Websites to be forced to identify trolls

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Do you not think it's actually a reasonable idea that the person whose computer it is should be held responsible for any content posted from it?

Nope, Otherwise you'd be opening up claims for stabbing someone if someone used your kitchen knife or doing the owner of the car for speeding as well as the driver.. (only MOT and TAX rules allow the owner to be prosecuted if you allow a third party because you know the fact before you hand over the keys as you are the registered keeper)

You can't commit a crime if your property was used by a third party as a medium to commit that crime. Only if your property becomes the crime (as in my previous example of storage of under-age images) and you know about it you do become responsible.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by carlwaring;35440249
Whether any given comment is [B

actually[/B] defamatory can only be decided in a court of law. Which is why libel cases are brought; ie to make that determination.

And in the Cable Forum court of law, we make the rules. I'm not discussing this with you any further. Either accept CF's decisions or find another forum, simple.

Another news report from the BBC, linked to the link in the OP.

Q&A: Who are internet trolls - and how is the law changing?

....Trolls may exist in any online community that allows comments from users - for example, video-streaming sites, such as YouTube and online video-games sites.

They can act individually or in groups - known as "colluding" trolls. One member of such a group often behaves as the obvious troll, while the others disguise themselves as normal members of the online community.

These trolls in disguise then defend the comments of the overt one.
Trolls may also target the recently bereaved, posting offensive material about the dead person.

After 17-year-old Charlotte Porter died in 2010, her parents said that her memory had been "destroyed" by abusive online messages on her Facebook memorial site.

One of the latest examples of an internet troll is Frank Zimmerman, who was given a 26-week suspended prison sentence after sending an offensive email to Corby MP Louise Mensch.

He was also banned from contacting a host of celebrities, including Lord Sugar.

[danielf]

From the link posted by Damien:

If people think that there is defamatory content being posted about them online, instead of taking action against the website where the information appears, they can ask the website operator to give them the name of the person who posted the remarks.

This way, they can take legal action against trolls directly, requiring them to remove the defamatory posts.

Okay, so it's still not clear how it's going to work. Will site owners be obliged to comply? Will people have to proof a statement is defamatory? Or can I simply ask CF to give me the name/ip of someone I don't like? And how does this sit with DPA? I think we're going to need a lot more detail before we can judge this.

[Kymmy]

It would require a court order otherwise they'd be all sorts of privacy issues

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Nope, Otherwise you'd be opening up claims for stabbing someone if someone used your kitchen knife or doing the owner of the car for speeding as well as the driver.

Right. 'Cos you can do both of those with a PC

And people say I sometimes come up with stupid stuff

---------- Post added at 15:02 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

And in the Cable Forum court of law, we make the rules.

You make the rules of this Forum but you do not make the law.

Either accept CF's decisions...

And where did I say I do not

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Right. 'Cos you can do both of those with a PC

And people say I sometimes come up with stupid stuff

Yet it would be covered by the same "It's your equipment so you're at fault" rule from your stupid claim

You really didn't grasp the analogy there did you and you were actually comparing a knife to a computer??? Best laugh I've had all year!!!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

Or can I simply ask CF to give me the name/ip of someone I don't like? And how does this sit with DPA? I think we're going to need a lot more detail before we can judge this.

Firstly CF isn't subject to the DPA. A high percentage of door-slammers (people who threaten to leave CF in the hope it'll annoy someone) order us to delete their details under the rules of the DPA. The server is based in Germany and the site owner resides in Canada so it wouldn't apply.

We wouldn't give out someone's details just like that if a member requests them. If were were approached by a court or the police, we would then comply.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

You make the rules of this Forum but you do not make the law.

I've not said that we do.

If the team decides that something you post is libellous, we will remove it and no armchair lawyer will change our minds.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

Might run into problems with the VPN is from another country. They may not be bothered enough to go that far.

There are tons of truly anonymous proxies and vpn's out there.

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

I wonder if this'll put an end to 'radical reform'......

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

That's not the info they are after, instead it'll be time/date/IP/Email and from there they'll then approach the ISP's (via a court order) for the account holders info. That's when the police will start knocking on doors and confiscating PC's as evidence

A really dedicated Internet troll can find means to evade giving out any traceable information if they want to

Originally Posted by Sirius

There are tons of truly anonymous proxies and vpn's out there.







A really dedicated Internet troll can find means to evade giving out any traceable information if they want to

True - but most probably won't - so, if it stops 95%, that's a start....

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Yet it would be covered by the same "It's your equipment so you're at fault" rule from your stupid claim

You really didn't grasp the analogy there did you and you were actually comparing a knife to a computer??? Best laugh I've had all year!!!

No. I did get it. I really did. I just didn't think it was that good.

---------- Post added at 16:39 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

If the team decides that something you post is libellous, we will remove it and no armchair lawyer will change our minds.

Not exactly what I meant but never mind.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

I don't think the trolls will give a crap - either the ones on this site or elsewhere.

It won't affect the trolls on this site. they're nowhere near bad enough for it to affect them.

but the scary thing is, that if people think they are, then it's time to get the cotton wool and the soothing cream out.

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Originally Posted by carlwaring

But there's no need to be rude about it.

If this thing was inforce at the moment Carl, you could have demanded her details because she's upset you

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:13 ----------

What about the driveby trolls. the ones who use unsecured WiFi?

we need to make it law that all wifi should be secured.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

No. I did get it. I really did. I just didn't think it was that good.

On thinking it over I'm not sure my point was actually that good either

[Fawkes]

Need to see the detail of how this will work in practice, but I for one will not but demanding anyone's identity.
Stupid people say stupid things. I ignore stupid people.

[carlwaring]

^ Yep. Pretty-much my thoughts.