Internet troll identities to be revealed

[tigerbob]

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are.

 

[Politico]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

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

This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.

Apparently people didn't read your post or the article. This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, the Constitution or the US.

 

[tigerbob]

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

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

This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.

Apparently people didn't read your post or the article. This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, the Constitution or the US.

Appears some people are seeing the word "troll", making up their mind about what the article must therefore be saying, and spewing their response without actually reading it to make sure.

It's not unusual on this board, but it's a bit pathetic.

 

[Noomi]

People need thicker skin.

Yes and no. If you are accused of being a pedophile, and this news spreads, it damages your reputation.

Some trolls even go on Facebook pages set up for car crash victims and post the most horrible things. Those people should be named and shamed.

 

[Swagger]

I'm guessing this has more to do with combating malicious internet users on Facebook and other social media who taunt bereaved family members over the loss of loved ones. Though not illegal, it's on par with encouraging vulnerable people to commit suicide via chatrooms, in my opinion.

However, where does it stop? Like Koshergirl's alluded to, how long until any comment's guilty of piercing very thin skin, and the author finds themselves explaining their comments to a judge? Honestly, it's getting to the point where a) internet service providers will be required to warn their customers of potential offence caused online, and b) I'm beginning to despair with humans altogether.

 

[tigerbob]

People need thicker skin.

Yes and no. If you are accused of being a pedophile, and this news spreads, it damages your reputation.

Some trolls even go on Facebook pages set up for car crash victims and post the most horrible things. Those people should be named and shamed.

While I have sympathy for the victims of the example you've cited, I can't agree.

If someone is merely insulting they can be blocked and ignored. IMO that's entirely different to deliberately defaming someone under their real name with intent to damage their reputation.

 

[Noomi]

People need thicker skin.

Yes and no. If you are accused of being a pedophile, and this news spreads, it damages your reputation.

Some trolls even go on Facebook pages set up for car crash victims and post the most horrible things. Those people should be named and shamed.

While I have sympathy for the victims of the example you've cited, I can't agree.

If someone is merely insulting they can be blocked and ignored. IMO that's entirely different to deliberately defaming someone under their real name with intent to damage their reputation.

It is still offensive and hurtful to the family, but I agree, trolls like these shouldn't be prosecuted, but those who spread lies about someone, damaging their reputation should be.

 

[koshergrl]

Nope. Reputation is just reputation. You can't legislate against gossip. And what would happen sooner rather than later is people would get thrown in jail for daring to speak out against the practices of other people.

Obama would like to silence the opposition now. He already has "truth squads" circulating...."re-educating" people.

 

[tigerbob]

Nope. Reputation is just reputation. You can't legislate against gossip. And what would happen sooner rather than later is people would get thrown in jail for daring to speak out against the practices of other people.

Obama would like to silence the opposition now. He already has "truth squads" circulating...."re-educating" people.

At the risk of repeating myself yet again, you're still missing the point.

1. I couldn't give a crap about what Obama is doing.
2. This isn't about America.
3. This isn't "gossip", it's a malicious personal attack with deliberate intent to defame the character of a private individual.
4. It's the person's real identity that has been attacked, not a screen name.
5. You can legislate about this kind of thing. The OP talks specifically about the process.
6. There are already libel and slander laws in existence.
7. The court agreed with the plaintiff's case.
8. Facebook did not dispute it and is complying.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"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."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"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.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph

That won't fly in the USA. It totally violates our rights to privacy.

 

[Dot Com]

I might term the people involved "stalkers" rather than "trollers". There's a line one crosses when they start setting up fake sites to mimick their victim. Stalkers are a menace where they exist.

 

[tigerbob]

I might term the people involved "stalkers" rather than "trollers". There's a line one crosses when they start setting up fake sites to mimick their victim. Stalkers are a menace where they exist.

I agree, but that was the term used in the article I quoted. If people actually read the article as you clearly have it should be evident what is under debate.

 

[tigerbob]

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"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."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"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.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph

That won't fly in the USA. It totally violates our rights to privacy.

Privacy meaning anonymity?

 

[Foxfyre]

Noomi is right though that libel and slander--that which maliciously and erroneously damages a person's reputation and/or means of earning a living--should be a prosecutable offense. In fact it IS a prosecutable offense on the books in every state so far as I know. Nobody should be allowed to destroy another person out of malice with lies and false accusation and innuendo without there being consequences for that.

Laws against cyber bullying and pure meanness are something else though, and I honestly don't know what the answer is there. Should one of you be allowed to maliciously destroy my ability to use Facebook or USMB for that matter and do so with impunity? My gut says no; my common sense says it is very difficult to police. What is one man's hurtful insult is just sport to another.

This is a tough one.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph

That won't fly in the USA. It totally violates our rights to privacy.

Privacy meaning anonymity?

Nah I meant privacy. Just because I use a bank, shop at a store, or post on an internet site doesn't give the owners of those businesses a right to disclose my personal information without me first agreeing to it.

Now, if under the TOS when you log in it says "Your personal information may be made available to 3rd parties" then that is differnet as you are agreeing to letting your information go out there. However, under current law, this thing going on in Britian won't be allowed here.

 

[tigerbob]

Noomi is right though that libel and slander--that which maliciously and erroneously damages a person's reputation and/or means of earning a living--should be a prosecutable offense. In fact it IS a prosecutable offense on the books in every state so far as I know. Nobody should be allowed to destroy another person out of malice with lies and false accusation and innuendo without there being consequences for that.

Laws against cyber bullying and pure meanness are something else though, and I honestly don't know what the answer is there. Should one of you be allowed to maliciously destroy my ability to use Facebook or USMB for that matter and do so with impunity? My gut says no; my common sense says it is very difficult to police. What is one man's hurtful insult is just sport to another.

This is a tough one.

Yes I agree. Difficult to know where to draw the line. I think in this case it's drawn in the right place, but I've seem a number of much greyer areas over the last few weeks while reading up about this.

Tough one.

 

[tigerbob]

That won't fly in the USA. It totally violates our rights to privacy.

Privacy meaning anonymity?

Nah I meant privacy. Just because I use a bank, shop at a store, or post on an internet site doesn't give the owners of those businesses a right to disclose my personal information without me first agreeing to it.

Now, if under the TOS when you log in it says "Your personal information may be made available to 3rd parties" then that is differnet as you are agreeing to letting your information go out there. However, under current law, this thing going on in Britian won't be allowed here.

I've just had a look at f/b's privacy policy and, buried deep within it is this question and answer...

May I obtain any information about a user's account using a civil subpoena?
Facebook may provide basic subscriber information (not content) to a party in a civil matter only where: 1) the requested information is indispensable to the case and not within the party’s possession; and 2) you personally serve a valid California or federal subpoena on Facebook. Out-of-state civil subpoenas must be domesticated in California and personally served on Facebook’s registered agent.

Parties seeking basic subscriber information as set forth above must specifically identify the account by providing the email address, Facebook user ID (UID) and vanity URL (if any) Names, birthdays, locations, and other information are insufficient to identify a Facebook account. UIDs and/or vanity URLs may be found in the uniform resource locator available in a browser displaying the account in question. For example, in the URL Profile Unavailable | Facebook, 12345678910 is the UID.

This seems to imply that if, for example, a UK individual obtained a subpoena in a UK court and served it in California (as indeed appears to be the case in the OP), then Facebook would release the required user account details, irrespective of whether the account was based in the UK or the US.

Whether a British court thereafter had any jurisdiction on a US Citizen living in the US is, of course, an entirely different matter.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Privacy meaning anonymity?

Nah I meant privacy. Just because I use a bank, shop at a store, or post on an internet site doesn't give the owners of those businesses a right to disclose my personal information without me first agreeing to it.

Now, if under the TOS when you log in it says "Your personal information may be made available to 3rd parties" then that is differnet as you are agreeing to letting your information go out there. However, under current law, this thing going on in Britian won't be allowed here.

I've just had a look at f/b's privacy policy and, buried deep within it is this question and answer...

May I obtain any information about a user's account using a civil subpoena?
Facebook may provide basic subscriber information (not content) to a party in a civil matter only where: 1) the requested information is indispensable to the case and not within the party’s possession; and 2) you personally serve a valid California or federal subpoena on Facebook. Out-of-state civil subpoenas must be domesticated in California and personally served on Facebook’s registered agent.

Parties seeking basic subscriber information as set forth above must specifically identify the account by providing the email address, Facebook user ID (UID) and vanity URL (if any) Names, birthdays, locations, and other information are insufficient to identify a Facebook account. UIDs and/or vanity URLs may be found in the uniform resource locator available in a browser displaying the account in question. For example, in the URL Profile Unavailable | Facebook, 12345678910 is the UID.

This seems to imply that if, for example, a UK individual obtained a subpoena in a UK court and served it in California (as indeed appears to be the case in the OP), then Facebook would release the required user account details, irrespective of whether the account was based in the UK or the US.

Whether a British court thereafter had any jurisdiction on a US Citizen living in the US is, of course, an entirely different matter.

It does appear that way and it does appear legal under the TOS agreement everyone signs each time they log into facebook

And that is why I read the TOS and privacy policies!

look at the USMB's.........

 

[Dante]

The thread that shook the world of usmb to it's kneepads

QUOTE="tigerbob, post: 5544513, member: 7053"]

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"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."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"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.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

Well done Ms Brookes.

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph[/QUOTE]