Quote:

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures. Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity. 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, will 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. 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. Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star. "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." Privacy concerns But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions". "A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International. "However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

Quote: Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures. Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity. 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, will 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. 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. Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star. "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." Privacy concerns But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions". "A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International. "However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

Troll...that be anyone who holds a different opinion to you...

Troll...that be anyone who holds a different opinion to you...

Actually Gizmo it would be anyone that is able to spell and string  a sentence together, unlike Valley Boy.

Here you are cods, you be alright now

I ask this question before and no liberal supporter would answer

Why should Gina Rinehart get tax cuts before parents get the school kids bonus?

So how can answer it

"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."

.....................................................................

Will freediver give up their identity?

I'm sure he will, without even a twisting of the arm.

I don't think they will be that easy to track down though.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 6:47am:

"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." ..................................................................... Will freediver give up their identity? I'm sure he will, without even a twisting of the arm. I don't think they will be that easy to track down though.

From memory of when I joined - freediver doesnt collect identity information. He only makes sure you are human and not a bot. He doesnt have the information to release. Only IP addresses which MOST ppl have dynamic anyway.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 7:02am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:47am: "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." ..................................................................... Will freediver give up their identity? I'm sure he will, without even a twisting of the arm. I don't think they will be that easy to track down though. From memory of when I joined - freediver doesnt collect identity information. He only makes sure you are human and not a bot. He doesnt have the information to release. Only IP addresses which MOST ppl have dynamic anyway. SOB

They would probably have to go through your ISP to get your home address.

I'm sure if they checked on our resident trolls they would all belong to the same address.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:46pm:

Troll...that be anyone who holds a different opinion to you... Actually Gizmo it would be anyone that is able to spell and string  a sentence together, unlike Valley Boy. Here you are cods, you be alright now I ask this question before and no liberal supporter would answer Why should Gina Rinehart get tax cuts before parents get the school kids bonus? So how can answer it

Spelling, grammar and comprehension are not strong points among Leftards...

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 8:04am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:02am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:47am: "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." ..................................................................... Will freediver give up their identity? I'm sure he will, without even a twisting of the arm. I don't think they will be that easy to track down though. From memory of when I joined - freediver doesnt collect identity information. He only makes sure you are human and not a bot. He doesnt have the information to release. Only IP addresses which MOST ppl have dynamic anyway. SOB They would probably have to go through your ISP to get your home address. I'm sure if they checked on our resident trolls they would all belong to the same address.

ISPs will not give up such infor without a warrant or similar official demand. I cannot go in and demand the name and address of someone based on their IP address. At least in australia, laws like this simply give you an IP address which then still needs to be referred to the police or a lawyer to get a warrant to obtaing the name and address.

However I still think the law is silly. I agree with holding people to account but the process needs to be difficult - not simple - to prevent abuse of that law. Perhaps a simple authority that can at least determine if there is a prima facie case of demafation before aking sites to hand over that info.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:46pm:

Troll...that be anyone who holds a different opinion to you... Actually Gizmo it would be anyone that is able to spell and string  a sentence together, unlike Valley Boy. Here you are cods, you be alright now I ask this question before and no liberal supporter would answer Why should Gina Rinehart get tax cuts before parents get the school kids bonus? So how can answer it

Here is a member that can't debate or discuss any post that is put on here, all he can do is attack the messenger.

When is he going to grow up and learn how to debate and discuss what members post on here instead of him putting his cheap shots on.

angelseyes any more posts I put on here and you carry on with your cheap shots I will report you to FD, if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all.

angelseyes any more posts I put on here and you carry on with your cheap shots I will report you to FD, if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all.

"if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all."



Who am I, I do discuss your posts. The above is atrocious.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 12:31pm:

angelseyes any more posts I put on here and you carry on with your cheap shots I will report you to FD, if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all. "if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all." Who am I, I do discuss your posts. The above is atrocious.

Unfortunately for us, VB, dunceye's puny brain went the way of her puny dick - bloody and lifeless on the kitchen table apparently.

You're best to ignore it or just laugh at it - it's as stupid as they come. Certainly too stupid to understand that anti-troll provisions may actually apply to it.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 12:31pm:

angelseyes any more posts I put on here and you carry on with your cheap shots I will report you to FD, if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all. "if you can't debate or discuss the any of my post don't reply at all." Who am I, I do discuss your posts. The above is atrocious.

the Village Idiot needs to start learning basic grammar as well as dropping the attitude.