# Internet troll identities to be revealed



## tigerbob

> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures



Well done Ms Brookes.  

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph


----------



## PredFan

People need thicker skin.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> People need thicker skin.



That's your response to the point in question, with all that it entailed?


----------



## PredFan

Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.


----------



## Two Thumbs

ahh

The Constitution is going to take another hit.

don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.


----------



## HUGGY

Two Thumbs said:


> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.



You are an idiot.  The Constitution gaurantees "privacy"...not anonymity.


----------



## HUGGY

*Internet troll identities to be revealed 
*

Bout time...


----------



## California Girl

Two Thumbs said:


> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.



This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.


----------



## HUGGY

I believe I just heard a million voices cry out...Mommy!!!!


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.



Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?


----------



## Ravi

Who gets to decide what a troll is?


----------



## Liability

Ravi said:


> Who gets to decide what a troll is?



The Chief Justice, of course.


----------



## tigerbob

Two Thumbs said:


> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.



Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.

If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.

"Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.


----------



## Ravi

tigerbob said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
Click to expand...


So, if I said to you here, "you're a stupid asshole that hangs around school yards" you would consider that grounds for knowing my identity?


----------



## HUGGY

Ravi said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I said to you here, "you're a stupid asshole that hangs around school yards" you would consider that grounds for knowing my identity?
Click to expand...


It won't even come to that.  As soon as it is legal and possible you can get that app for your I-phone/pad/laptop.

True story..  If there is money to be made from it...it will happen.


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
Click to expand...


Damaging? In what way? 

Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?

You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.


----------



## PredFan

People need thicker skin.


----------



## tigerbob

Ravi said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I said to you here, "you're a stupid asshole that hangs around school yards" you would consider that grounds for knowing my identity?
Click to expand...


Sigh.  No, Ravi.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
Click to expand...


Try reading the OP.


----------



## Liability

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
Click to expand...


Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.

Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.

Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.

Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?

How?  Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.

At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.

The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.

Rawi is a crybaby.  Nener neener.  Oh NO!  What has I done?  NOW my username could get all sued and shit!


----------



## daveman

tigerbob said:


> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
Click to expand...

Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.  

How far the Empire has fallen.


----------



## alan1

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
Click to expand...


See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".


----------



## tigerbob

Liability said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.
> 
> Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.
> 
> Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.
> 
> Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?
> 
> How?  Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.
> 
> At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.
> 
> The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.
> 
> Rawi is a crybaby.  Nener neener.  Oh NO!  What has I done?  NOW my username could get all sued and shit!
Click to expand...


Precisely the issue.


----------



## tigerbob

daveman said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.
> 
> How far the Empire has fallen.
Click to expand...


Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.


----------



## tigerbob

alan1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
Click to expand...


Post a link and I'll read it.


----------



## Two Thumbs

HUGGY said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The Constitution gaurantees "privacy"...not anonymity.
Click to expand...


What part of who I am is not my privacy?

I get you're a liberal and have no care for freedoms or the Constitution, but do put on that thinking cap.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHO I AM.


^that's a hint


----------



## Two Thumbs

California Girl said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


if it happens over there, the left will demand it here.

You know this as well as I do.

And since the internet is international....


----------



## Two Thumbs

tigerbob said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
Click to expand...


One, come up with your own schtick.

Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?

every single last site I've seen has an ignore function.  If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.


----------



## Two Thumbs

tigerbob said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post a link and I'll read it.
Click to expand...


Supreme Court ruling on Stolen Valor Act rests on 1st Amendment - latimes.com

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Thursday striking down the Stolen Valor Act says the 1st Amendment "protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace," according to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while "contemptible" and worthy of outrage and ridicule, is protected by the 1st Amendment.

To allow the government to outlaw certain speech because it is based on false statements would invite a Ministry of Truth as written about by George Orwell in his novel "1984" about totalitarianism, Kennedy said.


But go to the corner and say that some ******* need killing, and it's off to jail.


----------



## dilloduck

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets to decide what a troll is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chief Justice, of course.
Click to expand...


So it will be a troll tax.


----------



## Intense

HUGGY said:


> *Internet troll identities to be revealed
> *
> 
> Bout time...



Yep. About the only people here that will be safe are on Huggy's List. The rest are toast. Huggy, You better fuel up your boat.


----------



## tigerbob

Two Thumbs said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, come up with your own schtick.
> 
> Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?
> 
> every single last site I've seen has an ignore function.  If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.
Click to expand...


One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.  

Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you.  Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.

The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.  

If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vile human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue.  Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.

Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things.  Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives?  Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected?


----------



## tigerbob

Two Thumbs said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post a link and I'll read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court ruling on Stolen Valor Act rests on 1st Amendment - latimes.com
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Thursday striking down the Stolen Valor Act says the 1st Amendment "protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace," according to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
> 
> By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while "contemptible" and worthy of outrage and ridicule, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> To allow the government to outlaw certain speech because it is based on false statements would invite a Ministry of Truth as written about by George Orwell in his novel "1984" about totalitarianism, Kennedy said.
> 
> 
> But go to the corner and say that some ******* need killing, and it's off to jail.
Click to expand...


OK, I've read it.


----------



## Two Thumbs

tigerbob said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, come up with your own schtick.
> 
> Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?
> 
> every single last site I've seen has an ignore function.  If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.
> 
> Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you.  Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.
> 
> The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.
> 
> If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vie human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue.  Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.
> 
> Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things.  Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives?  Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected?
Click to expand...


ok, now it seems you're talking about ID theft and slander.

That's not being a troll.


----------



## Ravi

tigerbob said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.
> 
> Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.
> 
> Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.
> 
> Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?
> 
> How?  Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.
> 
> At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.
> 
> The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.
> 
> Rawi is a crybaby.  Nener neener.  Oh NO!  What has I done?  NOW my username could get all sued and shit!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely the issue.
Click to expand...

 You aren't making sense. You answered my post as if I got the information wrong and liarbility's as if he got the information right.


----------



## Ravi

Two Thumbs said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it happens over there, the left will demand it here.
> 
> You know this as well as I do.
> 
> And since the internet is international....
Click to expand...

Very funny. I started a thread on this a couple weeks ago in which a Republican politician was suing anonymous posters for talking trash about her on the internet.


----------



## jillian

alan1 said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
Click to expand...


different... there are always restrictions on defamatory speech.

you aren't defaming anyone if you lie about your own background. it may make you pondscum... but it isn't actionable.


----------



## HUGGY

Intense said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Internet troll identities to be revealed
> *
> 
> Bout time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. About the only people here that will be safe are on Huggy's List. The rest are toast. Huggy, You better fuel up your boat.
Click to expand...


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> ok, now it seems you're talking about ID theft and slander.
> 
> That's not being a troll.



my understanding is that would be what such a law would address. 

but i haven't read the proposals.


----------



## HUGGY

Intense said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Internet troll identities to be revealed
> *
> 
> Bout time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. About the only people here that will be safe are on Huggy's List. The rest are toast. Huggy, You better fuel up your boat.
Click to expand...


Yanno...in all seriousness ...  The anonymity of the internet is highly over rated.  It hasn't been a problem for me..and I have made it very easy to locate HUGGY if one so chooses.  Peeps still gonna talk shit..  Maybe tone it down a scosh but I think it is a good thing that you shouldn't say anything anywhere you wouldn't say to someone's face.  Me?  I'm an asshole as has been pointed out by many here..and rightfully so...   But that's just me..  That's the way I talk to people in real life if they rub me the wrong way.  Fortunately I have found a little nitch where I can get away with it.  I don't talk shit to everyone I know.. Just like everyone.. I have people in my life that I treasure and they get treated as such. 

There is one trick I have learned long ago and that is I disconnect my horn in all of my vehicles.  The horn is the least important feature of any car IMO.  

I welcome the internet being more personal and less impersonal.  Real people have more clout than imaginary ones.  When ya e-mail your congressperson it matters more to them that you are in fact so and so from thier district.  

One good thing that will happen if it becomes easy to find a real location for a poster is that the language one uses will clean up dramatically.  That can't be a bad thing.  Some people, myself included, will probably have to invest in a program that finds foul language and, like spell check..gives them a second chance to choose thier words more wisely.   :lol


----------



## manifold

Did any of you tossers actually read the story linked in the OP?

It wasn't about two anonymous douchers exchanging insults on a messageboard.  The 'troll(s)' in this story actually set up a fake facebook account using this woman's real name and photograph, and used the account to try to make her look like a pedophile and drug dealer.  Do you really think that's ok?


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity?  Irrespective of whether it's true?  Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious?  Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
Click to expand...


I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.

Try reading your own OP.


----------



## PredFan

dilloduck said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets to decide what a troll is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chief Justice, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it will be a troll tax.
Click to expand...


Bada bing badaboom!


----------



## manifold

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.
> 
> Try reading your own OP.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

There is nothing in the OP that addresses your post and there is nothing in your post relevant to the OP.

So why don't you pull your head out of your ass and go find the thread you're looking for.


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly.  But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
> 
> If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
> 
> "Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it."  Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, come up with your own schtick.
> 
> Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?
> 
> every single last site I've seen has an ignore function.  If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.
> 
> Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you.  Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.
> 
> The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.
> 
> If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vile human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue.  Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.
> 
> Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things. * Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives?  Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected*?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am saying that. Prove I'm wrong. I am an employer, or more precisely, a person who hires. I don't bother with FaceBook or MySpace because unless you are friends with the person already, you cannot access their information. I am also smart enough, and have been on line long enough to know that just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true.

Nothing on FaceBook is by itself, admissable in court. Nothing on Facebook by itself, is a firing offense. People need thicker skin. If they had thicker skin, people wouldn't waste their time making fake pages for them.


----------



## PredFan

manifold said:


> Did any of you tossers actually read the story linked in the OP?
> 
> It wasn't about two anonymous douchers exchanging insults on a messageboard.  The 'troll(s)' in this story actually set up a fake facebook account using this woman's real name and photograph, and used the account to try to make her look like a pedophile and drug dealer.  Do you really think that's ok?



No, it's a stupid thing to do but it doesn't make her a pedophile or a drug user and it can't get her arrested, or fired, or anything else. if more people ignored this kind of stupidity it wouldn't happen. The huge shit storm that it has caused is exactly what the offender wanted.


----------



## PredFan

manifold said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.
> 
> Try reading your own OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> There is nothing in the OP that addresses your post and there is nothing in your post relevant to the OP.
> 
> So why don't you pull your head out of your ass and go find the thread you're looking for.
Click to expand...


Not my fault you have reading comprehension problems is it?


----------



## koshergrl

Ravi said:


> Who gets to decide what a troll is?



Quaking in your size 16s, ravtroll? Do you live in UK?


----------



## manifold

PredFan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of you tossers actually read the story linked in the OP?
> 
> It wasn't about two anonymous douchers exchanging insults on a messageboard.  The 'troll(s)' in this story actually set up a fake facebook account using this woman's real name and photograph, and used the account to try to make her look like a pedophile and drug dealer.  Do you really think that's ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a stupid thing to do but it doesn't make her a pedophile or a drug user and it can't get her arrested, or fired, or anything else. if more people ignored this kind of stupidity it wouldn't happen. The huge shit storm that it has caused is exactly what the offender wanted.
Click to expand...


And if she was running for School Committee it probably wouldn't hurt her chances either.


----------



## tigerbob

Two Thumbs said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, come up with your own schtick.
> 
> Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?
> 
> every single last site I've seen has an ignore function.  If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.
> 
> Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you.  Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.
> 
> The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.
> 
> If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vie human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue.  Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.
> 
> Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things.  Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives?  Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, now it seems you're talking about ID theft and slander.
> 
> That's not being a troll.
Click to expand...


We could have avoided this if you'd read the OP properly.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging? In what way?
> 
> Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
> Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
> 
> You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.
> 
> Try reading your own OP.
Click to expand...




You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.


----------



## daveman

tigerbob said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.
> 
> How far the Empire has fallen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
Click to expand...

I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.

Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?


----------



## Si modo

tigerbob said:


> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
Click to expand...

"Defamatory" is a question of law, not someone's opinion.

Also, if the identity of the person getting trolled is unknown (like just a user name), how is it personally defamatory?

Folks can defame "Si modo" all they want.  It's just a user name.


----------



## tigerbob

Random list from 60 seconds googling.

Three Lawyers Talk Online Profiling

How Your Social Media Profile Could Make Or Break Your Next Job Opportunity - Forbes

Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords


----------



## NeoTemplar

More bullshit that they can use to destroy the internet by taking your personal information and denying you the right to free speach, look out Sunni your names all over this.


----------



## tigerbob

daveman said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.
> 
> How far the Empire has fallen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
Click to expand...


The court agrees with the Brit in question.

And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.


----------



## tigerbob

Si modo said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Defamatory" is a question of law, not someone's opinion.
> 
> Also, if the identity of the person getting trolled is unknown (like just a user name), how is it personally defamatory?
> 
> Folks can defame "Si modo" all they want.  It's just a user name.
Click to expand...


Which is what I've said on more than one occasion.  And in the case I mentioned, the person getting trolled was a real person, using her real name, and real photos of her, and real personal information.


----------



## tigerbob

NeoTemplar said:


> More bullshit that they can use to destroy the internet by taking your personal information and denying you the right to free speach, look out Sunni your names all over this.



How is your right to free speech denied by this ruling?


----------



## tigerbob

Ravi said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.
> 
> Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.
> 
> Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.
> 
> Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?
> 
> How?  Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.
> 
> At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.
> 
> The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.
> 
> Rawi is a crybaby.  Nener neener.  Oh NO!  What has I done?  NOW my username could get all sued and shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't making sense. You answered my post as if I got the information wrong and liarbility's as if he got the information right.
Click to expand...


Go figure.


----------



## Ravi

Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.

Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?


----------



## peach174

HUGGY said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.
Click to expand...


Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !


----------



## tigerbob

Ravi said:


> Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.
> 
> Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?



Bad and misleading thread title is based on the article linked.  Only bad and misleading if you don't read the article.  Seems to be the case with multiple posters.

As to Mani, if you live in the UK and he's used your real name as an attempt to maliciously defame you in real life then I guess you would have a case for requesting his IP address if he'd done it on Facebook.  But...

1. You're not in England.
2. It's on YouTube not Facebook.
3. I'm guessing it doesn't use your real name.
4. I have no idea whether the intent was to maliciously defame you personally, or just to mock you under your screen name.

What do you think?


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.
> 
> Try reading your own OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.
Click to expand...


That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.


----------



## tigerbob

peach174 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
> This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
> This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !
Click to expand...


This law is in England, not the US.

Even if it were in the US, you could still say what you want.  You'd just need to be aware of the fact that if you were trolling a person maliciously under their real identity, you do so under the understanding that you might not be able to do it anonymously.

The only freedom you would give up is the freedom to be an asshole with impunity.


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> Random list from 60 seconds googling.
> 
> Three Lawyers Talk Online Profiling
> 
> How Your Social Media Profile Could Make Or Break Your Next Job Opportunity - Forbes
> 
> Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords



You can find these all day long but what do they prove? They don't prove that what the thin skinned idiot did was right. Just because some lawyer want to get publicity for themselves talking up a case where there isn't one, or the fact that there might be some moronic employers who actually care what's on Facebook and demand passwords, doesn't mean that any of that will be halted because someone might be able to sue for slander.

Situation:

I am applying for a job, and for some reason my new employer cares what I post on my facebook page and demands my password, and suppose I don't tell him to shove it up his ass. I give him MY pass word, how is he going tom access a FALSE Facebook page about me that I don't have the password for or am friends with?

It's bogus, the crybaby needs thicker skin, and you need to think more about this subject.


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.
> 
> Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad and misleading thread title is based on the article linked.  Only bad and misleading if you don't read the article.  Seems to be the case with multiple posters.
> 
> As to Mani, if you live in the UK and he's used your real name as an attempt to maliciously defame you in real life then I guess you would have a case for requesting his IP address if he'd done it on Facebook.  But...
> 
> 1. You're not in England.
> 2. It's on YouTube not Facebook.
> 3. I'm guessing it doesn't use your real name.
> 4. I have no idea whether the intent was to maliciously defame you personally, or just to mock you under your screen name.
> 
> What do you think?
Click to expand...



No,we all read your article, YOU just don't seem to understand it or understand how our responses follow it. Not much we can do about that so it isn't our fault.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it AGAIN, there is nothing in it that addresses my post.
> 
> Try reading your own OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.
Click to expand...


The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Random list from 60 seconds googling.
> 
> Three Lawyers Talk Online Profiling
> 
> How Your Social Media Profile Could Make Or Break Your Next Job Opportunity - Forbes
> 
> Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can find these all day long but what do they prove? They don't prove that what the thin skinned idiot did was right. Just because some lawyer want to get publicity for themselves talking up a case where there isn't one, or the fact that there might be some moronic employers who actually care what's on Facebook and demand passwords, doesn't mean that any of that will be halted because someone might be able to sue for slander.
> 
> Situation:
> 
> I am applying for a job, and for some reason my new employer cares what I post on my facebook page and demands my password, and suppose I don't tell him to shove it up his ass. I give him MY pass word, how is he going tom access a FALSE Facebook page about me that I don't have the password for or am friends with?
> 
> It's bogus, the crybaby needs thicker skin, and you need to think more about this subject.
Click to expand...


We're not going to agree on this.  That's OK.  But I'm quite comfortable with my thinking on this.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Just a bad and misleading thread title.
> 
> Can I sue manifold for putting up a fact youtube video and attributing it to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad and misleading thread title is based on the article linked.  Only bad and misleading if you don't read the article.  Seems to be the case with multiple posters.
> 
> As to Mani, if you live in the UK and he's used your real name as an attempt to maliciously defame you in real life then I guess you would have a case for requesting his IP address if he'd done it on Facebook.  But...
> 
> 1. You're not in England.
> 2. It's on YouTube not Facebook.
> 3. I'm guessing it doesn't use your real name.
> 4. I have no idea whether the intent was to maliciously defame you personally, or just to mock you under your screen name.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No,we all read your article, YOU just don't seem to understand it or understand how our responses follow it. Not much we can do about that so it isn't our fault.
Click to expand...


Not saying it's your fault.  We're just coming at it from different positions.


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
Click to expand...


I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.


----------



## PredFan

People shouldn't (and don't) have the right to not be offended.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
Click to expand...


The fact that the court decided that Facebook has to release the IP addresses concerned would appear to indicate that the court feels there may be a case to answer.  

I don't know how much consideration the court gave to your position that she should just suck it up, but I would guess that they either didn't consider it, or did consider and and decided that it didn't have sufficient merit to inform their ruling.


----------



## manifold

daveman said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.
> 
> How far the Empire has fallen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
Click to expand...


I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Two Thumbs said:


> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.



The Congress had nothing to do with making a law in the instant matter, nor does the Constitution guarantee your privacy.


----------



## tigerbob

Wry Catcher said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress had nothing to do with making a law in the instant matter, nor does the Constitution guarantee your privacy.
Click to expand...


I must confess it does surprise me that so many people appear to have missed that, or have just chosen to ignore it.


----------



## PredFan

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the court decided that Facebook has to release the IP addresses concerned would appear to indicate that the court feels there may be a case to answer.
> 
> I don't know how much consideration the court gave to your position that she should just suck it up, but I would guess that they either didn't consider it, or did consider and and decided that it didn't have sufficient merit to inform their ruling.
Click to expand...


Courts usually don't simply say "get thicker skin", though they should.


----------



## del

manifold said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?
Click to expand...


only evelyn waaaaaah

sorry


----------



## HUGGY

peach174 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
> This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
> This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !
Click to expand...


How so?  You could still say anything you want whenever and wherever you want.  Oh..you just don't want to be held responsible for what you freely choose to say..I undergetit.

You just want to yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater with no consequences.  Bully for you!  Tough shit!


----------



## Foxfyre

tigerbob said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read it again and still didn't notice that apparently the COURT seems to think that there is a case to answer here, hence they have ruled that the IP addresses must be made available to the complainant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
Click to expand...


Years ago, I underwent some pretty intensive training on AOL to learn how to spot predators in kids' chatrooms.  We already encouraged parents to use parental controls for who could instant message their kids.   So while monitoring the chatrooms, if we identified what we suspected was predatory behavior, we notified a specific contact on AOL and I presume that contact then notified the proper authorities and provided them with information to check the person out.   Violation of privacy?  I don't think so.  I'm guessing that most who were checked out never knew they had been identified.  The pedophiles I'm hoping were nipped in the bud.

There simply has to be some means, short of just staying off the internet, to protect our right to privacy while at the same time defend ourselves from people who intend us no good.  USMB for instance, takes personal threats very seriously.  Should they not?  We all know that 99% of those are just childish nonsense, but what of the other 1%.  Is it worth the risk?   And if somebody does find out our identity and is posting damaging--that is DAMAGING and not just insulting--false information about us, should there be no recourse?

I'm still sorting this one out.  But I don't think it is quite as cut and dried as some of my friends here have decided.   I would question giving the complaintant the identity of the other person though.  Seems to me there could be some inherent risks in that.


----------



## tigerbob

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the court decided that Facebook has to release the IP addresses concerned would appear to indicate that the court feels there may be a case to answer.
> 
> I don't know how much consideration the court gave to your position that she should just suck it up, but I would guess that they either didn't consider it, or did consider and and decided that it didn't have sufficient merit to inform their ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts usually don't simply say "get thicker skin", though they should.
Click to expand...


In many cases I would agree with that.


----------



## California Girl

PredFan said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't address my post. The court isn't saying it's evidence that the person is a pedophile, it isn't saying that the person (so-called victim) can get arrested for anything, so exactly what is the harm? Which goes right back to my simple point that people need thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
Click to expand...


People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site. 

I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.


----------



## PredFan

California Girl said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.
Click to expand...


Have they? Or is that an Urban Legend? How does an employer or prosepctive employer get access to your FB page? I am a person who hires and fires for my company. I don't bother going to FB on someone because I am never able to see the page. More to the point of this case, I'm smart enough to know that if I saw a page on FB that one of my employees set up that claimed to be a pedophile and a drug addict, I would be very suspect, and would talk to the employee about it.

I'm sorry, NOTHING in this story adds up in my real world experience.


----------



## Foxfyre

PredFan said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have they? Or is that an Urban Legend? How does an employer or prosepctive employer get access to your FB page? I am a person who hires and fires for my company. I don't bother going to FB on someone because I am never able to see the page. More to the point of this case, I'm smart enough to know that if I saw a page on FB that one of my employees set up that claimed to be a pedophile and a drug addict, I would be very suspect, and would talk to the employee about it.
> 
> I'm sorry, NOTHING in this story adds up in my real world experience.
Click to expand...


Yes, there have been news stories of companies who request Facebook and other social network passwords from their new hires.  These are generally positions in which company image and reputation and trust are of extreme importance and background checks are intended to ferret out those who are unsuitable for that image.  I believe there is even a thread about that somewhere on Facebook.

Personally, though I never post something I would not care if the entire world knew,  I would not go to work for somebody who asked for such passwords, nor have I ever asked for such infomration from a new hire.  At the same time, I have cringed at some of the stuff some members of the younger generation of my own family have posted on Facebook and Twitter and, if known, how that could negatively affect them in the eyes of prospective employer or existing boss.


----------



## dilloduck

I'll gladly share my online info with a perspective boss as long as they are willing to reciprocate. I may not wanna work with some of these disgusting assholes.


----------



## PredFan

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they? Or is that an Urban Legend? How does an employer or prosepctive employer get access to your FB page? I am a person who hires and fires for my company. I don't bother going to FB on someone because I am never able to see the page. More to the point of this case, I'm smart enough to know that if I saw a page on FB that one of my employees set up that claimed to be a pedophile and a drug addict, I would be very suspect, and would talk to the employee about it.
> 
> I'm sorry, NOTHING in this story adds up in my real world experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there have been news stories of companies who request Facebook and other social network passwords from their new hires.  These are generally positions in which company image and reputation and trust are of extreme importance and background checks are intended to ferret out those who are unsuitable for that image.  I believe there is even a thread about that somewhere on Facebook.
> 
> Personally, though I never post something I would not care if the entire world knew,  I would not go to work for somebody who asked for such passwords, nor have I ever asked for such infomration from a new hire.  At the same time, I have cringed at some of the stuff some members of the younger generation of my own family have posted on Facebook and Twitter and, if known, how that could negatively affect them in the eyes of prospective employer or existing boss.
Click to expand...



I would just tell them that I don't have a FB page. Or, I'd make a fake one of my own that said something like:

Name: John Wayneski
Occupation: Widget Maker at the greatest company in all the world
Hometown: Widgetsville, BFE
Hobbies: Making widgets for the greatest company in all the world
Favorite music: The music played in the elevators at my company.
Favorite TV show: My company's commercials.
Family: My co-workers.
Favorite food: The food in the company cafeteria

And i'd have a picture of my work station as a wall photo.


----------



## PredFan

Now, despite all of the previous things I said, the truth is that I believe that it won't be long before this kind of craop comes to the US. The government would just love to have control of the internet, and they would be very willing to use scare tactics as a means to that end.


----------



## catzmeow

manifold said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtPluXq_hko]DJ Khaled "All I Do Is Win" feat. Ludacris, Rick Ross, Snoop Dogg & T-Pain - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court is saying that the offender can't do this anonymously and that the victim has a right to get the offender's IP address and thereby identity, because this will allow her to bring a prosecution which will then allow a court to decide if the offender has committed a crime under British law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.
Click to expand...

See, that's what I think is ridiculous...potential employers looking at Facebook.

But, they do.

And, recently Maryland passed a law that no one is required to give a potential employer their Facebook login information.

Regardless, if what is on someone's FB page will cause them not to get a job, they should seriously consider deleting their FB account.


----------



## tigerbob

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that. That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the person needs thicker skin because the fake facebook page really does not real harm other than to a pitifully low self-esteem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, that's what I think is ridiculous...potential employers looking at Facebook.
> 
> But, they do.
> 
> And, recently Maryland passed a law that no one is required to give a potential employer their Facebook login information.
> 
> Regardless, if what is on someone's FB page will cause them not to get a job, they should seriously consider deleting their FB account.
Click to expand...


HR departments are increasingly screwed up these days.  Vetting software has become so complex that people who are actually doing a job at present would be kicked out by the software if they applied for the job they currently hold.  It's insane, but it's about checking boxes more than it's about finding the best fit for the role.


----------



## Foxfyre

tigerbob said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have lost their jobs, or been turned down for a job, because of what a prospective employer has seen on Facebook or other social networking site.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree - or disagree - with the ruling... I am saying only that this shit does impact on people's real lives.
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's what I think is ridiculous...potential employers looking at Facebook.
> 
> But, they do.
> 
> And, recently Maryland passed a law that no one is required to give a potential employer their Facebook login information.
> 
> Regardless, if what is on someone's FB page will cause them not to get a job, they should seriously consider deleting their FB account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HR departments are increasingly screwed up these days.  Vetting software has become so complex that people who are actually doing a job at present would be kicked out by the software if they applied for the job they currently hold.  It's insane, but it's about checking boxes more than it's about finding the best fit for the role.
Click to expand...


To some extent that is true.  Which relates to a post I made earlier that some image conscious companies or those requiring a sustantial amount of confidentiality and classified material would not consider a new hire who had objectionable stuff on his/her FB page.

And while I haven't personally  sorted out yet whether I think a person's FB page is fair game in a thorough background check required for some jobs, we all also have to realize that we live in a much different world now than a lot or most of us grew up in.  We now live in a world full of people who wish to do us serious harm whether that is to kill or maim us or commit economic sabotage or economic espionage or whatever.  The federal government has always had the right to monitor mail and telephone calls going to other countries, most especialy in times of war and/or other national crisis.

Sooner or later we each have to consider what tools those designated to protect and defend our lives, livelihoods, and liberties are going to be allowed related to emails, FB, electronic submissions, etc. etc. etc.  Somewhere in there is the protections that we need versus the liberty and privacy that we crave.  And that simply is not as cut and dried as it once was.


----------



## NeoTemplar

tigerbob said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.  The Constitution guarantees "privacy"...not anonymity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
> This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
> This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This law is in England, not the US.
> 
> Even if it were in the US, you could still say what you want.  You'd just need to be aware of the fact that if you were trolling a person maliciously under their real identity, you do so under the understanding that you might not be able to do it anonymously.
> 
> The only freedom you would give up is the freedom to be an asshole with impunity.
Click to expand...


Thing is most of the laws in the U.K. come to the U.S. also who says the U.K. can't just do what the feds did with Megavideo? Also learn Internet rules 4 though 7 and get back to me.


----------



## tigerbob

NeoTemplar said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution guarantees us Freedom of speech.
> This is what Two Thumbs is referring to Huggy.
> This law will take away our freedom of SPEECH !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This law is in England, not the US.
> 
> Even if it were in the US, you could still say what you want.  You'd just need to be aware of the fact that if you were trolling a person maliciously under their real identity, you do so under the understanding that you might not be able to do it anonymously.
> 
> The only freedom you would give up is the freedom to be an asshole with impunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thing is most of the laws in the U.K. come to the U.S. also who says the U.K. can't just do what the feds did with Megavideo? Also learn Internet rules 4 though 7 and get back to me.
Click to expand...


Who are you and why are you wasting my time.  Fuck off.

BTW, the who are you and why are you wasting my time question was rhetorical.


----------



## daveman

tigerbob said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court agrees with the Brit in question.
Click to expand...

So the court is sissy bedwetters, too.  Did you really think you had a point?


tigerbob said:


> And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.


Spoken like someone with no grasp of history.  Public school education, huh?


----------



## daveman

manifold said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've been smoking the drapes.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?
Click to expand...


Way to keep beating that dead horse!  It doesn't make you look bitter at all.  No, really.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress had nothing to do with making a law in the instant matter, *nor does the Constitution guarantee your privacy*.
Click to expand...

Then you admit Roe v. Wade was bad law...?

Or is that different?  Somehow?  It just is!!


----------



## daveman

catzmeow said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if any of them would've posted a disclaimer after losing an avi wager?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtPluXq_hko]DJ Khaled "All I Do Is Win" feat. Ludacris, Rick Ross, Snoop Dogg & T-Pain - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

I wonder if there's been a court case about pathetic losers with a compulsive need to bring up ancient history in order to make themselves feel better about their loserdom?


----------



## Dante

PredFan said:


> People need thicker skin.



people here could use that advice.


----------



## manifold

Still  @ braveman calling someone else a sissy bed wetter.

Carry on.


----------



## tigerbob

daveman said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for recreational pharmaceuticals.  I don't need to escape reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Brit in question is a sissy bedwetter.  Do you think the Brits who went on with their lives during the Blitz would have whined about being called names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court agrees with the Brit in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the court is sissy bedwetters, too.  Did you really think you had a point?
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like someone with no grasp of history.  Public school education, huh?
Click to expand...


Fraid so.

Oh, hang on, do you mean English public school or American public school?


----------



## manifold

Hey tigerbob,

If you want to see some actual sissy bed wetting, check this out (the whole thread is epic, but you can get the gist in these two posts):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-79.html#post5236435

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-87.html#post5243441


----------



## tigerbob

manifold said:


> Hey tigerbob,
> 
> If you want to see some actual sissy bed wetting, check this out (the whole thread is epic, but you can get the gist in these two posts):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-79.html#post5236435
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-87.html#post5243441



I've tended not to bother with the flame zone because nobody's opinions here annoy me enough to get all bent out of shape.  But.....that is a very, very funny thread!

Maybe I shall expand my reading habits.


----------



## manifold

tigerbob said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey tigerbob,
> 
> If you want to see some actual sissy bed wetting, check this out (the whole thread is epic, but you can get the gist in these two posts):
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-79.html#post5236435
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/217167-davemans-fall-from-grace-87.html#post5243441
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tended not to bother with the flame zone because nobody's opinions here annoy me enough to get all bent out of shape.  But.....that is a very, very funny thread!
> 
> Maybe I shall expand my reading habits.
Click to expand...


I'm not ashamed to do a little catzmeowing and tell you in no uncertain terms that the Flame Zone is the most intelligent forum on this board.  And it's pretty damn funny to boot.

Fact, not opinion.


----------



## daveman

manifold said:


> Still  @ braveman calling someone else a sissy bed wetter.
> 
> Carry on.


Feel better about yourself?  Glad I could be here for you.


----------



## daveman

tigerbob said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court agrees with the Brit in question.
> 
> 
> 
> So the court is sissy bedwetters, too.  Did you really think you had a point?
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if WWII is your best comparison than you may have escaped reality already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like someone with no grasp of history.  Public school education, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fraid so.
> 
> Oh, hang on, do you mean English public school or American public school?
Click to expand...

American.  Why, are you English?


----------



## tigerbob

daveman said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the court is sissy bedwetters, too.  Did you really think you had a point?
> 
> Spoken like someone with no grasp of history.  Public school education, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraid so.
> 
> Oh, hang on, do you mean English public school or American public school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American.  Why, are you English?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Kinda why I was interested in this story.


----------



## tigerbob

Hmmmm.......

'Advanced Pimpin' on Facebook Derails Woman's Legal Case


----------



## koshergrl

Ravi said:


> Who gets to decide what a troll is?



Defamatory = telling a truth that someone in power doesn't want anyone to know.


----------



## Peach

Those whose primary pleasure in life is typing idiotic obscenities will be displeased. There is always hate mail, and graffiti left however. Still some risks though.


----------



## koshergrl

No, this sort of crap is directed directly at people who are spreading information and exposing people.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

PredFan said:


> People need thicker skin.



Shut up you *XXXXXXX*.


----------



## Peach

koshergrl said:


> No, this sort of crap is directed directly at people who are spreading information and exposing people.



It should be used if the writing is clearly defamatory, or an invasion of privacy.


----------



## koshergrl

Nope. This is America. It isn't defamatory to point out what's wrong with people or their foul politics, crimes,  and lack of character. It's called freedom of speech.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

koshergrl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gets to decide what a troll is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defamatory = telling a truth that someone in power doesn't want anyone to know.
Click to expand...


That isn't what defamation is.


----------



## koshergrl

It will be.


----------



## Peach

If hundreds of thousand start to demand information on those they perceive as making threats or defamatory allegations, we will know the new "openness" isn't working.


----------



## koshergrl

By then it will be too late.

You can't legislate polite discourse. That's just one of the faces of tyranny.


----------



## tigerbob

koshergrl said:


> Nope. This is America. It isn't defamatory to point out what's wrong with people or their foul politics, crimes,  and lack of character. It's called freedom of speech.



That was never the point.


----------



## koshergrl

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

People always support foul practices because they're being done for someone's good.


----------



## tigerbob

koshergrl said:


> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> People always support foul practices because they're being done for someone's good.



Still missing the point.


----------



## koshergrl

No, I'm not.


----------



## tigerbob

koshergrl said:


> No, I'm not.



Yes, you are.


----------



## Politico

California Girl said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


Apparently people didn't read your post or the article. This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, the Constitution or the US.


----------



## tigerbob

Politico said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh
> 
> The Constitution is going to take another hit.
> 
> don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently people didn't read your post or the article. This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, the Constitution or the US.
Click to expand...


Appears some people are seeing the word "troll", making up their mind about what the article must therefore be saying, and spewing their response without actually reading it to make sure.

It's not unusual on this board, but it's a bit pathetic.


----------



## Noomi

PredFan said:


> People need thicker skin.



Yes and no. If you are accused of being a pedophile, and this news spreads, it damages your reputation.

Some trolls even go on Facebook pages set up for car crash victims and post the most horrible things. Those people should be named and shamed.


----------



## Swagger

I'm guessing this has more to do with combating malicious internet users on Facebook and other social media who taunt bereaved family members over the loss of loved ones. Though not illegal, it's on par with encouraging vulnerable people to commit suicide via chatrooms, in my opinion.

However, where does it stop? Like Koshergirl's alluded to, how long until any comment's guilty of piercing very thin skin, and the author finds themselves explaining their comments to a judge? Honestly, it's getting to the point where a) internet service providers will be required to warn their customers of potential offence caused online, and b) I'm beginning to despair with humans altogether.


----------



## tigerbob

Noomi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People need thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. If you are accused of being a pedophile, and this news spreads, it damages your reputation.
> 
> Some trolls even go on Facebook pages set up for car crash victims and post the most horrible things. Those people should be named and shamed.
Click to expand...


While I have sympathy for the victims of the example you've cited, I can't agree.  

If someone is merely insulting they can be blocked and ignored.  IMO that's entirely different to deliberately defaming someone under their real name with intent to damage their reputation.


----------



## Noomi

tigerbob said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People need thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. If you are accused of being a pedophile, and this news spreads, it damages your reputation.
> 
> Some trolls even go on Facebook pages set up for car crash victims and post the most horrible things. Those people should be named and shamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I have sympathy for the victims of the example you've cited, I can't agree.
> 
> If someone is merely insulting they can be blocked and ignored.  IMO that's entirely different to deliberately defaming someone under their real name with intent to damage their reputation.
Click to expand...


It is still offensive and hurtful to the family, but I agree, trolls like these shouldn't be prosecuted, but those who spread lies about someone, damaging their reputation should be.


----------



## koshergrl

Nope. Reputation is just reputation. You can't legislate against gossip. And what would happen sooner rather than later is people would get thrown in jail for daring to speak out against the practices of other people.

Obama would like to silence the opposition now. He already has "truth squads" circulating...."re-educating" people.


----------



## tigerbob

koshergrl said:


> Nope. Reputation is just reputation. You can't legislate against gossip. And what would happen sooner rather than later is people would get thrown in jail for daring to speak out against the practices of other people.
> 
> Obama would like to silence the opposition now. He already has "truth squads" circulating...."re-educating" people.



At the risk of repeating myself yet again, you're still missing the point.

1.  I couldn't give a crap about what Obama is doing.
2.  This isn't about America.
3.  This isn't "gossip", it's a malicious personal attack with deliberate intent to defame the character of a private individual.
4.  It's the person's real identity that has been attacked, not a screen name.
5.  You can legislate about this kind of thing.  The OP talks specifically about the process.
6.  There are already libel and slander laws in existence.
7.  The court agreed with the plaintiff's case.
8.  Facebook did not dispute it and is complying.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

tigerbob said:


> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
Click to expand...


That won't fly in the USA.  It totally violates our rights to privacy.


----------



## Dot Com

I might term the people involved "stalkers" rather than "trollers". There's a line one crosses when they start setting up fake sites to mimick their victim. Stalkers are a menace where they exist.


----------



## tigerbob

Dot Com said:


> I might term the people involved "stalkers" rather than "trollers". There's a line one crosses when they start setting up fake sites to mimick their victim. Stalkers are a menace where they exist.



I agree, but that was the term used in the article I quoted.  If people actually read the article as you clearly have it should be evident what is under debate.


----------



## tigerbob

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That won't fly in the USA.  It totally violates our rights to privacy.
Click to expand...


Privacy meaning anonymity?


----------



## Foxfyre

Noomi is right though that libel and slander--that which maliciously and erroneously damages a person's reputation and/or means of earning a living--should be a prosecutable offense.  In fact it IS a prosecutable offense on the books in every state so far as I know.  Nobody should be allowed to destroy another person out of malice with lies and false accusation and innuendo without there being consequences for that.

Laws against cyber bullying and pure meanness are something else though, and I honestly don't know what the answer is there.  Should one of you be allowed to maliciously destroy my ability to use Facebook or USMB for that matter and do so with impunity?   My gut says no; my common sense says it is very difficult to police.  What is one man's hurtful insult is just sport to another.

This is a tough one.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

tigerbob said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Ms Brookes.
> 
> But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
> 
> Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't fly in the USA.  It totally violates our rights to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Privacy meaning anonymity?
Click to expand...


Nah I meant privacy.  Just because I use a bank, shop at a store, or post on an internet site doesn't give the owners of those businesses a right to disclose my personal information without me first agreeing to it.   

Now, if under the TOS when you log in it says "Your personal information may be made available to 3rd parties" then that is differnet as you are agreeing to letting your information go out there. However, under current law, this thing going on in Britian won't be allowed here.


----------



## tigerbob

Foxfyre said:


> Noomi is right though that libel and slander--that which maliciously and erroneously damages a person's reputation and/or means of earning a living--should be a prosecutable offense.  In fact it IS a prosecutable offense on the books in every state so far as I know.  Nobody should be allowed to destroy another person out of malice with lies and false accusation and innuendo without there being consequences for that.
> 
> Laws against cyber bullying and pure meanness are something else though, and I honestly don't know what the answer is there.  Should one of you be allowed to maliciously destroy my ability to use Facebook or USMB for that matter and do so with impunity?   My gut says no; my common sense says it is very difficult to police.  What is one man's hurtful insult is just sport to another.
> 
> This is a tough one.



Yes I agree.  Difficult to know where to draw the line.  I think in this case it's drawn in the right place, but I've seem a number of much greyer areas over the last few weeks while reading up about this.

Tough one.


----------



## tigerbob

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't fly in the USA.  It totally violates our rights to privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Privacy meaning anonymity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah I meant privacy.  Just because I use a bank, shop at a store, or post on an internet site doesn't give the owners of those businesses a right to disclose my personal information without me first agreeing to it.
> 
> Now, if under the TOS when you log in it says "Your personal information may be made available to 3rd parties" then that is differnet as you are agreeing to letting your information go out there. However, under current law, this thing going on in Britian won't be allowed here.
Click to expand...


I've just had a look at f/b's privacy policy and, buried deep within it is this question and answer...



> *May I obtain any information about a user's account using a civil subpoena?*
> Facebook may provide basic subscriber information (not content) to a party in a civil matter only where: 1) the requested information is indispensable to the case and not within the partys possession; and 2) you personally serve a valid California or federal subpoena on Facebook. Out-of-state civil subpoenas must be domesticated in California and personally served on Facebooks registered agent.
> 
> Parties seeking basic subscriber information as set forth above must specifically identify the account by providing the email address, Facebook user ID (UID) and vanity URL (if any) Names, birthdays, locations, and other information are insufficient to identify a Facebook account. UIDs and/or vanity URLs may be found in the uniform resource locator available in a browser displaying the account in question. For example, in the URL Profile Unavailable | Facebook, 12345678910 is the UID.



This seems to imply that if, for example, a UK individual obtained a subpoena in a UK court and served it in California (as indeed appears to be the case in the OP), then Facebook would release the required user account details, irrespective of whether the account was based in the UK or the US.

Whether a British court thereafter had any jurisdiction on a US Citizen living in the US is, of course, an entirely different matter.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

tigerbob said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Privacy meaning anonymity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah I meant privacy.  Just because I use a bank, shop at a store, or post on an internet site doesn't give the owners of those businesses a right to disclose my personal information without me first agreeing to it.
> 
> Now, if under the TOS when you log in it says "Your personal information may be made available to 3rd parties" then that is differnet as you are agreeing to letting your information go out there. However, under current law, this thing going on in Britian won't be allowed here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've just had a look at f/b's privacy policy and, buried deep within it is this question and answer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *May I obtain any information about a user's account using a civil subpoena?*
> Facebook may provide basic subscriber information (not content) to a party in a civil matter only where: 1) the requested information is indispensable to the case and not within the partys possession; and 2) you personally serve a valid California or federal subpoena on Facebook. Out-of-state civil subpoenas must be domesticated in California and personally served on Facebooks registered agent.
> 
> Parties seeking basic subscriber information as set forth above must specifically identify the account by providing the email address, Facebook user ID (UID) and vanity URL (if any) Names, birthdays, locations, and other information are insufficient to identify a Facebook account. UIDs and/or vanity URLs may be found in the uniform resource locator available in a browser displaying the account in question. For example, in the URL Profile Unavailable | Facebook, 12345678910 is the UID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This seems to imply that if, for example, a UK individual obtained a subpoena in a UK court and served it in California (as indeed appears to be the case in the OP), then Facebook would release the required user account details, irrespective of whether the account was based in the UK or the US.
> 
> Whether a British court thereafter had any jurisdiction on a US Citizen living in the US is, of course, an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...


It does appear that way and it does appear legal under the TOS agreement everyone signs each time they log into facebook 

And that is why I read the TOS and privacy policies!

look at the USMB's.........


----------



## Dante

The thread that shook the world of usmb to it's kneepads

QUOTE="tigerbob, post: 5544513, member: 7053"]





> Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
> 
> 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, would 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.
> 
> The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
> 
> *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.
> 
> "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."
> 
> BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures



Well done Ms Brookes.  

But it will of course get worse before it gets better.

Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph[/QUOTE]


----------

