 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: The end of internet anonymity?
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 12 - 11:37 AM http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/19/new-internet-age-trolls If governments, afraid of the power of internet companies, will not act, will vigilantes do it? And which is better or worse? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Rapparee Date: 20 Oct 12 - 06:33 PM You never had "anonymity" if you used the Internet. Never, and never will. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 20 Oct 12 - 06:43 PM What happens if the Vigilantes turn into Trolls, outing innocent people? This has to be done correctly. It's WAY overdue it was done. Facebook and Youtube, in particular, are two of the very worst sites around for Trolls. I've never seen such nastiness. It makes me despair of the future of humanity at times... The video posted by a young woman, in response to Amanda's death was just beyond words, beyond cruelty, but she could not see it at all and so many of her youtube mates laughed and laughed about it.. No, this cannot be allowed to go on. I also know someone whose life has been touched by a vindictive woman who is making his life hell on Youtube too, yet Youtube refuse to do anything at all... There are a LOT of sick people out there and we have to find the correct way to deal with them, and the sites who allow them to continue posting Poison and driving people to their deaths, without any conscience whatsoever.. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Janie Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:03 PM This thread could almost be combined with the thread JiK started in BS re How Big is your Big Brother. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 12 - 07:24 PM I think probably I would have put this thread in BS: with maybe a Tech indicator as part of the editible title, since it deals mainly with a "social aspect" (or maybe a political one?) of using the internet rather than with a technical issue we need to help someone with to stay connected to mudcat or to better enjoy their music, but it's a decision that's sometimes sort of hard to make. To those of us who watch "trends" in internet usage the article doesn't present anything new, although the drift may have been less noticed by many - possibly a majority - of users. My first thought when I saw a similar (maybe a cut-n-paste) of the original article was "somebody really needed a headline and found some new spin to get it noticed." That doesn't mean it's not an important issue. Just that Rip Van Winkle finally woke up and noticed what's been creeping into lots of places (mostly one I don't visit much) for quite a long time. Just because it's not really a new problem doesn't mean we shouldn't save the world by trying to find a better way to make things new all over ... again ... and again ... and ... . John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 12 - 08:03 PM While I had seen the big brother title I assumed it was one of Krinkle's pieces of moronic shit about US government and threats. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 12 - 11:26 PM RB - You're just tryin' to scare me. (But I may try to be a little clearer with titles for new threads.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: GUEST,Kampervan cookie gone Date: 21 Oct 12 - 01:00 AM I believe that you welcome independent action/vigilantes at your peril. What begins as direct action for a cause that almost eveyone believes is right finishes up with small groups with their own agenda forcing their opinions on everyone else. The only future for a stable society is for enforcement to be in the hands of the elected authority, via some form of police force. to that end when we disagree with the status quo we need to demonstrate, protest, petition/lobby to get things changed. Peaceful protest and civil disobedience such as the Mass Tresspass is one thing, but violence against individuals, property or even organisations is not acceptable. Ultimately that leads to mob rule and no representation for the majority. If you want a website to change its ways then just stop using it. That way their revenue from advertising will dry up and if enough people do it then they will soon respond to calls for a policy shift. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Oct 12 - 01:11 AM There are many of us here who know all too well the harm and nastiness a troll can contribute when he latches onto a forum. Getting a response is his goal. The most amazing thing about the story that Richard posted? A link in it to another article about the outing of Michael Brutsch. This jerk apparently lives and works in the town where I work. I suspect he's going to find a lot of passive aggressive responses now that people know what he is. His dry cleaning bill may go way up. Spilling a large soft drink on him seems only reasonable, if you get the opportunity. But I digress. . . Unlike Jailbait, which apparently sprung from a sincere interest, many of Violentacrez's most offensive subreddits were created just to enrage other Reddit users. At this they were very effective. What happened was, some do-gooder would stumble upon one of his offensive subreddits and expose it to the rest of Reddit in an outraged post. That is ALL it is about. To enrage. To get a reaction. So when someone tells you to stop feeding the trolls, do us all a favor and just stop the conversation. Your impotent expression of rage is just what he craves. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Oct 12 - 03:43 AM Sometimes it gets way, way too personal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/26/day-confronted-troll PS: Hey garg, how did you manage to get the brown italics to spread to the text around my Submit box? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Oct 12 - 03:45 AM It's cause my initials are BS, right? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Oct 12 - 04:47 AM So, Rap, wanna trace somebody for me? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 21 Oct 12 - 05:37 AM I offer this only as info, without taking a side in the can-you-can't-you debate, about which I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. In the main article I linked to above, Traynor credits "a friend who's basically an IT genius, and he offered some help. He said that he could trace the hackers and trolls for me using perfectly legal technology, which would lead to their IP addresses." The thing is, somewhere or other (probably Twitter) I'm sure I saw Traynor say that the main reason this had worked for him was because Ireland is relatively small, so there were far fewer addresses to deal with. In his private blog Traynor's Eye where the Guardian story first appeared, Leo appended this footnote at the bottom: The methodology used by my IT friend has been verified as legal and was almost identical to what is described in this post http://evertb.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/tracking-a-troll/ |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Oct 12 - 08:33 AM The IP addresses are often not available - eg on facebook or here. So they system would not work in quite a lot of cases. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: GUEST,999 Date: 21 Oct 12 - 09:21 AM "The only future for a stable society is for enforcement to be in the hands of the elected authority, via some form of police force." It is when the rule of law is corrupted that vigilantes get called upon. If the rule of law is working, there's no need for vigilantes. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Jeri Date: 21 Oct 12 - 10:53 AM Brutsch lost his job within 24 hours of being outed. He complained: "My wife is disabled. I got a home and a mortgage, and if this hits the fan, I believe this will affect negatively on my employment," he told Gawker. "I do my job, go home watch TV, and go on the internet. I just like riling people up in my spare time."He should not have assumed he wasn't responsible. Consider: if you respect Assange, is this much different, other than being on a small scale? Vigilantes take the law into their own hands. This wasn't anyone doing law enforcement's job. Nobody got killed, incarcerate, beaten up, or had his toys taken away. Brutsch got exposed. Gawker investigated. Gawker reported. If a person does something nasty on the scale this guy did, one should pretty much expect he's going to provoke more than pissed-offness. If that person happens to be a hacker, too bad. We talk a lot about "free speech" here. I suspect it means something completely different to different people. Well, I KNOW it does. Some countries have laws against public lying. Some have laws against being obnoxious. I don't KNOW that (and I could be wrong), but base my opinion on what people say here. In America, the concept of free speech is based on the First Amendment to our Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That's it. It means there can't be any laws against speech, but it doesn't mean if a person says something stupid in public, it won't get put on YouTube, repeated and passed on by people or cause a reaction by those who hear it. If you have the right to say what you will, you also have the right to take responsibility for it. It's not always pretty, and it's a very difficult thing to let those who hear the speaker make up their own minds about whether it's true, whether it's right. It's difficult because one has to trust those people aren't idiots...and sometimes they are. But we aren't discussing politics. Anonymity isn't the problem. It's what people do or say while anonymous. First, if they're nasty, they'll piss people off. If they keep it up long and/or it's virulent enough, someone will be provoked to investigate. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM The First amendment does not prevent liability for what is said. It restricts prior restraint. At least generally. What trolls do is much closer to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. The problem of enabling speech without responsibility lies to a substantial extent with the providers of internet services (not the same as ISPs) who prevent people being identified. Assange is different again. To a large extent he is closer to being a whistleblower. He falsely reported nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Jeri Date: 21 Oct 12 - 11:38 AM This wasn't "falsely reported" either. I expect if it had been, it would have been grounds for legal action. I don't see why the outing of this guy isn't more like whistle-blowing than anything else. There is no US law being taken into any private citizen's hands. As for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, from this forum on Civil Liberties: ...It seems to me it depends on what actions can be attributed to be result of what the speaker says--whether incitement can be proven. Pissing people off just pisses people off. If THAT were illegal, a lot of us at Mudcat would be in some serious shit. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: YorkshireYankee Date: 21 Oct 12 - 12:28 PM Bonnie, thanks for posting the link to "The day I confronted my troll". That's a hell of an article, and one I won't soon forget. My opinion? I think Jeri hit the nail on the head: It means there can't be any laws against speech, but it doesn't mean if a person says something stupid in public, it won't get put on YouTube, repeated and passed on by people or cause a reaction by those who hear it. If you have the right to say what you will, you also have the right to take responsibility for it. Well said! I do take people's points about vigilante-ism, and the possibility/danger of a mistake being made and someone "innocent" being wrongly outed and persecuted. On the other hand, I find it very, very, very hard to feel sorry for either of these guys. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Oct 12 - 12:50 PM The results of his actions being exposed is that Michael Brutsch lost his job. He's a liability to his employer because he will no longer be able to do his job in working with the public and would be scrutinized in his every online transaction. They will probably be searching logs at their company to find if his activity tracks back to them. The entire "reflecting badly" issue as far as his firing may be something he can take to court. I suspect he would have difficulty finding a sympathetic jury. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Oct 12 - 03:41 PM The First Amendment of the US Constitution is much discussed, but few people seem really aware of its real history. The first Constitutional Convention produced the basic document that required acceptance by the states. Some delegates, from some states, were authorized in effect to speak for their states and accept it on behalf of their state, but the majority were required to take it home for acceptance by their state legislatures. Most of the delegates who were nominally given the authority to "approve" what they took back insisted, and some left formal documents indicating thus, that any approval given was conditional on there being another Convention to add an additional "Bill of Rights," to protect the people from the government. The ONE RIGHT that was cited by nearly all whose objection was documented was the prohibition against giving any religion legal authority over the people. While several of the original states/colonies had well established laws at the time, the only one that provides a really visible "history" showing reasons for this condition appears to be the Massachusetts Constitution, which is actually older than the US Constitution. Massachusetts has amended their Consitution "by addition" with no deletions of superceded or obsolete clauses, so it's all there to be examined. The other states have generally "recodified" their documents and deleted what was no longer in effect, so it's much more difficult to see their evolution. In its original form, the Mass. Constitution required the state to tax all of the people to "build a church" in any town that didn't have one. ALL THE PEOPLE were taxed, but only "members in good standing" with the church were allowed to "be citizens" and of course to vote. The CHURCH "elders" made all the laws, and there was assumed to be, and there was in fact, only one church. It took, IIRC, about 100 years before the Mass. Constitution was amended to say that the state would not tax the people to build a church. The law was changed to say that the church would impose the tax to build themselves a new church but that the state was required to collect it, from all the people, for them. The second part of the First Amendment was, according to some, originally intended to permit "political speech" and as a "slap in the face" to the earlier colonial rule that frequently jailed people for "insults to the Crown." The freedom of speech clause was more or less "put together by committee" at the later Convention that produced the Bill of Rights Amendments. The freedom of speech clause has been litigated a whole lot, primarily because the newspapers who had a whole lot of money in earlier times found that they could influence the courts to their own advantage. Changes have been frequent (and sometimes quite confusing). When the International Committee put together the new Consitution for Germany after "the big war" many thought the Weimar Constitution was almost identical in effect, and "about as good as" the US Constitution. The single major exception was the absence of a prohibion against a State Church. The first international treaty the new party signed ca 1938 was with the Vatican and Germany became quite confused almost immediately. ... (One opinion here, but I've spent a long time getting to it.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Oct 12 - 03:48 AM Anonymity has been the ally of cowards and bullies for a long time and it should be seriously reviewed in certain cases. However, how could we ensure that anonymity is maintained in cases where it should be? Those very legislative bodies who would ensure that the cyber-bully or stalker was made public could also make public those who's views are considered radical or harmful to the Government or, worse still, religion they represent. Where do we draw the line? We also need to be aware it is not just Facebook, YouTube and the big players who are affected. There are people on here who are very free with their false and potentially harmful accusations. Should they be 'outed' too? While I agree with and support the general principle of ensuring safety I think that we do need to be careful how these things are approached. Good intentions, shouting and wooly thinking will not be enough to ensure everyone's rights. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:28 AM Anyone prepared to debate religions should be prepared to do so publicly. Political speech should in general be public too. Whistleblowing to the proper authorities should in general be protected (and the protection should not be reduced as the conservatives propose). Disclosure of IP addresses (and MAC numbers) in general should be obligatory. Governments have that information already (save where it is not retained by ISPs). Other victims should too. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Oct 12 - 05:38 AM True, Richard, but what of the critics of both religious and secular authorities who would be persecuted to extreme levels if their identities became public? It's OK to say you should be able to publicly criticise anyone but, sadly, there are too many people in power who would shut those critics up violent means :-( How would we protect them? Or should they not be allowed to post those views on the internet? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: GUEST,michael gill Date: 22 Oct 12 - 06:06 AM What if an "elder statesmen in the field of folk music" complains to a moderator that I've publicly criticised them? (not even anonymously). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:07 AM The point about identification is that a person of or to whom you speak has proper remedies. Without identification they have not. The state has (at high level) powers to identify - and also has the duty to protect its members but the latter is impeded on an everyday level by the barriers placed in the way of identification. On another thread here a troll has revealed that he knows the identity of a member here, and although I have very little in common with the member outed, his view that he was being threatened seems very credible. When supporters of for example the BNP or EDL or the IRA or Captain Hook or Putin say they know where you live it can only convey one message. That message can only be defeated if they can be identified. Incidentally, did you see that one of the EDL candidates in the PCC elections has been arrested? LMFAO. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Oct 12 - 08:39 PM Somebody suggested that this thread be moved to the non-music section because it moved rather far from the "tech" area. Sounded like a good idea to me. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: number 6 Date: 22 Oct 12 - 09:36 PM Hmmm ... being on the internet is like walking down a crowded street in some metropolis ... you are there, but in fact know body really notices you, no body really knows you. Problem is, sadly, many people think they are the centre of the universe because they are on the internet. biLL who is on Facebook, is here on the Madcat, just one ip address amongst millions. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: The end of internet anonymity? From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 23 Oct 12 - 10:28 AM You can argue the pros and cons of 'free speech' and 'anonymity' and 'cyberbullying' till you are blue in the face. But the fact is that most people on this planet are normal, and normal people will not stand by when a pervert drives a kid to suicide. If thousands of people do something, no one can stop them. ============= Rapparee said (upthread) that there is no anonymity on the Internet. I think he's right. For example, a child pornographer was recently arrested in my city. He had been traced because his camera left its serial number imbedded in the data when he posted pornographic images of children online. Who knew? |
| Share Thread: |
