Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

Originally posted by Snarf

Originally posted by TheAssociate
It's basically a moot point. IP's can be spoofed through a number of methods. I do it myself, regularly and recommend others do the same.

A couple of examples:

Tor

Virtual Private Networks


-TheAssoc.

What you're not revealing is that everything you do leaves a trail. If someone wants to find you bad enough, all the spoofing in the world won't hide you.

QFT if there is a program out there that hides you there is a program out there that will find you.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Anonymity is key to the internet. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out the kitchen.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...fine, have it your way... when mcdonalds or walmart or bank of america or google or some other mucky muck sues you for posting an unflattering opinion of them, dont complain...

That's basicly the thrust of my post on the first page.
It can potentially open a Pandoras box of possibilities which includes a quagmire of lawsuits and rulings all meant to silence peoples percieved unfavorable opinions of Corporations and or Politicians etc....

reply to post by Mr Mask


Not just Google but
Twitter
Facebook
Most major blogs
Places you can post responses
Myspace.

Matter fact I just got a pop up notice here at ATS telling me how many posts, where I have posted, what I have posted, and who has responded to my posts without even requesting the info.


Personally I dont look at other peoples posts and make a value judgement about them whether they are worthy or unworthy. Credible Uncredible or Incredible I dont know why some here do.

As long as you arent stealing, murdering, destroying property or causing someone bodily harm...I'm totally ok with ya. Dont care what weird fetishes you have or whatever. Just don't do those 4 (steal, murder, cause bodily harm, or destroy property). Its all good.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Anonymity is key to the internet. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out the kitchen.

That's very easy to say. Now in this case she was not the one posting the video. When you deal with a bully/stalker it's not like you're actually joining them and inviting them to turn your life into living hell or anything like that. They are the ones that shall stay out of the kitchen.

I think that woman is very brave doing this. Even this is "only" the tip of the iceberg. If there only were a easy solution as some here already suggested, no need to change the law. Just there ain't no easy, simple or right solutions. You can (hopefully) control your own actions. But you can not control another persons doings. In particular when hiding behind a screen.

So while "terms of privacy" is a must these days, and should be respected, of course, it just can't be acceptable that full grown men got to be protected by the law. I'm not referring to the standard comments on YouTube. The question is where to draw a line ?

If people have not been down this road themselves, they can't imagine how it's like. People who have, know that there ain't no simple answer or advice. Everything that involves this issue... It be the internet or real life or both is a world of grey.
In any case. A supershield of humor, from the dark side can always become very handy. And it doesn't cost anything

its hilarious to me that, 6 pages into this thread, the vast majority STILL think this is about ending all anonymous posting.

seriously, people, read the article.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...fine, have it your way... when mcdonalds or walmart or bank of america or google or some other mucky muck sues you for posting an unflattering opinion of them, dont complain...

That's basicly the thrust of my post on the first page.
It can potentially open a Pandoras box of possibilities which includes a quagmire of lawsuits and rulings all meant to silence peoples percieved unfavorable opinions of Corporations and or Politicians etc....

But how can this be a 'slippery slope' when all it is doing is enforcing slander and libel laws which have existed for decades

Why is it people forget the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names (words) may never hurt me?"

google is a farce of a company, doing evil while at the same moment using the mantra "do no evil".. what a paradox they weave..

If you let words hurt you, then your skin is almost non existent, people like her are the reason why we have a yin/yang society of PC mentality people, whose skin is so thin, you can see right through it..

She needs to simply ignore it, buck up, and be an adult rather then a child in an adults body..

it will be interesting to see how this develops.. one must consider how differently we might potentially interact with one another online while not under the reassuring veil of anonyminity.

reply to post by abysmal_sloth


It will be very interesting to watch what comes from this. While I continue to believe that online users be held accountable for actions that cause harm to others, there is a fine line to be walked here and this will be interesting to follow (in the larger scheme of things)...

I've read this site for a while now and kind of hoped that my first post would be of a little more substance here, but I cant help but to be disgusted at how some of these people are okay with something like this happening. If you dont like being bullied, do something about it. Confront them. It doesnt have to lead to violence. Hell, most people are too busy supporting ideas like this to actually defend themselves so its not like you would have anything to worry about. I was bullied when I was a kid because I had a problem with nervous tics. People still made fun of me because we were poor. So what. I stood up for myself if I felt the need, and other times I let things go. Thats life. Depending on the government to stand up for you is just another way for them to criminalize any private aspect of your life as long as they make you feel a wee bit safer in exchange. People supporting this idea need to get over their painful memories and quit pissing the bed. Are you better off now than they are? If not, then maybe you actually have a problem. I digress, when people involve the government and criminal law into emotional issues, it never ends good and pulls an endless string until you have no privacy left.


These kids are'nt sex offenders, damn.....Theyre bullies and one day they'll bully the wrong one and see what its like.

Does anyone ever read some of the comments left on youtube videos? These kids are absolutely insane! It's mostly real childish and resorts to ever other word being F this F you followed by some racial or other kind of insult onto another person.... Is there a reason these types of sites don't have mods and super mods? I feel if this were the case 80% of the comments on their wouldn't not exist....

reply to post by jheated5


IMO - there is a very big difference between being a willing participant (i.e. uploading videos yourself and allowing comments) and being a victim (i.e. someone else uploading videos of you, without permission) and then intentionally slandering and harassing you. That is the thrust of THIS particular story and what has led to the action the woman took in her defense.

Now, what consequences (good/bad/indifferent) have on the future of online anonymity and how that will apply, is yet to be seen, but no question something has changed...

To people who replied to me.

If you think spoofing isn't secure enough, just go to an internet cafe or (not to go into too much detail but...) take a trip around town with your laptop. There are ways to surf in complete anonymity, but I don't think this is the appropriate time or place to discuss them.


-TheAssoc.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Google works for (and is a private contractor of) the CIA.
Why would a court have to order this? Couldn't the CIA just have stepped in and said- "don't worry, we got that info right here! Hell we have secretly been spying on you with our puppet-company Google for years now! Here ya go!"?

I can see you've never worked for the government. I have.

First of all, the government isn't anything close to that integrated. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. That's because the government is huge. It's a big bureaucracy. The CIA doesn't pay attention to what's going on in the courts unless it directly affects them or pertains to an intelligence matter. They couldn't care less about this woman and her lawsuit.

Secondly, just because Google works as a private contractor for the CIA, that doesn't mean that the CIA can simply order Google to turn over whatever data they want or that Google isa CIA puppet. Things like this have to go through formal request processes. In many cases, court orders are required. And the CIA has to have good reason to request anything of any outside company. This lawsuit would be well out of their purview.

And back to that huge bureaucracy: let's say you're a defense or intelligence contractor. Before you can begin on anything, you have to be given a government purchase order. It has to be signed (approved) by mutliple people on both government side and on the contractor's end. Getting all the signoffs to do this often takes weeks, sometimes months or years.

What this means is that the government, particularly the CIA, cannot act anywhere near as impulsively as you seem to think. The scary part is that when the CIA does do something evil, they clearly thought it through well in advance.

My thoughts on the subject. If you can't post your thoughts on the internet civilly then you don't need to be posting at all.

People get brave on the internet because they can hide behind the veil of anonymity. They say and do things that they would not do in person because they know if they did they would get in trouble.

Free speech does not permit you to defame, harass and insult. It allows you to speak your mind and state your opinion. Those are two different things. If you cannot state your opinion with out resorting to defamation and harassment, then you may have some deep seated issues anyway.

reply to post by LadySkadi

Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

We have become a nation of victims... and unfortunately, this suits the government just fine.

This is NOT to absolve bullying or those who prey on others. But it should be noted that many on-line victims become victims because of poor choices of where they chose to visit and who they chose to associate.

In the virtual spaces of the web, it really is as simple as pushing, or clicking a button and 'poof' you are free and the bully is gone. Unless you are hacked or your ID stolen... bullies are only a part of your life because you let them in.

If we were a smarter society... one that was more worthy of the technology we are gifted with, there would be far fewer victims and many less bullies.

That's one man's opinion... my own.

The problem is anonymity of posters. The probelm is the UTube itself allows stuff that has bad language etc etc. They don't even edit posters foul comments.
UTube itself, the owners are the problem. It's turn me off UTube.

pfft I enjoy anonymous bullying

Ive got bullied and I bully a lot


and I agree 100% with the famous quote

"True freedom of speech, even offensive, is achieved in it's greatest form in anonymity. "

I detest political correctness, it's one thing that makes me sick, and I will not be politically correct.

these sissy's need to "man up" or get off the computer

if us bullies resort to illegal Real Life tactics then yes then punish, but otherwise they should just stop whining.

So, no one here is familiar with the various defamation laws we've had in this country or a very long time?

This is nothing new. This is merely the same standard most public mediums are subjected to being upheld for the internet.

It's about time. The internet could be MUCH more effective if it wasnt a dumping ground for adolescent hacks. Enforcing libel laws against anonymous cowards is a productive endeavor.

Have you noticed rude and inappropriate comments get removed from ATS? That's because it's counter-productive to a good, informative debate. Why you are all defending cowardly, aggressive posting is beyond me.

Criminal libel is a libel punishable criminally. It consists of a defamation of an individual (or group) made public by a printing or writing. The defamation must tend to excite a breach of the peace or damage the individual (or group) in reference to his character, reputation, or credit. Read more: Criminal Libel - The History Of Criminal Libel, Development Of The Law In The United States, The Constitutional Protection Of Freedom Of Expression law.jrank.org...

law.jrank.org...


reply to post by Cito


So you think current libel laws are innapropriate?

Or are you merely unfamiliar with them?

Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical. To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.