Internet troll identities to be revealed

[California Girl]

That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

 

[PredFan]

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

Have they? Or is that an Urban Legend? How does an employer or prosepctive employer get access to your FB page? I am a person who hires and fires for my company. I don't bother going to FB on someone because I am never able to see the page. More to the point of this case, I'm smart enough to know that if I saw a page on FB that one of my employees set up that claimed to be a pedophile and a drug addict, I would be very suspect, and would talk to the employee about it.

I'm sorry, NOTHING in this story adds up in my real world experience.

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

Have they? Or is that an Urban Legend? How does an employer or prosepctive employer get access to your FB page? I am a person who hires and fires for my company. I don't bother going to FB on someone because I am never able to see the page. More to the point of this case, I'm smart enough to know that if I saw a page on FB that one of my employees set up that claimed to be a pedophile and a drug addict, I would be very suspect, and would talk to the employee about it.

I'm sorry, NOTHING in this story adds up in my real world experience.

Yes, there have been news stories of companies who request Facebook and other social network passwords from their new hires. These are generally positions in which company image and reputation and trust are of extreme importance and background checks are intended to ferret out those who are unsuitable for that image. I believe there is even a thread about that somewhere on Facebook.

Personally, though I never post something I would not care if the entire world knew, I would not go to work for somebody who asked for such passwords, nor have I ever asked for such infomration from a new hire. At the same time, I have cringed at some of the stuff some members of the younger generation of my own family have posted on Facebook and Twitter and, if known, how that could negatively affect them in the eyes of prospective employer or existing boss.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll gladly share my online info with a perspective boss as long as they are willing to reciprocate. I may not wanna work with some of these disgusting assholes.

 

[PredFan]

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

Have they? Or is that an Urban Legend? How does an employer or prosepctive employer get access to your FB page? I am a person who hires and fires for my company. I don't bother going to FB on someone because I am never able to see the page. More to the point of this case, I'm smart enough to know that if I saw a page on FB that one of my employees set up that claimed to be a pedophile and a drug addict, I would be very suspect, and would talk to the employee about it.

I'm sorry, NOTHING in this story adds up in my real world experience.

Yes, there have been news stories of companies who request Facebook and other social network passwords from their new hires. These are generally positions in which company image and reputation and trust are of extreme importance and background checks are intended to ferret out those who are unsuitable for that image. I believe there is even a thread about that somewhere on Facebook.

Personally, though I never post something I would not care if the entire world knew, I would not go to work for somebody who asked for such passwords, nor have I ever asked for such infomration from a new hire. At the same time, I have cringed at some of the stuff some members of the younger generation of my own family have posted on Facebook and Twitter and, if known, how that could negatively affect them in the eyes of prospective employer or existing boss.

I would just tell them that I don't have a FB page. Or, I'd make a fake one of my own that said something like:

Name: John Wayneski
Occupation: Widget Maker at the greatest company in all the world
Hometown: Widgetsville, BFE
Hobbies: Making widgets for the greatest company in all the world
Favorite music: The music played in the elevators at my company.
Favorite TV show: My company's commercials.
Family: My co-workers.
Favorite food: The food in the company cafeteria

And i'd have a picture of my work station as a wall photo.

 

[PredFan]

Now, despite all of the previous things I said, the truth is that I believe that it won't be long before this kind of craop comes to the US. The government would just love to have control of the internet, and they would be very willing to use scare tactics as a means to that end.

 

[catzmeow]

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtPluXq_hko]DJ Khaled "All I Do Is Win" feat. Ludacris, Rick Ross, Snoop Dogg & T-Pain - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

See, that's what I think is ridiculous...potential employers looking at Facebook.

But, they do.

And, recently Maryland passed a law that no one is required to give a potential employer their Facebook login information.

Regardless, if what is on someone's FB page will cause them not to get a job, they should seriously consider deleting their FB account.

 

[tigerbob]

I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

See, that's what I think is ridiculous...potential employers looking at Facebook.

But, they do.

And, recently Maryland passed a law that no one is required to give a potential employer their Facebook login information.

Regardless, if what is on someone's FB page will cause them not to get a job, they should seriously consider deleting their FB account.

HR departments are increasingly screwed up these days. Vetting software has become so complex that people who are actually doing a job at present would be kicked out by the software if they applied for the job they currently hold. It's insane, but it's about checking boxes more than it's about finding the best fit for the role.

 

[Foxfyre]

People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.

See, that's what I think is ridiculous...potential employers looking at Facebook.

But, they do.

And, recently Maryland passed a law that no one is required to give a potential employer their Facebook login information.

Regardless, if what is on someone's FB page will cause them not to get a job, they should seriously consider deleting their FB account.

HR departments are increasingly screwed up these days. Vetting software has become so complex that people who are actually doing a job at present would be kicked out by the software if they applied for the job they currently hold. It's insane, but it's about checking boxes more than it's about finding the best fit for the role.

To some extent that is true. Which relates to a post I made earlier that some image conscious companies or those requiring a sustantial amount of confidentiality and classified material would not consider a new hire who had objectionable stuff on his/her FB page.

And while I haven't personally sorted out yet whether I think a person's FB page is fair game in a thorough background check required for some jobs, we all also have to realize that we live in a much different world now than a lot or most of us grew up in. We now live in a world full of people who wish to do us serious harm whether that is to kill or maim us or commit economic sabotage or economic espionage or whatever. The federal government has always had the right to monitor mail and telephone calls going to other countries, most especialy in times of war and/or other national crisis.

Sooner or later we each have to consider what tools those designated to protect and defend our lives, livelihoods, and liberties are going to be allowed related to emails, FB, electronic submissions, etc. etc. etc. Somewhere in there is the protections that we need versus the liberty and privacy that we crave. And that simply is not as cut and dried as it once was.

 

[NeoTemplar]

You are an idiot. The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.

Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !

This law is in England, not the US.

Even if it were in the US, you could still say what you want. You'd just need to be aware of the fact that if you were trolling a person maliciously under their real identity, you do so under the understanding that you might not be able to do it anonymously.

The only freedom you would give up is the freedom to be an asshole with impunity.

Thing is most of the laws in the U.K. come to the U.S. also who says the U.K. can't just do what the feds did with Megavideo? Also learn Internet rules 4 though 7 and get back to me.

 

[tigerbob]

Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !

This law is in England, not the US.

Even if it were in the US, you could still say what you want. You'd just need to be aware of the fact that if you were trolling a person maliciously under their real identity, you do so under the understanding that you might not be able to do it anonymously.

The only freedom you would give up is the freedom to be an asshole with impunity.

Thing is most of the laws in the U.K. come to the U.S. also who says the U.K. can't just do what the feds did with Megavideo? Also learn Internet rules 4 though 7 and get back to me.

Who are you and why are you wasting my time. Fuck off.

BTW, the who are you and why are you wasting my time question was rhetorical.

 

[daveman]

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

The court agrees with the Brit in question.

So the court is sissy bedwetters, too. Did you really think you had a point?

And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.

Spoken like someone with no grasp of history. Public school education, huh?

 

[daveman]

Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?

Way to keep beating that dead horse! It doesn't make you look bitter at all. No, really.

 

[daveman]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.

The Congress had nothing to do with making a law in the instant matter, nor does the Constitution guarantee your privacy.

Then you admit Roe v. Wade was bad law...?

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!!

 

[daveman]

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtPluXq_hko]DJ Khaled "All I Do Is Win" feat. Ludacris, Rick Ross, Snoop Dogg & T-Pain - YouTube[/ame]

I wonder if there's been a court case about pathetic losers with a compulsive need to bring up ancient history in order to make themselves feel better about their loserdom?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People need thicker skin.

people here could use that advice.

 

[manifold]

Still @ braveman calling someone else a sissy bed wetter.

Carry on.

 

[tigerbob]

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals. I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter. Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?

The court agrees with the Brit in question.

So the court is sissy bedwetters, too. Did you really think you had a point?

And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.

Spoken like someone with no grasp of history. Public school education, huh?

Fraid so.

Oh, hang on, do you mean English public school or American public school?

 

[manifold]

Hey tigerbob,

If you want to see some actual sissy bed wetting, check this out (the whole thread is epic, but you can get the gist in these two posts):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-79.html#post5236435

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-87.html#post5243441