Slashdot Mirror
Tasmanian Cops Decline To "Censor Internet"
aesoteric writes "Tasmania's police force has taken the unusual step of asking the public to stop alerting it to every 'abusive or harassing' comment posted to Facebook or other social media sites. The force said it was 'increasingly receiving complaints' about material posted to the sites, but sought to clarify that 'the use of technology to undertake some conduct does not in itself create an offense.'"
Are always better than one!
No body gives a shit
Saying that "Tasmanian police decline" to do something implies that they are actually empowered to do so as a matter of course. I suspect the Tasmanian police cannot censor the internet, and even if they were given a court order only limited censorship could be attempted (likely with even more limited success).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
To rob the First National Bank of Tasmania of all the Gold Bullion it has!!
Bwah-hah-hah.
ok, first we're going to need Sharks with Lasers on their heads, then we'll need a Crazy Ivan, a pair of Ichigo's, a Rolf the Dog, a Mr. Whipple, five golden rings, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree.
What really spins my head here is the concept that someone would report trolling on the internet to the police. The kind of person that would do such a thing is surely the worst on earth.
Yeah, it's unusual that somebody finally gets it right!
I mean, seriously... Luke Manhood? "Throbbing" to his mates, perhaps? Rampaging? E. Normous Manhood, to his missus? And to be working in the eCrimes unit as well . . . if random strangers on the Internet can come up with this, just think what his Police colleagues can do. Anyone who can go through life with a surname like that, doing the job he does, gets my utmost respect!
And it was true, wasn't it. Hm, where are those coppers when you need them !! They are all sitting on their fat asses at the donut shoppe !!
Does this smack anyone else as really immature? It reminds me of siblings threatening to tell your parents about something. Or telling the teacher if someone is picking on you in school. Do they honestly think this is a worthy use of their police resources by having a thin skin and crying to the police about every random person that says something about them on the internet?
That's good news.
or it's just one or two really busy ones.
But isn't the purpose of the police to respond in cases of immediate danger or to investigate criminal offences? Harassment, of this sort, seems like it should be a civil offence. Lawyers may get involved, but police rarely should be.
Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com
Without being to specific, I can give you some context here as an actual Tasmanian.
Right now Tasmania's police force is being forced to make such strict budget cuts. The budgets are so razor-thin that some outer-metropolitan police stations are having their staffed hours cut back to 10am-4pm on weekdays.
Beyond that, anyone with a finger on the pulse of the Tasmanian community will tell you that while there is a great deal of respect for the job our Police do, there is a broad lack of community confidence in our state court system. As an all-to-common example, last month someone received a wholely-suspended sentence for ripping the heads off of two kittens in front of their owners. No I'm not making this up.
When you look at these in context and take a step back, it's pretty obvious that all Tasmanian Police are saying is that they don't have either the resources or the legal power to do anything about online harassment. Unless an actual violent crime linked to online threats take place there's nothing material that they can do anyway, so people are far better off taking their complaints further up the chain to someone empowered to actually do something about it.
Bloody mountains from molehills...
I have a really big problem with this term 'cyber-bullying'.
They are words on a screen. If you can't deal with words on a screen, if they crush your life, then the real world is going to eat you alive, and the evolutionary process will shit you right out the other end and use you as intellectual fertilizer.
last month someone received a wholely-suspended sentence for ripping the heads off of two kittens in front of their owners.
To be fair.....
Maybe they got utterly pissed off with some fuckers furball continually leaving turds in their garden and kiddies sandpit.
Keep your livestock under control, and things like this wont happen. I speak from experience.
Of course "the use of technology to undertake some conduct does not in itself create an offense." But publishing always requires technology. That's why there's a difference between slander and libel: the harm is different when technology (the "press") is used to lie in public.
Of course, the main harm is not the technology, but the publishing, by whatever means. Some publishing does more and different harm than others. But when people do harm by doing it in public, that's a police matter. Police are required to protect the public, especially in public.
The police are just lazy, fearful and stupid. They want to fight crime they can brag about in the locker room, not "just talk about". But that's why proper police forces don't get to choose what to police. The public executive in their jurisdiction, like governor, mayor or county commissioner, follows laws set by the legislature to command the police do their job. Otherwise they'd do nothing but bust donuts and teenage potheads.
--
make install -not war
Taz.Hate.Censor!!!! TAZ.Hate.CENSOR!!!!!
Tp be fair...you're pretty fucked in the head. What part of "ripping the heads off two kittens" don't you understand. Not poisoned, shot, or electrocuted. Heads ripped from body. Two of them!
Wait, Tasmania's a real place?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Spot the bloody cat lover!
It's where Australia sends its criminals..
This basically boils down to something we have seen countless times over the years.
A new law came in, in response to something awful happening, someone who is being harrassed (via the internet) to the point that they commit suicide.
The police were doing what I think was the appropriate thing, realising that it was probably youths that were more at risk, started a campaign to educate them about the fact that online harrassment can be criminal. So far so good...
But society doesn't change overnight. It takes time. Right now we are at the point where we are accepting of the fact that it is indeed wrong. We are accepting of the fact that there is some line that when crossed makes it criminal. If it does not reach that line, it is still frowned upon but we should not report it to law enforcement. In people's mad dash to be politically correct and overly sensitive, they are reporting stuff that should merely be frowned upon and gotten over. Eventually they will find the appropriate equilibrium and in the mean time the police have told the public they need to push that line towards the more serious occassions of cyber-bullying.
Other examples are when sexual harrassment gained widespread acceptance people would threaten to call police over once off jokes, or a glance held for a second too long. We as a society have now (MOSTLY) worked this out, using other means of punishment, in that sexual harrassment is still frowned upon but police aren't deluged with frivolous instances.
The only bit I don't understand is that we already had harrassment laws. Why do we need a seperate law for "harrassment on the internet"? But then again I don't understand why we need separate patents for "(existing process) on the internet" either
What can you do? I had people impersonating me and causing all sorts of grief for me on facebook (not to mention a group of people who took it upon themselves to attack and harass me at one point in my life - reason given, to reduce my popularity with people). I had one of my neighbours from up the road asking about my type of phone and if I had spy cameras up. Some of my neighbours started refusing to talk to me and started giving me dirty looks etc. A short time later a friend alerted me to someone who had posted with my name and picture on a site asking how to use an Android phone to set up spy cameras. There were also some things said which made me believe it was set up by a guy who had been harassing me on-line to play his game (which I would have had to pay to play), which I think is pretty much tantamount to blackmail. I complained to the police, but they said that it wasn't illegal to impersonate someone on line, even if they were deliberately doing so in order to cause me grief (and putting up spy cameras is apparently not a crime either according to the officer - I think that would depend where you put them, and the person in question was talking about putting them up in public places - I'm pretty sure that's illegal). I pointed out they'd used my photo which is copyrighted, and they said anything put on the internet was public domain (like to see them try arguing that in court ... that basically makes it legal to download and use anything ... bet if I or anyone else tried that they'd arrest them ... ). I then pointed out where Google had tried to argue the same thing and lost the court case. They still refused to get involved.
In the end all I could do was contact the site administrator. I did ask for the email address (as you needed a legit one to set up an account) and any other details of whomever it was, as I wanted to take them to court. But the site refused to give those details to me.
So, what can you do? People can say and do anything on-line to you. Police won't get involved in harassment cases, they don't give a damn if someone steals your identity, or causes grief between you and your neighbours, or attempts to blackmail you, or infringes your copyright ... yet, if I was the RIAA, or rich, I bet they'd have taken some sort of action.
But, in a way it didn't surprise me, because when I worked for the police I saw them turn away many a legitimate crime just because they 'didn't want to fill in the paperwork'. They'd just keep making excuses till the person making the complaint went away (sometimes in tears). It's a combination of too much work and not enough officers to do it, and a refusal of the Government to pay to put more resources out there. But, if the person was to go away and retaliate, the police then get involved to 'stop it escalating' into a war or blood feud and the original complainer gets arrested! Totally stupid system!