House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

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."

Comments

I don't think this will ever work

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I don't think this will ever work

[SJHillman]

What if they use a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track your IP address?

Re:I don't think this will ever work

[Fixer40000]

Don't worry. That's what Norton Internet Security is for.

Troll is in the eye of the beholder

[hessian]

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.

Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder

[Dan541]

I found someone on youtube who has the right idea about cyberbullies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ZiRT8Nwkk

Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Troll is in the eye of the beholder

[a90Tj2P7]

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.

House of Commons

[Anne_Nonymous]

House of Commons? The august body that allows heckling during speeches? Cracking down on trolling?

Hmmm...

Re:House of Commons

[MightyMartian]

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.

Was not just trolling..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I support this

[circletimessquare]

(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