raking up muck about their parents. It may be true muck, but was the goal to expose the truth, or to take the recently famous person down a peg or two, or maybe even to make some money by, say, rattling the famous athelete just before the big game and betting accordingly? It makes a certain amount of logical sense, in that the overall English system emphasises motive so often, to consider it here.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
29. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  But the company that has incriminating evidence is based in the US, where satire is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The last few times Brits came across the pond to impose rule it didn't end very well.
30. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that's awful! Someone might say something offensive on the internet!
  Please don't waste our time going after this nonsense...
31. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  My point is this:
  
  In the US, it is currently illegal to slander someone else. Just because someone slandered you anonymously on a computer does not mean we need a brand new law that states it's illegal to slander someone anonymously on a computer, the old law covers it just fine.
  
  It seems to me the mentality is that civil punishment isn't enough, we need criminal laws so we can ruin lives, and that is a notion I cannot get onboard with.
  Overcriminalization is one of the biggest problems facing modern society, IMO.
  
  Worth noting, it has already been pointed out that this case is a matter of amending current slander and libel law to include online harassment (which, again, I assumed would be covered by existing harassment laws), so really our entire discussion has been non sequitur .
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
32. Re:No they are not forced.... by RobertLTux · 2012-06-12 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  "Ah, ha, so you can easy figure from which IP I'm posting this? And you know who am in real live (besides my signature gives it away, ofc.), so how would you figure who am I if I had not my sig? Or how would a professional detective be able to do it?
  Sorry, you simply write nonsense."
  okay all it would take is a couple court orders
  1 to Slashdot to find out which IP your post came from
  then after a WhoIs to find an ISP
  2 to your ISP to ask who had the lease on that IP at the time of the posting
  the rest is just a warrant and search
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
33. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander? I sure hope not - what an abject waste of taxpayer monies such a thing would be...
  Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
  Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
  
  why is updating a grossly outdated standard that unreasonable to you?
  Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
  
  For example, let's say a spam law about postal mail was created a couple decades ago - it would explicitly describe conditions relevant to postal mail, why shouldn't it be amended to include email when it came out? Why should a law explicitly about telephones not have been amended to cover cellphones?
  Because mail is mail, and phones are phones, and both are forms of communication; the medium by which said communication is transmitted should not be a factor in considering application of the law. If your legislators are writing laws so specific as to define the medium by which the law is bound, they're doing it wrong.
  
  Here's an example of a law done right:
  
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
  
  Whether it's a script or a law, code for a growing and changing environment will likely need to be patched and updated.
  Only if it's poorly written.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
34. Re:No they are not forced.... by Monchanger · 2012-06-12 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  You've not read the bill. It doesn't deal with criminality. It doesn't outlaw libel or harassment. It doesn't, as you've suggested, "Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander?" It doesn't even contain the word "computer".
  
  (1) 20This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
  That's a civil action. Not a criminal one. In fact, the criminal laws were repealed a couple years ago. Your reply was the only non sequitur in this thread.
  So cocky and arrogant, you. You've said your peace so nobody else's matters, eh? Such dangerous traits in those who presume to have a superior opinion, when in fact they're as ignorant as they come. Shit, you couldn't even bother to answer my reply. You just tried to change the subject (while flip-flopping on your position, no less) to avoid appearing like the argumentative prick you are. If you can't be bothered with facts or reality, go post your rantings on extremist YouTube videos like a good lunatic.
35. Re:No they are not forced.... by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-12 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
  
  Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
  Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
  So you think it's unnecessary because you don't understand something you refuse to read?
  
  Here's an example of a law done right:
  
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
  You do realize that's the Fourth Amendment, right? You're citing an amendment as support of your argument that good laws shouldn't need to be amended? But let's play along. There are innumerable federal/state laws and legal precedent that detail what is and isn't considered probable cause, reasonable search and siezure, exceptions, etc. These things are all explicitly defined at lower levels, a constitutional right is the broad concept that more specific legal code must comply with. Detailed, granular laws about what does and doesn't make for legitimate search and seizure most definitely exist, the Fourth Amendment is not the beginning and the end of all legal code regarding it.
36. Re:No they are not forced.... by Bucky24 · 2012-06-12 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well then again, if someone simply banned everyone from the UK on a forum, then there would not even be the possibility of harassment on said forum (at least involving people in the UK), now would there? Seems like an elegant enough solution to me. Of course if you're operating inside the UK you're going to be in a bit of a situation there.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
37. Re:No they are not forced.... by Bucky24 · 2012-06-12 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Half of the problem is the ISP which today believes it is their customer's right to do an unlimited amount of damage to other people while they shield the perp's identity.
  Law enforcement considers the whole issue to be a civil problem and will not participate in any way so you can forget about the cops as well.
  Well, that's not really the case. I worked for an ISP for a few years directly handling subpoena requests. If we received a legit request for customer data, we would turn it over immediately. However, if we didn't require a judge to sign off on each request, we would be giving out sensitive customer information (including addresses and credit card data) to anyone on the street who was savvy enough to grab someone's IP. That could be abused in so many ways it's not even funny. There's a reason ISPs are so close-mouthed about customer data-they can get into a lot of trouble for giving it out to the wrong person.
  
  In fact a few times we actually had someone send us a subpoena request with no judge's signature. We informed them that as much as we wanted to help with their investigation, we couldn't do it unless they could prove a judge authorized it.
  
  And as an aside, the ISP I worked for was very against our customers breaking the law in any way. We had a police officer send us a subpoena request for someone suspected of doing something or another with child porn. The request came too late (ISPs are only required by law to keep records for 90 days), but our CEO got so pissed at the idea that one of our customers was doing this that we spent an entire day doing nothing but trying to find out who was using the IP given. But again, that was for a legit request from a police detective with a judge's signature.
  
  I am curious though, if you feel that the current ISP subpoena system is flawed, what would you do to improve it?
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
38. Re:No they are not forced.... by Bucky24 · 2012-06-12 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
  Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
  Then... why are you reading this article and comment thread at all? Clearly it means enough for you to post (with neatly spaced out quotes too, which had to have taken some time).
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
39. Re:No they are not forced.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Harrassment and libel have real victims...
  Libel does not have real victims. Libel is just speech. Speech doesn't harm anyone. When someone *acts* on the speech, *then* harm is done.
40. Re:No they are not forced.... by iserlohn · 2012-06-12 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  The court usually accepts a economic value placed on reputation. Remember civil, not criminal.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
41. Re:No they are not forced.... by cyclomedia · 2012-06-12 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is about the EXISTING laws. Modifying them because at the moment a web site owner is not only responsible for the defamation/libel that someone else posted in the comment section but each and every serving of a web page is counted as an individual instance of "publishing" it, meaning ridiculous claims can be made. This adjustment means that web site owners can avoid the charges by a) taking down the comment or b) passing the buck to the person who actually posted it
  
  --
  If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
42. Re:No they are not forced.... by Dracophile · 2012-06-12 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad I just did my mod points in. But you're completely right. I don't understand this urge to make things even more illegaler than they already are, except that it is done in such a way as to give it a far wider scope than necessary. Which is probably the point of the exercise, if I may be so cynical.
  
  --
  Athy, athier, athiest.
43. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-13 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
  Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
  Then... why are you reading this article and comment thread at all?
  Boredom and OCD.
  
  Clearly it means enough for you to post (with neatly spaced out quotes too, which had to have taken some time).
  Not really, modern HTML is easy. Besides, I wouldn't make a very good grammar Nazi if I didn't insist on proper formatting for myself, now would I?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
44. Re:No they are not forced.... by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-13 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  So cocky and arrogant, you.
  Sayeth the pot to the kettle. Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you make some more blind assumptions about me, that'll make you look like a real Oxford scholar!
  
  You've said your peace so nobody else's matters, eh?
  You know, if you're going to try and write an intellectual appearing retort, you might want to make sure you use the correct spelling...
  
  Just saiyan.
  
  Such dangerous traits in those who presume to have a superior opinion, when in fact they're as ignorant as they come.
  Indeed they are, Monseigneur Pot. I, for one, know better, in that opinions are subjective and thus incapable of superiority, but rather are all equally invalid in the face of facts.
  
  Shit, you couldn't even bother to answer my reply. You just tried to change the subject (while flip-flopping on your position, no less) to avoid appearing like the argumentative prick you are. If you can't be bothered with facts or reality, go post your rantings on extremist YouTube videos like a good lunatic.
  Yeah, that... or, you totally missed my entire premise from the get-go, and therefore your reply wasn't worthy of a valid response. Of course, I'm certain a self-important narcissist such as yourself will completely ignore that fact, and continue your quaint little tirade about how awful it is that someone on the internet holds a differing world view than yourself.
  
  Oh, the humanity...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
45. Re:No they are not forced.... by angel'o'sphere · 2012-06-14 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly that is what the law is for, giving a judge the right to issue two of such warrants.
  Without warrants you can't do anything, so why do you complain about a law allowing to issue such warrants?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The process by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:05 · Score: 2, Informative

I think that this is an early draft text of the bill in question: http://inforrm.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/defamation-bill.pdf
Reports on the bill are quite informative. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtdefam/203/203.pdf
These documents are reasonably short.
1. Re:The process by SandorZoo · 2012-06-12 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think that this is an early draft text of the bill in question: http://inforrm.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/defamation-bill.pdf
  I think that's the existing law, from 2011. The new proposal is linked to from the article: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/cbill_2012-20130005_en_2.htm#pb2-l1g5
  It does indeed contain new language protecting websites that host user generated content.
Foiled by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:05 · Score: 0

Now Facebook will have to reveal that my alter ego Simon McMonkeypants is actually.....simon.mcmonkeypants@yahoo.com. He'll have to start connecting through a proxy I guess, though.
Where is the news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:06 · Score: 1

Saying something defamatory online is every bit as prosecutable as saying something defamatory offline, and has always been so. The idea that internet users are entirely anonymous and somehow immune from all legal consequences of their actions is nonsense and has always been so.
1. Re:Where is the news? by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not giving sites like Facebook real contact info and you're going through proxies or other anonymizers, then they won't be able to find you. As such, the most a court can ever hope to nail are the low-hanging fruit. What you might call the professional troll is so difficult to catch that in many cases you might as well call it impossible.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Where is the news? by azalin · 2012-06-12 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is possible to hide your identity, but in my experience many of the guys harassing women aren't exactly that sophisticated. Some even use real email addresses and think a false name will do.
3. Re:Where is the news? by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt these are the 'l33t hack3r' type of troll. Most of them are probably at school still. The biggest problem in prosecution might be just finding one over the age of sixteen.
4. Re:Where is the news? by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-06-12 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'd wager to guess the "low-hanging fruit" are actually the overwhelming majority, not "professional" trolls.
Does this mean... by ArsenneLupin · 2012-06-12 03:06 · Score: 1

... that bridge authorities are now liable for the trolls that might delve under their edifices? That bridges may be closed during rush hour, if police discovers a troll just that moment? Or torn down if trolls keep coming back?
Was not just trolling.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:07 · Score: 5, Informative

This lady didn't just get trolled on some random anonymous forum. She was stalked and harassed in a manner that is almost certainly criminal, and without a doubt would be considered criminal if it happened in any other non-internet related forum. There really isn't any need for any special legislation as existing laws undoubtedly cover what happened here.
Of course, this doesn't explain why Facebook dug their heels in. Nowadays I just expect Facebook to do the wrong thing in all cases, so I probably should not be suprised.
1. Re:Was not just trolling.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  How is this "the wrong thing" for Facebook to do? It's not in the best interests of anyone. Let the lady or the cops get a subpoena and prosecute under existing laws. The alternative is either Facebook rolls over for ALL such requests or is forced to be the arbiter (which is a TERRIBLE role for them - leave that to judges).
2. Re:Was not just trolling.. by azalin · 2012-06-12 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Simple answer: Never give out any information, unless ordered by a court to do so (or in facebook's case being properly paid).
3. Re:Was not just trolling.. by Hentes · 2012-06-12 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, harassment is already a criminal offence, and contrary to libel it's not a violation of fre speech. But this case provides a perfect strawman for British politicians to tighten once again what their citizens can say.
I misread that title. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:07 · Score: 0

House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Indemnify Trolls
*trollface* lol u cnat sue me.
I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

(instant -1 from slashdot crowd)
For those of you willing to listen to my reason and not knee jerk hate me, you have to understand that there are certain people who very carefully hide IN ORDER to hate on their neighbors in SMALL TOWN forums. If you live in a big city, consider yourself immune. Otherwise please hear me out:
Anonymity is important, for example, in Syria. Anonymity is important, for example, with Wikileaks and Anonymous and any whistle blowers, because of the power imbalance involved. Anonymity is basically besides the fact on national or international level comment boards, such as Slashdot: you might as well be anonymous, since only the force of your ideas matter, not your name.
But in SMALL TOWN forums, among a couple hundred or thousand people who are neighbors, hiding and hating is a serious problem, and should be fought.
Only in that context, a small town forum, do I agree anonymity need to be unmasked.
There are people out there with serious problems, and they ruin small community forums with their abusive attitude by constantly steering all discussions to their strife. And it's always from careful hiding with these characters. You are talking about one troll who can basically sit on a forum and utterly destroy it, for a small community.
Please understand that this is a real problem before you form an opinion on the matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/small-town-gossip-moves-to-the-web-anonymous-and-vicious.html

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  yeah. and if you are bullied at school, you should switch schools. and if you are harassed at work, you should get another job. and if you are the victim of road rage, you should take another route to work. etc, etc.
  it's not actually the better choice to go after the bully, right?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
2. Re:I support this by nhat11 · 2012-06-12 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yes Anonymity is important... for when it's appropiate.
3. Re:I support this by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  The problem here is where do you draw the line? If we all agree that creating technical means for citizens of dictatorial regimes to communicate with each other and the rest of the world is important, perhaps even critical, then at what level do you say "Okay, this is no longer desirable..." I agree that this sort of functionality can be abused, but I'm just not sure you can create this sort of line in the sand, and one side the ability to post information and claims anonymously is sacrosanct, and on the other side it is not.
  And it's not as if this just began with the Internet Age. Anonymous speech has been critical to the envisioning and spread of liberty. At the same time, there is a dark side, in that anonymity has also been used to slander people. But is that different than any other form of speech, or indeed any other liberty? And does the fact that someone can use anonymity for malevolent reasons mean we have to create some sort of artificial barrier that we can never fully rationalize?
  You take the good with the bad, I think. If someone is libeling someone on forums anonymously, then obviously a court is going to have the power to demand that troll's identifying information (indeed, I can't quite figure out why any new law is necessary, since courts have had the right to demand anonymous sources be identified for a long time). But there are going to be cases when the trolls are going to be use the same technology that we feel is so valuable in places like Syria, and at that point, I guess the only thing we can do is to rely upon the forum owners themselves to remove libelous posts. At some point there is going to be an identifiable person, whether it's the domain owner or the hosting company, that can be reached and forced to take down sites that are libelous in nature.
  Of course, England has absolute horrible libel laws, which is why Congress has gone out of its way to make sure that clearly abusive judgments from English courts cannot be enforced in the United States to at least stop US citizens from libel shopping.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  exactly. anonymity is all about a power imbalance
  if one feels safe and secure there is no reason to hide your identity on line
  plenty of environments you are not safe and not secure in your choice of words, therefore, your anonymity is important and should be preserved
  however, there is a subset of forums and a subset of behaviors for which anonymity is chosen in order to CREATE a power imbalance and be the source of insecurity and menace. this is only true in forums for small communities, where one or two such individuals can completely destroy the forum
  life is complicated. no dictum about any right or freedom is absolute, simply because there is always an edge condition. take any single right you can imagine, and there is ALWAYS an exception where this right is no longer a right. the right to life, for example: you give up your right to life when you threaten the life another, for example
  true wisdom understands there are no absolutes, and every right or freedom you propose has completely logically valid exceptions
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:I support this by cpu6502 · 2012-06-12 03:41 · Score: 2
  
  >>>Anonymity is important, for example, in Syria
  It's just as important in the UK or EU or US. It worries me that more and more forums are forcing me to use my real name. I do not want the last ~20 years of my posts to be hanging-around on the internet, easily searchable by my employer or the government, just by typing my name. I want anonymity.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
6. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  my answer is simple: life isn't simple
  there are grey areas. always. everywhere. pick the most complicated set of rules capturing all conditions you can possibly imagine, and there are still exceptions you haven't taken into consideration
  this is the nature of the world you live in. the wisest person knows they don't know everything. the moron believes they know the answer to everything with a few simple absolutes
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
7. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Grow up.
  "Only in that context, a small town forum, do I agree anonymity need to be unmasked."
  That's not the way it works. If it did, you would have the sheriff always cracking down on robinhood. Your reason isn't logical because there could be a rotten fish market, but everyone is too scared to complain. If you can unmask the complainer, then you have complete control over people's lives, might as well feed them shit, or nuclear fallout instead of fish. Oh that's right we already are eating shit and nuclear fallout.
  You quote the NY Times. Fuck the NY Times, they are the problem.
  Here is where you should start your news.
  http://blacklistednews.com/
  some of it is crap some is real, you have to discern the truth.
  If the world don't get a grip on Agenda 21, the banksters, the Constitution (or the house of criminals fucking the uk residents) your small town won't matter anymore.
  That's the reality, reality is different than reason, while reason is far from logic
  The house of criminals isn't going to help you with social networking they have control over all the rules of that game, the best thing you could do is run your own website, but even that is under their rules, the only true way to get away from them is to not be dependent on them for anything at all. That's a tall order, but either when the crash or are forced out it's one that will have to be filled. Otherwise you end up with utter fucking lunatics doing the cleanup on Fukushima.
  If you control your own server, you can clean or moderate it yourself. Yes you might be up for three days at a time, or up at 2-3 in the morning fucking with databases. But If you can't deal with that, and can't find someone to deal with it for you, the truth is you really have no business staying on the web. I ain't saying you can't be there, but your kind of like a deer in the headlights waiting to be ran over. Don't delude yourself
8. Re:I support this by roman_mir · 2012-06-12 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ha ha, and our local control freak, gov't sock puppet has spoken, like the true tyrant of free individuals that he is.
  There is no gov't intervention in this matters that is justified under any conditions, any and all conditions. If somebody wants to fight this privately, hire a private investigator, etc., it's their business. Allowing gov't ANY freedom on the matters of speech at all.... well, what else is new from this jerkofsqure.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
9. Re:I support this by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  In which case, a court issuing an order to provide the identity of the poster, where possible, and where it is not, at least requiring the forum owner, the domain owner and/or the hosting company to remove the offending material is the best we can hope for, because a clever enough troll is going to be all but uncatchable, no matter how severe the laws may be made, and they don't get much more severe than places like Iran, where if you say things the government doesn't like, you go to jail... or worse.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
10. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  but you do understand the right you want is abused? you do understand that this abuse is the source of the problem? it's not about jack booted thugs taking away your rights just because they are controlling assholes, but because there is a logical, credible reason for the limitations?
  examples:
  http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/small-town-gossip-moves-to-the-web-anonymous-and-vicious.html?sort=recommended
  
  9.
  Laura
  Cleveland, OH
  September 20th, 2011
  8:58 am
  I share Mrs. James' sentiments about negative posting on social media sites. My husband and I were harshly spoken about by Columbia Local School District (District 4705 Lorain County Ohio) teachers and parents because we spearheaded a campaign against the school levy and revealed facts in the newspaper which the school district would rather not be exposed. Persons, both teachers and parents, who posted on Columbia Station Chalik and Columbia P.T.A. through Facebook were downright vicious. We took that viciousness and published it in the local tattletale newspaper, The Rural-Urban Record. When people know they are being watched, they tend to check their behaviour. We made what people thought was anonymous public. Remember, if it's on a web site, it's public because it can be found. If what Mrs. James is experiencing is slander, all of what is out there can be discovered through tracing URLs; she will then find out who is making the comments and they will no longer be anonymous. They have damaged her. Those people need to be stopped. We found our way--we published their stupidity in the newspaper and we had the material to back up our statements. I hope she finds her way.
  good one:
  
  12.
  Mark
  Indianapolis
  September 20th, 2011
  9:52 am
  The flip side of freedom is personal responsibility. But we don't teach that in our schools. It is all about our precious first amendment rights. When these rights are taken to their extreme, we have tyranny and abuse of others, which is what we are seeing in this town and in cities and towns all across the country. We could always pass more law to punish those who post false or misleading information, but the real problem lies in the angry, fearful small minded people who would post these malicious lies just to have a moment's reprieve from their own miserable existence. The earlier commenter quoting Jesus's "love one another as you love yourself is on target, but it makes the assumption that these people love themselves. They don't. Until these people can look in the mirror and like what they see, they will continue to spew their hateful message...because that is who they are.
  and my favorite:
  
  Zack Worrell
  charlottesville, va
  September 20th, 2011
  1:12 pm
  I'm no hater, but I truly dislike many opinions and attitudes of Americans today. I'm certain that I am not alone here. I feel that the internet, and all of the ways in which it is a wonderful tool, fails to be a vehicle for changing opposing attitudes and helping to resolve disagreements.
  As I write this there is somebody sitting there saying" this guy is a loser" or "he has no idea about what he is talking about." But that is fine and perfectly healthy, that is why living in a free country is so amazing. We should be always be grateful for this even when our dialogues turn into debate.
  The problem I see comes with some specific aspects of how we use the Internet. Specifically our identity and
  the desire to use anonymity to shield ourselves from critics. The sad fact is that our American Bill of Rights was created to protect freedom of speech. But the problem now stems from the fact that we abuse this right when we disguise our identity to say harmful things that infringe upon the rights of others. If
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
11. Re:I support this by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-12 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with you. In the small towns near where I live (populations of ~ 650, 140, 40, 20), we have a local newspaper. This paper has a relatively lively comments section related to the print stories. The comments are always hijacked by someone who has a personal vendetta against the schools.
  It could be an article about how the sidewalks in the park have to be replaced, or about how the Johnson's have taken a 5 generation picture (both actual examples), and the same Anonymous poster leads the discussion with something about how the school board and teachers are bastards, and that the mayor of the largest of the four towns is out to destroy the world, etc. etc.
  In this instance, you have to remove the anonymity, because it kills any and all rational discourse. - A quote from the discussions on an article related to longer hours for a church secretary and daycare staff (again, small towns, not a lot going on):
  -----Loughla: Well, it's great that Sara will be there most of the day now, that means we don't have to rush to pick our kids up from daycare anymore. -----Anonymous: Yeah, well if the school board would get off its fat ass and make the teachers work we wouldnt have this porblem [sic]. -----Loughla: Okay, then, not sure how that applies in July. -----Anonymous: Fuck off socialist.
  TA DA!!
12. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  yes, but you are confusing issues. in iran everyone should be anonymous because the source of the abuse is the government. the topic of this discussion is when the abuse comes form the carefully hiding abuser. finally, it should be easier to unmask such abusers, it shouldn't be a difficult legal process. it's easy to make a hateful anonymous comment. it should be just as easy to unmask the hater. otherwise, the power imbalance is in favor of the abuser
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
13. Re:I support this by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  For those of you willing to listen to my reason and not knee jerk hate me, you have to understand that there are certain people who very carefully hide IN ORDER to hate on their neighbors in SMALL TOWN forums. If you live in a big city, consider yourself immune. Otherwise please hear me out:
  Judging from your username and the source you linked to, I seriously doubt you have much experience with small, midwestern communities, and definitely know less about them than those of us who actually live there, but sure, I'll hear you out.
  
  But in SMALL TOWN forums, among a couple hundred or thousand people who are neighbors, hiding and hating is a serious problem, and should be fought.
  And you know this how? Membership in "SMALL TOWN forums" on the internet are not necessarily limited to people who actually live there, you know. For all we know, the prick calling Jim's wife a methwhore is some 13 year old in his mother's Orange County, CA basement.
  
  Even it it wasn't, who gives a fuck? Sticks and stones, man, sticks and stones.
  
  Only in that context, a small town forum, do I agree anonymity need to be unmasked.
  Why? So you can hunt down the individual who said something you don't like and harass them for it?
  
  Have you ever even been to a small midwestern community, let alone lived in one? I have and do, and let me tell you, if you're different in any way (like, say, being a "nerd" or homosexual), anonymity is a survival necessity. Matthew Shepard's story is a perfect example of what happens when rednecks find out that you're something they don't like. Or maybe that's what you're gunning for?
  
  There are people out there with serious problems, and they ruin small community forums with their abusive attitude by constantly steering all discussions to their strife.
  No, what 'ruins' small communities is coastal assholes who insist they know how we middle Americans think. You don't. Piss off.
  
  You are talking about one troll who can basically sit on a forum and utterly destroy it, for a small community.
  No. See, around these parts, there's a saying - "If I took every bad thing some idiot said about me to heart, I'd never get any sleep." That wisdom applies to internet forums as well.
  
  Please understand that this is a real problem before you form an opinion on the matter:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/small-town-gossip-moves-to-the-web-anonymous-and-vicious.html
  So, to back your assumptions about the effect of online negativity in rural America, you link to... a New York Times article? Really dude? Right, because the asshats that refer to this entire region as "flyover country" are going to be the experts on heartland psychology. And I'm a flying golden panda bear.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
14. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  exactly. only in CERTAIN CONDITIONS should anonymity be removed. where a certain character USES the anonymity to be an abusive asshole, where the size of the forum is small, and the venom can have terrible real life consequences (the reputation of a real person in a small town, for example)
  otherwise, anonymity is important to FIGHT abusers, such as certain governments, or with power imbalances, such as a whistleblower against a corporation
  it is more important to fight abusive power imbalances. anonymity is just a tool
  sometimes anonymity is used by the abusers, sometimes anonymity is used to fight the abuse. it depends upon the context
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
15. Re:I support this by angel'o'sphere · 2012-06-12 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymity is important, for example, in Syria. Anonymity is important, for example, with Wikileaks and Anonymous and any whistle blowers, because of the power imbalance involved. In states like that you are not anonymous, regardless of the law.
  The only way to be that would be that theb service provider definitely does not save your IP.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
16. Re:I support this by azalin · 2012-06-12 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why not abolish anonymity for such forums. If you now your members, give them personalized accounts and only allow account holders to post. That also stops external posters and spammers. If you trust your operator, you can reintroduce some form of pseudo anonymity where a posters name is not shown, but recorded by the system. Make sure everybody knows how it works and enjoy a decent discussion for once.
17. Re:I support this by SuricouRaven · 2012-06-12 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Checking... hmm. According to this comment, he sometimes looks at porn, and he once said something insulting about a religion. Too much of a legal risk to hire. Next."
  
  No, not sarcasm. That's fully how I expect employers to make their decisions. They are currently swamped for applicants, they can afford to be picky.
18. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  This is a very silly pinhole to focus on when the solution being proposed is to start an arms race on the entire Internet, not just small town forums.
  If you'd like to stop small town forums from being infested with trolls, then you have to learn two things. One, what a "forum" is, and how idiots WILL deign to ruin it. Two, that putting a local forum onto a global stage renders it global, and no longer local. Or "small town" if you prefer.
  You also have to justify jumping the shark and going from "we will prosecute those who are abusing their freedoms" to "we will try to prevent everyone from saying something that might offend someone". That's just myopic, and cannot be justified by wrapping it in the flag of small town values.
19. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  So, basically, you're thinking the law should be directed against a few random assholes because people can't handle gossip? I know I might be being an idealist, but internet gossip is just the same as regular gossip. It's bullshit, and it should be ignored. I don't want to to have to worry about getting punished for accidentally ruffling a few feathers just because some people seem to meet the mold of the John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad theory.
20. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  There is no gov't intervention in this matters that is justified under any conditions, any and all conditions
  Nah, there's a very easy way to justify this: somebody wants to be richer and/or more powerful (usually both)
  And why are you making it sound like it's wrong to want to be a tyrant? Being a tyrant's great and something every rational self interested person should aim for - why settle for mediocrity?
21. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  There are people out there with serious problems, and they ruin small community forums with their abusive attitude by constantly steering all discussions to their strife. And it's always from careful hiding with these characters. You are talking about one troll who can basically sit on a forum and utterly destroy it, for a small community.
  The problem with your "small town forum," whatever that means, isn't that there are no laws to protect your delicate eyes from offensive or moronic content. The problem is that the moderation there sucks. If your moderators have failed, then the forum has failed, Q.E.D.
22. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  so let's try an analogy. if a bully punches you every day in the face, you should just develop a tough face, rather than go after the abusive bully. that's the substance of your post
  look: anonymity is not a sacred concept. it is just a tool. in plenty of situations, it is used to fight abuse, such as with whistleblowers fighting corrupt corporations or freedom fighters working against authoritarian governments. but anonymity is also used to create abuse, to create a power imbalance in which you can say really vile things about your neighbors in small town forums. this should not be tolerated. anonymity is not a sacred concept. fighting abusers IS a sacred concept
  "I don't want to to have to worry about getting punished for accidentally ruffling a few feathers..."
  are you going to stalk and harass your neighbors? no? then what are you worried about?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
23. Re:I support this by DrgnDancer · 2012-06-12 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike the other responses I'm not going to argue with your premise. There certainly are time and places where anonymity is... unfortunate. Not just in dealing with small towns either. Even in big cities people form communities: around a common interest, a geographical subset of the city, Ethnic groups, or anything really. Dedicated trolls can ruin these types of community forums as easily as small town's. Then there's situations like the one in the article where someone just took it upon themselves to make a specific person as miserable as they could. For all of these sorts of situations it would be nice if you could pierce the veil of anonymity and force people to take responsibility for their words. There are two broad problems though:
  1) It's technically unfeasible. While complete internet anonymity is difficult to achieve, it's fairly trivial to get to a level that is sufficiently anonymous to require the expenditure of major resources to catch you. By the simple expedient of making a few fake e-mail addresses and using them to register false accounts on Facebook you can make it pretty tough. They'd have to track you by IP which is already "get the police involved" level of effort. Add in using a public wifi hotspot and it quickly becomes "small manhunt" level of effort. Using multiple wifi hotspots randomly across jurisdictions takes it to "multi-agency task force" level and you haven't even touched on computational counter measures like anonymisers and TOR. Sure, all that stuff can be bypassed or routed around with enough resources, but unless you've pissed off an intelligence agency or something, you can get "anonymous enough" pretty easily.
  2) It's next to impossible to craft laws or tools that focus on community forum trolls, but don't equally affect wikileaks contributors or Syrian activists. Laws aren't written to use cases, they're written to generalities. When we write a law that says "Twitter has to give up names on accounts without a warrant", we're maybe intending to expose cyber-bullies, but there's nothing stopping the police from getting someone else the same way. Laws are blunt force instruments, not scalpels.
  For the types of problems you're talking about, wouldn't a more measured approach be better? Trusted moderators could keep forums like you're talking about controlled pretty well I'd think.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
24. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  mod parent up
  intelligent, thoughtful, constructive
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
25. Re:I support this by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-12 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that in this world of 'it has to be this or that', context is rarely taken into consideration. Maybe context isn't the right word; I think that common sense and rationality are better words for what I mean.
  Because enough people have enough influence/because enough people know how to play stupid, we have 0-tolerance laws, or, we have laws up on the plate like this one. What blows my mind is that someone can be so stupid as to honestly believe that anonymity is always evil, or that anonymity is never evil.
  Black and White thinkers have no place in productive society, and IMO are the folks who cause 99.9% of our problems.
26. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  well said
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
27. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  so let's try an analogy. if a bully punches you every day in the face
  That's not an analogy, it's a strawman, and not a very good one. We were talking about words, and you're saying it's the same as battery. Apples and oranges.
  
  look: anonymity is not a sacred concept. it is just a tool. in plenty of situations, it is used to fight abuse, such as with whistleblowers fighting corrupt corporations or freedom fighters working against authoritarian governments. but anonymity is also used to create abuse, to create a power imbalance in which you can say really vile things about your neighbors in small town forums. this should not be tolerated. anonymity is not a sacred concept. fighting abusers IS a sacred concept
  The law is by nature abusive and clumsy, and always nails a few innocent people. To try to avoid getting your feelings hurt, you are talking about fining innocent people and possibly putting them in jail.
  And if it's such a small town, how do you NOT know who is saying these things?
  
  "I don't want to to have to worry about getting punished for accidentally ruffling a few feathers..."
  are you going to stalk and harass your neighbors? no? then what are you worried about?
  “If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear."
  Sounds familiar.
28. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  i'm going to put a billboard up across the street from you in which i show your 12 year old daughter's face photoshopped into a hardcore porno scene
  buck up and accept it
  you aren't going to fight me, are you? are you a controlling fascist against freedom of expression?
  sorry, there are limits on everything. words that are incredibly specific and personal in a small community do real damage. you are incredibly naive or being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand that. when someone abuses you, you fight back. part of fighting back rightfully includes denying the abuser the channels of their abuse
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
29. Re:I support this by cpu6502 · 2012-06-12 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't give a shit. Stop being such a pussy; words or images cannot physically hurt you.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
30. Re:I support this by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  are you honestly saying "a billboard up across the street from you in which i show your 12 year old daughter's face photoshopped into a hardcore porno scene" isn't a problem?
  you're not acting in reality
  you're acting in the distorted realm of Intarwebs arguments, where rhetorical opposition matters more to you than actually trying to make sense
  end of discussion
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
31. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  You started with people spreading rumors and calling names, skipped up to face punching, and now people are renting billboards?
  Goddamn, it's like a strawman parade here.
32. Re:I support this by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-12 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  you're not acting in reality
  Yes! He doesn't agree with you so he's not acting in reality! By saying this, you have completely and utterly defeated him and proven that his subjective opinion is 100% objectively incorrect.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
33. Re:I support this by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-12 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like anonymity will have to be removed everywhere because someone, somewhere will always think it kills "rational discourse" (in other words, things they don't like are said).
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
34. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Mr Murdock, is that you?
35. Re:I support this by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-12 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  You do not believe that there is a difference between things being said that I don't like, and things that are said repeatedly, and repeatedly off-topic?
  I, for one, believe in a little gray area. I know that it's difficult to figure into the equation, but context is important. There is a distinct difference between a protester here in the states that posts in on-line forums with facts and figures related to human rights abuses in the United States, and a wing-nut who posts ALL-CAPS rants, correct? Is there no way to tell the difference between statements supported by facts, and claims that the gub'ment wants us dead?
  In the case of facts (wiki-leaks and the like), anonymity is a.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y. vital to the conversation. In the case of a small-town paper being hounded by someone who wants to do nothing more than piss people off to make his sad existence seem worthwhile, well, maybe anonymity isn't that vital.
  I know - slippery slope and all, but again
  Common Sense
36. Re:I support this by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-12 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  You do not believe that there is a difference between things being said that I don't like, and things that are said repeatedly, and repeatedly off-topic?
  No, I don't. And I certainly don't think it's reason enough to ban anonymity altogether for everyone.
  
  Is there no way to tell the difference between statements supported by facts, and claims that the gub'ment wants us dead?
  It is difficult. I'm sure both people might believe they're correct, but neither necessarily are.
  
  There is a distinct difference between a protester here in the states that posts in on-line forums with facts and figures related to human rights abuses in the United States, and a wing-nut who posts ALL-CAPS rants, correct?
  That depends on how you define "wing-nut" and who gets to define it. More than likely, I believe, such a power will be abused.
  
  In the case of a small-town paper being hounded by someone who wants to do nothing more than piss people off to make his sad existence seem worthwhile, well, maybe anonymity isn't that vital.
  Whether it's "vital" or not would depend on who you ask.
  
  Common Sense
  Saying that something is "common sense" is meaningless. It doesn't mean that it's common, obvious, or correct.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
37. Re:I support this by Hentes · 2012-06-12 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  In your own forums you aren't required to provide anonymity, nor are you banned from using moderation. Making anonymity illegal everywhere because you can't handle your village forum is overextensive.
38. Re:I support this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  That's *not* what I'm advocating. I'm advocating the opposite: deal with the problem. It doesn't matter whether the gossip is happening anonymously on the internet or at the back of the local hang-out among a bunch of gossipy neighbors meeting in person. Gossip exists. In a small town it's endemic. If you can't handle it on the internet, it's not going to be any different when the trolls are shut down and it's not on the internet. It's harder to find out about it, but the gossip will still be there, and the solution is the same when you do find out about it: fight it wherever it exists. Refute the claims. Either ignore the trolls or solve the problem by "going after the bully". If it's in an internet forum you give users the tools to solve the problem or you appoint moderators to do it. If what's being done is illegal, then you call the police and you get a proper warrant to find out who it is and charge them. I can't see the need for extra legislation beyond what already exists.
  I guess I did a terrible job of communicating my point, but in a small town people may say cruel, inaccurate things. If you think killing off the internet trolls is going to solve the problem of small-town gossip, that's a very misleading illusion.
  If you can't handle small-town gossip regardless of where it is presented, then my point was: you aren't prepared to live in a small town. That might sound like I'm saying "get out of town" as the best option, but, no. By analogy, if you can't handle the possibility of bullies that might be on a school yard, then apparently you aren't prepared to be on the school yard yet. The right thing to do is to *learn* to deal with bullies, and I'm tired of people thinking that brand-new "on the internet" legislation is the obvious solution instead, as if we need some new law for a new type of playground. No, a basic understanding of bullies is all you should need, exactly along the lines of what you are suggesting: go after the bully.
39. Re:I support this by rastoboy29 · 2012-06-13 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  What your saying makes sense, but couldn't it be solved best by the forum moderators (owners) insisting on a real name policy? That way you can have one forum with real names, one with anonymous, pick your poison.
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
Wow, the UK just became king of trolls by BMOC · 2012-06-12 03:10 · Score: 1

They're going to get a lot of replies on this, they win.

--
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
The English: Obsessed With Public Opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:12 · Score: 0

From the country with the strictest libel and defamation laws in the world and the "super-injunction" which is a court order preventing you from talking about someone, or even talking about the existence of the order, comes this latest effort to control speech. Now you won't be able to even say something negative about someone else online without being tracked down and sued.
1. Re:The English: Obsessed With Public Opinion by azalin · 2012-06-12 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't dare to insult people face to face, you probably should just shut up.
2. Re:The English: Obsessed With Public Opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  ...and fall in line. That's what you meant to say, right? Don't dare have a dissenting opinion or air a grievance against someone with more power and/or money, because that will only get you in trouble. Keep your head down and don't attract attention to yourself.
3. Re:The English: Obsessed With Public Opinion by azalin · 2012-06-12 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  ...and fall in line. That's what you meant to say, right? Don't dare have a dissenting opinion or air a grievance against someone with more power and/or money, because that will only get you in trouble. Keep your head down and don't attract attention to yourself.
  First,we are not talking about opinions, we are talking about insults. Second if you really have an issue, anonymous ranting will rarely help it.
  This is not about a factory worker or dissident who communicates the wrongdoings of those in power to the public. This is about some idiots who use their anonymity as a weapon against a woman who can't defend herself against the allegations.
Alternative title for the story by Dyinobal · 2012-06-12 03:21 · Score: 1

Here is an alternative title for the story 'House of Commons Uncommonly stupid'
Only in Britain... by eepok · 2012-06-12 03:23 · Score: 1

Only in Britain, with their extreme libel, defamation, and slander laws, can a random and potentially anonymous "taunt" be considered vicious and/or depraved.
AnonCoward045: You're an idiot and lick goats daily!
Lawyer: This vicious and depraved comment has ruined the reputation of "Dougaliscious81" amongst his 16 followers. Expect to be sued for eleventy billion pounds!
1. Re:Only in Britain... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  And even if AnonCoward045's statement is 100% factually true, that is NO DEFENSE under UK law. How fucked up is that?
2. Re:Only in Britain... by shippers · 2012-06-12 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  And even if AnonCoward045's statement is 100% factually true, that is NO DEFENSE under UK law. How fucked up is that?
  Yes there is.
3. Re:Only in Britain... by Jamu · 2012-06-12 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's only a defence if he can prove what's factually true, is, in fact, true. If it is factually true, but you're unable to prove it, it's not a defense. So you have the, in my opinion, unsavoury situation where you can libel someone by writing the truth.
  
  --
  Who ordered that?
jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 03:23 · Score: 0

i didn't know facebook and twitter were uk-based sites or companies.
what are they gonna do, threaten to add them to the growing uk firewall if they don't give in (to a foreign government's demands).
Key point by gman003 · 2012-06-12 03:33 · Score: 1

"allow victims of online abuse to discover the identity of their persecutors and bring a case against them"
You know what? I can get behind this.
There are already laws against this sort of thing - libel, slander laws. They work fine, except when the victim is anonymous.
IF the law requires there to be an actual lawsuit in order to uncover someone's identity, that's fine. If it's serious enough for the victim to be suing, and serious enough for a judge to not immediately laugh the victim out of court, then it's serious enough that the speaker should be forced to defend himself.
Another useful key point: "aims to protect websites from threats of litigation for inadvertently displaying defamatory comments".
1. Re:Key point by azalin · 2012-06-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  finally someone who actually read and considered the implications before starting a rant on free speech, Britain, facebook (evil) without knowing (or caring) what it really is about
Wow by 0123456 · 2012-06-12 03:35 · Score: 1

With the economy in the crap, the government so unpopular that the Labour Party, who destroyed said economy with a decade of easy credit, look set to win a majority at the next election and the EU falling apart all around them, I'm glad to see that Parliament have found time to pass a law about something so unimportant.
1. Re:Wow by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Tune in next week when they waste even more time on Lords Reform. The Coalition has become rather deft at doing anything but what it's supposed to be doing. They almost seem to view winning government the same way a Calvin viewed his sandbox.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Mobys by Latent+Heat · 2012-06-12 03:51 · Score: 1

Aren't the Web thread denizens who engage in demeaning remarks and personal attacks called Mobys?
The other thing about trolls, is that suppose you have a Wingnut Web site where the host is "for the war" and then you have someone who is Liberal and anti-war posting and getting into a flame war. Is that person a troll? Suppose they were sincere in their belief as many people are sincerely anti-war, and that they get into an argument on the Wingnut Web site because they genuinely believe that the Wingnuts shouldn't live comfortably in their "echo chamber?"
Suppose the person posting is a Conservative but has genuine reservations "about the war" (such as the late Bill Buckley expressing doubts)? Is that person trolling if they get into a heated discussion, maybe more so because they believe themselves to be proper Conservatives and that the folks on the Wingnut Site have it wrong?
I agree with you that a genuine troll is someone who doesn't necessarily believe in the position they are taking, but they are posting, often anonymously or under a handle so as to get satisfaction from disrupting a serious discussion and getting responses out of people. Hence, "don't feed the trolls."
I think we need different names for different types of troublemakers (or perceived troublemakers).
1. Re:Mobys by mcgrew · 2012-06-12 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't the Web thread denizens who engage in demeaning remarks and personal attacks called Mobys?
  I've been on the internet for fifteen years and never once heard the term "moby". Apparently, neither has wikipedia.
  I agree with you that a genuine troll is someone who doesn't necessarily believe in the position they are taking
  Then why are you arguing the opposite? Are you trolling? Yes, sometimes it's hard to tell. Me, when someone disagrees with an opinion of mine, no matter how vehemently, I assume they're sincere. If they're factually incorrect I'll try to correct them, preferably with a link.
  Troll does not mean "someone who disagrees with me." Troll means exactly what wikipedia and the slashdot page says it means.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Re:FU FF 13! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:04 · Score: 0

1. about:config
2. browser.newtab.url = about:blank
FF doesn't need to show every goddamned shoulder-surfer in the coffehouse my top 13 pr0n sites.
Perhaps you shouldn't be surfing pr0n in the coffeehouse? Or on your run-from-USB-stick browser?
Wait, hold on a tick, you surf pr0n on your primary browser profile? And you don't even turn on private/incognito mode? AND you bring a computer or USB stick with that profile on it out in public? Dude, seriously, in that case you're just getting what's coming to you if you're THAT fucking retarded about it.
Sure, set the newtab URL to blank, that can just be personal taste, but don't blame the browser if you're an idiot. Idiot.
Or they'll use multiple accounts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:06 · Score: 0

Like /.'s own barbara.hudson@unjava.com from http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2C+not+Barbie = barbara.hudson@barbara-hudson.com from http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson who disappeared since 05/21/2012 he/she was exposed for her crap!
(Those are only a couple of the registered accounts he/she has, for upmodding herself and downmodding her opponents - others are gmhowell, countertrolling, webmistressrachel and more).
Yes, she uses TOR onion routers (which she spilled while posting as webmistressrachel) to do her "dirty work".
Even hairyfeet, a respected enough member here, knows about it and has fro year -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2872677&cid=40123423
So small wonder THAT particular troll has not shown his/her face here in weeks (I've been getting trolled by AC posts for it now for roughly that same period, so it doesn't take a "big brain" to realize WHO is doing that to myself either).
APK
P.S.=> All you can REALLY do is expose them for it, as I & hairyfeet have to her:
She/He's a troll who has multiple accounts for trolling others, modding herself up and her opponents down, and stalking them by ac posts which she admits to here and told others to join her in doing which is breaking the rules of this forum as well as laws.

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme." - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Journal
from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544
I've dealt with that particular KNOWN TROLL around here for more than a year now, & know EXACTLY how the scumbag operates, as do others (hairyfeet) above.
Still, like other online scum does? They'll just change to yet another alternate registered 'luser' account and do the same... Old trolls NEVER change their stripes, in other words! apk
Those are two separate problems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:10 · Score: 0

Yes, the problem you described is real. Anonymity, just like most things, can be misused.
But the other problem here is that people want government to address the first problem, instead of dealing with it themselves.
IMNSHO, learning how to deal with the Internet is just like growing up: much of the work depends on the individual, not the state.
They're the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 04:15 · Score: 0

You just got trolled by the House of Commons!
The UK does not have a working warrant system? by s.petry · 2012-06-12 04:55 · Score: 1

Seriously, I have no issues with law enforcement investigating the creeps on line. But doesn't the UK already have a warrant process that accomplishes this without the obviously open exposure to all of society for spying?

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is that even trolling? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 05:11 · Score: 0

The definition of trolling has gone far, far too broad since the days I started using the net (circa 1996). Times were it was someone playing devil's advocate for laughs, or just assuming the opposite opinion, or advance/defend a totally absurd idea. Now it's anyone you don't like what they say, they're a troll. Bullies? Troll. Microsoft fan? Troll. Forum ninja? Troll. Big oil? Trolls. The word applies to everything and everyone and hardly fails to apply to anything else.
Track this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 05:26 · Score: 0

STFU UK ..!..
Just a few details missing... by itsdapead · 2012-06-12 05:34 · Score: 1

From the BBC report:

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.
Can't argue with the sentiments of that but... honestly.... good luck with getting that legislation right. Mind you, since the government are also going to save the economy by outlawing tax evasion, the right people are clearly on the job.

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.
Or, to put it another way "Hi, someone just libelled me on your website - please tell me who it was or I'll come after you for libel."
Here's a better idea: website operators running chatrooms/bulletin boards should be no more responsible for libel by their users than the phone company are, and should only have to hand over IDs or remove material when a court has ruled that the case has some merit.
Oh, and remind me how you identify an anonymous poster if you don't ask them to provide ID (or have no way of verifying it) when they post.
If we want new crimes, how about criminalising any idiot who believes, or acts upon, an accusation posted by an anonymous troll on an obscure BBS?

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Block that troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:02 · Score: 0

These are USA companies not UK companies.
Internet companies that don't do any real business out side their own country, shouldn't fall under other countries laws.
Haven't you ever heard of the First Amendment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Another solution is to block that person that is trolling.
Because I have.
Trolled by the Media by Grumbleduke · 2012-06-12 06:10 · Score: 1

You all just got trolled by the media and Ken Clarke. This is not about forcing anyone to hand over any information, websites aren't automatically liable for all the content on them, and is nothing to do with last week's Facebook case (although some MPs debating the Bill still think it was).
This story is about the Defamation Bill, currently going through the UK Parliament. For the most part, it simply codifies existing case law (but with enough pointless changes in terminology and detail to cause headaches for lawyers and courts for a few years). However, clause 5 creates a new defence to defamation specifically for operators of websites. However, it can be defeated if it is "not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement" (although no definition on "identify" is given). This doesn't force websites to do anything, nor does it remove any of the multitude of existing defences or limits to defamation claims against them (see, for example, a recent case involving Google, which has been ignored by the government due to happening after they decided what to put in the bill, where Google was (a) not a publisher, so not liable, (b) protected by the Defamation Act 1996 defences, and (c) protected by the Electronic-Commerce Directive defences), or even the new ones created in this bill, particularly Clause 10.
In practice, the aim behind the limit on anonymous authors seems to be part of a deliberate attack by the UK government on anonymous speech and the Internet in general. Website operators won't be aware of the intricacies of English defamation law, and so are likely to be scared into banning anonymous comments. In that regard, it is a very bad clause, plus it is limited to "websites" only, not the rest of the internet, or even anything in the offline world.
The Facebook case from last week was over a private prosecution for harassment, public order offences or malicious communications (or something). Nothing to do with defamation. In order to bring her prosecution, the victim had to get a standard order from the court compelling Facebook to hand over whatever details they had (IP addresses, account names, email addresses) that would help identify the posters. This type of order comes from a 1970s case (Norwich Pharmacal) and has been used mainly against ISPs for copyright infringement. Nothing new to see here. Other than the press, and MPs using it to conflate defamation with "trolling" and "cyber-bullying", to fight anonymity and the Internet.
yah Pistols @ Dawn is an outdated "option" by RobertLTux · 2012-06-12 06:30 · Score: 1

of course the wordplay has not gotten better but...

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
So to follow... by 3seas · 2012-06-12 06:58 · Score: 1

Defamation of character lawsuits
Then why did you ask at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:24 · Score: 0

If your interest is so minimal, why did you waste your time?
He's also lying out his ass by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:37 · Score: 0

Or doesn't have a 12 year old.
Or would like to see their 12 year old in a porn movie.
Alternatively, he knows that anyone putting a poster like that up will be arrested for kiddie porn and therefore can safely pretend that there's no problem with the poster because it will be made a criminal act without his intervention and removed.
1. Re:He's also lying out his ass by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-12 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Or doesn't have a 12 year old.
  False dilemma. He could also not be lying, and also not want to see a 12 year old in a porn movie. You know, it almost seems as if you're implying that all parents are irrational morons...
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
WTF??!? by s.petry · 2012-06-12 10:00 · Score: 1

Wait wait wait a minute there. What you point at is what should be the right method. A Police officer should get a warrant, and should get a subpoena. This is what is required under the law for everything else. Why because it's computers would it be subject to a different set of laws?
What is missed in the conversation so far, is that laws are always written with an acceptable amount of risk. They must be in order to have a functional society. Look, nobody wants a murder roaming the streets, but do you have 24/7 surveillance on every citizen in your country just to prevent a murder? No!
What do you do? We have societal normals that we teach to people: Murder is wrong. Murder is against the Law. That small amount of education I can assure you prevents a metric assload of muders.
Beyond that, you use logic and reason. If you have a murder, you start to investigate. Often, this requires warrants and subpoenas to find evidence and make convictions. This is what we do all the damn time, and it works very well.
Your "Because it's on a computer" is pure idiocy! Do you think that we have never cracked a case where someone tried to hide evidence, or anonymously kill someone?
Before you go to your apples and oranges routine, I intentionally gave an extreme example since you are suggesting it's okay to use extreme methods of preventing a potential crime. In essence, prevention is what the law is about. A side effect of the law is correction when someone breaks the law!

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
1. Re:WTF??!? by iserlohn · 2012-06-12 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why would a police officer spend time to get a warrant on finding out who somebody is for you to file a *civil* suit for defamation? It doesn't make any sense.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
2. Re:WTF??!? by s.petry · 2012-06-13 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  You point at a different problem, which is that we have all of these special cases for double jeopardy, which by the way is unconstitutional. If you fixed that problem you would fix much of the problem in our legal system. Not all mind you, but it would be a big dent. We spend a lot of resources pursuing frivolous cases where criminal trials had no conviction.
  And look, lets be honest. The system is broken pretty badly, which is why we have several high profile cases where obviously guilty people were not found guilty. We don't fix a broken system by adding more broken processes, such as a separation of civil and criminal trials for the same exact crime.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is this the same Nicola Brookes from Brighton by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-12 14:16 · Score: 1

Is this the same Nicola Brookes from Brighton who was recently photographed fucking goats up the ass while wearing a nun's habit and reading the NAMBLA manifesto aloud to school boys?
Or is that a different Nicola Brookes from Birghton?