[Loco Fitter]

Originally Posted by SS4

I agree but how would you positively identify the suspect online?

Are most of these trolls clever enough to hide their IP address, or do they just think they won't be caught?

If it's something like facebook or here even, you have to use an email address to register, and when creating the email account you have to enter an address, and that also logs the IP address, surely?

[SS4]

Originally Posted by Loco Fitter

Are most of these trolls clever enough to hide their IP address, or do they just think they won't be caught?

If it's something like facebook or here even, you have to use an email address to register, and when creating the email account you have to enter an address, and that also logs the IP address, surely?

A bit of both I'd imagine. I support the proposals insofar as they will stop the idiot trolls and the bandwagon lot which is definitely a good thing. It won't stop the hardcore trolls (not to be confused with most vulgar).
My earlier posts were more with respect to the latter group, it's easy enough to hide your IP each and every time and there are disposable email addresses available.

An interesting precedent may be what happened in the case of The Pirate Bay after getting banned from various ISPs and what happened to its traffic

[LexyBoy]

So who would be wielding the power to force website owners to hand over users data? Would it still go via the courts?

Originally Posted by Badger

... or just bypassed with proxies (and are often dynamic anyway)?

7 of them preferably But by and large trolls are insecure morons who don't know how to internet.

Posted from 192.168.0.1

[MattRobinson]

Originally Posted by LexyBoy

Posted from 192.168.0.1

That's your private IP address used only within your network rather than your public IP address that is used on the internet itself. Google will tell you your public IP address if you search for a relevant search term (such as 'public IP address).

[swj99]

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

I'm not sure how that would work in practice.

For example, how would a prosecution solicitor prove whether the defendant had abused someone, or whether it was someone else with access to their wireless internet network (some wierdo hiding in the bushes at the bottom of the garden), or access (illegally of course) to their landline from up the road at the junction box ? Or like someone else quite rightly said, someone who has spoofed the IP address of another completely innocent internet user ?

[MattRobinson]

The first thought I had was to suggest that you should secure your WiFi, but then I remembered this, which I think is quite funny. Which reminds me to try to do this as an April Fools joke at some point.

[Badger]

Originally Posted by Loco Fitter

If it's something like facebook or here even, you have to use an email address to register, and when creating the email account you have to enter an address, and that also logs the IP address, surely?

It's a bit of a safeguard but even then you can easily set up an e-mail account without credentials (one site even lets you generate a temporary one for registering on accounts), registered with a proxy or spoofed IP, and then you're no more traceable than before.

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

Indeed they have no grounds for prosecution without searching the computer in question, and I'm not sure they should be given a warrant to search the computer based purely on IP address.

For one thing, multiple people in one household will be on the same IP address. Even worse for University halls of residence.

On top of that, wireless hotspots are again a major problem as the IP will be different each connection, etc. That's traceable as they'd record your details but still IP can be spoofed for this.

* "royal You", not speaking to anyone in particular

I am totally not saying Internet trolling isn't wrong or that the Internet can't be policed, but this is not the way to do it, and laws with massive loopholes like this shouldn't exist.

And yeah there are some very nasty people out there who would do this stuff. Facebook trolling, even these hate campaigns, are nothing compared to some of the people out there - private forums, IRC networks, etc. From coolcat "hackers" who do this sort of thing for reputation and fame, to genuine malicious nutcases who just like destroying people. I upset one of these people and well, I had to cancel my cards and everything and still don't have access to my former main e-mail account.

[NSEFAN]

Surely this legislation is largely redundant if sites have a moderation team, like this one? If a particular user is being a pratt, others can report him/her and appropriate action can be taken.

For sites which aren't well moderated, it seems like a waste of time to try and track people for the reasons mentioned by other posters. I wonder how legislation like this would go down in the USA, given that freedom of speech is more important than being offended over there.

[SS4]

Originally Posted by NSEFAN

Surely this legislation is largely redundant if sites have a moderation team, like this one? If a particular user is being a pratt, others can report him/her and appropriate action can be taken.

For sites which aren't well moderated, it seems like a waste of time to try and track people for the reasons mentioned by other posters. I wonder how legislation like this would go down in the USA, given that freedom of speech is more important than being offended over there.

It would probably work like the DMCA works for copyright. A holder makes a complaint and the site must either challenge it in court or take it down. It's never the former because of lawyer fees and for websites based abroad it means having to go to the relevant US state and fight it

[LE Greys]

I think the question here is 'how can the enforcers enforce the unenforceable?', followed by 'who are the enforcers?' and 'what should they enforce?'. Really, I think we need to answer the second and third before we decide on the first. It also requires international standards, since the Internet is an international thing. How do we do that? Can a website base its servers in (the fictional) Buranda and then claim it is outside UK jurisdiction?

Really, I think someone has set himself an impossible task.

[NY Yankee]

Originally Posted by NSEFAN

Surely this legislation is largely redundant if sites have a moderation team, like this one? If a particular user is being a pratt, others can report him/her and appropriate action can be taken.

For sites which aren't well moderated, it seems like a waste of time to try and track people for the reasons mentioned by other posters. I wonder how legislation like this would go down in the USA, given that freedom of speech is more important than being offended over there.

I wish they had something like this for Subchat or NYC Transit Forums. At those sites people post profanity and bigoted remarks. Guys flame other guys and get away with it. I think in Arizona they tried to pass a law against cyberbullying, but it went nowhere.

[NSEFAN]

Originally Posted by NY Yankee

I wish they had something like this for Subchat or NYC Transit Forums. At those sites people post profanity and bigoted remarks. Guys flame other guys and get away with it. I think in Arizona they tried to pass a law against cyberbullying, but it went nowhere.

If a website is unpleasant then don't use it. If Subchat or any other website for that matter wants to drive away members then that's their problem. Whilst it is somewhat possible to stop casual trolls, if someone has set their heart on being hateful to somebody, it is very hard to stop them. Enforcing UK libel laws is almost impossible on an international platform like the internet. LE Greys has pretty much summed up my view on the matter:

Originally Posted by LE Greys

I think the question here is 'how can the enforcers enforce the unenforceable?', followed by 'who are the enforcers?' and 'what should they enforce?'. Really, I think we need to answer the second and third before we decide on the first. It also requires international standards, since the Internet is an international thing. How do we do that? Can a website base its servers in (the fictional) Buranda and then claim it is outside UK jurisdiction?

Really, I think someone has set himself an impossible task.

[LexyBoy]

Originally Posted by Matt_Robinson

That's your private IP address used only within your network rather than your public IP address that is used on the internet itself. Google will tell you your public IP address if you search for a relevant search term (such as 'public IP address).

I know... it was a joke (of sorts). How exactly an IP address is supposed to be any use I don't know - it's not rocket science to get yourself a new IP (protip: turn it off and on again) - so unless ISPs keep a record of which IP was assigned to which account holder (via their router's MAC address perhaps) at any given time then it's pretty meaningless. Plus, shared IPs as mentioned above.

[swj99]

As with a lot of things, it's not so much providing a solution to the problem, but giving the appearance of providing a solution to the problem.

Do you remember during the first round of the gulf war, when Iraq had invaded Kuwait ? Iraq was also firing what were called scud missiles towards Israel. In an effort to placate Israel and persuade it not to retaliate, the US provided Patriot surface to air missiles to Israel, which were supposed to intercept the scud missiles before they got to the Israeli border. But because the scud missiles were actually adapted for longer range (and thus being fired higher into the sky), they were breaking up on their way down. Consequently, what the Patriot missile actually locked onto was not the main part of the missile, but the remains of the fuel tank, in flames as it descended to earth. The point is, even though it didn't actually provide the claimed solution, it worked in that it helped to avoid a bad situation being made worse.
Maybe this legislation is the internet equivalent of a patriot missile, in that it won't really work but because of it, people will feel a lot safer.

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by swj99

As with a lot of things, it's not so much providing a solution to the problem, but giving the appearance of providing a solution to the problem.

Do you remember during the first round of the gulf war, when Iraq had invaded Kuwait ? Iraq was also firing what were called scud missiles towards Israel. In an effort to placate Israel and persuade it not to retaliate, the US provided Patriot surface to air missiles to Israel, which were supposed to intercept the scud missiles before they got to the Israeli border. But because the scud missiles were actually adapted for longer range (and thus being fired higher into the sky), they were breaking up on their way down. Consequently, what the Patriot missile actually locked onto was not the main part of the missile, but the remains of the fuel tank, in flames as it descended to earth. The point is, even though it didn't actually provide the claimed solution, it worked in that it helped to avoid a bad situation being made worse.
Maybe this legislation is the internet equivalent of a patriot missile, in that it won't really work but because of it, people will feel a lot safer.

That is a good point (and some interesting information, I always wondered what happened with the Patriots, why they seemed so successful on the news, yet we often hear they did not work). Making people feel more secure is a very old tactic. The same effect as 'Bobbies on the beat', which might not be the best way to prevent crime, but reduces the fear of it.