yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Off-topic] dligon:
tHIS IS GOINg to suck for trolling. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/12/defamation-bill-moves-to-unmask-trolls_n_1588793.html
[Off-topic] Nigeldg:
Not sure if this is trolling, or it's just a retarded idea :p I really don't see this working if it's real though. It could easily be abused either by the trolls themselves or by noobs who feel they're being hard-done by when they're told to search the forums.
[Off-topic] dexter93:
funny article is funny

:cool:
[Off-topic] SimonTS:
Isn't it funny how people read a news headline and don't bother either reading the full article or researching the background behind afore-mentioned article.

This is not a plan to clamp down on people posting idiotic comments in an Off-Topic forum. This is aimed at finding and prosecuting the people who post nasty, malicious comments on the Facebook page of a 13 year old girl who took her own life. Is there a single person on this forum who thinks that is acceptable behaviour or who feels that sort of 'troll' should be protected from legal action?
[Off-topic] Archer:
There was one recently where the guy got prosecuted for "trolling", as it was called. He'd been leaving comments on facebook pages of people who had died, and their family members. But it was posted on here saying "We'd best be careful or we'll get arrested!"

Really not the same thing. I don't think there's many people on this forum that would even hesitate to report that kind of foul behaviour, let alone do it!

I'm pretty sure it would be insta-perma-ban, without warning.
[Off-topic] Pop Tarantula:
UK news this morning featured a segment on an 'internetz troll'.. he was a short fat fugly old dude with a long pointy goatee.. talk about visual onomatpoiea

Edit: here we go.. Frank Zimmerman, Troll ...

Desire HD : CM7.2.0 RC3 : Tapatalk 2.1.3
[Off-topic] husam666:
mfw
[Off-topic] Aiwa:
It says:

So it's not entirely aimed at that Facebook page, it's aimed at the internet community as a whole. Every site there is a troll who posts malicious comments, some are funny trolls & friendly once you get to know them, some will stop at nothing to make people's lives hell.

I think that's abit stupid. Helping to uncover surely must breach the law of privacy?
[Off-topic] wilbso:
My thought are,

This is either a really good idea that might help people post with no worries (?)

Or its the most dumbass idea that might get xda closed down....just my thoughts :D

W!LßSO @ XDA
[Off-topic] MissionImprobable:
I see you quoted but how much of the article did you read in-depth? It's written to suggest that a very high burden of proof will be required for action to be taken. Jazek and the rest of us are safe.
[Off-topic] wilbso:
Is M_T_M? I like him :D

W!LßSO @ XDA
[Off-topic] 85gallon:
Queue the music.....
[Off-topic] dligon:
so how many forums and websites and such may get shut down or have their members ratted out if they don't comply.
[Off-topic] MissionImprobable:
Yes, just write your friends' names right here in zee book as we discussed. No, no, nozing will happen to them, we just want to ask them a few routine questions.
[Off-topic] conantroutman:
Who gives a ****? If they aren't willing to pass on the details of somebody that has committed an offence then they should be shut down.

Sent From My Fingers To Your Face.....
[Off-topic] SimonTS:
Quite scary to be saying this but ... the voice of common sense and reason :D
[Off-topic] dligon:
true but if bills and laws like SOPA ever get passed then this will become common.
[Off-topic] 85gallon:
The problem is what an offense is going to morph in to. One day you may get reported for telling someone they are too stupid for the internet.
[Off-topic] conantroutman:
Ah well that's when things will begin to suck....

Sent From My Fingers To Your Face.....
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
I can honestly say I am glad that is an article from the UK and not the US.

Do I think it is right to malevolently attack others online? No.

Do I support their first amendment rights to do so? Yes.

If you stop people from being able to make asinine derogatory remarks online that is only the begining to the end of the freedom of speech.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemöller
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Excuse me? You think it's acceptable for someone to find a memorial page of a child and flood it with comments that they deserved to die, should have been killed at birth, should have their body passed around a group of necrophilics, should have the rest of their family killed?

Really?
[Off-topic] MissionImprobable:
^What he said. When it goes that far or when someone is hounded to the point of suicide it's harrassment, not free speech. If you call someone a whore in print you can be sued for liable, if you say it to them in person it can be considered verbal assault or slander, but if you do the same thing on the net you can get away with it. The laws need to be fixed. Sorry, no, you can't just do and say whatever you want simply because it's online.
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
I am pretty sure I already said that I personally think it is wrong. Let me check...yep I did say that. However I personally believe that the first amendment should cover ALL forms of free speech. If you restrict what people can and can't say than how the hell can you call it free speech?
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Really? You said:

"Do I think it is wrong to malevolently attack others online? No."
[Off-topic] amerkiller1995:
The police has to be prepared to arrest thousands of 12 year olds playing Call of Duty.

They constantly make "defamatory statements" :p
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
lol I meant to say right. My bad. 12 hour shifts at work are messing with my mind.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Lol just questioned myself when I re read your post and thought I'd got it wrong :)

The bill isn't talking about a one off instance on a forum like if I were to call you a Berk (using the word the rhyming slang means) but when there is actual harassment either through stalking or abuse.

We've had people kill themselves due to such abuse, and in the US on a suicide support forum you've had a man pretending to be a female nurse and through pm's had several girls commit suicide.

Any forum admin that not only allows such activity but refuses to hand over their details is as guilty as the poster.

I've been on a forum where the admins played favouritism and one guy was publicly accused of being a pedophile and nothing was done as the admin team liked the accuser. Likewise when one of the admin team posted "6 million Jews isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things" (this was on a cable tv support forum) and despite outcry from other members nothing was done, so there are times where the law, or just the threat of the law, are needed to make people keep their sites in order.

As for the freedom of speech, do you truly believe the founding fathers meant you should face no penalty for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and causing panic?
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
But that's the thing it should be the websites responsibility to deal with it themselves. There shouldn't be a law that says we can now tell you what you can and can not say. If a person doesn't like what is being said on a particular website then all they have to do is stop visiting that website. It honestly is that simple.

It's like the whole outlawing smoking in restaurants. The law shouldn't have the right to tell a restaurant owner that they can't allow someone to smoke in their establishment. If people go there and see that smoking isn't allowed than here's a thought, don't go there. It's not like someone is holding a gun to these peoples heads and forcing them to go to the websites on which they are being harassed.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
What about staff? Don't work here if you don't want to be exposed to smoke? Well that's a lot of people suddenly out of work. Not to mention higher electricity bills for the restaurants for having to run extractor fans. When the smoking ban came in non-smoking pub staff members were impacted the most, or perhaps it would be better to say their families were most affected. You see they were mildly addicted to nicotine through passive smoking so while staff who smoked just had one or two extra fags a day, the non smokers went through withdrawal.

With the health costs from smoking it would be irresponsible of governments not to deter its practice, even when you are unfortunate enough not to have a NHS the more treating smokers costs insurance companies the higher their premiums will be.

Why should someone be unable to use Facebook because they've been targeted by trolls?

It's like saying if a kid is bullied in school they should be excluded not the bullies.
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
Last I checked no one is forcing those people to work at establishments that allow smoking.

As far as Facebook goes you can lock down your profile to where no one can see/post on it except your friends and you can ban/block users as well. I fail to see where the problem is.

I will say that one of the problems today is the fact that everyone is preaching to these kids that they shouldn't retaliate to anything a "bully" does. That is the stupidest thing you could possibly teach them. If you teach the kid to simply run and hide behind the skirt of an adult because they are being picked on what the hell is going to happen to that kid when they grow up and realize once they hit the real world there is no one to hide behind? If parents/teachers would teach kids to simply defend themselves we wouldn't need stupid laws like this to be passed. People should police their own, they shouldn't have to have the government come in and say what they can and can not do in all aspects of life.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
But you're suggesting people should run and hide from trolls.

Many of the pages that are attacked need to be public as they are set up to publicise a charity or similar fund raising.

Sure the offending posts can be removed but the damage has been done. Ok so you don't see a problem with grieving parents having to see posts saying their dead daughter should be dug up and shagged or deserved to be run over and dragged along the street to their death, but most of us do have a problem with that.

As I said, it would be irresponsible for a government to not try and deter people smoking.

The argument that it is better to have someone unemployed than working in a non carcinogenic environment is a bizarre one at best.
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
The only problem with that is where do they draw the line on what is offensive? Seeing as how everything is bound to offend someone in some way should we just ban speech in general?
[Off-topic] Hexgore:
It's trying to stop the really bad cases which aren't really trolling but are more like harassment. This, IMHO, is a more acceptable goal.

However, this law won't work. All you've got to do is hide behind a proxy, Tor, or a VPN service and it doesn't matter if the site reveals your IP address anyway. Plus it's obvious that it's easy to abuse if websites are scared of being sued and just end up handing over the details of innocent people who may not have this protection in place.

That said, an IP on its own won't do much. If someone has your IP I guess they could try to get into your computer or something, but if you have a firewall blocking all incoming connections then it'd be very difficult for someone to do that. Not to mention you can just reset your router to get a new IP allocated to you anyway.

The idea is that this IP could be taken to court so the courts could force the ISP to identify who the user is and the affected party can take legal action against them, but that rarely works because logs aren't kept for long enough - by the time the legal process of getting a court order to make the ISPs hand over subscriber information is complete, the ISPs no longer have it, and any information they do have may be inaccurate. This means even if the people using this law are doing so for good reason, they will still find it hard to track down the real offending party and it will still be a long, stressful, and expensive legal process.

TL;DR: It targets harassers rather than normal trolls but the law itself is useless and will not work at stopping anyone who can use a VPN.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
That's why we have juries. In the UK we have the obscene publications act, I can't think of any cases resulting in a conviction.

Even Lady Chatterly's Lover, published in 1960 uncensored in the UK, containing multiple instances of the F and C words was found not to be guilty.

We sent most of our prudes over to New England by the looks of things. ;)

So in order for the web host to have to hand over someone's details the authorities would have to believe that there would be a high chance of conviction.

The bill will state specifics which must be met in order to be found guilty.

Thankfully the current lot in power here seem to have a better grasp on how to actually write laws, so we shouldn't get any attempts to force every motorbike to be registered every year including ones used in artwork or in museums, yeah scarily it took two readings in the Commons to realise their mistake, or situations where it is easier to get hold of a lethal air rifle than a non lethal air soft gun.

We also have the house of Lords which despite attempts to get rid of it for being "out of touch and elitist" since 1997 has shown time and time again to be more in touch with the people than the government of the time, holding them in check and defending our freedoms.

---------- Post added at 01:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 AM ----------

Most trolls wouldn't know how to obfuscate their IP address.

Also don't forget there's another bill that will require ISP and telephone companies keep information like IP allocation for a year in case the authorities need it.

Unlike the paranoid conspiracy theorists the content of emails and websites visited won't be stored, only the destination address and date stamp. So they'll know who you sent an email to on the 14th February but won't know the content.

The idea is to show communication took place so both parties are linked and to then use that evidence to get a warrant to access the content of future communications and any saved emails.
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
lol don't get me started on gun control :p

I completely understand what your saying I just personally believe in personal accountability. I just see zero need for laws like this. But to each their own I guess.

I would like to thank you(xaccers) and Hexgore for actually contributing to the discussion in a rational and mature manner. If you can't tell I very much love to debate issues and it's nice to be able to do that with people who don't resort to flaming.
[Off-topic] Hexgore:
Most trolls are fairly tech savvy so I think they do, and with the increasing threat of more internet monitoring from the government and censorship from the copyright industry, more and more people in general will begin using VPNs.

I believe it's actually six months ISPs have to keep records for, not a year. And BT was, on at least one occasion, unable to provide information of subscribers because the court process took longer than this period. ISPs in general are reluctant to hand over any customer information since the whole ACS:Law thing, in fact.

If you use a VPN, of course, ISPs will literally be unable to keep any record of your actual browsing activity at all, so even if you somehow get the VPN's IP linked with the user's IP (almost impossible if you use a service like AirVPN) and you go through the whole legal process, you still can't get any information if the person knows what they're doing. Again, most trolls are very tech savvy and probably already at least use simple proxies.
[Off-topic] MissionImprobable:
Most trolls may be knowledgeable, but most idiotic neighbors and teen cliques ganging up to harass others aren't. The people this is meant to catch will be caught and it likely won't take long before people realize it's not okay to hound someone just because it's on the net.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
That is why they're trying to get a new law through at the moment.

---------- Post added at 10:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

You are most welcome :)
[Off-topic] Phalanx7621:
So if u like doing something.....smoking pot for example....and its all of a sudden made illegal where u are and there is a risk of getting in trouble. Do u simply stop? Or do u look for ways to not get into trouble. While continuing to do what u like to do. The more laws there are, the more lawlessness there will be. The tighter the noose gets on personal freedoms, the more people will struggle against it.
[Off-topic] StormMcCloud:
Amen to that!
[Off-topic] Hexgore:
But, for the reasons I've just explained, that law will be useless.

I don't really do anything bad online but I too will be getting a VPN service if that new snooping bill becomes law because there's no way I'm letting the authorities rifle through my private communications and call it protection.

BRB off to watch V for Vendetta.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
Excellent film.

The thing is, most of the people this bill targets do not know how to hide themselves, especially those who use Facebook to abuse others.

Even before the bill becomes law, in whatever watered down final version it takes, it will already stop some attacks because of the fear of prosecution.

The recent convictions of trolls and then courts directing websites to hand over the identities of other trolls so they can be prosecuted by their victim has already had people thinking twice about participating in future attacks.

You aren't allowed to harass or abuse me off line so why should you be protected so you can do it on line?
[Off-topic] Hexgore:
Did you watch the BBC's recent Panorama on trolls? They interviewed a Facebook troll on there who specifically said we wasn't scared of getting prosecuted because the maximum he'd do is two months. This guy wasn't employed anyway so he wasn't worried about that.

If we're talking about people who don't dedicate their whole lives to it like that guy clearly does, then I'm sure it's not above their range of skills to do 20 minutes of research to learn how they can better hide themselves online before they continue doing what they always have.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea behind the law - if someone is engaging in actual harassment rather than your standard trolling, and especially if they're affecting the real life of another person, they should be stopped. I just don't see this legislation being effective at doing anything since anonymising yourself online is such a simple task these days.

The defamation bill overall, though, aside from the whole anti-trolling clause, is a step up from what it was and it helps freedom of speech. Our current libel laws are terrible and the new bill eases the rules up a bit and should help to stop the culture of scaring people into silence with expensive lawsuits, not to mention the libel tourism.

But I stand by my point: this particular measure will not work.
[Off-topic] xaccers:
The BBC specifically source people to fit with their program agenda, they've always done that and always will, so showing one person with a particular viewpoint and leaving you to think that is what everyone from that group thinks/is able to do is Auntie's modus operandi. Just because one person says he isn't bothered doesn't actually mean he's not bothered, and it certainly doesn't mean he'd actually be willing to do time for it especially as it would potentially affect his benefits.

Likewise with those that have no idea that you can hide your identity it is irrelevant as to how easy it is to set up, they are going to be targetable by the act.
[Off-topic] Hexgore:
Of course they do, but there's people out there who do actually think like that and don't really care if they go to jail or not. They are in the minority but again it doesn't matter because those who are more worried will simply look up how to hide themselves.

Those who don't know how to do something so simple won't be the real threat anyway.
[Off-topic] 85gallon:
Slow down people.

You are making much ado about nothing really. I think it mainly comes from Arianna Huffington trying to be sensationalist with her headlines. Imagine that! *****!!!

Laws for libel and slander are already on the books. And they already do apply to things posted online. The article cites that and talks about several people that have been prosecuted for it and/or sanctioned under current laws.

The main points of the legislation is that court orders no longer need to be heard by the High Court. Looking at court strutures in England, best I can tell that is our US equivalent of Federal Court. It basically means that lower courts will have jurisdiction to issue subpoenas to ISP's. It doesn't change the litmus tests for whether an offense has been committed. It just means that cases can be filed in the US equivalent of district court.

And this part is good for trolls:

1. It sets a one year time limit to sue.

2. It is a single instance of libel no matter how many people view it. Under current law, for each time the page is viewed that is a separate occurance.

3. Reposting of old "offensive" materials is not a new occurance and therefore basis for another lawsuit.

Libel laws already apply.

And contrary to what someone said above, this is NOT what juries are for. Juries are for deciding whether an offense occurred where there is sufficient evidence to proceed. They are not for deciding frivolous claims. Judges usually weed out frivolous claims though a few get through.

Also, it does not change the standards for Libel and Slander. The ultimate defense to libel and slander is the TRUTH.

You can call someone a baby-killer all you want, as many times you want, if they indeed killed a baby.
[Off-topic] Hexgore:
I guess we can consider ourselves lawyered :p
[Off-topic] 85gallon:
Hey, I just looked at the article and discounted the headline.

But then again the article was written by a reporter. LOL So the points made in the article probably don't reflect reality. They are all ****ing idiots! :D
[Off-topic] MissionImprobable:
Smoking pot and harassing people to the point of suicide are two completely separate situations, on top of which pot laws are becoming more and more lax and pot crimes in many places are being prosecuted less and less so your point is even less valid.

Sorry that you aren't capable of empathizing with people who have been victimized this way. I guess the people who cost the Coast Guard $300,000 with a false rescue call and who almost got a family killed by a SWAT team when they phoned in a fake multiple murder situation shouldn't be prosecuted either because that will just lead to more lawlessness as well. :rolleyes: Just because crimes are committed online doesn't make them any less crimes that if they were perpetrated face-to-face.
[Off-topic] Archer:
Okay, I let this fly to see where it would go, but it's got onto topics that are a no-no. So kudos for not flaming the crap out of each other while discussing it, but this is too political and therefore...

Thread closed.