PDA

View Full Version : Anonymity and the Internet - "Real Names Policies are an Abuse of Power"



Pages : [1] 2

C. Flower
30-08-2010, 11:17 AM
This forum has an increasing number of members who post in their own names, but the practice of political forums in Ireland and internationally over the last decade has been to post anonymously. I welcome both, and I think that the decision of both groups should be respected.

Political World does its best to maintain the anonymity of users, and "outing" is a banning offence. At the same time, our Terms of Use warn that anonymity can't be guaranteed, as hacking, legal requirements, accidental self-disclosure and human error can bring anonymity to an end.

None of us can rely on our anonymity being maintained indefinitely. However, it does allow a freedom of discussion that would not be permissable if everyone was using their own names. As the purpose of this forum is to provide for breadth and depth of robust discussion, anonymity is an important issue for us.

The right to anonymity on the internet is under increasing pressure from US Security Agencies, that are also working in liaison with China, through the UN to initiate legislation which will make all internet use traceable to IP. There is a drive from the Obama administration to curtail internet discussion, in terms of both content and anonymity, with policy and legislation under preparation. This is now going beyond IP identification to proposals for a "unique finger print" system that is linked to each internet user.
As there are already protocols in place to allow tracing of IPs where crimes are involved, the justification for this is highly questionable.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html *

Political views are for good reason defined as "sensitive under the Data Protection legislation. Individuals may in particular be subject to discrimination by employers on political grounds.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/a_guide_for_data_contollers/696.htm

Anonymity is not a license for illegal writing and forum rules here forbid it equally for anonymous and named posters. Its not at issue that the law in such cases may require handover of details.

But a dangerous precedent took place in relation to the "Red Cross Blogger" whose case was discussed here.

The blogger’s decision to reveal his identity comes shortly after internet service provider UPC was forced to comply with an order to supply details about him to the charity. In a controversial move, the charity brought a High Court action against Google Ireland and UPC last month seeking to know the identity of the person behind the blog.

In its petition it claimed the contents of the blog had had a serious impact on staff morale, on fundraising and on the day-to-day running of the organisation.http://governancereformatirishredcross.blogspot.ie/
Note: there was no claim of libel or other illegality - just that the content might have had negative effect on the organisation.

I would have expected the Press to react to this worrying judgement, but consistently Irish press opinion writers use their position to have a go at anonymity. In Ireland, most attacks on internet anonymity come from professional writers and journalists, who may feel that both their livelihoods and the professional standards they uphold are under attack from the vast, messy, popularisation of access to readable media, but who are missing the point in terms of freedom of expression and personal privacy.

Declan Kiberd's recent Irish Times article attacks communications technologies - phones - Facebook etc. - for, he says, the isolation and egotism they beget. He also (ironically) attacks them for reducing privacy and pressurising people to socialise. His arguments seem to me emanate unconscious resentment at the opening up of the closed shop of news media commentary, which for so long had been the carefully managed preserve of wealthy media owners and State broadcasting operations. He has nothing explicit to say about politics on the internet, but these comments might be aimed at that direction -

...The internet seldom promotes independent thought, but has allowed naive people to copy and paste cloned paragraphs under the delicious illusion that they are creating something in a process of “interactive learning”...The fatal lure of YouTube is its injunction to “broadcast yourself”, licensing the expression of nutty, embarrassing opinions in the guise of democratic exchange. Most of that is specious nonsense.

Doubtless, at the foot of this column, you’ll be told you can “have your say” online. However, you won’t have to supply a name and address, as those honest people who write letters to the editor have to do. It’s true, of course, that some people post sites with a degree of self-irony; and that others have used them, as James Joyce might have done, to enter rather than evade their own psyches.

As yet, alas, the new technologies have produced no new art forms. Mostly, it’s been a matter of bullying, beheadings and bad, bad vibes. Masked and anonymous ranters use the media to vent. Others employ it to steal the copyright of lovely songs and beautiful texts. No wonder Dylan is so mad.
This seems to me to be patent nonsense. There are thousands of personal opinion and political blogs on the internet, many of them under pen names, that equal the quality of the print media in both content and expression. Forums allow the kind of "coffee-house" political debate that is a forcing ground for developing and spreading political ideas.

The Print Media often prints utter garbage and there is plenty of garbage on the internet. The idea that the argument for and against anonymity has to do with quality has no basis in fact.

Kiberd seems to be spluttering with frustration over the thought of anyone other than Media barons and State broadcasting companies have the power to publish. And, in spite of the fact that print news media every day publishes writers anonymously or under non-de-plumes, he is particularly upset that some of these members of the 'great unwashed' ( or unpaid) choose to comment anonymously.

Anonymous political writing has been around since first there was politics and writing. Likewise, attacks on anonymity. Many of English literature's greatest works were published under noms de plume. Kiberd would have them labelled as "dishonest".

Today we have forgotten that the first readers of Gulliver's Travels and Sense and Sensibility had to guess who their authors might be, and that writers like Sir Walter Scott and Charlotte Brontë went to elaborate lengths to keep secret their authorship of the best-selling books of their times. But, in fact, anonymity is everywhere in English literature. Spenser, Donne, Marvell, Defoe, Swift, Fanny Burney, Austen, Byron... http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8745.html It's a nice irony that Kibert quotes Bob Dylan aka Robert Allen Zimmerman favourably in his article.

American law, now under attack from the Obama administration, deems that the right of Freedom of Speech (would that we had same here) extended to anonymous comment.

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/514-334b.txt

Digital Rights Ireland has an excellent blog here on the advantages of anonymity and on the current legal position in Ireland, which under some circumstances upholds the right to anonymity, but allows for ISP identification without the IP owner even being forewarned of the case.

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2010/08/29/in-defence-of-online-anonymity/

Digital Rights reminds Declan Kiberd that not everyone enjoys the same protections from harrassment and penalty in expressing themselves.


Professor Kiberd, for example, enjoys by virtue of the Universities Act the academic freedom “to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions” without fear of being penalised by his employer. Others, however, may not be so fortunate.Irish journalists need to take a rethink on anonymity and the use of nom de plumes and to maintain their generally honorable position in upholding rights for freedom of speech without retribution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links to the IT articles on the Red Cross blogger and Declan Kiberd's articles -
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0814/1224276813508.htm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0827/1224277687034.html
*
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates.
...
"What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. "That's really a human rights concern."(Apologies if you find that the IT articles are behind pay walls)

eoinmn
30-08-2010, 11:53 AM
Anonymity has its uses and the right to it must be protected, however...

readers of blogs, fora etc, need to wise up and remember that what is being written by someone with a fictitious name may well be fiction.

I could claim here that I am a former disgruntled member of Sinn Fein who has now joined Fis Nua. I could make various claims about things which have gone on at Fis Nua or SF meetings and I doubt anyone on this forum (once the claims were plausible) would dispute what I am saying. People would be quick to challenge my opinions on issues but not the "facts" I spew.

The fact that I basically use my real name makes it near impossible however to create this fictitious backstory and related claims.

Also on a second point, while I have no problem with debating with anonymous people on here, p-dot-ie and other fora. I have a slight problem with it on Twitter and a big problem with it on Facebook. I think it is basic netiquette not to post anonymously on Facebook.

Kev Bar
30-08-2010, 11:58 AM
Anonymity has its uses and the right to it must be protected, however...

readers of blogs, fora etc, need to wise up and remember that what is being written by someone with a fictitious name may well be fiction.

I could claim here that I am a former disgruntled member of Sinn Fein who has now joined Fis Nua. I could make various claims about things which have gone on at Fis Nua or SF meetings and I doubt anyone on this forum (once the claims were plausible) would dispute what I am saying. People would be quick to challenge my opinions on issues but not the "facts" I spew.

The fact that I basically use my real name makes it near impossible however to create this fictitious backstory and related claims.

Also on a second point, while I have no problem with debating with anonymous people on here, p-dot-ie and other fora. I have a slight problem with it on Twitter and a big problem with it on Facebook. I think it is basic netiquette not to post anonymously on Facebook.

I don't know what you do with your spare time, Eoin...so you are free to weave whatever delights your imagination.

eoinmn
30-08-2010, 12:02 PM
Thanks Kev Bar... if that is indeed your real name. :)

C. Flower
30-08-2010, 12:21 PM
Thanks Kev Bar... if that is indeed your real name. :)


Well, it is, just in the same way as eoinmn is yours :)

Garland Names the Planets
30-08-2010, 01:47 PM
My is Fionn. Hello

Seán Ryan
30-08-2010, 02:37 PM
I'm all for the right to privacy. I don't believe it exists other than on paper mind you. I post under my own name, for a number of reasons. I posted under the handle of "hermes" in Machine Nation, but regretted doing so. I use my name for continuity (I post in a few different places) and I post under my own name because I'm fully prepared to stand behind anything I might have to say and will face the consequences head on.

This big brother crap shouldn't cow people (and I'm not for a second suggesting that's why folks post anonymously). The "authorities" are mostly unable to cope with intelligence they gather outside of the internet. I reckon we should flood them with information overload on the internet, cause even if it's made law that they cannot gather intelligence on you, they'll do it anyway.

I say let's concentrate on the real world consequences of their intelligence gathering. Look out for each other. The Net can and will take care of itself.

Kev Bar
30-08-2010, 03:27 PM
My is Fionn. Hello
Hello, And as big lips sang:
Pleased to meet, hope you guess my name ... but what's troubling me is the nature of the game.

C. Flower
31-08-2010, 02:40 PM
The British Courts are involved in an unusual case involving anonymity at the moment. "Stig" of Top Gear is being prevented by the BBC from outing himself in an autobiography.

Can't quite get my head around the implications of this yet. It will be interesting to see what the Court decides.

C. Flower
29-10-2011, 04:08 PM
There is an ongoing debate about online anonymity and the use of pseudonyms. It erupted recently when Google eliminated many accounts from Google + on grounds that they were pseudonymous.

The case for anonymous political debate is imo very strong as it depersonalises debate and allows for more focus on the issues. Pseudonyms allow people who for many reasons may be restricted from or damaged by public discussion of their political opinions to take part in discussions.

Many of the best political writers have always written at least some of theri work anonymously - examples - Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, Lenin and Trotsky.

I just came across this blog, which strongly makes the case that anonymity protects the less powerful in society.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html



Another site has popped up called “My Name Is Me” where people vocalize their support for pseudonyms. What’s most striking is the list of people who are affected by “real names” policies, including abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people....

The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren’t new (and I’ve even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness.


Some reasons given on different blogs for use of a nom de plume -



“I am a high school teacher, privacy is of the utmost importance.”
“I have used this name/account in a work context, my entire family know this name and my friends know this name. It enables me to participate online without being subject to harassment that at one point in time lead to my employer having to change their number so that calls could get through.”
“I do not feel safe using my real name online as I have had people track me down from my online presence and had coworkers invade my private life.”
“I’ve been stalked. I’m a rape survivor. I am a government employee that is prohibited from using my IRL.”
“As a former victim of stalking that impacted my family I’ve used [my nickname] online for about 7 years.”
“[this name] is a pseudonym I use to protect myself. My web site can be rather controversial and it has been used against me once.”
“I started using [this name] to have at least a little layer of anonymity between me and people who act inappropriately/criminally. I think the “real names” policy hurts women in particular.
“I enjoy being part of a global and open conversation, but I don’t wish for my opinions to offend conservative and religious people I know or am related to. Also I don’t want my husband’s Govt career impacted by his opinionated wife, or for his staff to feel in any way uncomfortable because of my views.”
“I have privacy concerns for being stalked in the past. I’m not going to change my name for a google+ page. The price I might pay isn’t worth it.”
“We get death threats at the blog, so while I’m not all that concerned with, you know, sane people finding me. I just don’t overly share information and use a pen name.”
“This identity was used to protect my real identity as I am gay and my family live in a small village where if it were openly known that their son was gay they would have problems.”
“I go by pseudonym for safety reasons. Being female, I am wary of internet harassment.”

jpc
29-10-2011, 06:55 PM
Clever way to stifle debate and comment.
If that is what you want.

Dr. FIVE
29-10-2011, 07:37 PM
We were always told never to put personal info online. Now they can't control the message that's all changed. I am all for it and will defend it but the one problem is it's easy to construct straw men around the question of anonymity and neatly sidestep the valid points being made for those who wish to avoid them.

Frankie Lee
29-10-2011, 07:52 PM
Ah ****, I'll have to be known as Francis Leigh now. :(

jpc
29-10-2011, 07:59 PM
We were always told never to put personal info online. Now they can't control the message that's all changed. I am all for it and will defend it but the one problem is it's easy to construct straw men around the question of anonymity and neatly sidestep the valid points being made for those who wish to avoid them.

You have put the case for anonymity perfectly!

Count Bobulescu
30-10-2011, 03:31 AM
You know, I think there is a place for both anonymous and disclosed comment. I think practices will evolve to the point where it will be like the airlines (ok, not Ryanair), where anonymous comment will be like economy class, and disclosed comment will be like business/first class. The disparity between the qualities of comment in the classes will persuade some people that in some circumstances disclosure is preferable, and the opposite will also be true.

Example: I occasionally participate in an email listserv devoted to discussion of US Freedom of Information Act issues. All that’s required to sign up is a valid email address, so it could be as anonymous PW, but overwhelmingly posters voluntarily disclose their identity and affiliations. On the rare occasion when someone deviates they are quickly named and shamed. When the focus is one single topic such as FOIA, as opposed to PW which ranges broadly, there’s merit and credibility in full disclosure. Lot’s of lawyers, journalists, etc. participate, so an ethical standard is presumed, and has to be enforced.

Bottom line, the best discussion will take place in the arenas where full disclosure is mandatory.

Full disclosure: I have never used MySpace, Facebook, Google+, or Twitter, and will avoid them for as long as I can.

Seán Ryan
30-10-2011, 03:57 AM
I absolutely agree that real name policies are an abuse of power. They fall at the very first hurdle of free speech, in that they dictate what must be said first, which undoubtedly tempers what follows.

Google is a great example. This company has become a monopoly that offers very little with regard to the idea of a service. The phrase "too big to fail" has become very popular as of late in its ironic sense - the Titanic was too big to fail.

That all said, I personally don't practice online anonymity. My own particular approach to activism is almost diametrically opposite to the approach of groups like Anonymous, even though I wholeheartedly support and admire them.

I am not anonymous.

No need to expect me cause I'm already here and in your face.

I am an individual.

I sometimes forget and I sometimes forgive.

Etc.

If online anonymity is a result of fear, it is a weakness, no matter how justified and real that fear is. I most certainly temper what I have to say publicly and to my friends. But it is not fear that drives this. It is a coupling of respect and intellect.

All the same, nobody should be forced to conform to my philosophy, or that of anyone else. Maybe the Open Source movement will once again find traction in this critical and growing debate. Google can be replaced, it might be powerful, but it only offers a tiny portion of the web. This blatant ignorance promoting censorship is the other side of the coin, I think, in this topic.

C. Flower
30-10-2011, 07:42 AM
You know, I think there is a place for both anonymous and disclosed comment. I think practices will evolve to the point where it will be like the airlines (ok, not Ryanair), where anonymous comment will be like economy class, and disclosed comment will be like business/first class. The disparity between the qualities of comment in the classes will persuade some people that in some circumstances disclosure is preferable, and the opposite will also be true.

Example: I occasionally participate in an email listserv devoted to discussion of US Freedom of Information Act issues. All that’s required to sign up is a valid email address, so it could be as anonymous PW, but overwhelmingly posters voluntarily disclose their identity and affiliations. On the rare occasion when someone deviates they are quickly named and shamed. When the focus is one single topic such as FOIA, as opposed to PW which ranges broadly, there’s merit and credibility in full disclosure. Lot’s of lawyers, journalists, etc. participate, so an ethical standard is presumed, and has to be enforced.

Bottom line, the best discussion will take place in the arenas where full disclosure is mandatory.

Full disclosure: I have never used MySpace, Facebook, Google+, or Twitter, and will avoid them for as long as I can.

On quality of comment, while I'm sure there is "disclosed" discussion and comment that is very high quality, there is also a massive amount of bilge. The mainstream media is full of it. Overall, on the economy, which has been the critical area of comment in the last five years, this forum has been well ahead of the "disclosed" mainstream media in analysis and prediction.

Pseudonymous online discussion allows all comers to take part on an equal standing, and their contributions are taken on their merits, not on the basis of status, professional standing, age, gender (in many cases this is not revealed), wealth, or power of any kind. I can't think of any other arena in which this happens.

It's my impression that most people who fear and dislike online discussion do so because they feel it's a diminution of their power and control over social discourse.

And of course, people who prefer to use their "real world" identity are very welcome within the discussion in this forum. It would be nice to be in a world in which everyone feels comfortable doing this :)

Binn Beal
30-10-2011, 07:58 AM
For the benefit of the Google thought police, I wish to state that Binn Beal is my real name. My mother, Mrs Beal, chose the first name, Binn, because I was so sweet as a baby.

Fraxinus
30-10-2011, 12:22 PM
For the benefit of the Google thought police, I wish to state that Binn Beal is my real name. My mother, Mrs Beal, chose the first name, Binn, because I was so sweet as a baby.

Oh my god don't tell me you're Ian and Cindy's kid!:eek: That chipshop is your birth right and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise!

Fraxinus
30-10-2011, 12:32 PM
Fraxinus is my real name but I didn't want to include the surname because I have so much family all over the country.

Spectabilis
30-10-2011, 01:21 PM
Fraxi? Is that you? Mum will be pleased we have been reunited. At last. Have you seen Tertullian at all?

Fraxinus
30-10-2011, 01:28 PM
Fraxi? Is that you? Mum will be pleased we have been reunited. At last. Have you seen Tertullian at all?

It is indeed! Last I saw of him he had met some hippies and was heading to Scarrif in a VW camper van:eek:

Baron von Biffo
30-10-2011, 01:49 PM
Pseudonymous online discussion allows all comers to take part on an equal standing, and their contributions are taken on their merits, not on the basis of status, professional standing, age, gender (in many cases this is not revealed), wealth, or power of any kind.

That's an excellent case for the anonymous poster. The idea that the merit of the argument being more important than the status of the person advancing is something we could do with a lot more of in society.

It's useful to have a mechanism for public comment that doesn't expose one to public odium for articulating unpopular opinions.

Years ago I used to post to Usenet and as an unmoderated forum it could get hairy at times. In particular commenting on American groups about US policy was pretty much guaranteed to attract several death threats. That was the extreme but even on an Irish group one guy made quite determined efforts to track me down. What he would have done had he succeeded I'll never know but the nature of our exchanges meant it probably wouldn't have involved dragging me to the pub for few pints.

Another advantage of dealing with anonymous posters is one is freed from censorship by threat of libel proceedings. If I decide to tell porkies on here and I'm found out, anyone can call me on it. My reputation on the site would (rightly) suffer but that's as far as it could go. If however I post under my own name and decide to play fast and lose with the truth, I can drop from a great height on anyone who exposes me as a liar by getting my lawyers on the case.

fluffybiscuits
30-10-2011, 03:18 PM
I absolutely agree that real name policies are an abuse of power. They fall at the very first hurdle of free speech, in that they dictate what must be said first, which undoubtedly tempers what follows.

Google is a great example. This company has become a monopoly that offers very little with regard to the idea of a service. The phrase "too big to fail" has become very popular as of late in its ironic sense - the Titanic was too big to fail.

That all said, I personally don't practice online anonymity. My own particular approach to activism is almost diametrically opposite to the approach of groups like Anonymous, even though I wholeheartedly support and admire them.

I am not anonymous.

No need to expect me cause I'm already here and in your face.

I am an individual.

I sometimes forget and I sometimes forgive.

Etc.

If online anonymity is a result of fear, it is a weakness, no matter how justified and real that fear is. I most certainly temper what I have to say publicly and to my friends. But it is not fear that drives this. It is a coupling of respect and intellect.

All the same, nobody should be forced to conform to my philosophy, or that of anyone else. Maybe the Open Source movement will once again find traction in this critical and growing debate. Google can be replaced, it might be powerful, but it only offers a tiny portion of the web. This blatant ignorance promoting censorship is the other side of the coin, I think, in this topic.



I think people forget if it were not for anonymity we would not be where we are today from the code breakers of the second World War to the modern day groups such as Wikileaks . There is a certain oxymoronic feel to the people whom are too scared to give their details online but who are brave enough to elicit such info and spread it isnt there! Google is doing itself a disservice for its actions in removing peoples details as they felt they were not real and they had a great chance to over take facebook with the revelations on the data they kept

Count Bobulescu
30-10-2011, 06:30 PM
Just to clarify, Google+ apparently still allows pseuds. It just wants to regulate them.


http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2096925/Google-VP-Explains-the-Google-Real-Name-Policy

Vic Gundotra, Google's VP of Social, discussed the company's decision on enforcing real names for users. While Google accepts pseudonyms, it's pushing for the use of actual names rather than complex or offensive "fake" names.
I take that to mean that John Smith could register as Joan Smith or VV. There is no shortage of drivel on both pseud and disclosed commentary.
Don’t like it, don’t use it.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-dont-like-real-name-policy-dont-use-google-/3269

(http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-dont-like-real-name-policy-dont-use-google-/3269)
Also, there was healthy debate in the comments section of the link provided in the OP, but it all seems to have blown over now, I haven’t heard much about it recently. WaPo, NYT, and many others have tightened their registration policies for online comment in response to reader complaints of having to wade thru too much drivel in the comments section. WaPo actually has two classes of commenter’s regular and top. Wapo grants “Top” status to those who over time have repeatedly added value. Here’s a good example.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-the-new-us-neighborhood-defined-by-diversity-as-all-white-enclaves-vanish/2011/09/14/gIQA5QAuSM_allComments.html?hpid=z2#comments

C. Flower
30-10-2011, 06:34 PM
Just to clarify, Google+ apparently still allows pseuds. It just wants to regulate them.

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2096925/Google-VP-Explains-the-Google-Real-Name-Policy
Don’t like it, don’t use it.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-dont-like-real-name-policy-dont-use-google-/3269

(http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-dont-like-real-name-policy-dont-use-google-/3269)
Also, there was healthy debate in the comments section of the link provided in the OP, but it all seems to have blown over now, I haven’t heard much about it recently. WaPo, NYT, and many others have tightened their registration policies for online comment in response to reader complaints of having to wade thru too much drivel in the comments section. WaPo actually has two classes of commenter’s regular and top. Wapo grants “Top” status to those who over time have repeatedly added value. Here’s a good example.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-the-new-us-neighborhood-defined-by-diversity-as-all-white-enclaves-vanish/2011/09/14/gIQA5QAuSM_allComments.html?hpid=z2#comments

I don't think Google's policy was working out too well.

The idea of "top commenter" is interesting. It's the track record of the commenter that earns them readership and respect, rather than their name.

C. Flower
10-06-2012, 08:15 AM
More pressure, particularly in the US, to end anonymity on the internet.
This is part of a general erosion of civil rights in the US that has accelerated from the beginning of this century.

There were recent discussions on twitter on whether anonymous people online could have a trusted reputation. Interesting little study here says, yes.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/metaxas/2012/06/07/trusting-anonymous-twitter-users/

Long term familiarity with any writer is what establishes their reputation, whether good or bad.

In Ireland, look no further than Namawinelake and the Cedar Lounge Revolution to see that the best blogs are in fact anonymous blogs.

:)

C. Flower
10-06-2012, 08:37 AM
If it is possible to have an Anon Rep ( and case law has established that online reputations exist, even if you are anonymous ), then it is possible to have a bad one.

Sock puppets, in academic debate, and other fakers, who use accounts to deceive, are the worst.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jun/07/academic-debate-online-aliases-sock-puppets

ZeroWedge
10-06-2012, 11:43 AM
Old media has always published anonymously. Every single broadsheet newspaper publishes unsigned articles, and has done for many years. They just hate that ordinary people now have the same power to publish. A power that used to be reserved for them. The internet is chipping away at old power structures and they are lashing out.

They can require a Facebook or Google login for their own sites all they want. But they will never be able to force someone running his own discussion forum, to verify identities.

fluffybiscuits
13-06-2012, 10:39 PM
If it is possible to have an Anon Rep ( and case law has established that online reputations exist, even if you are anonymous ), then it is possible to have a bad one.

Sock puppets, in academic debate, and other fakers, who use accounts to deceive, are the worst.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jun/07/academic-debate-online-aliases-sock-puppets

Just a question on that point. If an online reputation exists for people who are anon then surely this opens up a whole can of worms in the context that if someone was to say "fluffybiscuits is a scumbag or a homophobe" I could sue as I am entitled to my good name online? That to me does not make much sense as trolling is part of political debate as much as it is offline heckling someone?

C. Flower
13-06-2012, 10:46 PM
Just a question on that point. If an online reputation exists for people who are anon then surely this opens up a whole can of worms in the context that if someone was to say "fluffybiscuits is a scumbag or a homophobe" I could sue as I am entitled to my good name online? That to me does not make much sense as trolling is part of political debate as much as it is offline heckling someone?

If I said fluffybiscuits had robbed a bank, was addicted to crystal meth and had bribed his way into his job, and if fluffybiscuits had a very successful blog, damaged by the allegations, or if he was identified /outed subsequently, and the information attached to his actual identity, then I might well be in trouble.

fluffybiscuits
13-06-2012, 11:52 PM
If I said fluffybiscuits had robbed a bank, was addicted to crystal meth and had bribed his way into his job, and if fluffybiscuits had a very successful blog, damaged by the allegations, or if he was identified /outed subsequently, and the information attached to his actual identity, then I might well be in trouble.

Ah so it would all hinge on my real identity being known? If money is cut back soon robbing a bank might be the only way of getting a couple of quid, now where is me bolt cutters ;)

C. Flower
13-06-2012, 11:54 PM
Ah so it would all hinge on my real identity being known? If money is cut back soon robbing a bank might be the only way of getting a couple of quid, now where is me bolt cutters ;)

No, that isn't what I said. I also said you might be an eminent and respected anonymous blogger ;)

fluffybiscuits
14-06-2012, 12:00 AM
No, that isn't what I said. I also said you might be an eminent and respected anonymous blogger ;)

respected blogger , me! :D

Democratic Rights movement and other catholicy organisations have me top of their xmas card list :D

Count Bobulescu
14-06-2012, 04:56 AM
As I noted up thread I think their is a place for both pseudonyms and real names, so long as there is a choice. Horses for courses. The more specialized the site the higher the value of real names. Broad general sites such as PW can continue with anonymity in part because people generally do not have high expectations as to the quality of information to be found on such sites. No reflection on PW intended. It's just a fact.

By contrast the LTE page on IT requires disclosure and has a relatively high standard of comment. People value their real name reputations much more than a pseudonym that they can easily abandon with the click of a mouse. Narrowly focused sites on single topics/issues tend to favor full disclosure, and are increasing in availability and usage. I believe we will eventually see a two tier internet, with the best commentary on real name sites. Might still be a few years away, but I think it is coming. Once contributors mostly have to pay for access, they either wont join or will demand higher standards.

fluffybiscuits
14-06-2012, 02:33 PM
As I noted up thread I think their is a place for both pseudonyms and real names, so long as there is a choice. Horses for courses. The more specialized the site the higher the value of real names. Broad general sites such as PW can continue with anonymity in part because people generally do not have high expectations as to the quality of information to be found on such sites. No reflection on PW intended. It's just a fact.
By contrast the LTE page on IT requires disclosure and has a relatively high standard of comment. People value their real name reputations much more than a pseudonym that they can easily abandon with the click of a mouse. Narrowly focused sites on single topics/issues tend to favor full disclosure, and are increasing in availability and usage. I believe we will eventually see a two tier internet, with the best commentary on real name sites. Might still be a few years away, but I think it is coming. Once contributors mostly have to pay for access, they either wont join or will demand higher standards.



Perhaps but look at sites such as boards.ie and that other Irish political website who are constantly quoted and break news. While the opinion pieces may not be worthy of consideration certainly they do have a great ability to break news as was seen in PW making some of the media when PJ brought attention to IT article that was allegedly there .The big media does follow us and we have got a number of reliable contribution here with Eliphants insights and translating Greek articles for us giving us an edge in the Greek crisis at the moment. Anonymous commenting allows people to comment without fear of recrimination. Its akin to a novelist writing a book under a nom de plume, over time we all get to know the authors work and we come to trust an authors work :)

C. Flower
25-12-2012, 09:59 PM
In view of the onslaught on social media anonymity by the mainstream media over the last few months and particularly this week, I'm giving this thread a bump.

There is a proposal for a support system for politicians under pressure from social media writings. At the same time , the mainstream media uses anonymous sources and publishes many pieces anonymously or with a pseudonymous author.

Newspapers regularly publish letters with the author's name withheld.

In the last week, the German Government has ordered Facebook to permit anonymous accounts.

The attack on anonymous writing seems to me to be a blatant attack on freedom of speech.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1224/1224328152765.html

C. Flower
26-12-2012, 01:28 AM
Members of the Constitutional Convention will be anonymous.

www.irishtimes.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/13/chrisformerff/5 (http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/13/chrisformerff/5)

barrym
26-12-2012, 05:56 AM
In view of the onslaught on social media anonymity by the mainstream media over the last few months and particularly this week, I'm giving this thread a bump.

Agreed re freedom of expression - despite the consequences in this particular case, any public figure should be aware that a remark like the one about the hotel will be taken out of context for notoriety reasons.

Distasteful as it may be, organising your people to deal with media is a requirement of modern politics.

Anonymity is a part of that process, there is a well known and tried method, if they don't have the courage then I don't feel the need to reply.

Shouldn't PW take the lead and use real names??

Ephilant
26-12-2012, 09:03 AM
Anonymity is a part of that process, there is a well known and tried method, if they don't have the courage then I don't feel the need to reply.

It is not a matter of courage when, living in a country like Greece, you can (and will!) get arrested, harassed, prosecuted and even killed for speaking your mind, taking the wrong person to task, etc. For us, it is a matter of self-preservation, plain and simple.
There is not one Greek blog, irrespective of the main language used, that is hosted in Greece. If you were stupid enough to do so, you would be closed down immediately, and your details would of course be known to the "authorities".
On top of that, bloggers and on-line commentators are under Greek law specifically EXCLUDED from the body called "Press", so that they cannot, under any circumstances claim any protection registered journalist have, at least on paper.
The big problem that "authority" has with all of this is not anonymity, it is the inability to control who says what, because the use od the internet (and therefor the ability to criticize) is not limited to country bounderies. It is truely and international, world wide phenomenon which no single government will ever be able to tame without a world wide agreed system of control. Anonimity is the result of individual "authorities" trying to clamp down on the often justified criticism they get subjected to. It is not the problem, attempted control and silencing is the problem.

C. Flower
26-12-2012, 11:39 AM
Agreed re freedom of expression - despite the consequences in this particular case, any public figure should be aware that a remark like the one about the hotel will be taken out of context for notoriety reasons.

Distasteful as it may be, organising your people to deal with media is a requirement of modern politics.

Anonymity is a part of that process, there is a well known and tried method, if they don't have the courage then I don't feel the need to reply.

Shouldn't PW take the lead and use real names??

I would consider that a backward step and a deprivation of people from basic rights.

Anyone is welcome to use their real name, by choice, and a number do. Others use nom de plumes but are open about who they are. Others choose to write under noms de plumes.

C. Flower
26-12-2012, 11:45 AM
The German Government has informed FaceBook that refusal of anonymous accounts is contrary to German privacy law and also contrary to higher EU law.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/18/german_officials_demand_facebook_allow_pseudonyms_ citing_data_protection.html

fluffybiscuits
26-12-2012, 12:04 PM
I would consider that a backward step and a deprivation of people from basic rights.

Anyone is welcome to use their real name, by choice, and a number do. Others use nom de plumes but are open about who they are. Others choose to write under noms de plumes.

+1

In a world where people were forced to use their real names there would be less critical speech and a world where discussion is stifled to please an establishment intent on crushing dissent. While I come across as a particular idealist (loon) Im the same in the real world as I am online however to protect myself from particular maliciously intended people I used a nom de plume. Some people on here know my real identity having met me in real life as there was some element of trust but for the mean time I would never reveal my true name. Legislation also that would force people to use their real name would affect whistleblowers like those whom post here.

DCon
26-12-2012, 01:05 PM
China leading the way? Will FG be far behind?


China may require internet users to register with their real names when signing up to network providers, state media said on Tuesday, extending a policy already in force with microblogs in a bid to curb what officials call rumors and vulgarity.

A law being discussed this week would mean people would have to present their government-issued identity cards when signing contracts for fixed line and mobile internet access, state-run newspapers said.


"Only that way can our internet be healthier, more cultured and safer."


Many users say the restrictions are clearly aimed at further muzzling the often scathing, raucous - and perhaps most significantly, anonymous - online chatter in a country where the Internet offers a rare opportunity for open debate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/net-us-china-internet-idUSBRE8BO01320121225

C. Flower
26-12-2012, 01:26 PM
China leading the way? Will FG be far behind?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/net-us-china-internet-idUSBRE8BO01320121225

In Obama's Land of the Free Patriot Act, there is also a push to have people use a single real name ID for all their internet transactions.
But there is a massive commercial and popular lobby of internet service providers who are pushing back at net restrictions.

As well as restrictions on users, there is also pressure on service providers to take down sites, usually with little or no means of appeal.

In Germany, of course, and elsewhere, the Pirate Party has been getting itself elected on a platform of protection of digital rights.

And in Egypt, oppression of bloggers (particularly one who was exposing police corruption) contributed to the kick off of Arab Spring. People were pushed off the net and onto the streets.

A number of regimes fell.

barrym
27-12-2012, 11:04 AM
I'm a little surprised a the (limited) response to my suggestion of some openess. I would have thought, from the level of discussion here, that most, if not all, have the confidence in their opinion(s) that they would not need to be anonymised.

I generally appreciate the freedom of expression argument in principle, it allows for rational discussion. However, imo, it doesn't have to be anonymous. I do appreciate that sometimes work/employer/personal issues, etc., may require 'hiding' but that can be coped with by an option to go anonymous.

My main reason was to avoid scurrilous/insulting/untrue/unfair, etc., remarks.

Anyway it was only a suggestion, not a requirement, but it is available to those who wish to come out from under the covers.

Barry (Mahon)

Ephilant
27-12-2012, 11:17 AM
My main reason was to avoid scurrilous/insulting/untrue/unfair, etc., remarks.
Barry (Mahon)

I can understand your reasoning, but as I pointed out, from where I (personally) am sitting, coming out from under the covers is simply not an option. Apart from the fact that we're actually enjoying being under the covers :D

But, giving your true identity etc. doesn't stop the
scurrilous/insulting/untrue/unfair remarks. All you need to do is tune in to any poltician, anywhere, world wide. It is because the world is ruled by those who make "mis-speaking" an art, it is ruled by those who can't be honest because it would expose their true objectives, that honesty is considered such a dangerous thing that some of us can only speak our truth from the relative security of a nom-de-plume.

C. Flower
27-12-2012, 12:48 PM
I'm a little surprised a the (limited) response to my suggestion of some openess. I would have thought, from the level of discussion here, that most, if not all, have the confidence in their opinion(s) that they would not need to be anonymised.

I generally appreciate the freedom of expression argument in principle, it allows for rational discussion. However, imo, it doesn't have to be anonymous. I do appreciate that sometimes work/employer/personal issues, etc., may require 'hiding' but that can be coped with by an option to go anonymous.

My main reason was to avoid scurrilous/insulting/untrue/unfair, etc., remarks.

Anyway it was only a suggestion, not a requirement, but it is available to those who wish to come out from under the covers.

Barry (Mahon)

Sorry if the reply came over forcibly, but the emphasis was directed not at you but at the authorities that very much want to end anonymous comment.

There is complete freedom for people to write here either anon. or in person - the same rules apply to all.

I've already written earlier in the thread about the many reasons why people are entitled in law in democracies to write anonymously.

With regard to Shane MacEntee, it is now crystal clear that the abuse and criticism he experienced before he died was not from anonymous websites, but from Party colleagues, from other TDs, in text messages and face to face from constituents and the farm lobby, and from Face Book - which has a strict Real Name policy.

C. Flower
29-12-2012, 01:28 AM
The Chinese Government shows the way to FG/Lab

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1228/breaking22.html

Spectabilis
29-12-2012, 09:56 AM
Cass, Breda O'Brien today in the IT talks of the internet normalising nastiness:


However, no side has a monopoly on nastiness. After expressing pro-life views, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was warned to be careful on the street. David Quinn of the Iona Institute (of which I am a patron) received a phone call from someone suggesting that he should be castrated and hung up in O’Connell Street. On Twitter, someone stated that Senator Rónán Mullen should be crucified with rusty nails.

You could dismiss the people who do these appalling things as cranks and nutters, but when such abuse becomes normalised on the internet, it then influences other commentary, which has become noticeably more contemptuous and dismissive. It spreads a net far wider than the current debate on abortion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1229/1224328248463.html

C. Flower
29-12-2012, 10:37 AM
Cass, Breda O'Brien today in the IT talks of the internet normalising nastiness:

However, no side has a monopoly on nastiness. After expressing pro-life views, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was warned to be careful on the street. David Quinn of the Iona Institute (of which I am a patron) received a phone call from someone suggesting that he should be castrated and hung up in O’Connell Street. On Twitter, someone stated that Senator Rónán Mullen should be crucified with rusty nails.

You could dismiss the people who do these appalling things as cranks and nutters, but when such abuse becomes normalised on the internet, it then influences other commentary, which has become noticeably more contemptuous and dismissive. It spreads a net far wider than the current debate on abortion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1229/1224328248463.html

Ah Breda.

She should take a look at the pre-internet history of Youth Defence. :eek:

:)

It's all the internet and then she complains about a phone call.

:confused:

Her real problem is that the majority of the population has lost patience with everything she represents.

Spectabilis
29-12-2012, 10:48 AM
A granny said to me recently that there was no bullying when we were at school. Really? Hands up who remembers the practice of passing notes? The Twitter/text of its day.

Who remembers poison pen letter writers? The anonymous email of an earlier time. Who remembers the anonymous harassment by phone? Even people in theiry 80's get heavy breathers on the line.

It is as if the fascination with the medium has deleted people's memories of earlier versions of nasty and frequently anonymous behaviour.

C. Flower
29-12-2012, 10:49 AM
A granny said to me recently that there was no bullying when we were at school. Really? Hands up who remembers the practice of passing notes? The Twitter/text of its day.

Who remembers poison pen letter writers? The anonymous email of an earlier time. Who remembers the anonymous harassment by phone? Even people in their 80s get heavy breathers on the line.
It is as if the fascination with the medium has deleted people's memories of earlier versions of nasty and frequently anonymous behaviour.

And no one was arguing that phone services or the mail should be stopped or censored because they were used by the odd crank.

C. Flower
29-12-2012, 11:47 AM
I've seen a few anti-net writers claiming that there are people in favour of anonymity with a free for all, no application of normal law on incitement, harassment etc.

I've yet to come across anyone who expresses that view.

Is there anyone here who thinks there should be no limits whatsoever on what is said online ?

Baron von Biffo
29-12-2012, 11:51 AM
A granny said to me recently that there was no bullying when we were at school. Really? Hands up who remembers the practice of passing notes? The Twitter/text of its day.

Who remembers poison pen letter writers? The anonymous email of an earlier time. Who remembers the anonymous harassment by phone? Even people in theiry 80's get heavy breathers on the line.

It is as if the fascination with the medium has deleted people's memories of earlier versions of nasty and frequently anonymous behaviour.

She probably never heard of The Valley of the Squinting Windows and the events that followed its publication.

fluffybiscuits
29-12-2012, 01:30 PM
Cass, Breda O'Brien today in the IT talks of the internet normalising nastiness:


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1229/1224328248463.html


Thoroughly one sided piece that fails to take into account other aspects of YD's facebook page. The amount of grief a person gets if they dare post a pro choice message on the site is astronomical. Bit rich for her to be writing an article like that, its not all one way traffic...

fluffybiscuits
29-12-2012, 02:00 PM
http://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2012/12/ten-things-irish-politicians-should.html

Funny :)

C. Flower
29-12-2012, 02:16 PM
http://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2012/12/ten-things-irish-politicians-should.html

Funny :)

A stellar post.

fluffybiscuits
29-12-2012, 02:17 PM
Should check out Glykos blog for some great analysis on Greece too , been reading the blog for a while :)

MediaBite
29-12-2012, 04:00 PM
This doesn't seem to be a majority view but while I accept there are many legitimate rights and reasons for anonymous posting my beef with it is that it can be completely ignored, no matter how cogent it is. We can't make headway unless we stand up and are counted. It takes a certain amount of courage to do that and involves some risk-taking for many but the bottom line is that 'coming out' is the only way to give weight and substance to who we are and why we believe what we do.

From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so. It makes for very frustrating communication. Also I don't like at all the unequal nature of a political./media relationship in which one person knows everything about me while I know nothing about them. My trust, I feel, is often taken entirely for granted while innocent, interested questions for me to them can result in sharp looks and coolness as if my grand quest in life was to out them. Suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory and it's unhelpful to our common purpose, if we have one. All in all, I'm agin anonymity except in extreme circumstances. However, I don't think the government has the least right to attempt to ban it. That's another matter entirely.

C. Flower
29-12-2012, 04:38 PM
This doesn't seem to be a majority view but while I accept there are many legitimate rights and reasons for anonymous posting my beef with it is that it can be completely ignored, no matter how cogent it is. We can't make headway unless we stand up and are counted. It takes a certain amount of courage to do that and involves some risk-taking for many but the bottom line is that 'coming out' is the only way to give weight and substance to who we are and why we believe what we do.

From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so. It makes for very frustrating communication. Also I don't like at all the unequal nature of a political./media relationship in which one person knows everything about me while I know nothing about them. My trust, I feel, is often taken entirely for granted while innocent, interested questions for me to them can result in sharp looks and coolness as if my grand quest in life was to out them. Suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory and it's unhelpful to our common purpose, if we have one. All in all, I'm agin anonymity except in extreme circumstances. However, I don't think the government has the least right to attempt to ban it. That's another matter entirely.

That seems to me to be a thoroughly reasonable position to adopt although it is not my own. I see a lot of positive advantages to anonymous discussion: in the main in that it puts the focus on the topic rather than the personalities involved. The much bigger inequality in media is imo when ownership and control of the space for discussion is in the hands of a tiny number of wealthy people. And posting anonymously does not stop people from being active, in their own personas.

Ephilant
29-12-2012, 05:08 PM
From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so

From personal experience, I would seriously wonder who is really being paranoid, the anonymous poster/tweeter, or those who don't like the content of the post/tweet?
Yes, abuse does happen, just read the commentaries on e.g. the Al Jazeera site. They can be extremely offensive and abusive, but the comments the fall in that category are also intended as such and have nothing to do with the article(s) the comment is officially made on. There are however also lots of serious, well presented and researched comments which are made anonimously, and with very good reason. It concerns the denial of freedom of speech by a wide variety of paranoid "authorities"...

The "Curse of Anonymous Commenting" is used as the stick behind the door, or the rather the gun in hand to kill the messenger because the message is not what is "allowed" by those authorities. That is very personal experience in my part of the world.
Only last night the police in Athens entered the university buildings to end the "occupation" of the university and restore law and order. Part of restoring "law and order" turned out to be to ransack the offices of grassroots FM (98 FM), a radio station that has been highly critical of the Greek government policies towards students, as well as the policies pursued by the powers that be in the university, who all "happen" to be related to government officials. All the equipment was confiscated, as were all the logs, personal details of braodcasters, reporters and anybody who ever cooperated with the radio station in broadcasting what every student and their cat knew. Everybody in that station worked under a pseudonym. If they hadn't, there would have been a serious amount of arrests in Greece last night.
Meanwhile, as freedom of speech is being denied to thousands, thus forcing them into anonimity Channel 4 decides that the really offensive physical attack on 2 female parliamentarians by a not so anonymous Golden Dawn thug, live on Greek TV, was one of the "funniest moments of 2012"...

Isn't it high time people start concentrating on the real issues instead of looking for false reasons to shut up those who have opposing ideas and manage to present them in a reasoned and logical fashion?

barrym
30-12-2012, 06:41 AM
I was tempted to +1 everything on the recent posts except the last line of Ephilant... slightly aggressive and unnecessarily so, imo.

Ephilant is presumably a mole somewhere, hence the anonymity, fine, understood, as long as he/she doesn't aggress those who suggest that honesty and clarity is a paramount requirement in intelligent discussion.

If you want to see the result of anonymity abused try suggesting to 'blacked out back windows' 4wds that VAT dodging is their game......I did.

Ephilant
30-12-2012, 07:40 AM
Let me first of all say that I had/have absolutely no reason, need or intention of being aggressive. Too much of that around as it is.
What I do mean with the last sentence is this. When people use anonimity to be abusive, it is in the vast majority of cases blatantly obvious that they are indeed just being abusive for the sake of it. The abuse is direct, mostly vulgar, racist or sexist, illogical, and has absolutely nothing to do with whatever it is supposed to be a comment on.
It does however become a different matter when this abusive attitude is taken as the norm for ALL those who, like myself, have to hide behind one or more nom-the-plumes/avatars in order to be able to say what we need to say without ending up at the receiving end of a beating or the knock on the door at 3 am.
I can understand this is rather incomprehensible for people who haven't experienced it, or don't live in an environment where shooting the messenger is the preferred action over listening to the message. It does however not mean that we are all paranoid. Most of us just like to hang on to our knee caps while speaking our mind...
There was, and rightfully so, world-wide outrage when Costas was arrested after publishing the famous Lagarde list. Lets get one thing straight. He was not so much arrested for publishing the list as he was for stating that what he was doing was what the government should be doing. Iow, criticism of the government is not tolerated and will be met with whatever measure available to prevent it from happening.
Every social medium allows for abusive posters to be barred, blocked, reported, unfollowed, whatever you want to call it. Authoritarian attitudes by governments cannot be blocked, barred, unfollowed unless they are, and therefore must be reported. Unless done anonimously, reporting it usually ends up in a pretty nasty situation for the whistleblower. There are a good few people, including others on this very forum, who can testify to that.
The real question is not "should anonimity be allowed or not?"
the real question is
"Why is anonimity indeed necessary?" and THAT is what people should concentrate on. Eliminate the need for anonimity, and as a nice little bonus, you also eliminate the anonimous abusers soiling the pitch. Just don't throw the baby away with the bath water, using "anonimity" as the excuse.

C. Flower
30-12-2012, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE=barrym;303518]I was tempted to +1 everything on the recent posts except the last line of Ephilant... slightly aggressive and unnecessarily so, imo.

Ephilant is presumably a mole somewhere, hence the anonymity, fine, understood, as long as he/she doesn't aggress those who suggest that honesty and clarity is a paramount requirement in intelligent discussion.

I see no evidence from the mainstream media that honesty and clarity can be relied on there. Or that the mainstream media have any commitment to openness and against the use of anonymous sources. The false allegation that Shane MacEntee was viciously abused on the radio and internet in the weeks before he died was based on anonymous sources.

This is not about use of anonymity by people in positions of power, who use leaks and unattributable private briefings all the time. Nor is it about abuse, because the abusive language aimed at Shane MacEntee came from FF and FF TDs.

It is purely and simply about suppressing freedom of speech.



If you want to see the result of anonymity abused try suggesting to 'blacked out back windows' 4wds that VAT dodging is their game......I did.

Would you explain this to me, as I don't understand ?

Dr. FIVE
30-12-2012, 12:51 PM
Jeeps with tinted windows

Greengoddess
30-12-2012, 01:27 PM
I find the atmosphere today ' out there' a bit scary. CF in a twitter discussion where it seems no forensic analysis has been done on exactly what was said where. There is one obvious fact here: The reasons for Shane McEntee death are complex and as yet unknown. The role of anxiety is just as valid in some situations as hidden depression. That I can say from 30 years of experience. However the discourse around this feels like a bad moon rising. Creighton in the SBP also saying that there should not be demonstrations during the presidency . Keaveney " charges" being processed. I personally feel increasingly nervous. Something isn't right.
:mad:

DCon
30-12-2012, 01:37 PM
Something isn't right.
:mad:

The senior Labour party Dail members are morphing/have morphed into Fine Gael.

It was never going to be pleasant

C. Flower
30-12-2012, 02:07 PM
I find the atmosphere today ' out there' a bit scary. CF in a twitter discussion where it seems no forensic analysis has been done on exactly what was said where. There is one obvious fact here: The reasons for Shane McEntee death are complex and as yet unknown. The role of anxiety is just as valid in some situations as hidden depression. That I can say from 30 years of experience. However the discourse around this feels like a bad moon rising. Creighton in the SBP also saying that there should not be demonstrations during the presidency . Keaveney " charges" being processed. I personally feel increasingly nervous. Something isn't right.
:mad:

We only need to look at Ephilant's posts from Greece. Protest, opposition and reportage of it are not welcome. The answer is for people en masse not to be driven back by this and to stick together.

On Shane MacEntee - there was a rush from the Press and politicians (unnamed sources) to finger social media for his death.

There is no evidence I have seen so far that he was abused at all on social media. His death was used opportunistically to dissipate the anger about the budget and to confuse people about their right to express objection to it. The Print media see the internet as competition. Politicians and journalists all use social media themselves.

Anxiety is a big problem: a lot of people are suffering from it. The degree of upset, fear, anxiety and anger in his constituents, who rang him up and approached him about the budget (he confirmed this when he was speaking on LFMF radio), can't have helped him, whatever the totality of factors that brought him to decide to die by suicide.

If it was a factor, his death is another one of the many very sad deaths that have been caused (albeit indirectly) by the economic crash.

Any suggestions on how we can all deal with our anxieties? I am beginning to think that staying sane is in itself in present conditions a radical political act :)

C. Flower
30-12-2012, 02:10 PM
Jeeps with tinted windows

Still not getting it :o

Greengoddess
30-12-2012, 02:20 PM
Still not getting it :o

Don't gangsters have them?

fluffybiscuits
30-12-2012, 04:26 PM
This doesn't seem to be a majority view but while I accept there are many legitimate rights and reasons for anonymous posting my beef with it is that it can be completely ignored, no matter how cogent it is. We can't make headway unless we stand up and are counted. It takes a certain amount of courage to do that and involves some risk-taking for many but the bottom line is that 'coming out' is the only way to give weight and substance to who we are and why we believe what we do.

From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so. It makes for very frustrating communication. Also I don't like at all the unequal nature of a political./media relationship in which one person knows everything about me while I know nothing about them. My trust, I feel, is often taken entirely for granted while innocent, interested questions for me to them can result in sharp looks and coolness as if my grand quest in life was to out them. Suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory and it's unhelpful to our common purpose, if we have one. All in all, I'm agin anonymity except in extreme circumstances. However, I don't think the government has the least right to attempt to ban it. That's another matter entirely.

Will respectfully disagree with that statement . To stand up and be counted identity alone will not contribute to inspiring people to fighting for a better world. Let us not forget either that a lot of those online who claim to be who they are may not necessarily be, it may be very easy to someone else. I have an alternative facebook account to my normal one to take part in debates that I would rather people did not know about (such as debates on military actions, political opinions, things that may get up the nose of those whom know me well). Anonymous posting on the internet protects whistleblowers and this was shown very clearly in the case of Bradley Manning whom is being prosecuted for revealing the abuses of the US Military, so there is a flip side to this coin.

All in all , the opinion of the other person is being debated, identity lends itself minimally to debate in the political arena...

C. Flower
30-12-2012, 08:22 PM
Not only in Ireland it seems - interesting blog about how the political and media classes have lurched from attempted love affair to angry divorce from social media.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100195711/2012-the-year-the-political-and-media-classes-turned-on-internet-users/

Ephilant
31-12-2012, 09:59 AM
It is becoming clearer by the post that this issue is in fact more of an issue regarding the role, or expected role of mainstream media. I did write a piece on that a good while ago here (http://www.people-in-need.com/487/the-role-of-the-media/)

The bottom line is that mainstream media are going to have to come clean on what their role is, and live by it. Are they simply there to provide a platform for politicians of whatever pursuation the media outlet adheres to, or are they going to critically present and question politics, policies, politicians, society, law, and everything else that people dare to discuss on "social media".
Judging by the sheer numbers of on-line discussions, anonymous or otherwise, it would seem there is a serious disconnect between what people expect from "the media", and what "the media" gives (is allowed to give?) people.
It is also obvious that people are not satisfied by "the media" simply providing a platform for anybody to spout whatever it is they want to spout, and leave it go unquestioned.

The solution is quite simple. If mainstream media doesn't become a lot more questioning and critical, people will do that for them, but for "the media" to then turn around and complain about people doing their job (as perceived by the people) is a bit rich. And very much the same mindset as the Greek government prosecuting Costas for exposing the tax cheats, while the tax cheats themselves remain untouched, or firing two journalists for daring to criticize a minister or even asking an awkward question.

random new yorker
31-12-2012, 04:08 PM
Will respectfully disagree with that statement . To stand up and be counted identity alone will not contribute to inspiring people to fighting for a better world. Let us not forget either that a lot of those online who claim to be who they are may not necessarily be, it may be very easy to someone else. I have an alternative facebook account to my normal one to take part in debates that I would rather people did not know about (such as debates on military actions, political opinions, things that may get up the nose of those whom know me well). Anonymous posting on the internet protects whistleblowers and this was shown very clearly in the case of Bradley Manning whom is being prosecuted for revealing the abuses of the US Military, so there is a flip side to this coin.

All in all , the opinion of the other person is being debated, identity lends itself minimally to debate in the political arena...

Well I will add my two cents in that I completely agree with Mediabite statement:

[quote from Mediabite] From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so. It makes for very frustrating communication. Also I don't like at all the unequal nature of a political./media relationship in which one person knows everything about me while I know nothing about them. My trust, I feel, is often taken entirely for granted while innocent, interested questions for me to them can result in sharp looks and coolness as if my grand quest in life was to out them. Suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory and it's unhelpful to our common purpose, if we have one. All in all, I'm agin anonymity except in extreme circumstances. However, I don't think the government has the least right to attempt to ban it. That's another matter entirely.[quote]

The reason Facebook grew to be the monster it is today is exactly "lack of anonymity"...you can go anonymous whistle blowing etc...but the magnificent take off of FB vs all other chatter outlets shows that people prize real names attached to opinions. (you must be aware then that FB is on the hunt for fake accounts to take them out....)

On another note, re Bradley Manning, whatever side of the bar you want to fall (human rights etc etc), this was a man in uniform, he was not acting as a civilian when he shared 'state' secrets with the enemy and i dont know of any Military System in the world that wouldnt throw in him jail for treason. In fact most other Military Systems would have put a bullet through his head pronto... after all we all know about friendly fire in war zones .... imho.

And please dont take this out of context to imagine I support any Military Abuses of any kind but then there's the fact that State Affairs must be run, and state secrets must exist and therefore eventual abuses are just another fact of life.
.

riposte
31-12-2012, 04:36 PM
It is becoming clearer by the post that this issue is in fact more of an issue regarding the role, or expected role of mainstream media. I did write a piece on that a good while ago here (http://www.people-in-need.com/487/the-role-of-the-media/)

The bottom line is that mainstream media are going to have to come clean on what their role is, and live by it. Are they simply there to provide a platform for politicians of whatever pursuation the media outlet adheres to, or are they going to critically present and question politics, policies, politicians, society, law, and everything else that people dare to discuss on "social media".
Judging by the sheer numbers of on-line discussions, anonymous or otherwise, it would seem there is a serious disconnect between what people expect from "the media", and what "the media" gives (is allowed to give?) people.
It is also obvious that people are not satisfied by "the media" simply providing a platform for anybody to spout whatever it is they want to spout, and leave it go unquestioned.

The solution is quite simple. If mainstream media doesn't become a lot more questioning and critical, people will do that for them, but for "the media" to then turn around and complain about people doing their job (as perceived by the people) is a bit rich. And very much the same mindset as the Greek government prosecuting Costas for exposing the tax cheats, while the tax cheats themselves remain untouched, or firing two journalists for daring to criticize a minister or even asking an awkward question.

Ephilant ...... anybody who thinks The Media has a duty to be impartial has led a very sheltered life. All media is propaganda ... all the time.

Moreover .. the media is one big conspiracy...... eg... the unform story of the Arab Spring...... Libya, Syria ...... and run up to the war in Iraq.

I've never met a journalist ...... left or right..... who didn't have an agenda... any attempt by any journalist to stray from the "correct view" ...... would be out of a job pronto. Most journalists go mad having spent a life telling lies.

see this .........Absence of Malice - Defamation Protection - YouTube

Ephilant
31-12-2012, 05:04 PM
Ephilant ...... anybody who thinks The Media has a duty to be impartial has led a very sheltered life. All media is propaganda ... all the time.

Moreover .. the media is one big conspiracy...... eg... the unform story of the Arab Spring...... Libya, Syria ...... and run up to the war in Iraq.

I've never met a journalist ...... left or right..... who didn't have an agenda... any attempt by any journalist to stray from the "correct view" ...... would be out of a job pronto. Most journalists go mad having spent a life telling lies.

see this .........Absence of Malice - Defamation Protection - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnU-lN4OiTU)

I sure don't think the media isimpartial, daily experience here makes sure I know it isn't.
Every media outlet answers to the share holders first, readers second and maybe, if really needed, a bit of butt naked truth may just get added for good measure, but don't count on it.
But that being the case, then that same media should stop portraying itself as the source of impartial news, and should stop insisting that we do indeed see it not only as that source, but the only legitimate one at that..
The Internet does not guarantee impartiality or truth, but it does guarantee a myriad of views and opinions that the mainstream media could never manage to express.
Rather than trying to shut these voices up, wouldn't the media (and their owners/puppetmasters) do a lot better in at least hearing what is being said and do the critical thing rather than resort to the knee-jerk protective thing and insist on it's self declared sole rights in reporting or commenting on society being maintained?

What we do see is the more a government loses it's grip on society, the more it tries to silence "dissident" voices. And isn't that a much bigger problem than people resorting to anonimity in order to be able to report and comment on that government losing its grip and putting possible alternatives out for discussion?

C. Flower
31-12-2012, 07:11 PM
Ephilant ...... anybody who thinks The Media has a duty to be impartial has led a very sheltered life. All media is propaganda ... all the time.

Moreover .. the media is one big conspiracy...... eg... the unform story of the Arab Spring...... Libya, Syria ...... and run up to the war in Iraq.

I've never met a journalist ...... left or right..... who didn't have an agenda... any attempt by any journalist to stray from the "correct view" ...... would be out of a job pronto. Most journalists go mad having spent a life telling lies.

see this .........Absence of Malice - Defamation Protection - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnU-lN4OiTU)

Very good.

What is different about social media is that it is an ongoing discussion "in motion" - where one person can correct another person's error on a thread.

The law unfortunately does not recognise this.

fluffybiscuits
01-01-2013, 04:04 PM
Well I will add my two cents in that I completely agree with Mediabite statement:

[quote from Mediabite] From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so. It makes for very frustrating communication. Also I don't like at all the unequal nature of a political./media relationship in which one person knows everything about me while I know nothing about them. My trust, I feel, is often taken entirely for granted while innocent, interested questions for me to them can result in sharp looks and coolness as if my grand quest in life was to out them. Suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory and it's unhelpful to our common purpose, if we have one. All in all, I'm agin anonymity except in extreme circumstances. However, I don't think the government has the least right to attempt to ban it. That's another matter entirely.[quote]

The reason Facebook grew to be the monster it is today is exactly "lack of anonymity"...you can go anonymous whistle blowing etc...but the magnificent take off of FB vs all other chatter outlets shows that people prize real names attached to opinions. (you must be aware then that FB is on the hunt for fake accounts to take them out....)

On another note, re Bradley Manning, whatever side of the bar you want to fall (human rights etc etc), this was a man in uniform, he was not acting as a civilian when he shared 'state' secrets with the enemy and i dont know of any Military System in the world that wouldnt throw in him jail for treason. In fact most other Military Systems would have put a bullet through his head pronto... after all we all know about friendly fire in war zones .... imho.

And please dont take this out of context to imagine I support any Military Abuses of any kind but then there's the fact that State Affairs must be run, and state secrets must exist and therefore eventual abuses are just another fact of life.
.


Bradley Manning in the army is the same as any whistleblower in a large financial organisation who calls time on the nasty deeds of his employer, he has a conscience and rightly blew the whistle. Whether he is in the army or mops floors or flies a plane, all of that is irrelevant. I would not accuse you of being a supporter of miliary abuses and indeed know you would not support anything of the sort but your patriotism perhaps clouds your judgement. Is Julian Assange an enemy of the state?

C. Flower
01-01-2013, 05:09 PM
Well I will add my two cents in that I completely agree with Mediabite statement:

[quote from Mediabite] From personal experience of people who are fiercely protective of their identities, I find they can be paranoid and even offensive at times when those of us who are not ask even the most ordinary and obvious questions about stuff - they can be full of suspicion - offensively so. It makes for very frustrating communication. Also I don't like at all the unequal nature of a political./media relationship in which one person knows everything about me while I know nothing about them. My trust, I feel, is often taken entirely for granted while innocent, interested questions for me to them can result in sharp looks and coolness as if my grand quest in life was to out them. Suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory and it's unhelpful to our common purpose, if we have one. All in all, I'm agin anonymity except in extreme circumstances. However, I don't think the government has the least right to attempt to ban it. That's another matter entirely.[quote]

The reason Facebook grew to be the monster it is today is exactly "lack of anonymity"...you can go anonymous whistle blowing etc...but the magnificent take off of FB vs all other chatter outlets shows that people prize real names attached to opinions. (you must be aware then that FB is on the hunt for fake accounts to take them out....)

On another note, re Bradley Manning, whatever side of the bar you want to fall (human rights etc etc), this was a man in uniform, he was not acting as a civilian when he shared 'state' secrets with the enemy and i dont know of any Military System in the world that wouldnt throw in him jail for treason. In fact most other Military Systems would have put a bullet through his head pronto... after all we all know about friendly fire in war zones .... imho.

And please dont take this out of context to imagine I support any Military Abuses of any kind but then there's the fact that State Affairs must be run, and state secrets must exist and therefore eventual abuses are just another fact of life.
.There is very little serious political discussion on Face Book. It is mainly used for personal, social and family use. I would estimate that at least 50% of the FB users who discuss politics do so under noms de plumes. Jolitics, that started off as a Real Name politics discussion spin off of Facebook has failed, even though it drifted first increasingly to use by anon. accounts.

Anonymous discourse is protected by law for good reason of privacy and basic freedom of expression.

There is even case law that protects the reputation of online anonymous writers.

Anonymity does not exempt anyone from law on defamation, incitement or harassment.

Nobody is forced to be anonymous, nor to interact with people using noms de plumes.

The attitude of journalists who attempt to climb onto high moral ground on this issue is surprising as they all seem to use unattributed quotes / anonymous sources without worry. And many published news articles are either unsigned or signed with noms de plumes.

Giving the authorities and employers powers to identify the political views of everyone who writes - even though their writing is completely lawful - is imo thoroughly unhealthy.

random new yorker
01-01-2013, 09:04 PM
[quote=random new yorker;303887]Well I will add my two cents in that I completely agree with Mediabite statement:

Bradley Manning in the army is the same as any whistleblower in a large financial organisation who calls time on the nasty deeds of his employer, he has a conscience and rightly blew the whistle. Whether he is in the army or mops floors or flies a plane, all of that is irrelevant. I would not accuse you of being a supporter of miliary abuses and indeed know you would not support anything of the sort but your patriotism perhaps clouds your judgement. Is Julian Assange an enemy of the state?


On Assange, I pulled up this text I wrote at the time he was news, back at the turn of 2010, when i shared political views w friends via email:

1 - I totally agree that privacy and secrecy is essential to Diplomacy, and that, Diplomacy is essential in keeping world peace.

2 - I believe that the US government FAILED miserably in putting effective measures to secure its classified information...and once this information reached the press then..... they got into ‘Damage Control’ mode.

3 - However, I am a FIRM believer in the First Amendment to the US Constitution [that prohibits the making of any law (...) infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press (...)] and the protection it affords any JOURNALIST .... (and now you wait and see what new "professional title" they will give him, i. e. Assange, to dodge this bullet).

So, Fluffy, lets put my patriotism aside now that we get Assange out of the way, should we discuss what to do in the case of High Treason as is probably the case with B. Manning?? is this not another John Walker Lindh case? fighting for the enemy?? What am i missing? is/was B Manning a journalist? was he a civilian at the time he leaked the info?

What would your army do in cases such as these? assuming you have some sort of Army out there...
.

random new yorker
01-01-2013, 09:24 PM
Well I will add my two cents in that I completely agree with Mediabite statement:

There is very little serious political discussion on Face Book. It is mainly used for personal, social and family use. I would estimate that at least 50% of the FB users who discuss politics do so under noms de plumes. Jolitics, that started off as a Real Name politics discussion spin off of Facebook has failed, even though it drifted first increasingly to use by anon. accounts.

It depends on the company you keep in FB.

The name Jolitics is a joke, meant for failure. Major PR issue from the get go if you name your entity Jolitics, unless you are joking of course...

Noms de plume are more widely used by people that have no 'freedom' to speak their minds, when one is afraid of retaliation, thus one finds another way to get the info out. Nothing wrong about that. I understand that you have a problem w freedom of speech in Ireland so this is a perfectly legal (and apparently the only one) way to get it out.

Not so long ago I recall a thread here about a journalist that was threatened with jail time for speaking his mind...


Anonymous discourse is protected by law for good reason of privacy and basic freedom of expression. There is even case law that protects the reputation of online anonymous writers. Anonymity does not exempt anyone from law on defamation, incitement or harassment. Nobody is forced to be anonymous, nor to interact with people using noms de plumes. No problem with any of the above. I just happen to agree w Mediabite when s/he says that suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory.... at the end of the day people choose to TRUST the source and somehow I find it a lot more difficult to trust a source/a face I can't see. Reputation and Trust. Whatever happened to the "Anonymous" hacktivist anarchic news outlet?


The attitude of journalists who attempt to climb onto high moral ground on this issue is surprising as they all seem to use unattributed quotes / anonymous sources without worry. And many published news articles are either unsigned or signed with noms de plumes.

Giving the authorities and employers powers to identify the political views of everyone who writes - even though their writing is completely lawful - is imo thoroughly unhealthy.Agreed. There's room for both.

But I would still say that if a piece of news comes from unconfirmed unreputable anonymous sources I will trow it in the bag "to follow up later".

.

Victor Meldrew
01-01-2013, 09:37 PM
Very good.

What is different about social media is that it is an ongoing discussion "in motion" - where one person can correct another person's error on a thread.

The law unfortunately does not recognise this.

There is a difference between how I communicate on FB (real name) and here and elsewhere under an alias.

I am more truthful and frank under an alias. However, if I were to be crass or ignorant, I would expect to be hauled up on it here faster than on FB, where there is a lot more politeness, but I would just lose friends (the real ones, not the ones we have not spoken to in 10 years)

C. Flower
01-01-2013, 09:52 PM
It depends on the company you keep in FB.

The name Jolitics is a joke, meant for failure. Major PR issue from the get go if you name your entity Jolitics, unless you are joking of course...


Well, just between you and me, I think I got the better pick of site names ;)


Noms de plume are more widely used by people that have no 'freedom' to speak their minds, when one is afraid of retaliation, thus one finds another way to get the info out. Nothing wrong about that. I understand that you have a problem w freedom of speech in Ireland so this is a perfectly legal (and apparently the only one) way to get it out.

Not so long ago I recall a thread here about a journalist that was threatened with jail time for speaking his mind...

Plenty of people in Ireland do speak out politically in their own name, but I think you would find that a lot of them have, or would like to have, a career in politics or journalism, in which case they are promoting their identity.


No problem with any of the above. I just happen to agree w Mediabite when s/he says that suspicion and paranoia go with the anonymous territory.... at the end of the day people choose to TRUST the source and somehow I find it a lot more difficult to trust a source/a face I can't see. Reputation and Trust. Whatever happened to the "Anonymous" hacktivist anarchic news outlet?

I'm less impressed by reputation and form than I used to be. A good number of very effective journalists who use their own names write to hidden agenda's - government, employer, political affiliation. A lot more journalists simply accept the first thing they are told and do no independent research. At the end of the day, any writer is only as good as the work they put into the piece of writing.


Agreed. There's room for both.

I very much agree with this.


But I would still say that if a piece of news comes from unconfirmed unreputable anonymous sources I will trow it in the bag "to follow up later".

That is very time-efficient :)

Simonsays
01-01-2013, 09:57 PM
Why do people talk so incessantly about 'freedom of speech' on the internet as if it exists? It doesn't. Every person on every website is subject to the exact same laws on the internet as off it in communication. Whether it is anonymous or not does not make any difference. You are still legally liable for the comments and still can have your identity established. People can get sued whether they post stuff here, on twitter, on facebook or anywhere else. Sometimes it is as if some people on the net think they live in a different world to reality.

C. Flower
01-01-2013, 10:15 PM
Why do people talk so incessantly about 'freedom of speech' on the internet as if it exists? It doesn't. Every person on every website is subject to the exact same laws on the internet as off it in communication. Whether it is anonymous or not does not make any difference. You are still legally liable for the comments and still can have your identity established. People can get sued whether they post stuff here, on twitter, on facebook or anywhere else. Sometimes it is as if some people on the net think they live in a different world to reality.

Perhaps reading what the Constitution says on this would clarify that.

There are rights of expression and communication at both national and EU level.

The terms and conditions of use of this site (advisable to read them) make it clear that people are legally liable for what they post.

I have not yet come across any Irish poster who thinks freedom of speech means a free for all.

random new yorker
01-01-2013, 10:15 PM
Well, just between you and me, I think I got the better pick of site names ;)

Agreed.
Jolitics ... honesty, who would have thought of that?


Plenty of people in Ireland do speak out politically in their own name, but I think you would find that a lot of them have, or would like to have, a career in politics or journalism, in which case they are promoting their identity.



But, is my perception correct that you guys may be a little deficient in 'freedom of speech' out there? for many other cultural reasons... and so that explains the popularity of forums such as these?

I am not sure I understand the dismissive 'people that speak politically under their own name have or would like to have a career in politics or journalism...promoting their identity.' Sounds like you 'can be arrested for having and for not having a dog'.

Over here there is the occasional journo that drifts into politics as well and we certainly have plenty politicians that think the next big move of their career is to become mouthpiece journos.... take a look at Fox News... :)

As far as I'm concerned i find it natural that people that discuss/understand politics are the most engaged and I wouldn't mind seeing some of our journos (here in the US) run for office.

:)

random new yorker
01-01-2013, 10:25 PM
Why do people talk so incessantly about 'freedom of speech' on the internet as if it exists? It doesn't. Every person on every website is subject to the exact same laws on the internet as off it in communication. Whether it is anonymous or not does not make any difference. You are still legally liable for the comments and still can have your identity established. People can get sued whether they post stuff here, on twitter, on facebook or anywhere else. Sometimes it is as if some people on the net think they live in a different world to reality.

Well, obviously the internet (our fault I know I know) has thrown a wrench onto the muteness of peoples under Totalitarian regimes, would you agree??

So, mmm ...yea... freedom of speech and facebook (our fault I know I know) and the Arab Spring, anyone?

.. ..
/...\

C. Flower
01-01-2013, 10:25 PM
Agreed.
Jolitics ... honesty, who would have thought of that?



But, is my perception correct that you guys may be a little deficient in 'freedom of speech' out there? for many other cultural reasons... and so that explains the popularity of forums such as these?

I am not sure I understand the dismissive 'people that speak politically under their own name have or would like to have a career in politics or journalism...promoting their identity.' Sounds like you 'can be arrested for having and for not having a dog'.

Over here there is the occasional journo that drifts into politics as well and we certainly have plenty politicians that think the next big move of their career is to become mouthpiece journos.... take a look at Fox News... :)

As far as I'm concerned i find it natural that people that discuss/understand politics are the most engaged and I wouldn't mind seeing some of our journos (here in the US) run for office.

:)


It think you are right about the deficiency of freedom of speech. In the Constitution, it is mentioned, but unlike in the US, it is qualified/limited.

In the fall out from the recent Leveson press scandal in the UK, there has been a lot of commentary in the UK that the proposals Leveson makes are too Irish - i.e. to controlling and restrictive of journalists / writers.

C. Flower
01-01-2013, 10:37 PM
Sometimes it is as if some people on the net think they live in a different world to reality.

Welcome, by the way :)

Simonsays
01-01-2013, 10:38 PM
Perhaps reading what the Constitution says on this would clarify that.

There are rights of expression and communication at both national and EU level.

The terms and conditions of use of this site (advisable to read them) make it clear that people are legally liable for what they post.

I have not yet come across any Irish poster who things freedom of speech means a free for all.

The Irish constitution's freedom of expression is quite limited with the following limits:



The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

(Article 40.6.i)

Various conventions we have signed up to are stronger.

To be honest I am always astonished at how many people across the internet genuinely think they can say what they want on the internet and imagine that any debate on standards on the net is about imposing limits on freedom where none exist right now.

Tons of people on the net realise that the law doesn't stop limiting what they can say and do when they log onto the computer and too many seem blind to that. It is frightening. That is why the Lord McAlpine defamation occurred and why people post all sorts of racist and abusive stuff - they imagine either that the internet is free of rules or that even if rules exist no-one can catch them as they think they are completely anonymous. They learn to their cost that they are less anonymous than they think and the law does still apply to them.

BTW I have read the terms and conditions of the site and they are well-worded and clear.

random new yorker
01-01-2013, 10:40 PM
It think you are right about the deficiency of freedom of speech. In the Constitution, it is mentioned, but unlike in the US, it is qualified/limited.

In the fall out from the recent Leveson press scandal in the UK, there has been a lot of commentary in the UK that the proposals Leveson makes are too Irish - i.e. to controlling and restrictive of journalists / writers.

mmmm....looks like 2013 may be time for a real 'revolution' of the irish 'journos and writers'

:)

ahem....can they prosecute me for 'inciting' you guys to 'revolt'?

random new yorker
01-01-2013, 10:51 PM
The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Article 40.6.i




I dont need to read more than this, really.

Surprising is that you have people out there willing to take the risk to speak up. Basically, they can prosecute you for whatever some lunatic decides what undermines 'public order, morality OR the authority of the state?'

Makes me sick.
.

C. Flower
01-01-2013, 10:54 PM
The Irish constitution's freedom of expression is quite limited with the following limits:
(Article 40.6.i)

Various conventions we have signed up to are stronger.

Yes. Exactly. Both rights and responsibilities exist side by side.

"Freedom of Expression and Information"


Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=18


To be honest I am always astonished at how many people across the internet genuinely think they can say what they want on the internet and imagine that any debate on standards on the net is about imposing limits on freedom where none exist right now. Who are these people ? Would you be able to link an example ?
The only time I've heard this said is not by internet users, but by journalists and politicians who really should know better. And in particular, in the last few days, it has been said by people running an agenda to falsely colour the net as a widely irresponsible environment.

Any internet user with that attitude would quickly run into trouble with the site admin or mods.


Tons of people on the net realise that the law doesn't stop limiting what they can say and do when they log onto the computer and too many seem blind to that. It is frightening. That is why the Lord McAlpine defamation occurred and why people post all sorts of racist and abusive stuff - they imagine either that the internet is free of rules or that even if rules exist no-one can catch them as they think they are completely anonymous. They learn to their cost that they are less anonymous than they think and the law does still apply to them. There have always been people whose tongues or pens run away with them. This is not restricted to the internet.

The MacAlpine defamation took place in the BBC. The BBC certainly should have known better that run with a story based on police gossip. This site's users did not make that mistake. In fact we flagged it as a possibly dodgy story before the programme was aired. There are other possible cases related to tweets, that have not taken place yet and that should not be prejudiced. Their outcome is far from certain.

The new British guidelines on prosecution of web users compare internet chat to talk down the pub. Yes, there are limits, but they should not be imposed in an onerous or disproportionate way. And they should not prevent legitimate discussion.


BTW I have read the terms and conditions of the site and they are well-worded and clear.Pleased to hear that. :)

jmcc
01-01-2013, 11:27 PM
mmmm....looks like 2013 may be time for a real 'revolution' of the irish 'journos and writers'

:)

ahem....can they prosecute me for 'inciting' you guys to 'revolt'?Nah! We already know that most Irish "journos" and "writers" are revolting. :) Hope we actually get some real journalists and writers here rather than the incestuous mediocrities that populate the Dublin media.

Regards...jmcc

Ephilant
02-01-2013, 06:32 AM
Why do people talk so incessantly about 'freedom of speech' on the internet as if it exists? It doesn't. Every person on every website is subject to the exact same laws on the internet as off it in communication. Whether it is anonymous or not does not make any difference. You are still legally liable for the comments and still can have your identity established. People can get sued whether they post stuff here, on twitter, on facebook or anywhere else. Sometimes it is as if some people on the net think they live in a different world to reality.

You are slightly missing the ball here. Let me try and explain by way of example. Some time ago I wrote a piece on Blasphemy.
I thought hard about this, and decided not to publish it on any of the Greek sites, although that is where it should have been published. Why?
Because if Greek laws were to be applied to this, that piece would have with near certainty earned me 2 years in jail here in Greece.
It would with 100% certainty earn me a lot of hassle. Publishing it on "foreign" sites is part of the way around authoritarian vindictiveness, anonymity is very much so another, big part of that need for self preservation. I do take responsibility for everything I write, and wil engage in discussion at all times. The beauty of the internet and the ability to do this anonimously is that, whether the authorities like it or not, I can indeed voice my opinion on things like blasphemy, and others can read it.
It is up to me to ensure that what I say if of such a standard that it it becomes a topic for discussion, even with those who oppose the view, rather than an excuse for authority to impose silence on a dissenting voice. Some of the comments left on the Al Jazeera comment board relating to that piece show just how impossible it is to stop people from being crude and offensive, in name or anonimously. They also show the value of being able to express an opinion anonimously if an author wants to keep his/her windows and body intact...

Captain Con O'Sullivan
02-01-2013, 08:22 AM
One could also ask amid the whinges from the Irish establishment about anonymous comment from the internet whether they intend to give up the system of anonymously briefing journalists?

'Sources in the party say...' ... sources close to the Taoiseach...' etc etc. Soon as Government Ministers stop using anonymous routes open to them through the tame media then they can have a complaint about the internet.

For example when Gabriel Byrne gave his honest opinion of the 'Gathering' recently I notice his expenses were 'leaked' as a Cultural Ambassador within a couple of days. You can't tell me that that was accidental.

As it happened it backfired a bit because Gabriel Byrne was expected to travel as part of that job and there was no suggestion his expenses were unreceipted or targeted to the maximum allowance as they routinely are with Irish politicians.

But it is interesting to note the desperation in the political class and the mainstream media when they feel the monopoly of what constitutes 'news' and 'comment' slipping away from them.

Sod them. Free speech like other inalienable rights as New Yorker points out above are hedged about in the Irish Constitution with caveats suggesting that the Ministers of any given day can decide what constitutes free speech in the furtherance of public order and morality- and I suspect New Yorker would agree with me that under no circumstances should free speech or public morality be decided upon by a Government minister.

The right to Free Speech and the Right to Assemble are inalienable rights of citizens in a Republic and a Democracy and you cannot have either of those states where such rights are within the right of the government to withhold.

So sod the Irish Government and sod its horse's arse of a fake constitution.

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 09:59 AM
One could also ask amid the whinges from the Irish establishment about anonymous comment from the internet whether they intend to give up the system of anonymously briefing journalists?

'Sources in the party say...' ... sources close to the Taoiseach...' etc etc. Soon as Government Ministers stop using anonymous routes open to them through the tame media then they can have a complaint about the internet.

For example when Gabriel Byrne gave his honest opinion of the 'Gathering' recently I notice his expenses were 'leaked' as a Cultural Ambassador within a couple of days. You can't tell me that that was accidental.

As it happened it backfired a bit because Gabriel Byrne was expected to travel as part of that job and there was no suggestion his expenses were unreceipted or targeted to the maximum allowance as they routinely are with Irish politicians.

But it is interesting to note the desperation in the political class and the mainstream media when they feel the monopoly of what constitutes 'news' and 'comment' slipping away from them.

Sod them. Free speech like other inalienable rights as New Yorker points out above are hedged about in the Irish Constitution with caveats suggesting that the Ministers of any given day can decide what constitutes free speech in the furtherance of public order and morality- and I suspect New Yorker would agree with me that under no circumstances should free speech or public morality be decided upon by a Government minister.

The right to Free Speech and the Right to Assemble are inalienable rights of citizens in a Republic and a Democracy and you cannot have either of those states where such rights are within the right of the government to withhold.

So sod the Irish Government and sod its horse's arse of a fake constitution.

Well, that Constitution is itself coming under attack. The separate state pillars of judiciary, senate, Dail and presidency were safeguards built in to prevent any kind of coup or dictatorship. The Judiciary and the Senate have come under pressure from Government and the Departments of Justice and Defence have been merged for the first time in the State's history.

Shatter has also directed a review of social media legislation by the Law Reform Commission. I'm not quite sure why social media falls within the remit of his Department.

The Government needs to remind itself perhaps of the EU and National rights to expression and communication and the right to personal data privacy.

Spectabilis
02-01-2013, 10:36 AM
Liz O'Donnell in today's Independent , with a headline 'Now Hate Mail is harder to ignore'

She mentions the various Tweetgate moments by politicians themselves .The article contains the same confusing mix of anonymous communications, not restricted to the internet, bullying measures, the need for 'an architecture of compliance' and a nod to the importance of social medial to democratic debate in oppressive political environments.


http://irishindependent.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

Captain Con O'Sullivan
02-01-2013, 10:38 AM
Keep travelling down this road and they'll lean into a blatant attempt at repression of free speech and political dissent at some point. Which suits me fine.

The sooner the better.

Seán Ryan
02-01-2013, 10:54 AM
Shatter will have fun, wasting time and money to find out that demanding an ID without a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed offence, is something our illustrious gardaí find again and again, to be an abuse of power and an abuse of a person's near absolute right to anonymity, once the matter finds itself inside a court room.

You'd think Shatter would know about the right to privacy and how far it extends. Maybe it's his policy of open hypocrisy that needs looking at?

The current topic has all sorts of ramifications for the most basic of rights. Expression comes in many forms and doesn't even require the spoken or written word.

The Supreme Court recently removed Section 10 (I think it was Section 10) of the Immigration Act. Gardaí were allowed to demand identification from foreign nationals without any reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and of course, the gardaí were abusing this when the opportunity to do so presented itself. A garda could hear an accented phrase, see a slanted eye or a dusky demeanour and demand identification because of it.

Shatter would have us all wear little yellow stars with our names on them. I look forward to his attempt at enforcing it.

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 11:57 AM
Shatter will have fun, wasting time and money to find out that demanding an ID without a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed offence, is something our illustrious gardaí find again and again, to be an abuse of power and an abuse of a person's near absolute right to anonymity, once the matter finds itself inside a court room.

You'd think Shatter would know about the right to privacy and how far it extends. Maybe it's his policy of open hypocrisy that needs looking at?

The current topic has all sorts of ramifications for the most basic of rights. Expression comes in many forms and doesn't even require the spoken or written word.

The Supreme Court recently removed Section 10 (I think it was Section 10) of the Immigration Act. Gardaí were allowed to demand identification from foreign nationals without any reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and of course, the gardaí were abusing this when the opportunity to do so presented itself. A garda could hear an accented phrase, see a slanted eye or a dusky demeanour and demand identification because of it.

Shatter would have us all wear little yellow stars with our names on them. I look forward to his attempt at enforcing it.

The Tally system is a blatant disregard of the law on the right to a secret ballot, but the political system has depended on it.

If career politicians expect to know how each constituent voted, in order to lean on those who didn't and reward those who did vote for them, of course they also, quite illegally, would like to know the name and address of everyone who expresses a political opinion.

barrym
02-01-2013, 01:18 PM
I dont need to read more than this, really.

Surprising is that you have people out there willing to take the risk to speak up. Basically, they can prosecute you for whatever some lunatic decides what undermines 'public order, morality OR the authority of the state?'

Makes me sick.
.

+ 1 BUT, criticism, such as that constantly and consistently (thankfully, imo) published by the IT and Fintan O'Toole, for example, has not (yet? ) been regarded as "undermining"

What worries me more is that a Dail committee led by an inarticulate moron may suggest Fintan is undermining, and posters on here, twitter, fb, etc., too.

barrym
02-01-2013, 01:29 PM
Shatter has also directed a review of social media legislation ....


Wha's 'social media legislation' ? -

In Shatter's pr just before the hols (btw what hols does he celebrate :confused:) - he is doing the usual opportunistic sh1te, striking while iron is warm, before McEntee is cold in his grave..

I assume he means the general legislation referring to media, expression of opinion, libel, etc., etc. Given a) the rate at which the Law Reform Commission works and b) the history of their views being implemented I'm not going to suffer asphyxia.

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 01:40 PM
Wha's 'social media legislation' ? -

In Shatter's pr just before the hols (btw what hols does he celebrate :confused:) - he is doing the usual opportunistic sh1te, striking while iron is warm, before McShane is cold in his grave..

I assume he means the general legislation referring to media, expression of opinion, libel, etc., etc. Given a) the rate at which the Law Reform Commission works and b) the history of their views being implemented I'm not going to suffer asphyxia.

Review of existing legislation that applies to social media, and enforcement of it. He referred it to the Law Reform Commission in November, in relation to alleged social media bullying of the girl who died by suicide. Again, the press rushed to make that judgement the day after she died. The parents have since sued the school.

It may well be that a lot of this is bluster and bullying to try to cow people into being quiet, but the price of freedom is eternal somethingorother....

barrym
02-01-2013, 01:40 PM
The Tally system is a blatant disregard of the law on the right to a secret ballot, but the political system has depended on it.

If career politicians expect to know how each constituent voted, in order to lean on those who didn't and reward those who did vote for them, of course they also, quite illegally, would like to know the name and address of everyone who expresses a political opinion.

+1 but the tally allows that, in reality. Recall the so called rejection of voters of a North Cork town because they didn't vote for the local TD. I know of many cases in rural Ireland where TDs and their mates have said to people 'I know how you vote (i.e the box from your polling station doesn't have enough votes for me/my mate) and I know what you say about me in the pub,and you drink in x's pub and we all know who drinks there....' What's the difference?

The thing some of the older pols haven't got a handle on is 'new media' but some of the younger ones have and use it cleverly, e.g. lots of mentions of the local GAA, etc., in tweets and don't forget who got the sports grants...

I only hope they don't think they can 'control' it.

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 01:43 PM
Wha's 'social media legislation' ? -

In Shatter's pr just before the hols (btw what hols does he celebrate :confused:) - he is doing the usual opportunistic sh1te, striking while iron is warm, before McShane is cold in his grave..

I assume he means the general legislation referring to media, expression of opinion, libel, etc., etc. Given a) the rate at which the Law Reform Commission works and b) the history of their views being implemented I'm not going to suffer asphyxia.

We have signed EU Charters that provide far stronger safeguards to freedom of speech.

barrym
02-01-2013, 02:06 PM
We have signed EU Charters that provide far stronger safeguards to freedom of speech.

Yep, of course and UN ones and Council of Europe stuff, etc,, etc., Just reinforces the opportunistic nature of Shatter's 'intervention'

Wasn't it one of Blair's maidens who suggested 9/11 was a good day to push out bad news? I just hope we don't have another event like that, our lot will swamp us.

random new yorker
02-01-2013, 02:26 PM
One could also ask amid the whinges from the Irish establishment about anonymous comment from the internet whether they intend to give up the system of anonymously briefing journalists?

'Sources in the party say...' ... sources close to the Taoiseach...' etc etc. Soon as Government Ministers stop using anonymous routes open to them through the tame media then they can have a complaint about the internet.



this is part of the same universal problem w your deficiency in freedom of speech... they are also afraid of the consequences to their well-being.



Sod them. Free speech like other inalienable rights as New Yorker points out above are hedged about in the Irish Constitution with caveats suggesting that the Ministers of any given day can decide what constitutes free speech in the furtherance of public order and morality- and I suspect New Yorker would agree with me that under no circumstances should free speech or public morality be decided upon by a Government minister.

The right to Free Speech and the Right to Assemble are inalienable rights of citizens in a Republic and a Democracy and you cannot have either of those states where such rights are within the right of the government to withhold.

Agreed on inalienable rights and Government officials making decisions on morality/free speech.


So sod the Irish Government and sod its horse's arse of a fake constitution.

Well, i wouldnt dare sod your Taoiseach and much less your Constitution ...

Very good discussion here today!

:)

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 02:56 PM
Yep, of course and UN ones and Council of Europe stuff, etc,, etc., Just reinforces the opportunistic nature of Shatter's 'intervention'

Wasn't it one of Blair's maidens who suggested 9/11 was a good day to push out bad news? I just hope we don't have another event like that, our lot will swamp us.

If you are up to speed on this, I'm gathering information at the moment, and it would be very helpful to be given some leads.

fluffybiscuits
02-01-2013, 03:33 PM
Shatter will have fun, wasting time and money to find out that demanding an ID without a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed offence, is something our illustrious gardaí find again and again, to be an abuse of power and an abuse of a person's near absolute right to anonymity, once the matter finds itself inside a court room.

You'd think Shatter would know about the right to privacy and how far it extends. Maybe it's his policy of open hypocrisy that needs looking at?

The current topic has all sorts of ramifications for the most basic of rights. Expression comes in many forms and doesn't even require the spoken or written word.

The Supreme Court recently removed Section 10 (I think it was Section 10) of the Immigration Act. Gardaí were allowed to demand identification from foreign nationals without any reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and of course, the gardaí were abusing this when the opportunity to do so presented itself. A garda could hear an accented phrase, see a slanted eye or a dusky demeanour and demand identification because of it.

Shatter would have us all wear little yellow stars with our names on them. I look forward to his attempt at enforcing it.

Beautiful and well writte post! Here is what is going to happen also if there is any attempts to introduce any sort of legislation. People will just start using proxy servers to post on such forums and therefore law enforcement will not keep up. For every step that the gardai take there will be internet users who are ten steps ahead thanks to software that is out there. The proxy servers will go through countries where there is not much legal structures to trace the said users if they think something may be defamatory. Add to this that this is a waste of resources and the legal system would be better focusing its resources elsewhere :)

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 03:59 PM
Beautiful and well writte post! Here is what is going to happen also if there is any attempts to introduce any sort of legislation. People will just start using proxy servers to post on such forums and therefore law enforcement will not keep up. For every step that the gardai take there will be internet users who are ten steps ahead thanks to software that is out there. The proxy servers will go through countries where there is not much legal structures to trace the said users if they think something may be defamatory. Add to this that this is a waste of resources and the legal system would be better focusing its resources elsewhere :)

If you or any other person, anonymous or otherwise, attempted to post anything defamatory, you would have your ass banned off the site before you had hit the return button. :)

Kev Bar
02-01-2013, 04:06 PM
Oh my god don't tell me you're Ian and Cindy's kid!:eek: That chipshop is your birth right and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise!

He's the bum Beal.

Let's keep the cod.

BTW - I have this radical idea. I'm a mad man for them. But I think that MediaBite is not really MediaBite's name.

Unless s/he is the child of McLuhanites who took to West Cork to escape the tyranny of the cathode tubes and seek a new seaweed cheese kind of life.

fluffybiscuits
02-01-2013, 04:09 PM
If you or any other person, anonymous or otherwise, attempted to post anything defamatory, you would have your ass banned off the site before you had hit the return button. :)

Nope I wouldnt dare post anything defamatory but that is how it would be done IMO.! The law would need to keep two steps ahead of the posse . They are going to force a lot of people underground via their actions.

Seán Ryan
02-01-2013, 04:41 PM
Nope I wouldnt dare post anything defamatory but that is how it would be done IMO.! The law would need to keep two steps ahead of the posse . They are going to force a lot of people underground via their actions.

:cool:

Folks will be forced into doing it the good old fashioned way; sticking a stamp on an envelope and sending a spanking to a (un)deserving party.

Nobody can be forced to wear a name tag, for long. Whoever succeeds in forcing you to do so will have established himself or herself as your owner.

I've always liked the court's idea of the reasonable person. The court says that this reasonable person defies identification. This is akin to saying that anonymity provides for reasonableness in its broadest and most essential definition. I like that.

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 05:29 PM
[QUOTE=Baron von Biffo;196577]That's an excellent case for the anonymous poster. The idea that the merit of the argument being more important than the status of the person advancing is something we could do with a lot more of in society.

It's useful to have a mechanism for public comment that doesn't expose one to public odium for articulating unpopular opinions.

Years ago I used to post to Usenet and as an unmoderated forum it could get hairy at times. In particular commenting on American groups about US policy was pretty much guaranteed to attract several death threats. That was the extreme but even on an Irish group one guy made quite determined efforts to track me down. What he would have done had he succeeded I'll never know but the nature of our exchanges meant it probably wouldn't have involved dragging me to the pub for few pints.




Another advantage of dealing with anonymous posters is one is freed from censorship by threat of libel proceedings. If I decide to tell porkies on here and I'm found out, anyone can call me on it. My reputation on the site would (rightly) suffer but that's as far as it could go. If however I post under my own name and decide to play fast and lose with the truth, I can drop from a great height on anyone who exposes me as a liar by getting my lawyers on the case.

Not the case.

It seems that members here need a New Year refresher course in the Terms and Conditions of this site, as well as law on defamation.

Anonymity makes no difference. An anonymous person has a right to their reputation, and posting defamation anonymously is no protection from the law. People are tracked down and action take regularly.

Simonsays
02-01-2013, 06:22 PM
the Departments of Justice and Defence have been merged for the first time in the State's history.

They haven't. They remain separate They have the same minister (which I believe is a mistake) but the departments are separate. They have not been merged.

C. Flower
02-01-2013, 06:41 PM
They haven't. They remain separate They have the same minister (which I believe is a mistake) but the departments are separate. They have not been merged.

Thanks for pointing that out.

What is the difference exactly ?

I've seen parts of Departments shuffled around from one Department and the next, and all that changed in reality was the letter head.

We are agreed that having Justice and Defence in the hands of one Minister is a bad thing.

I don't know that it was a mistake.

Simonsays
02-01-2013, 08:44 PM
Thanks for pointing that out.

What is the difference exactly ?

I've seen parts of Departments shuffled around from one Department and the next, and all that changed in reality was the letter head.

We are agreed that having Justice and Defence in the hands of one Minister is a bad thing.

I don't know that it was a mistake.

Both exist as separate legal entities. They receive different funds in different Dáil votes, are scrutinised separately, have separate command structures and fulfill fundamentally different roles. The only connection is the person at the top of the structure on both is the same.

The reason why IMHO it is a mistake is simple: it is not thought a good idea for both the justice and defence portfolios to be held by the one person in ordinary circumstances. Both should be unconnected so that one could countermand any illegal activity by the other - they both have the power effectively to check abuses of power by the other. Shatter is reliable but it would be a serious situation if the joint minister was someone as corrupt as the late Sean Doherty.

At least not merging them ensures there is no connection in the administration or structures between both. There is indeed a rivalry between both.

MediaBite
03-01-2013, 12:54 PM
Both exist as separate legal entities. They receive different funds in different Dáil votes, are scrutinised separately, have separate command structures and fulfill fundamentally different roles. The only connection is the person at the top of the structure on both is the same.

The reason why IMHO it is a mistake is simple: it is not thought a good idea for both the justice and defence portfolios to be held by the one person in ordinary circumstances. Both should be unconnected so that one could countermand any illegal activity by the other - they both have the power effectively to check abuses of power by the other. Shatter is reliable but it would be a serious situation if the joint minister was someone as corrupt as the late Sean Doherty.

At least not merging them ensures there is no connection in the administration or structures between both. There is indeed a rivalry between both.

History full of previously reliable people becoming unreliable and being prevailed upon to act improperly. I've no doubt that Shatter will turn out to be one such person if it's deemed necessary. In the meantime, there can be no innocent explanation for why this has happened. This arrangement is quite sinister, imo.

C. Flower
03-01-2013, 01:08 PM
Both exist as separate legal entities. They receive different funds in different Dáil votes, are scrutinised separately, have separate command structures and fulfill fundamentally different roles. The only connection is the person at the top of the structure on both is the same.

The reason why IMHO it is a mistake is simple: it is not thought a good idea for both the justice and defence portfolios to be held by the one person in ordinary circumstances. Both should be unconnected so that one could countermand any illegal activity by the other - they both have the power effectively to check abuses of power by the other. Shatter is reliable but it would be a serious situation if the joint minister was someone as corrupt as the late Sean Doherty.

At least not merging them ensures there is no connection in the administration or structures between both. There is indeed a rivalry between both.

Very clear.

The may be separate in terms of organisation, but in terms of policy at representation at Cabinet, the Minister is surely the source ?

This move was I think not noted or discussed anything like enough in the media.

Our Constitution was designed carefully, in a young state, to build in some safeguards against creeping dictatorship or coup. This move, taken along with abolition of the Senate, the pressure on the judiciary, the determined push to give investigative powers to the Oireachtas and the by-passing of Cabinet by the Economic Management Council, is very unhealthy.

It isn't corruption that I'm bothered about, it is weakening of the democratic foundations of the State.

Add to that, the recent transformation of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications.

It was set up to deal with infrastructure.

It seems to have recently been turned into a Court of Star Chamber on political reporting and broadcasting.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/ob/committees_list/transportandcommunications/role/

MediaBite
03-01-2013, 01:55 PM
Very clear.

The may be separate in terms of organisation, but in terms of policy at representation at Cabinet, the Minister is surely the source ?

This move was I think not noted or discussed anything like enough in the media.

Our Constitution was designed carefully, in a young state, to build in some safeguards against creeping dictatorship or coup. This move, taken along with abolition of the Senate, the pressure on the judiciary, the determined push to give investigative powers to the Oireachtas and the by-passing of Cabinet by the Economic Management Council, is very unhealthy.

It isn't corruption that I'm bothered about, it is weakening of the democratic foundations of the State.

Add to that, the recent transformation of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications.

It was set up to deal with infrastructure.

It seems to have recently been turned into a Court of Star Chamber on political reporting and broadcasting.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/ob/committees_list/transportandcommunications/role/

Vitally important observations.

Separately, I don't suppose I'm the only one who has noticed that the 'anonymity' debate has been framed so that you're damned if you do and damned if you dont:

Anonymous = vile, abusive *****.
Posting under your own name = obnoxious attention seeker.
Cooperative mainstream journalist = saintly, objective, courageous reporter of truth

Censor the first group, sneer at and ridicule the second - and use the last- with their willing compliance. That the political establishment takes this insulting, arrogant attitude towards people engaging with media/political discourse is nothing new. But maybe we don't often see such a naked example of it.

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 02:04 PM
All the ugly toads are at it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20857480

C. Flower
03-01-2013, 02:12 PM
All the ugly toads are at it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20857480

South Korea has tried to enforce online IDs, and given it up.

MediaBite
03-01-2013, 06:19 PM
I depair. Everything would be OK if ordinary people saying what they think was, you know, not so important. Or popular. Or prevalent. It needs to be curtailed. And left to better qualified people - who are paid for the privilege. Like Una Mullally: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2013/01/03/the-year-of-the-comment-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/

C. Flower
03-01-2013, 06:43 PM
Newspapers really are in a pickle.

Not only up against real-time online news, but also multiple 24 hour news channels on tv and radio.

I think she is right and people will get tired of commenting on opinion pieces - in the main there just isn't enough substance in them to be worth the effort.

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 07:31 PM
I depair. Everything would be OK if ordinary people saying what they think was, you know, not so important. Or popular. Or prevalent. It needs to be curtailed. And left to better qualified people - who are paid for the privilege. Like Una Mullally: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2013/01/03/the-year-of-the-comment-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/

Some other paid piper called Davids Adams was bleating on, stirring The Man's cup of hysterical tea.

The press corps are behaving like the Americans and the Tea Party - blaming their decline on everyone bar themselves.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0103/1224328378033.html

The whores.
The mutants.
And the second rate.

Dr. FIVE
03-01-2013, 07:34 PM
Anonymous abuse!

from 1842!


One of the great hidden objects of Irish history is the threatening letter. For a burgeoning population of very poor tenants, Daniel O’Connell’s non-violent campaigns for Catholic emancipation and repeal of the Act of Union had less urgency than questions that bore on their immediate survival: rent, land tenure and the tithes that were extorted from Catholics to pay Church of Ireland clergymen. For much of the 19th century, the most violent resistance of the anonymous poor was personified in a single, mythical figure, Captain Rock, whose name was appended to thousands of threatening letters, like this one sent to Thomas Larcom, the chief surveyor of Ireland, in 1842.

http://www.100objects.ie/portfolio-items/81-threatening-letter/

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 07:35 PM
Newspapers really are in a pickle.

Not only up against real-time online news, but also multiple 24 hour news channels on tv and radio.

I think she is right and people will get tired of commenting on opinion pieces - in the main there just isn't enough substance in them to be worth the effort.


You skim them if you want. Just like you skimmed the pieces that give birth to them.

We are all consenting adults.

Or kids with attitude.

And if I hear another word about suicide, I'll top myself.

BANG

HANG

And blame print media.

For failing to continue to employ me.

Then we can shut newspapers down.

TV stations too.

Why not?

We can all have holograms of Alan Shatter.

To adore.

Froth about.

Or frottage against.

Or whatever particular wave

On the sea of trivial loon

Floats your boat.

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 07:38 PM
Anonymous abuse!

from 1842!



http://www.100objects.ie/portfolio-items/81-threatening-letter/

What about Today's Cowardice Today?

Jesus wept Man.

Do you want to take away all our certainty?

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 07:49 PM
We won't have this class of carry on.

Ah no.

http://972mag.com/israelis-give-their-votes-to-palestinians-in-facebook-campaign/63318/

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 09:43 PM
Eeek.
Call the cops.
A real journalist doing a job.
And n'er a mention of
Shane
Shame
Social Media
Suicide.

Strange days indeed.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012review/2012/12/20121228102157169557.html

C. Flower
03-01-2013, 10:23 PM
Eeek.
Call the cops.
A real journalist doing a job.
And n'er a mention of
Shane
Shame
Social Media
Suicide.

Strange days indeed.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012review/2012/12/20121228102157169557.html

Not sure why it is in this thread, but is is a good report.

Yet for all the huge sums of money, most Tuaregs in northern Mali dislike Salafism and remain un-seduced by al-Qaeda. Most still cling to dreams of independence and find old-school national liberation groups like the MNLA attractive, in spite of the fact that it cannot even afford to feed its troops.

"We are Muslims but we can't stand the Salafi way," says Bukhadu, a 22-year-old Tuareg herder who likes the MNLA. "We want our sisters to feel the wind in their hair."

Doesn't matter where you look, nobody likes al Q.


"We know the intelligence agencies of a number of countries have been working with the leadership of these groups," says MNLA chief Bilal Ag Cherif.

"Where are the resources and capabilities these groups enjoy coming from? Why are the leaders of these groups able to enter the capital cities of neighbouring countries and then return here, while they have been declared 'terrorist' organisations? Why do they not arrest them in those capitals, whereas the minute they return to Azawad they say: ‘Fight them'?"
Bilal stares amazed. "This game of chess should not be played."

Kev Bar
03-01-2013, 11:55 PM
Yeah.
Sorry about that.

To get back to the point about politicians and journos, well we should compare and contrast what they said when Bertie Ahern called on critics to commit suicide.
Yep.
The most powerful man in the country publicly calling on you to kill yourself.
Nice.
What did they say about that?
What are they saying now?

Hmmmm.

That would be worth looking into.

I suspect we are going to have to go to war against these fools.

Kev Bar
04-01-2013, 12:22 AM
Our friend the Gombeen Goebbels has just entered the fray?

And what did brave John have to say when Bertie Ahern called on righteous critics of his treasonous policies to go kill themselves?

We'll have to go look.

An odious monkey dancing to oligarch organ.

Yuck

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0104/1224328422900.html

The Irish Times needs to cop on.

Let's give a little social media zip past Waters' ear.

Zing.

Were we close John?

Clown.

And get yr hair cut.

http://barringtonkevin.blogspot.ie/2012/08/john-waters-gombeen-goebbels.html

Kev Bar
04-01-2013, 03:21 PM
It's just an old class and its lackeys scared of the revolutionary potential of digital democracy.

http://barringtonkevin.blogspot.ie/2012/01/occupy-and-democracy-glimpse-at.html

C. Flower
04-01-2013, 07:06 PM
Liz O'Donnell calls for censorship and exemplary prosecutions of social media users "in the free world"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/liz-odonnell-hate-mail-was-a-lot-easier-to-ignore-before-social-media-3340211.html

simonj
04-01-2013, 08:56 PM
" To Learn who rules over you,
Simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

Voltaire

Kev Bar
04-01-2013, 09:07 PM
" To Learn who rules over you,
Simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

Voltaire

Nice.

PaddyJoe
04-01-2013, 10:55 PM
Liz O'Donnell calls for censorship and exemplary prosecutions of social media users "in the free world"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/liz-odonnell-hate-mail-was-a-lot-easier-to-ignore-before-social-media-3340211.html

Liz is gas crack altogether:

{social media}as demonstrated by the Arab Spring can be a magnificent instrument of empowerment and democratic debate in oppressive political environments.
BUT:

in the free world, we need a whole architecture of compliance, verification and protocols for behaviour in cyberspace
Another horrendously ignorant piece from somebody who's proud to say that she has never felt the need to use or be informed by Twitter.
Oh, and of course she's only started writing comment pieces for the Indo since DOB took over.

Simonsays
04-01-2013, 11:48 PM
Very clear.

The may be separate in terms of organisation, but in terms of policy at representation at Cabinet, the Minister is surely the source ?

This move was I think not noted or discussed anything like enough in the media.

Our Constitution was designed carefully, in a young state, to build in some safeguards against creeping dictatorship or coup. This move, taken along with abolition of the Senate, the pressure on the judiciary, the determined push to give investigative powers to the Oireachtas and the by-passing of Cabinet by the Economic Management Council, is very unhealthy.

It isn't corruption that I'm bothered about, it is weakening of the democratic foundations of the State.

Add to that, the recent transformation of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications.

It was set up to deal with infrastructure.

It seems to have recently been turned into a Court of Star Chamber on political reporting and broadcasting.

There is no constitutional requirement that there be a separate Justice and Defence Minister. In fact neither needs to be actually in the cabinet. Technically, ministers don't have to be in cabinet at all. There is a distinction between departmental heads, which is one role, and Member of the Government, which is another. One three positions HAVE to be represented in the Government: Taoiseach, Tanaiste and Minister for Finance. Constitutionally, no other department needs to be represented in the Government. You could have everyone without a portfolio. It is simply a tradition that the army and police are not put under the one minister.

The reason why it was done this time was simply that the Constitution sets an upper limit of 15 on the size of the Government - far smaller than most states. Creating a department of Public service and reform meant one of the existing ones had to put in with another under the one person. Alternatively the Department of Defence could be given to a Minister of State.

BTW the committees are rejigged at the start of every Dáil. In the last Dáil Ahern created a 'one for everyone in the audience' committee system that became farcical. Instead of doing that, the new government followed international precedent in creating a small number of larger, more powerful committees than vast numbers of smaller, powerless committees that members couldn't attend because they had to be on so many committees they spent the time rushing from committee vote to committee vote they hardly could attend full a full meeting of any of them. It was crazy.

Simonsays
05-01-2013, 12:29 AM
The disgraceful story over a girl's drunken rant highlighted on twitter today highlights yet again the serious problem there is with standards on the net. The story involves a very drunk stupid girl ranting off about her sense of entitlement because Daddy was some big wig on a particular company and someone recording her and putting her you tube.

No broadcaster would ever be allowed to post the drunken ramblings of anyone recorded anonymously, much less comments by someone so young. If a broadcaster did that they would have the book thrown at them by the BAI and probably face a mega fine.

But the internet got away with it, not just posting the anonymously recorded rant but giving enough information to enable people to find out who she was, what school she had gone to, and flashed her name around.

As a result the girl has been publicly had her drunken antics spread over twitter, has been humiliated and mocked, all without her permission. To their credit you tube pulled the video when they realised her age and that she had not authorised the broadcast.

God knows what impact the public humiliation in front of large numbers of people on the net will do to her, given that her name and school were put up all over the place.

She ended up trending on twitter.

People on twitter who complained about it were themselves abused. It became one orgy of pulling a drunken young girl. Just because someone acts stupidly when drunk does not mean they lose their right to privacy.

I hope she and her father sues everyone who named her or revealed details about her and where she went to school. People used to be rightly outraged when tabloids invaded privacy. This is even worse. Even the scummiest tabloids would have baulked at using drunken comments by a young girl. But in the social media people think they can get away with anything.

Sam Lord
05-01-2013, 01:27 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0104/1224328422900.html



All this is good news in any case:




By contrast, lawyers appear currently to be advising that an internet provider may avail of section 27 of the Defamation Act 2009 – which provides for a defence of “innocent publication” – if it can show that it was not the author, editor or publisher of the material to which the action relates, and does not monitor or filter the information published on its forums.

A document, Applicable Libel and Privacy Laws in Ireland, published last year by William Fry solicitors, also drew attention to the EU electronic commerce directive, adopted by the European Parliament in May 2000 and subsequently implemented into Irish law. This directive provides that internet service providers who are mere “conduits” will escape liability if they have not initiated, selected or modified the material complained of and did not select the receiver of the information. It stipulates that such providers will not be liable for damages if they have no knowledge of the defamatory nature of the material concerned.

A critical element, however, appears to be the response of the internet provider, which will escape liability only if, once it has obtained knowledge of the defamatory material, it acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to it.

Andrew49
05-01-2013, 09:50 AM
COMMUNICATIONS Minister Pat Rabbitte has described a series of offensive tweets posted about Senator Ronan Mullen as "deplorable" and "offensive". The tweets, many of which were written by musical director of 'The Late Late Show', Jim Sheridan, contained words and images mocking Mr Mullen.

LINK (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-probe-after-deplorable-tweet-attack-on-senator-3342956.html)

Jaysus! How did I miss these tweets!?!

C. Flower
05-01-2013, 10:16 AM
LINK (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-probe-after-deplorable-tweet-attack-on-senator-3342956.html)

Jaysus! How did I miss these tweets!?!

A response to a satirical tweet by Kev Bar here. I see no difference in tone to the tweets to the one John Waters made and that he referred to in yesterday's article attacking the internet. The Irish Times legal advise seemingly supported Waters.

There is no way that Rabitte would have tolerated Jonathan Swift.

Andrew49
05-01-2013, 10:56 AM
Turns out I did get those tweets after all :)

Satirical, yes - but in no way could they be regarded as humiliating

Here's the standard of humour and excellence:

http://t.co/Fp0UNqqN

And the Indo has shut down comments on the article - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-probe-after-deplorable-tweet-attack-on-senator-3342956.html

C. Flower
05-01-2013, 11:31 AM
Turns out I did get those tweets after all :)

Satirical, yes - but in no way could they be regarded as humiliating

Here's the standard of humour and excellence:

http://t.co/Fp0UNqqN

And the Indo has shut down comments on the article - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-probe-after-deplorable-tweet-attack-on-senator-3342956.html

Good heavens. That is funny.

Are the Mullen images accessible ?

musashi
05-01-2013, 11:32 AM
Turns out I did get those tweets after all :)

Satirical, yes - but in no way could they be regarded as humiliating

Here's the standard of humour and excellence:

http://t.co/Fp0UNqqN

And the Indo has shut down comments on the article - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-probe-after-deplorable-tweet-attack-on-senator-3342956.html

The Indo's not coming out very well from this.
They are more than happy to dish out criticism but loath to soak it up.

C. Flower
05-01-2013, 12:33 PM
The Indo's not coming out very well from this.
They are more than happy to dish out criticism but loath to soak it up.

Someone said "I give it 30 minutes before these comments are deleted" and the comments were locked.

They were quite innocuous comments.

Andrew49
05-01-2013, 01:16 PM
Good heavens. That is funny.

Are the Mullen images accessible ?

I'm trying to get at them through Twitpic but not having any success

- - - - -
http://t.co/CgAd214Q

- - - - -
Jim Sheridan
@Jim_Sheridan

Freelance Producer/Director/Editor Currently Musical Director of the Late Late Show. All opinion/tweets are personal and do not reflect my current state of mind

http://twitpic.com/bpzipb

homer
05-01-2013, 01:52 PM
That's an excellent case for the anonymous poster. The idea that the merit of the argument being more important than the status of the person advancing is something we could do with a lot more of in society.

It's useful to have a mechanism for public comment that doesn't expose one to public odium for articulating unpopular opinions.

Years ago I used to post to Usenet and as an unmoderated forum it could get hairy at times. In particular commenting on American groups about US policy was pretty much guaranteed to attract several death threats. That was the extreme but even on an Irish group one guy made quite determined efforts to track me down. What he would have done had he succeeded I'll never know but the nature of our exchanges meant it probably wouldn't have involved dragging me to the pub for few pints.

Another advantage of dealing with anonymous posters is one is freed from censorship by threat of libel proceedings. If I decide to tell porkies on here and I'm found out, anyone can call me on it. My reputation on the site would (rightly) suffer but that's as far as it could go. If however I post under my own name and decide to play fast and lose with the truth, I can drop from a great height on anyone who exposes me as a liar by getting my lawyers on the case.

Usenet

remember it well. Recall when my children were young and were on an educational project thru usnet somebody from the states posted a crude sexual message.

I had a copy ( in Irish ) of Bunreacht na h-Éireann on my HD at the time. I uploaded it and forwarded to the guy sayiing it was the most damning Irish curse. Heard no more.

Anonymity

1. It does facilitate free discussion. However on some boards ( even occasionally here ) vulgar abuse is posted. I doubt if in RL people would do this,

2. Your post suggests that anonymity protects against libel claims. Not so, imho

C. Flower
05-01-2013, 02:14 PM
Usenet

remember it well. Recall when my children were young and were on an educational project thru usnet somebody from the states posted a crude sexual message.

I had a copy ( in Irish ) of Bunreacht na h-Éireann on my HD at the time. I uploaded it and forwarded to the guy sayiing it was the most damning Irish curse. Heard no more.

Anonymity

1. It does facilitate free discussion. However on some boards ( even occasionally here ) vulgar abuse is posted. I doubt if in RL people would do this,

2. Your post suggests that anonymity protects against libel claims. Not so, imho

You are right there, and this is spelled out clearly in PW's Terms and Conditions.

On vulgar abuse, it is against forum rules in our discussions. I don't like it as I think it gets in the way of discussion and distracts from much more important things be written, often by the same person. However, in the main, anything strong said here tends to be aimed fair and square at a person's politics.

Anonymous discussion is needed I think for the same reason that we have a secret ballot. People are welcome to tell us how they vote, but no one should be forced to.

Politicians use strong terms about opponents constantly. It is part of their stock in trade.

fluffybiscuits
05-01-2013, 03:39 PM
If Mullen is going to have a flounce over this does that mean they should ban Irish pictorial weekly and Rosenstocks new show?

jpc
05-01-2013, 04:29 PM
" To Learn who rules over you,
Simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

Voltaire

Beautiful and straight to the heart of the matter

musashi
05-01-2013, 05:24 PM
Someone said "I give it 30 minutes before these comments are deleted" and the comments were locked.

They were quite innocuous comments.

Saw that. Traditionalists cannot fight a rising tide but they're trying, bless.

Andrew49
05-01-2013, 07:29 PM
We have a itsapoliticalworld blog, and a itsapoeticalworld blog.. is it time we had itsacartoonworld blog?

C. Flower
05-01-2013, 07:30 PM
We have a itsapoliticalworld blog, and a itsapoeticalworld blog.. is it time we had itsacartoonworld blog?

Something along those lines :)

Andrew49
05-01-2013, 08:54 PM
Something along those lines :)

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/theknitter/TWITFOLLOW1_zps7a8dc5a8.jpg

Kev Bar
05-01-2013, 09:07 PM
This is getting outta hand.

We are going to have to slap some sense into them.

Kev Bar
05-01-2013, 09:08 PM
If Mullen is going to have a flounce over this does that mean they should ban Irish pictorial weekly and Rosenstocks new show?

No.
But I hear there is a plan to tax laughter.
After all it's seditious.

morticia
05-01-2013, 09:39 PM
I noticed today that some German politician is trying to get Facebook fined for NOT allowing pseudonyms. Anonymity is a constitutional right in Germany, apparently.

Given this handy German stance, I'd imagine we are safe for a while yet. Can't see the EU moving on this while Germany sits behind the wheel

C. Flower
05-01-2013, 09:52 PM
I noticed today that some German politician is trying to get Facebook fined for NOT allowing pseudonyms. Anonymity is a constitutional right in Germany, apparently.

Given this handy German stance, I'd imagine we are safe for a while yet. Can't see the EU moving on this while Germany sits behind the wheel

In accordance with Higher EU Law.

Forcing women and under age online users to show their names and addresses just might cause problems.

fluffybiscuits
06-01-2013, 12:35 PM
No.
But I hear there is a plan to tax laughter.
After all it's seditious.

If its laughter tax is based on anything RTE produces they will realise that cuts are more effective....

PaddyJoe
06-01-2013, 09:44 PM
Mary Mitchell O'Conor makes all the predictable noises today..'negative effects of social media..unconstrained venom..untold damage..etc.
Has she found some previously unheard of horror though?

“A further cause for concern is new software which allows pornographic material to be sent to and viewed by a young person, before disappearing from their device's screen and hard drive within minutes. The nature of this damaging software makes it impossible to track or trace.
New one on me. Is there any technical basis for this claim or is she making it up?
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/kkj0he

fluffybiscuits
06-01-2013, 09:49 PM
Meant to ask, did you hear Tommie Gorman telling us that social media had a role to play in the spread of riots on the RTE 9 news or did I pick that up wrong...

Kev Bar
06-01-2013, 09:56 PM
Thinking of a reading outside Pat's house.
Was gonna do I Love The Internet
And perhaps some lenny bruce
Anyone interested?
Anyone can shoot a camera well?
PM me

Simonsays
06-01-2013, 09:59 PM
Meant to ask, did you hear Tommie Gorman telling us that social media had a role to play in the spread of riots on the RTE 9 news or did I pick that up wrong...

Yes.

And it is correct. They were using facebook pages until those pages were shut down for incitement. They have been using various websites including far right websites.

PaddyJoe
06-01-2013, 10:21 PM
I wonder how they managed to organise riots back in the pre Internet age?
Down the pub on a Wednesday night:
"Ye up for the riot Friday night, Tom?"
"No, won't make it. Its darts night down the Flute and Whistle"
:)

fluffybiscuits
06-01-2013, 10:24 PM
I wonder how they managed to organise riots back in the pre Internet age?
Down the pub on a Wednesday night:
"Ye up for the riot Friday night, Billy?"
"No, won't make it. Its darts night down the Flute and Whistle"
:)


Fixed that :D

C. Flower
07-01-2013, 02:28 AM
Yes.

And it is correct. They were using facebook pages until those pages were shut down for incitement. They have been using various websites including far right websites.

Yes. That damn genie just won't go back into the bottle.

Of course, the Facebook page organisation does have the benefit to the State that they know about what is planned almost before the organisers do.

barrym
07-01-2013, 07:42 AM
Mary Mitchell O'Conor makes all the predictable noises today..'negative effects of social media..unconstrained venom..untold damage..etc.
Has she found some previously unheard of horror though?

New one on me. Is there any technical basis for this claim or is she making it up?
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/kkj0he

Not heard of it, but, technically, it could be possible. Writing script to dowload a sequence and then scrub it is not rocket science.

However, I'd have me doubts on the particular use described, why do it, except as publicity for porn. The only other use MIGHT be to deliberately introduce kids to porn and then remove the evidence, conspiracy theory?

Maybe someone described the idea to Mary M O'C and she turned into a reality, no one in this debate is 'agendaless'

fluffybiscuits
07-01-2013, 03:26 PM
Yes.

And it is correct. They were using facebook pages until those pages were shut down for incitement. They have been using various websites including far right websites.

Not too sure I could believe it. Looking at the riots in the UK they were organised on facebook but would the organisers of the NI riots be as stupid to organise them in the public domain, is it RTE coming on the back of the demonisation of social media? I do know the EDL have been incredibly thick on social media and that these loyalist mobs have strong links to them..

musashi
09-01-2013, 07:14 AM
A piece in today's IT by Joe Humphreys, mainstream bilge:


* Anonymous opinion is fundamentally dishonest; you can’t divorce ideas from the person behind them. In the fantasy world of hacktivism, there is a notion you can have “ideas without origin”. Supporters of the campaign group Anonymous have used this phrase, not realising it puts them philosophically in the Dark Ages.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0109/1224328598599.html

jmcc
09-01-2013, 08:42 AM
A piece in today's IT by Joe Humphreys, mainstream bilge:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0109/1224328598599.htmlIt is fascinating that all this anti-Social Media, anti-Technology is coming from people who are, apparently, Arts types. There doesn't seem to be one neo-Luddite with a technology background.

Regards...jmcc

DCon
09-01-2013, 08:51 AM
Ronan Lyons on the offensive


Ronan Lyons ‏@ronanlyons

Given author of today's poorly thought-out piece is on Twitter, maybe I should draw @JoeHumphreys42 attention to this http://www.karlmonaghan.com/2012/12/31/stasi-esque/

musashi
09-01-2013, 09:10 AM
It is fascinating that all this anti-Social Media, anti-Technology is coming from people who are, apparently, Arts types. There doesn't seem to be one neo-Luddite with a technology background.
Regards...jmcc

The piece by Humphreys was remarkable for its refusal to recognize the democratization of the public sphere enabled by ubiquitous comms.

Zero recognition of the benefits of anonymous citizen comment, just valueless stick waving.

Let the anachronistic trogs fade into posterity; happy trails.

C. Flower
09-01-2013, 09:11 AM
It is fascinating that all this anti-Social Media, anti-Technology is coming from people who are, apparently, Arts types. There doesn't seem to be one neo-Luddite with a technology background.

Regards...jmcc

Do these people (yourself being the honorable exception) discuss social and political issues at all?

If they do, they would want to come out of their shells and defend the WWW.

C. Flower
09-01-2013, 09:13 AM
The piece by Humphreys was remarkable for its refusal to recognize the democratization of the public sphere enabled by ubiquitous comms.

Zero recognition of the benefits of anonymous citizen comment, just valueless stick waving.

Let the anachronistic trogs fade into posterity; happy trails.

It doesn't really have any thought content.

Just the zeitgeist of the week.

C. Flower
09-01-2013, 09:14 AM
Karl Monaghan's piece, and TJ McIntyre's blog posts, are very good on this subject.

http://www.karlmonaghan.com/2012/12/31/stasi-esque/

musashi
09-01-2013, 10:10 AM
Do these people (yourself being the honorable exception) discuss social and political issues at all?

If they do, they would want to come out of their shells and defend the WWW.

What's the point?
Just a bunch of grumpy old fa*ts venting.

jmcc
09-01-2013, 11:06 AM
Do these people (yourself being the honorable exception) discuss social and political issues at all?Some of us would be considered paranoid by ordinary people but techies do discuss politics and social issues. There are techies here, in the other place and on Boards.ie. There was a good article about the mindset of a hacker (real hackers rather than the traduced term that the media uses) a few years ago that provided some good insights into the techie/hacker mindset. Hackers do a lot more reading and thinking than the average journalist or columnist. However Hackers/techies as a group have some very wide variations. There's a strong Libertarian element but fundies (as in fanatical political party members) are quite rare.


If they do, they would want to come out of their shells and defend the WWW.Perhaps Napoleon said it best about one attitude to how the political class and their lackeys in the media are behaving: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. The political classes in Ireland are very much of the Old Europe (pre-American Revolution) mentality and they would gladly have killed Tom Paine. You can see the same mentality in the reaction of the Irish Times and the other newspapers. What these people do not seem to understand is that the WWW is a valuable global resource whereas politicians and their friends in the media can, to paraphrase Von Braun, be mass produced with unskilled labour.

Regards...jmcc

fluffybiscuits
09-01-2013, 11:33 AM
Do these people (yourself being the honorable exception) discuss social and political issues at all?

If they do, they would want to come out of their shells and defend the WWW.

Hacktivism is the word given to those whom are of a political persuasion or have an interest on a social issue. Wikipedia has a huge entry here on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism . Socially these groups are like the Occupy movement, there is no leader and just group working together (quite anarchanistic ?). Under the guidance (not leadership) groups like Anonymous work to bring down sites etc.

C. Flower
09-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Some of us would be considered paranoid by ordinary people but techies do discuss politics and social issues. There are techies here, in the other place and on Boards.ie. There was a good article about the mindset of a hacker (real hackers rather than the traduced term that the media uses) a few years ago that provided some good insights into the techie/hacker mindset. Hackers do a lot more reading and thinking than the average journalist or columnist. However Hackers/techies as a group have some very wide variations. There's a strong Libertarian element but fundies (as in fanatical political party members) are quite rare.

Perhaps Napoleon said it best about one attitude to how the political class and their lackeys in the media are behaving: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. The political classes in Ireland are very much of the Old Europe (pre-American Revolution) mentality and they would gladly have killed Tom Paine. You can see the same mentality in the reaction of the Irish Times and the other newspapers. What these people do not seem to understand is that the WWW is a valuable global resource whereas politicians and their friends in the media can, to paraphrase Von Braun, be mass produced with unskilled labour.

Regards...jmcc

Nice insights, thanks.

Colonialism knocked out Irish industry, so we never experienced the industrial revolution in any way that profoundly affected outlook (still much more agricultural).

The Irish political and upper civil service class have known for ten years that they are not educating the workforce needed for FDI IT industry here and have been happy to grant visas to people to come from India instead.
They are also happy to maintain an education system in which religion gets four times more teaching hours than science in our schools.

Religious thinking is the main ideological tool used to keep people compliant here. That is why the reaction to the abortion issue (whatever you think about the reportage of the case that sparked reaction) has imo put the unholy fear of the population into that class.

I don't think the current frenzy against the internet is unrelated.

fluffybiscuits
09-01-2013, 11:56 AM
Nice insights, thanks.

The Irish political and upper civil service class have known for ten years that they are not educating the workforce needed for FDI IT industry here and have been happy to grant visas to people to come from India instead.They are also happy to maintain an education system in which religion gets four times more teaching hours that science in our schools.

Religious thinking is the main ideological tool used to keep people compliant here. That is why the reaction to the abortion issue (whatever you think about the reportage of the case that sparked reaction) has imo put the unholy fear of the population into that class.

I don't think the current frenzy against the internet is unrelated.

A lot of companies are requiring people to have experience to get into these jobs and if there are no jobs how do people get experience? The internship scheme saps morale and destroys a person and no one goes on to them, we are left with this vicious circle. That is a major part of the problem with the IT industry.

jmcc
09-01-2013, 11:58 AM
Hacktivism is the word given to those whom are of a political persuasion or have an interest on a social issue. Sounds tailor made for the MSM.

Old Skool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk

Regards...jmcc

C. Flower
09-01-2013, 12:02 PM
A piece in today's IT by Joe Humphreys, mainstream bilge:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2013/0109/1224328598599.html

Is Joe Humphreys on twitter ?

jmcc
09-01-2013, 12:06 PM
A lot of companies are requiring people to have experience to get into these jobs and if there are no jobs how do people get experience? The internship scheme saps morale and destroys a person and no one goes on to them, we are left with this vicious circle. That is a major part of the problem with the IT industry.To some people in IT, programming is like breathing. Even outside of work, some may do programming as a hobby (contributing to Open Source projects). Basically you've got to keep up with things. It may also teach people to be self-reliant rather than depending on others to provide jobs. While most people can't handle the stresses and uncertainty of being self-employed, some may find that they can. The internship/Slavebridge thing might actually work for some but for most, it is nothing more than slave labour for inefficient businesses.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc
09-01-2013, 12:07 PM
Is Joe Humphreys on twitter ?
Apparently:
https://twitter.com/JoeHumphreys42

Regards...jmcc

DCon
09-01-2013, 12:08 PM
Is Joe Humphreys on twitter ?


aye


Ronan Lyons ‏@ronanlyons

Given author of today's poorly thought-out piece is on Twitter, maybe I should draw @JoeHumphreys42 attention to this http://www.karlmonaghan.com/2012/12/31/stasi-esque/

fluffybiscuits
09-01-2013, 12:09 PM
To some people in IT, programming is like breathing. Even outside of work, some may do programming as a hobby (contributing to Open Source projects). Basically you've got to keep up with things. It may also teach people to be self-reliant rather than depending on others to provide jobs. While most people can't handle the stresses and uncertainty of being self-employed, some may find that they can. The internship/Slavebridge thing might actually work for some but for most, it is nothing more than slave labour for inefficient businesses.

Regards...jmcc

Without dragging the topic off topic

Would you recommend people to contribute to Open Source projects as a way of getting experience? (Could help someone I know looking for a job!)

jmcc
09-01-2013, 12:20 PM
Without dragging the topic off topic

Would you recommend people to contribute to Open Source projects as a way of getting experience? (Could help someone I know looking for a job!)If they are good enough and their code gets accepted then it could help. But the most important thing about programming skills is that they have to be kept current. Not everyone can contribute to Open Source projects but good programmers tend to get referred/headhunted by others in the business.

Regards...jmcc

fluffybiscuits
09-01-2013, 12:32 PM
If they are good enough and their code gets accepted then it could help. But the most important thing about programming skills is that they have to be kept current. Not everyone can contribute to Open Source projects but good programmers tend to get referred/headhunted by others in the business.

Regards...jmcc

Thanks for that info.

I'll pass it on :)

fluffybiscuits
09-01-2013, 01:49 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/09/eleven-civil-servants-sacked-twitter

UK Related but


Eleven civil servants at Iain Duncan Smith's department for work and pensions have been sacked for using Twitter or Facebook.


The 11 sacked officials are among 116 DWP employees to have faced disciplinary action for blogging and social networking since January 2009, according to figures revealed under the Freedom of Information Act

Ephilant
11-01-2013, 08:56 AM
The flip side of the story, when there is no anonimity and you say/publish the wrong thing in your own name....

The homes of 5 journalists were attacked and bombed last night, in a coordinated attack around Athens.
The journalists targeted are Giorgos Oikonomeas (MEGA TV), Antonis Liaros (former MEGA TV, later PASOK candidate), Antonis Skyllakos (Athens news agency APE-MPA director), Christos Konstas and Petros Karsiotis (ALPHA TV).

Luckily, the casualties are limited to doorways, building facades and 1 motorbike.

These attacks come hard on the heels of the riots yesterday involving 150 squatters and some 1000 riot police, the storming of the state owned TV station ET3 in Thessaloniki and the Real FM radio station in Athens which were briefly taken over and transmitted statements of support for the 150 squatters having a go at the riot police.

The government has accused SYRIZA of being behind the attacks... Every dog on ths streets knows that it is standard government policy to "create" these incidents and then use them as an excuse to clamp down further on people's democratic rights. Which is exactly the answer they got from SYRIZA, who, through Vasilis Diamantopoulos also warned the government that they are at the brink of creating the very revolution they are so afraid off. If they ever needed any proof...

ang
11-01-2013, 08:45 PM
"Anonymous trolls are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate the gutless journalism of the New York Times, BBC, and CNN" -

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anonymous-trolls-are-as-pathetic-as-the-anonymous-sources-that-contaminate-the-gutless-journalism-of-the-new-york-times-bbc-and-cnn-8446788.html

C. Flower
11-01-2013, 08:52 PM
"Anonymous trolls are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate the gutless journalism of the New York Times, BBC, and CNN" -

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/anonymous-trolls-are-as-pathetic-as-the-anonymous-sources-that-contaminate-the-gutless-journalism-of-the-new-york-times-bbc-and-cnn-8446788.html

What a big dollop of bile and venom.

One of the last thing I read from Fisk was a report from Tahrir about huddled and beaten students frightened and on their last legs, about to be crushed by Mubarak. He was wrong then, too.

He no more bothered to check the facts about Shane McEntee's death than did most of Ireland's journalists.

Journalists can ***** too :D

:)

ang
11-01-2013, 08:56 PM
Fisk does though point out anonymous e.mails in the Shane McEntee case rather than "social media"


I’m not sure that anonymous emails kill.

PaddyJoe
11-01-2013, 09:01 PM
Fisk does though point out anonymous e.mails in the Shane McEntee case rather than "social media"

First time I've heard it said that he received anonymous mails. Comments on FB and texts, yes. Nobody has alleged that he got anonymous mails.
Fisk hasn't done any digging into the story behind McEntee's death and has fallen hook line and sinker for the FG spin. A pity.

Captain Con O'Sullivan
12-01-2013, 06:47 PM
It would be somewhat ironic if the Totenkopf Division of Fine Gael managed to bully Irish discussion boards offline altogether because I'd say that would be more likely to increase civil discord with the Irish political establishment than anything else.

Suddenly the Irish Government closes down places where dissenters can gather and because of it assumes they have 'disappeared'.

It would be much more likely in my opinion to turn thoughts of those frustrated and angry with the government to much more productive and perhaps traditional methods of anger with a vichy government sticking its fingers up at its own people.

Clever buggers the Irish government.

C. Flower
12-01-2013, 06:54 PM
First time I've heard it said that he received anonymous mails. Comments on FB and texts, yes. Nobody has alleged that he got anonymous mails.

Fisk hasn't done any digging into the story behind McEntee's death and has fallen hook line and sinker for the FG spin. A pity.

An ugly rant.

Fisk trades on his persona as a commentator and his willingness to explore locations in the Middle East that other UK journalists have been wary of.

Now every kid in the M E with a phone thinks they are Fisk, and may well be right :)

random new yorker
13-01-2013, 03:09 AM
Some of us would be considered paranoid by ordinary people but techies do discuss politics and social issues. There are techies here, in the other place and on Boards.ie. There was a good article about the mindset of a hacker (real hackers rather than the traduced term that the media uses) a few years ago that provided some good insights into the techie/hacker mindset. Hackers do a lot more reading and thinking than the average journalist or columnist. However Hackers/techies as a group have some very wide variations. There's a strong Libertarian element but fundies (as in fanatical political party members) are quite rare.

Perhaps Napoleon said it best about one attitude to how the political class and their lackeys in the media are behaving: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. The political classes in Ireland are very much of the Old Europe (pre-American Revolution) mentality and they would gladly have killed Tom Paine. You can see the same mentality in the reaction of the Irish Times and the other newspapers. What these people do not seem to understand is that the WWW is a valuable global resource whereas politicians and their friends in the media can, to paraphrase Von Braun, be mass produced with unskilled labour.

Regards...jmcc


Uff...really good this piece here.

Nice, very nice.
.

C. Flower
15-01-2013, 10:21 PM
Fergus Finlay, CEO of Barnardo's, has launched an attack on the right to be anonymous online here today -

Barnardo's advice on posting online ?






Go online to a chat room or forum or create a blog. This can sometimes help you work through your thoughts and feelings before talking about them with someone you trust.

http://www.barnardos.ie/assets/images/teenhelp/quotes/caution.gif
If you do chat online, never use your real name or put any personal information in your profile. It's very important to safeguard your privacy and protect yourself from online predators.


http://www.barnardos.ie/information-centre/young-people/teen-help/separation/how-am-i-going-to-cope.html

C. Flower
15-01-2013, 11:00 PM
Report on Germany's order to Face Book to permit anonymous/pseudonymous accounts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20766682

musashi
15-01-2013, 11:02 PM
Some of us would be considered paranoid by ordinary people but techies do discuss politics and social issues. There are techies here, in the other place and on Boards.ie. There was a good article about the mindset of a hacker (real hackers rather than the traduced term that the media uses) a few years ago that provided some good insights into the techie/hacker mindset. Hackers do a lot more reading and thinking than the average journalist or columnist. However Hackers/techies as a group have some very wide variations. There's a strong Libertarian element but fundies (as in fanatical political party members) are quite rare.

Regards...jmcc

You might be interested in this brilliant book by @BiellaColeman: 'Coding Freedom - The Ethics & Aesthetics of Hacking'

http://bit.ly/Spfw84

Kev Bar
15-01-2013, 11:02 PM
Fergus Finlay, CEO of Barnardo's, has launched an attack on the right to be anonymous online here today -

Barnardo's advice on posting online ?




http://www.barnardos.ie/information-centre/young-people/teen-help/separation/how-am-i-going-to-cope.html

Love it. Love it. Love it.

musashi
15-01-2013, 11:07 PM
Fergus Finlay, CEO of Barnardo's, has launched an attack on the right to be anonymous online here today -

Barnardo's advice on posting online ?

http://www.barnardos.ie/information-centre/young-people/teen-help/separation/how-am-i-going-to-cope.html

Another example of Finlay's use of his position, not for any ethical motives but merely as a vehicle to boost his career. Lame.

The more I examine these so called public servants the more they all appear to be a shower of power hungry creeps.

Oh and good spot btw, *karma*.

jmcc
16-01-2013, 12:23 AM
You might be interested in this brilliant book by @BiellaColeman: 'Coding Freedom - The Ethics & Aesthetics of Hacking'

http://bit.ly/Spfw84Thanks. It is interesting as sociology is not the kind of stuff that I'd read. What I've read of it so far (apart from the sociology references which I would probably never read) seems accurate. Linux making Wired in 1997 seems such a long time ago. (I was even mentioned in Wired in 1993 but that was before the technology spoofers in the Irish "technology" press discovered the internet :)). Steven Levy's "Hackers - Heroes of the Computer Revolution" might be a better encapsulation of the Hacker Ethic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution

Regards...jmcc

musashi
16-01-2013, 06:32 AM
Linux making Wired in 1997 seems such a long time ago. (I was even mentioned in Wired in 1993 but that was before the technology spoofers in the Irish "technology" press discovered the internet :)). Steven Levy's "Hackers - Heroes of the Computer Revolution" might be a better encapsulation of the Hacker Ethic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution

Regards...jmcc

I'll check it out.

C. Flower
01-02-2013, 05:38 PM
Just reading up on what went wrong with South Korea's attempt to introduce an own name only internet law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/08/court-deals-blow-to-south-korean-law-outing-internet-users-.html

The law was introduced and proved inoperable within a year for several reasons.

1. It was unconstitutional and damaged freedom of speech. The quantity of political discussion reduced for a period of time.
2. It resulted in large scale hacking and misuse of personal data.
3. It damaged S. Korean sites as users moved to sites based elsewhere that allowed pseudonymous/anonymous registration.

South Korea is a highly advanced country in terms of internet and social media use, but is also one of the most restrictive of freedom of speech after China.

There was a famous case taken by government against a blogger, Minerva, for over pessimistic :) financial writings. She won her case.
The law did not reduce illegal postings, it just moved them offshore.



"After the system was introduced, there was no meaningful decline in the number of illegal postings," the verdict said, according to JoongAng Daily. "Instead, users fled to Internet sites operated from overseas ... it is hard to say that the system is serving the public interest."
South Korea, one of the most wired countries, has increasingly come under fire for clamping down on Internet users. Internet postings critical of businesses or the government have been blocked, leading Freedom House to downgrade South Korea from "free" to "partly free" in its media freedom ratings last year.

Free speech has also been a battle offline: The conservative government of Lee Myung-bak has faced lengthy strikes from news channels and agencies over complaints of media controls.

The South Korean courts, however, have countered some infringements on speech, Cook said. In one of the most well-known cases, the courts acquitted a financial blogger nicknamed Minerva who was accused of spreading malicious rumors about the South Korean economy.

musashi
01-02-2013, 07:00 PM
'Course there are contingencies to traditional binds on communication.
Darknet anyone?

C. Flower
01-02-2013, 07:47 PM
'Course there are contingencies to traditional binds on communication.
Darknet anyone?

Dim will suit me nicely.

Just reading some research on anonymity and pseudonymity and struck by the inbuilt bias and untested assumptions on which much of it is based.

The idea that people in the main elect anonymity or use pseudonyms to abuse, rather than for personal privacy, safety and to protect themselves from abuse, is only acknowledged by researchers specifically dealing with vulnerable users - the young, for example.

C. Flower
01-02-2013, 08:09 PM
Well now.

Ireland signed this last year.

Human Rights Council
Twentieth session
Agenda item 3

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,including the right to development

Algeria,Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational
State of)*, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica,
Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt,
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco,
Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Peru, Poland,
Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay: draft resolution
20/…

The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet

The Human Rights Council, Guided by the Charter of the United Nations,
Reaffirming the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Recalling all relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in particular Council resolution 12/16 of 2 October 2009, and also recalling General Assembly resolution 66/184 of 22 December 2011,

Noting that the exercise of human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression, on the Internet is an issue of increasing interest and importance as the rapid pace of technological development enables individuals all over the world to use new information and communications technologies,
A/HRC/20/L.13

Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, submitted to the Human Rights Council at its seventeenth session, and to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session, on freedom of expression on the Internet,

1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms;

3. Calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and
communications facilities in all countries;

4. Encourages special procedures to take these issues into account within their existing mandates, as applicable;

5. Decides to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, on the Internet and in other technologies, as well as of how the Internet can be an important tool for development and for exercising human rights, in accordance with its programme of work.

*
Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council.
United Nations A/HRC/20/L.13
General Assembly Distr.: Limited
29 June 2012
Original: English

http://www.ejiltalk.org/un-human-rights-council-confirms-that-human-rights-apply-to-the-internet/#more-5207

C. Flower
01-02-2013, 10:22 PM
Teh internets haz rights :)

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf

MauriceColgan
02-02-2013, 10:22 AM
I have been using my real name for more than a decade on the internet and just get heckled and stalked by anonymous forum members. A few are relentless!

Usually I back up all I post with logic or documentation. We only have fear itself to fear.

Binn Beal
02-02-2013, 01:05 PM
We only have fear itself to fear
Also being murdered, stabbed or beaten up. There are organisations, religions and individuals that respond to criticism with violence. The internet forums have made it possible for these to be exposed when traditional media feared to tread.

C. Flower
02-02-2013, 02:59 PM
I have been using my real name for more than a decade on the internet and just get heckled and stalked by anonymous forum members. A few are relentless!

Usually I back up all I post with logic or documentation. We only have fear itself to fear.

If you consider what you have been subjected to, while not putting forward any contentious views, it might be worth thinking about what the reactions may have been if you did.

The OP of this thread sets out some of the reasons why people choose to post anonymously. It is not to do with fear, it is a reasonable decision that many people take, for reasons of personal security, safety and privacy.

It also allows for a different quality of debate, in which people's personal details aren't dragged in and in which there is some hope of staying on topic :)

musashi
02-02-2013, 03:24 PM
We only have fear itself to fear.

The ultimate sanction the State can deploy against the citizen is violence.
One cannot attack what one cannot detect.

MauriceColgan
02-02-2013, 03:51 PM
We as individuals expose ourselves everyday as we go about our business. We can be mugged run over or even accidently shot by drug dealers.

In the open we are in all sorts of danger. In the open I have been assaulted, hit by an MG sports car when on a motorbike and nearly drowned by a school pal.... I saved. .

Life is full of dangers.

C. Flower
02-02-2013, 05:13 PM
250,000 twitter accounts hacked.

Advice to social network users - don't put your personal details on any site where it is not absolutely needed.

musashi
02-02-2013, 08:04 PM
We as individuals expose ourselves everyday as we go about our business. We can be mugged run over or even accidently shot by drug dealers.

In the open we are in all sorts of danger. In the open I have been assaulted, hit by an MG sports car when on a motorbike and nearly drowned by a school pal.... I saved. .

Life is full of dangers.

Quite. And I cross each bridge when I come to it. However Internetz facilitates protection from such vicissitudes.


250,000 twitter accounts hacked.

Advice to social network users - don't put your personal details on any site where it is not absolutely needed.

Hackers used a well publicized Java exploit to access Twitter's servers. Responsibility for this hack resides partially with Twitter for not patching the vulnerability when it came to light months ago. The decrypted Twitter user account data is long gone.

C. Flower
02-02-2013, 09:11 PM
Quite. And I cross each bridge when I come to it. However Internetz facilitates protection from such vicissitudes.



Hackers used a well publicized Java exploit to access Twitter's servers. Responsibility for this hack resides partially with Twitter for not patching the vulnerability when it came to light months ago. The decrypted Twitter user account data is long gone.

There is no 100 guarantee that any site can't be hacked. For anyone whose anonymity is important, they should not use their personal email when registering on sites.

MauriceColgan
02-02-2013, 11:20 PM
Quite. And I cross each bridge when I come to it. However Internetz facilitates protection from such vicissitudes.



Hackers used a well publicized Java exploit to access Twitter's servers. Responsibility for this hack resides partially with Twitter for not patching the vulnerability when it came to light months ago. The decrypted Twitter user account data is long gone.

Are you so sure the likes of wiki leaks and government leakers will not expose us all in time.

I had a strange experience on a forum full of Mormons some years ago where a glitch in the system allowed me to post as female member on the forum, a good and close friend of a Mormon Bishop!. It caused pandemonium at the time. I could have been very mischievous indeed. :-)

C. Flower
02-02-2013, 11:23 PM
Are you so sure the likes of wiki leaks and government leakers will not expose us all in time.

I had a strange experience on a forum full of Mormons some years ago where a glitch in the system allowed me to post as female member on the forum, a good and close friend of a Mormon Bishop!. It caused pandemonium at the time. I could have been very mischievous indeed. :-)

That is very naughty indeed and would be considered a banishment offence in these parts. Not the sex change part (we are cool with that), the appropriation of someone else's identity.

MauriceColgan
03-02-2013, 09:20 AM
That is very naughty indeed and would be considered a banishment offence in these parts. Not the sex change part (we are cool with that), the appropriation of someone else's identity.

But I had nothing to do with it I am a computer programme novice.

I was posting as myself but my message appeared under the Mormon lady's name. It was weird.

All of us are at the mercy of those extremely clever computer hackers. Many probably employed by Goverments now.

Anonymous shnonymous, already.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com

C. Flower
03-02-2013, 10:15 AM
But I had nothing to do with it I am a computer programme novice.

I was posting as myself but my message appeared under the Mormon lady's name. It was weird.

All of us are at the mercy of those extremely clever computer hackers. Many probably employed by Goverments now.

Anonymous shnonymous, already.

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com


Are you sure you are Maurice ?

MauriceColgan
03-02-2013, 10:50 AM
Are you sure you are Maurice ?

Hard to say.

Ex-Movie Star Dolores Hart addressed me as Maureece. Americans usually do,

I'm called allsorts on other forums. :-)

fluffybiscuits
03-02-2013, 10:02 PM
Are you sure you are Maurice ?

only at the weekends...;)

random new yorker
04-02-2013, 02:55 AM
Anonymity certainly makes sense in countries where freedom of speech is deficient, as seems to be your (Ireland) case.

MediaBite
04-02-2013, 07:04 AM
There's little evidence overall that anonymity is the preserve of those who wish to abuse and be destructive. In the final analysis, however, anonymity is fatal to any movement of thought or action that hopes to succeed. If we don't put our names to a thing, clearly nobody can trust it.

C. Flower
04-02-2013, 08:45 AM
There's little evidence overall that anonymity is the preserve of those who wish to abuse and be destructive. In the final analysis, however, anonymity is fatal to any movement of thought or action that hopes to succeed. If we don't put our names to a thing, clearly nobody can trust it.

Do you trust mainstream media signed by the authors?
There has been research, recently, that shows that people trust sources that are proven in experience to be reliable. Whether they use a pseudonym or their own name is not relevant to whether they are trusted. Peoples' trust in information from Government and from the old media has collapsed and a lot of people turn to trusted sources on social media. Trust is related to track record, not to whether the writer is called John Smith or Guido Fawkes.

Large amounts of political writings were originally written under pseudonyms or anonymously. I have never seen a political leaflet that was signed. This doesn't stop people reading them and getting information or ideas from them.

The current campaign against anonymity is being driven by the powerful in order to maintain control of mass communications. They wish to patrol, silence and bully the opposition.

Denis O'Brien doesn't need anonymity, he can just buy himself another radio station or newspaper and fire the journalists he doesn't like. No one is going to sack him or in other way harrass him.

All security and privacy advice, from Barnados to the British Government IT adviser, says that people should not give their personal details on social media chatrooms. The politicians concerns about anonymity are clearly nothing to do with personal safety.

A law in South Korea against anonymity online was overturned recently because it was in breach of Constitutional rights

Defending anonymity is part of defence of freedom of speech and basic human rights of self expression.

There are people who write here who live outside Ireland who have said that they could not write here under their real names for reasons of personal safety.

There are other benefits, in terms of taking personal issues out of debate, but this is secondary to the issue of basic rights.

It is an issue of power and control, and of whether this is retained by an elite or not.

The political class here just hate anonymity :) They would like a system of tallymen to check up on what every voter has said or written. :)

MauriceColgan
04-02-2013, 09:44 AM
I openly attack the State of Israel as an Apartheid state.

Mossad have not arrived ..... yet. :-)

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com Helps keep Political World high on a google webpage featuring our/Ireland's official tourist site.

C. Flower
04-02-2013, 10:15 AM
I openly attack the State of Israel as an Apartheid state.

Mossad have not arrived ..... yet. :-)

http://irelandtoo.blogspot.com Helps keep Political World high on a google webpage featuring our/Ireland's official tourist site.

No go over to Gaza, and post something serious from there.

Maurice, you come over as a lovely guy, but living in some kind of Nirvana that could only ever be a wonderful dream for millions of other people :)

This guy posted about police corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Khaled_Mohamed_Saeed

random new yorker
04-02-2013, 07:03 PM
There's little evidence overall that anonymity is the preserve of those who wish to abuse and be destructive. In the final analysis, however, anonymity is fatal to any movement of thought or action that hopes to succeed. If we don't put our names to a thing, clearly nobody can trust it.

I agree with you in principle, and have made a reference to that up thread (or it may have been in another thread...sorry CF is stringent w threading..). I mention then the big R word "Reputation" and that is what is in a name.... but then if you post anonymously using language and logic as i see most members do in this forum i see no problem w that. As far as reputation is concerned even when posting under an anon everyone knows who you are, you can predict what somone like CF or Sam Lord is more likely to say. There's the reputation i was talking about. This is when your real name becomes irrelevant, it doesn't matter, this is when these guys can be defined by their anon names...

Overall anonymity clearly plays a positive role in countries where freedom of speech is limited...

...and in your own country you obviously need it given that the guy that was posting 'sensitive' opinions here under his own name was threatened w jail time for calling someone a bozo if i recall correctly... (dont recall what language he used exactly and believe that bit to be irrelevant as well..)
.

random new yorker
07-02-2013, 08:06 PM
John Cusack on the Freedom of the Press Foundation at the Huff Post today. Quite good. I am supporting him.

LINK here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/why-im-donating-to-fund-t_b_2632389.html)

Spectabilis
12-02-2013, 04:47 PM
John Waters on Newstalk has just said he won't write books for e-publication as he doesn't want them to be read by anonymous people

I didn't make it up, honest.

C. Flower
12-02-2013, 05:11 PM
John Waters on Newstalk has just said he won't write books for e-publication as he doesn't want them to be read by anonymous people

I didn't make it up, honest.

When I walked out of his dire drama "Long Black Coat" as a result of extreme boredom, half way through, I was not asked for and did not give my name.

Thinking back, I should have asked for my money back. :mad:

Seán Ryan
12-02-2013, 06:01 PM
John Waters on Newstalk has just said he won't write books for e-publication as he doesn't want them to be read by anonymous people

I didn't make it up, honest.

I just spat coffee on my screen reading that. I'm going to have to get windscreen wipers for this feckin' thing...

There truly is a vacuum between those two big ears.

Cactus! For shame! You encourage him when you give him money. You obviously shouldn't have asked for it back. That would be to question yourself. You should have burned the building to the ground :)

Only joking mr Waters, if someone's reading this to you. Besides, I'm hardly anonymous. I'm obvious and I'm in yer feckin' face.

ang
12-02-2013, 07:13 PM
Ryanair secures order to reveal details of anonymous web posters -

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2013/0212/ireland/ryanair-secures-order-to-reveal-details-of-anonymous-web-posters-584535.html

jmcc
12-02-2013, 07:52 PM
John Waters on Newstalk has just said he won't write books for e-publication as he doesn't want them to be read by anonymous people

I didn't make it up, honest.Does he realise that his articles are on the Irish Times website?

Regards...jmcc

musashi
12-02-2013, 10:22 PM
Ryanair secures order to reveal details of anonymous web posters -

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2013/0212/ireland/ryanair-secures-order-to-reveal-details-of-anonymous-web-posters-584535.html

Nice spot.


The airline claims the false material that has been posted on the PPRuNe website, known as the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, by two anonymous parties using the pseudonyms 'ASFKAP' and 'Built4Speed' impugnes Ryanair's excellent safety record.

Ryanair sought the orders because it intends to sue the two parties, who investigations undertaken on the airline's behalf show have IP addresses from the eircom pool of subscribers, in order to vindicate its good name.

I relearn this lesson anon, if one is going to post 'controversial' material that powerful entities will take exception to, for god's sake protect oneself. Never never use a traceable IP address.

fluffybiscuits
12-02-2013, 11:08 PM
Nice spot.



I relearn this lesson anon, if one is going to post 'controversial' material that powerful entities will take exception to, for god's sake protect oneself. Never never use a traceable IP address.

I mentioned it here before, there is going to be a lot of people going through proxy servers in the future to save their IP address as they want to avoid hassle . A programme to trace it would be bounced off loads of computers that lead all over the gaf...


When I walked out of his dire drama "Long Black Coat" as a result of extreme boredom, half way through, I was not asked for and did not give my name.

Thinking back, I should have asked for my money back. :mad:

I would have to be smashed before going to see that....

random new yorker
13-02-2013, 02:53 AM
I mentioned it here before, there is going to be a lot of people going through proxy servers in the future to save their IP address as they want to avoid hassle . A programme to trace it would be bounced off loads of computers that lead all over the gaf.......


I think I need to get one of these proxy 'thingies'...
.

fluffybiscuits
13-02-2013, 02:14 PM
I think I need to get one of these proxy 'thingies'...
.

There are a few out there such vtunnel etc, handy if sites are blocked in a country like China where the government has placed restrictions what sites you can access. There are also site out there that ghost your IP so that you dont have to reveal who you are, they give you the IP of a certain country. Can be used to view content on other sites that may be restricted to one country Eg. On BBC where it may be only available to UK viewers you can get a UK ip address to view it...

random new yorker
13-02-2013, 03:42 PM
There are a few out there such vtunnel etc, handy if sites are blocked in a country like China where the government has placed restrictions what sites you can access. There are also site out there that ghost your IP so that you dont have to reveal who you are, they give you the IP of a certain country. Can be used to view content on other sites that may be restricted to one country Eg. On BBC where it may be only available to UK viewers you can get a UK ip address to view it...

Ah....the things i dont know amaze me everyday. thank you for taking the time to explain :)

fluffybiscuits
13-02-2013, 03:43 PM
Ah....the things i dont know amaze me everyday. thank you for taking the time to explain :)

Anytime my friend..

PS Im gonna be in NY in September so coffee me thinks!!!

random new yorker
13-02-2013, 04:06 PM
Anytime my friend..

PS Im gonna be in NY in September so coffee me thinks!!!

would be a pleasure if I was living in NY (i posted in another thread i am living below the mason-dixon line as we speak)

and brrrr....people are usually afraid of meeting me anyway....grrrrr very afraid of me

Lately my presence is requested in DC more often than in NY but there is always a possibility, i have a very good friend, that could be your very good friend that likes to enjoy my company when he spends time in his apartment in the city.... so always a possibility to travel up for leisure and a cup of coffee with ya!! and i promise i am not really scary :)

And I can also promise that September is the prettiest month in NY, always has been my favorite, so watch out for the invitations cos we might make it happen :)

pm me (me thinks!!)
.

fluffybiscuits
13-02-2013, 04:10 PM
would be a pleasure if I was living in NY (i posted in another thread i am living below the mason-dixon line as we speak)

and brrrr....people are usually afraid of meeting me anyway....grrrrr very afraid of me

Lately my presence is requested in DC more often than in NY but there is always a possibility, i have a very good friend, that could be your very good friend that likes to enjoy my company when he spends time in his apartment in the city.... so always a possibility to travel up for leisure and a cup of coffee with ya!! and i promise i am not really scary :)

And I can also promise that September is the prettiest month in NY, always has been my favorite, so watch out for the invitations cos we might make it happen :)

pm me (me thinks!!)
.

Sounds good! Ill pm you,should be booking flights this weekend :)

C. Flower
13-02-2013, 11:06 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/eircom-must-disclose-ids-of-bloggers-accused-of-making-highly-defamatory-posts-29066737.html

Eircom handing over IPs and invading emails to identify bloggers.

Best option is to avoid defamation.

People Korps
13-02-2013, 11:35 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/eircom-must-disclose-ids-of-bloggers-accused-of-making-highly-defamatory-posts-29066737.html

Eircom handing over IPs and invading emails to identify bloggers.

Best option is to avoid defamation.

It is merely alleged defamation and either way the best option is https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

ie best option is to leave no ip that is useful :) in a court of law

People Korps
13-02-2013, 11:40 PM
with Tor you must make sure you update security and browser all the time as they release it
heard that from an Anon hacktivist and he/she should know :)