
Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures - iProject
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18404621
======
mcantelon
And the obvious underlying reason for these measures: corporations and
governments will be able to identify those who "defame" them.

~~~
mc32
I'm not sure that's the underlying reason --but certainly I can see
corporations abusing this new law, ust as I imagine individuals abusing it. I
think gov't would be less likely to abuse this as that would tread on
censorship. The biggest problem, if this survives as law, is that it likely
will lead to petty complaints -and by way of interference, to a possible chill
in online discussions. I think that'd be a net loss. I can sympathise with
people who become targets of internet bullies but I don't see how this is an
appropriate response to that problem.

------
WiseWeasel
This seems potentially labor-intensive for online community operators. That
said, verified trolls need to die, so if you're doing your job right, you've
already got a mechanism for reporting and banning (ninja or otherwise) trolls,
and most victims of abuse will hopefully turn to that before requesting ID on
their attackers.

~~~
sneak
I am a verified troll. I think unpopular anonymous speech is the speech that
needs the most protecting.

~~~
WiseWeasel
There's unpopular speech and then there's being a dick, which I'm certainly
guilty of on occasion in the past, but I try not to make a habit of it. I
operate a website, and assholes are undesirable when you're trying to build a
community. If you are unable to behave yourself like a decent human being,
then you can fry for all I care; mean people suck.

------
blhack
"Trolling" has a utility, though.

It's a geek synchronization protocol. If you pop into a mailing list promoting
your HOT NEW STARTUP, and wanting hackers to build you your new FACEBOOK
KILLER in their spare time so that they can build their resume...

You're going to get trolled. And there is a reason for this:

It gives you an opportunity to troll back, thus showing that you're actually
part of the culture.

It's a secret handshake that geeks do. If you're upset because you're getting
"trolled"[1], it's probably because the people you're asking to do things for
you don't want to.

[1]: I'm talking about /trolling/, not just being a prick. Some people are
just pricks. Trolling is meant in good spirit.

~~~
Revisor
You're just redefining the meaning of trolling. It's nothing else than being a
prick, hidden behind an online pseudonym.

It's not some secret handshake, nor a well meaning fun poking.

~~~
blhack
As long as I've been around online communities, trolling has always been
regarded as something playful.

------
voidr
This is downright censorship, if we would have a law like this, I would not
post anything online in fear of it considered defamatory, since there is no
scientific way to determine if something is defamatory or not, so basically
anything I write can be considered defamatory. Laws like this are just an
excuse for censorship.

Also the people who are the victims of trolling should get a life, talk to a
psychiatrist or something, they clearly have a problem, because they give one
damn too many about what random people are saying on the internet.

------
RossM
This sounds preferable to me - at the moment the websites are strangely viewed
as if they directly authorised the content to be published, which obviously
isn't the case.

It will be interesting if a system comes about that content can be removed on
a self-serve basis, a la YouTube.

~~~
cheatercheater
What's more disturbing is that you seem to think there's content which should
be banned from being published.

What a perfect idea, let's start doing that right now. I'll let you decide
what's bad for me! BTW, just bought some baby food, can you please spoon feed
it to me? Also: change my diaper.

Whether an idea should or should not be made available to the masses should
never be in the hands of a process, even a democratic process. Attempts at
doing so are terribly misguided.

If you get offended at drive-by trolling by stupid people then you need to
seek the issue in yourself, not in the website that was the playground to such
behaviour. Grow up. No one's going to play nanny for the world, and if the UK
wants to start doing that, then you can be sure as hell it'll see backlash.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> What's more disturbing is that you seem to think there's content which
> should be banned from being published.

If you'd read TFA, you'd know that this case is where the trolls impersonated
a woman, setting up a facebook profile with her name and photos on it - so
that people who knew her IRL thought it was her profile. That profile painted
her as a paedophile and drug dealer. They did this just for fun.

I'm pretty sure that identity theft and libel (or the equivalent definitions
in other legal systems) are illegal just about everywhere; and can and should
result in this content being "banned from being published", and the anonymity
of the people doing it being stripped away.

This law could be over-broad, I don't know, but if you find the take-down the
most disturbing part of this case, check your sense of proportion.

~~~
sneak
Can we be careful with the term "identity theft", please? Creating a fake
social network profile for the lulz should not ever be a crime. Taking out
credit in someone else's name should be.

A friend is being federally prosecuted (a five-year felony!) for identity
theft... for possessing a list of email addresses.

Please, slow your roll.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> Can we be careful with the term "identity theft", please?

Ok, lets be careful with it:

> "Identity theft is a form of stealing someone's identity in which someone
> pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity, typically in
> order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that
> person's name. The victim of identity theft (here meaning the person whose
> identity has been assumed by the identity thief) can suffer adverse
> consequences if they are held accountable for the perpetrator's actions"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft>

Taking out credit in someone else's name fits that definition exactly. Just
possessing a list of email addresses does not at all.

Now, as for making a fake facebook profile with someone's name and photos:
"someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity" yes,
that fits.

"typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits" -
no, but note that is "typically" not "always".

"The victim of identity theft can suffer adverse consequences" - yes, that
happened.

So on the whole I would say that the definition of identity theft fits in this
case.

------
sparknlaunch
There has recently been a few high profile cases of trolling gone bad.
Anonymity has it's benefits, hence why certain communities work better than
others. Although the trends towards transparency has seen sites like sprouter,
quora, fb, stack exchange excel.

One troll was sentenced today for online threats however he didn't show up to
court....

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4098274>

------
cheatercheater
That's it, I've finally lost.

------
btrollin
I would post about what a great idea I think this is, but I don't want anyone
knowing my real name.

