Announcement Websites Forced to Identify Trolls

[Simmo!]

Websites will soon to 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.

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

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Many such sites do not validate a user's ID, so trolls will simply sign up with fake details and use a proxy or VPN connection to render them untraceable via IP address. Facebook, for example, ask you for your full name and address, but there is no validation, and I regularly see users registering under "designer" names rather than their real names, and this goes unchallenged by Facebook.

Trolls would already be taking such measures because of the current threat of legal action, and making the process simpler would only make trolls more careful in the way they stay hidden.

Using IP addresses could also cause innocent people being accused of posting defamatory remarks, as IP address does not necessarily trace to an individual person, nor even an individual household. Converting IP address to an actual person would also involve the ISP, so whilst this law requires websites to hand over the details, these details will not necessarily be enough to find out who has made the posts.

 

[conker]

oh dear Simmo, does that mean you will have to cut back on abusing Mr Beacon

 

[Simmo!]

Raises an interesting point on a more serious note: where does "banter" cross the line and become "abuse" from a legal perspective? I would also assume that if someone replies to a troll in a similar way that might effectively weaken their position.

As long as the legislation is used in the right way, I think it's a good idea. There are far too many people who are too scared to abuse people when their identity is known but are only too happy to throw it around from within the comfort zone that anonymity offers.

But there's the rub: will the legislation be used in the right way? Like the Extradition treaties were supposed to be for suspected terrorists and the Safe Port act to counter a similar threat. There often seems to be a hidden political agenda that undermines public confidence.

 

[The Dude]

Raises an interesting point on a more serious note: where does "banter" cross the line and become "abuse" from a legal perspective? I would also assume that if someone replies to a troll in a similar way that might effectively weaken their position.

As long as the legislation is used in the right way, I think it's a good idea. There are far too many people who are too scared to abuse people when their identity is known but are only too happy to throw it around from within the comfort zone that anonymity offers.

But there's the rub: will the legislation be used in the right way? Like the Extradition treaties were supposed to be for suspected terrorists and the Safe Port act to counter a similar threat. There often seems to be a hidden political agenda that undermines public confidence.

I believe that being insulting, even though it's socially unacceptable in many cases, is protected by freedom of expression. It's when someone accuses another of either criminal, deviant, or immoral behavior etc., that is untrue and damages the person's reputation that the line is crossed. You have to show that you are being damaged in some way.

So I guess Mr. Beacon is fair game, eh?

 

[Silencio]

Hope this falls in the freedom of expression category, cause I wouldn't want to miss stuff like this.
How to troll an online dating site:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The new law seems aimed at making sure a victim knows who to sue. They will still need to pursue a case for libel in the normal manner. The problem with websites is that one cannot sue an alias, one needs the true identity of a person in order to serve proceedings. I think this is what the law is trying to achieve.

The problem will be making sure the right person is identified to start with.

I believe libel has to either cause damage, or have the potential to cause damage, so casual "banter" would not be covered, however some casual insults and remarks might because they stray into racist or sexist language, rather than because they damage another's reputation.