• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Sam Leong TO BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY TROLLS under new measures

RonRon

Alfrescian
Loyal
BRITAIN --- WEBSITES TO BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY TROLLS under new measures.

Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity.

Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

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

LeMans2011

Alfrescian
Loyal
BRITAIN --- WEBSITES TO BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY TROLLS under new measures.

Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity.

Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

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

The whole PAPIB gang is in deep shit then. For all the false accusations you hurled against LTK.
 

RonRon

Alfrescian
Loyal
The whole PAPIB gang is in deep shit then. For all the false accusations you hurled against LTK.

Hi Scroobal, I welcome LTK to sue me. There is no single accusation I made against LTK, tell him to PM me I will give him my identity to save his time and I can't wait to see him in court. Are you ready to face your victims Shanmuggan and FMH?
 
Last edited:

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
The Brits are idiots. Website owners don't have a clue who the trolls are unless they register with their real names.

As for IP addresses all members and visitors connect from 78.152.50.34 which is the IP address of my anti DDoS proxy.


 

Grago

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Brits are idiots. Website owners don't have a clue who the trolls are unless they register with their real names.

As for IP addresses all members and visitors connect from 78.152.50.34 which is the IP address of my anti DDoS proxy.



I think the BOSS has dodged the "BULLITT" again.......:biggrin: :biggrin:
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
I think the BOSS has dodged the "BULLITT" again.......:biggrin: :biggrin:

I'm not trying to dodge anything. I'm simply stating a fact.

Unless website owners host the sites themselves, it's impossible to identify where each member is connecting from.
 

Cruxx

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Brits are idiots. Website owners don't have a clue who the trolls are unless they register with their real names.

As for IP addresses all members and visitors connect from 78.152.50.34 which is the IP address of my anti DDoS proxy.



But boss, why you so goondu, register with your address? :confused:

DSC_0072.jpg
 

Grago

Alfrescian
Loyal
I'm not trying to dodge anything. I'm simply stating a fact.

Unless website owners host the sites themselves, it's impossible to identify where each member is connecting from.

Boss you got wrong end of the stick. Meant it to mean like your explanation and not that You were trying to Dodge the legislation which is rather tenuous to say the the least.
 
Last edited:

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The Brits are idiots. Website owners don't have a clue who the trolls are unless they register with their real names.

true. on the other hand, unlike your website which uses a defensive proxy, faecesbook may have to reveal email addresses of registered users even if user ip addresses are difficult to track down. but we know trolls have multiple email addresses which can be readily abandoned. if push comes to shove, authorities can subpoena proxy hosts to cough up traces and get down and dirty to final user and device ip. been there, done that. there's no cyber sanctuary if there's a crime or terrorist activity that warrants top attention. crux is a civil case such as above does not warrant the involvement of a-team cyber hacker-trackers.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
true. on the other hand, unlike your website which uses a defensive proxy, faecesbook may have to reveal email addresses of registered users even if user ip addresses are difficult to track down. but we know trolls have multiple email addresses which can be readily abandoned. if push comes to shove, authorities can subpoena proxy hosts to cough up traces and get down and dirty to final user and device ip. been there, done that. there's no cyber sanctuary if there's a crime or terrorist activity that warrants top attention. crux is a civil case such as above does not warrant the involvement of a-team cyber hacker-trackers.

A crack cyber team can track down anyone if they focus their resources on a particular case.

However, the UK law does not take into account the fact that most forums and blogs are run by ordinary folk not server admins and they don't have a clue who the trolls are.

Take this sentence :

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

It sounds logical in theory but if information regarding a member's identity was demanded of me, I'd have to say, in all honesty, that I don't have the information. All the real whistleblowers in this forum registered via an anon proxy using an anon email address.

Legal action would still have to be taken against those that run these anon proxies in dubious locations in order to extract the information needed for a successful prosecution.
 
Top