Be Excellent To Each Other

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621



Yay for well thought through legislation!

::types::

::deletes::

I think it is a good idea..

Some people aren't great, but, HEY the majority are GREAT PEOPLE! YAY!

Seriosuly, though folks, it's not a great idea this, seems to be soemwhat rushed and poorly thought out, as these things often are.

EDIT: WOAH NOW WAIT A MINUTE! This looks distinctly like libel reform.

What problems are people having with it?

Is this for sites hosted in the UK only? How wide ranging is the UK law?

It'll still need a court order to get the IP address, then I assume another court order to get the ISP to hand over identification, then you'll need proof that the IP relates to that person etc...

So there are all these current ongoing complaints , in some cases championed by the internet where the defence against piracy is that 'IP addresses cannot be 100% relied upon to identify someone'

And this will simply give out an IP address to track back and use that to say who posted that ?

Is anyone taking bets on the first time that someone tracks down and badly beats up / kills a troll (or someone accused of being a troll?)

NSFW due to language but I prefer this as an answer :

Briefly, there was an article about some guy or other in the Middle East which as printed in a paper and was on thier website hosted overseas. Somebody in this coutnry read the article from a computer in the UK and that was enough to make it doable in the UK. I can't recall teh specifics of it right now, but location of servers doesn't really matter a bean.

If anything, it may act to deter people from being genuinely horrible behind the anonymity of the internet.

But if the UK government petitioned say, a swedish website for an IP address, could they just not tell them to knob off?

Doubtful, fucknuts.

It is too easy to hide behind a screen...

They would write "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".

Not if it is backlit, it'll throw a shadow. Which might make you look really tall.

Define 'defamatory messages'.

I think it's rather marvellous.

I don't buy nor read newspapers so I rely on the internet for all of my news. The comments on some of these news sites is just unbelievable. Seriously, by reading Yahoo comments you would think that Hitler is alive and well and all of his disciples are doing his bidding.

Any article about the middle east draws out all of the closet racists and before you know it Islam and Muslims are taking a battering. The hilarity being of course that some of the news articles are about India who of course aren't even Muslims.

When some one dies you have the "know all hindsight" twats turning up to crow on like that old bloke in Harry Enfield. "Now I don't believe you wanted to do that !".

I find the actions of people on the internet, at times, fucking disgusting. You wouldn't turn up at a funeral mouthing off telling people how they should have ran their life, and you wouldn't walk into a mosque and start mouthing off a load of racist bigoted bile.

So I'm all for it. It's only a bunch of sad fucks who have no real worth so bolster their sad lives by interfering in others'.

Had this been law a few years ago I wouldn't have been subjected to a couple of weirdos stalking me and posting my address all over internet forums.

A person saying something to someone about a third person that will make the average person think worse of that third person, from the top of my head.

That's pretty specific, what about if they do it from under your armpit?

See, as a tool to enforce defamation law, I'm OK with it. My concern is wording.



Malicious messages <> defamatory messages.

Calling someone bad names couild be defamatory.

It could. It could be true and still be malicious though.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. However, I can't help but feel that one could walk away from twitter/facebook whatever and avoid such a problem that way, if it is causing such distress. But then, I suppose, you are into the arena of people's rights to use such things and I've not got fully formed thoughts on this yet. It's worlds away from having your house spray painted or some stuff like that, and i feel slightly uncomfortable with the sense of entitlement over some issues. I haven't really read the details of the case, though, it was something to do witht he X Factor, and then someone called someone a drug dealer or somesuch?

Conceptually, I see this being potentially a good thing. The woman who was harassed on facebook was an extreme case of defamation that clearly demands resolution.

However, I then see this progressing to a state where the boundaries get stretched to encompass views and opinions, and we find ourselves at a point where people with the time and means to use this 'right' taking it to the point abuse of a power originally brought in to protect people from rare and extreme circumstances. I give you Superinjunctions.

Unless you're DavPaz.

And those comments will still be there - this just makes it easier for someone to track down the IP address used when that comment was posted.



Again , no , you would have been subjected to the exact same stuff just that you could have found out the IP address used at the time (no - not me - could have been anyone using my unsecured wifi , or you track it down to a coffee shop , or you track it down to someone who doesnt like you - so what - whats the next step other than getting some of your mates to go around to the address you've found with some bricks)

Well, yes, quite. Outlawing theft doesn't stop people nicking stuff.

Amateur

But what exactly in existing defamation legislation doesn't already address that situation?

BASIC != good.

Is there a language where <> and != aren't the same thing?

Maths notation, innit.

3<>5 makes sense.

3!=6 can be either (3<>5) or (3*2*1=5), which are of course different.

No, that would be x ≠ y.

What? I can't think of any sensible languages where <> means anything at all.

Still better than using notation that actually means something else.

SQL is laughing in your face

In fact, != isn't ANSI compliant and <> is...

Not that I ever use it

It's quite a bit like someone being harassed by phone calls, though. The police and courts take action over that don't they? At least I've never heard anyone say that they should stop feeling so entitled and just not have a phone.

Emphasis added.

Also, http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

You are shifting the goalposts somewhat, yes. Feel free to define your interpretation of "sensible".

Yeah, I suppose. There's the offence of making a malicious communication or something like that, whihc should cover it, but ho hum, I dunno really. As I said, it's not fully formed thoughts in my mind.

Duh. Languages which don't use "<>", obviously. You're making this too easy.

(http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question)

I demand the owner of this site reveals your real name and address, Welshman.

IF YOU EVEN ARE WELSH!

(Who wants the next bit?)

or a Man


Did I do it right?

You did.

o/

( http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem )

So, it's ok for me to call you all arsehole-sucking gobshites as long as you know my name? Gotcha.

My name is Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo.

Insert tingtings.gif here.

If they know your true name you're open to magical attack!

\o

Anyway - I still can't see any specific reasons why people are objecting to it.

What's the downside, haterz?