usenet
this has been going on on usenet for 25 years....the difference is intelligent people generally take it on the chin.
Yet another reason why we try to keep stuff like usenet a secret from the unwashed proles.
A serving West Midlands police officer has been arrested after a woman was torn into by trolls on Facebook. Nicola Brookes, 45, of Brighton, received "vicious and depraved" taunts on the dominant social network as she wrote comments defending disqualified X Factor wannabe Frankie Cocozza. Detectives from her home town …
Previous news reports on this case mentioned that the victim's email and Facebook accounts were hacked and fake Facebook pages setup in her name from which paedophilic messages sent to children. She was accused of being a prostitute, a child abuser and a drug dealer. I would suggest that this has gone considerably further than a bit of name calling that one should "take on the chin".
"intelligent people generally take it on the chin."
Why the fuck should anyone have to take bullying of any kind 'on the chin'?
Intelligence has nothing to do with either tolerance or the thickness of someone's skin.
Fuck 'em: If someone breaks the law by being an abusive twat either physically, verbally or over the Net, there is no reason why they 'have' to be ignored and allowed to continue. You beat bullies by hitting them back, not ignoring him.
And the fact that the bully was a serving police officer is an even better reason for him getting what's coming.
"You must be new here, you might find people behave a little differently on here than in normal life.
Visit YouTube and read some video comments if you still don't understand."
No, I'm not; don't patronise me, A.Coward. But abuse is abuse. 99.9% of the time, people let it slide. That's the accepted pattern of behaviour.
But you don't *have* to. And you shouldn't be condemned for not taking the path of least resistance (which is to ignore it). You don't blame the victim. And if the complaint unearthed a copper behind it, then I'm glad the complaint was made, because I don't want that kind of thing from police officers.
Operating over the Net isn't a carte blanche to commit infractions which would be illegal by post, or in person. I wouldn't have complained myself, but I support her right to.
You beat bullies by hitting them back, not ignoring him.
No, really, you do not. Online bullying is not the same as real-life bullying, online the bully just wants attention. 'Hitting them back' is what they want - they want to know that they have irritated you.
It is far simpler to ignore online bullies, or trolls, as we called them before the self righteous brigade got online.
PS: Has there been some tech advances I've missed? How does one abuse someone physically over the net?
I was bullied plenty in school; and I mean actually bullied, not Internet 'bullied', which is to say that a day in which I had only harsh language to put up with, and didn't get the ever-loving crap kicked out of me as well, was actually a pretty good day for me.
Upset and whining about it because everyone on the Internet is not always nice? I gather that's what a Tumblr is for. Why don't you go start one?
"No, really, you do not. Online bullying is not the same as real-life bullying, online the bully just wants attention. 'Hitting them back' is what they want - they want to know that they have irritated you."
Yes. I'm sure he now realises his careers is fucked that he irritated her, and now he has LOADS of lovely attention. I bet he's well chuffed! :D
She hit back in an *effective* way, rather than by simply throwing insults back.
"It is far simpler to ignore online bullies, or trolls"
It is. We all do it. But one has a legal and human right not to, and victims shouldn't be abused for utilising that right.
Although I agree with you in general there /is/ a difference between simply being an annoying troll or by systematically abusing someone.
Having wasted quite a few years on IRC and Usenet myself (I date from the FidoNet ages) I do agree that in a lot of cases simply ignoring someone is the best thing to do. Still; another thing important aspect is that if you are going to 'hit' back you'd better make the first 'punch' count, or else... Which is exactly what seems to have happened here.
Sure; trolls like attention. But getting it outside virtual channels? I doubt it ;-)
"PS: Has there been some tech advances I've missed? How does one abuse someone physically over the net?"
Probably by hacking into their account and getting their address/phone number.
You could stress them to the point of suicide by scary phone calls and items through their door. Stress is physical.
You could incite mob violence by letting everyone think they are a pedo and give them an address.
And many many more.
I have to agree, I'm sure there are limits but we cannot make offending people illegal. People have different views, different beliefs and different ways of expressing themselves. Taking part in society opens you up to all of that and not everyone is going to be sunday at grandma's polite. When someone offends you you either give them a dose of their own medicine, laught at them or ignore them. Running to the babylon over calling names is a little extreme. If it trips into outright threats or slander \ libel (can't remember which a fb post would count as) then there are laws to deal with that. Otherwise you are a tit or you ran into one on the internet. Shit happens. Move on. Some people are muppets, this is a fact of life. God can you imagine the courts if everybody rang the rozzers when someone was mean to them online? Stephen Fry would have at least 4 courtrooms to himself.
In the UK, Intent is a key part of the law.
Offending someone is easily done, and there are people who will take deliberate offense. However, it is only illegal if the person intends to cause offense.
This allows people to have debates, heated discussions, and disagreements without it involving the courts. However, targeting someone with vitriol will get you into trouble.
So shit happens: People disagree, and yes, we should just accept it as a fact of life. In fact, it is good when people do not agree: It gives us reason to examine our beliefs to see if they are sound. However, intentionally offending someone is not disagreement: It is harassment, and that is not acceptable.
Oh, and an old adage brought up to date: Sticks and stones may break bones, but it is words that can hurt forever.
This post has been deleted by its author
so lets have the law changed then so that any post on facebook etc is treated as the trash that 95% of it is.
no come back in law.we now have people being arrested and charged just for posting an opinion that someone else does not like,i.e that useless bleeding diver at olympics,that caution will stay on that youngsters criminal record for life,because it was a cuation and not a conviction,mean while that over priveleged,over paid and over rated little prick daley will continue to rip off the public to tune of £75·000+ p.a for the next 4 years at least,but of course we are not meant to criticise him,just hand over our cash so that he can swan about like the third rate piece of crap that he is.
lets change funding for publicly funded sports jocks,no gold medal,you pay back every penny of public cash.
I agree with the tom daley comment, seems the government has loads of money to waste on athletes who are more than capable of funding themselves but is currently chucking thousands of sick and terminally ill people off benefit because they say theres no cash. Its fucking bullshit.
And as for this facebook thing, didnt it start out as an argument over a fucking x-factor result?
Christ, how dumbed down and moronic have peoples lives become that this even happens over something so worthless and trivial?
The phrase `get a life` was never more apt.
My comment was, of course, not meant in seriousness (although there are various rumours about NSA/GCHQ intercept operations) but the general point holds. Monitoring all email etc to catch a few bad apples is just the same as monitoring all the roads and recording everyone's movement to catch a few bad apples.
Expensive and a massive attack on freedoms for very little gain.
"Maybe we should have a government system that monitors everyone's emails and can automatically issue penalties or raise the alert with plod. This would easily catch all these trolling abusing people; wouldn't it?"
It should be down to an individual to decide when they are offended, and for that to then be reported and acted on as a tort by the authorities, rather than a matter of legislative law.
"And I know how much you just love state surveillance systems."
I don't. You appear to have judged my entire opinion-base on my opinion of a single system.
However, the tools to trace and read your emails are already in place. And don't for a moment consider that they would not be used if you were reasonably suspected of a serious offence. They are not routinely used because that use is not backed by legislation, there is no will by the State to do so, and they don't have time.
Stop being angry at the tools of law enforcement. It's the legislation and motivation behind their use that is the deciding factor of if your liberties are being infringed. Focus on that if you really care about your liberties. Otherwise you're just looking at a magician waving a hankie while he pockets your wallet with the other hand.
You miss the point entirely. Once the system is in place, it will abused. Period. End of discussion. Game over. And good night.
I am quite aware of the potential for intercept ops and the various logs that ISPs keep. Quite aware. And I am not angry at the tools, or even the rozzers (a more depressed bunch who wish the pencil-necks would get out of their way you could not wish to meet; everyone member of the force I have had dealings with has been quite reasonable). It's the politicos and suits who think more technomagickery is going to somehow fix fundamentals problems.
It wont. It can't.
I've said it before and aI'll say it again - lead by example. But this takes greater courage and gumption than any of our tax-dodging, money-laundering, scheming "betters" could ever do.
So we have the arms race. And it's a race they cannot win.
"You miss the point entirely. Once the system is in place, it will abused. Period. End of discussion. Game over. And good night."
By extending your logic, ANY technological tool, change in legislation, standing procedure, or indeed ANY change at all WILL be abused. Period [snigger] et cetera.
Well, one could argue that ANYTHING will be perhaps abused. So we stop all innovation and improvement? Nonsense.
You CONTROL and PREVENT abuse via procedure, legislation and auditing.
Rather than arguing that newfangled cars will cause deaths; fit seatbelts.
Sites like Facebook are not anonymous - they are based on the precept that your on-line ID is the same as your real-life one. Consequently, you cannot just behave like an obscene child and get away with breaking laws such as libel (or whichever apply), or worse.
The police regularly interact with the likes of Facebook in their day -to-day work in pursuing criminals.
I've had enough of people* thinking that trolls and bullies mean the same thing. They do not. Trolling is for teh lulz, doing something for fun, a digital prankster if you will. Bullying is doing something to hurt someone else. Put it this way, if the general population would find your actions funny - its trolling. If they would find it upsetting or offensive then it is bullying.
*read the media and non-internet users.
I agree, mostly. I differ slightly in that I think a one-off offensive post isn't bullying. Consistent offensive posts (whether mild or gross) against one person do constitute bullying, and I don't agree with those who say the recipient should just 'toughen up'.
It's down to the site moderators to police their own policies on behaviour, and not a matter for the police (unless the posts themselves are by their nature illegal).
In the case in question I understand from the article that the arrest is for computer misuse (presumably on-line breaking and entering), rather than for the posts themselves.
I've always defined an Internet Troll as someone who posts something that is not in itself offensive, but causes others to post over-the-top bias and just plain MAD replies.
Posting "Apple have never made a good product" and waiting for the fanbois to explode is trolling. Saying "Mrs X smells of elderberries and her husband is a Hamster" (or something like that) is not Trolling, it's abuse.
The main-stream media didn't follow this definition, just as they never got the term "Hacker". Now it seems the Reg are also using it as a mere synonym for "bully".
I guess I lose, and another linguistic tool turns into a hammer.
Trolling is any kind of interaction where the troll attempts to goad the trollee into an emotional response, using any kind of language or behaviour, whether accurate or not. It works best when it is accurate - or close to accurate - but some people don't understand the finer aspects of the Dark Arts and resort to puerile insults.
It's still trolling, even if "the man on the street" finds it offensive. Effective trolling is rarely "for teh lulz"; even if the troll, all his mates, and 99% of the world find it pant wettingly funny someone, somewhere will be upset with it - or it didn't work.
Bullying is repetitive, on going attacks over a period of time to fatigue and wear down someone. Big difference.
"if the general population would find your actions funny - its trolling."
Odd comment for someone singling out the media and "non-internet users".
No, that's not trolling. Trolling is something often done so that most people don't notice that they're being provoked. And in general; when people find out that 'THBT' they usually do not consider it very funny. In most cases they get a little upset or annoyed because they wasted their time on some nobody nitwit while there were plenty of others more deserving of their time.
Don't be so obtuse....
Simplifying the way these guys went to town on her as "Someone said something unpleasant to me" is idiotic at best.
Just because you are on the internet does not mean you have the right to behave like an utter cockwhisk!
Or did you miss the various case of kids/tennagers/REAL FUCKING PEOPLE killing themselves over cyberbullying!?!?
In the words of Will Weaton "Don't be a dick!"
@linbox.
Feel free to reveal your partner's (if you have one) FB account and email address.
Then please post them on /b calling them a bunch of losers and they should get a life.
She how she / he reacts when you tell he she should toughen up.
Have Fun.
If I was a public figure, then the "shit sticks" argument would be valid.
As a private individual, I know how to get in contact with all the people who actually matter to me and know they'd either assume I was being trolled or would contact me direct to see what was happening. Maybe I'm just lucky that all my friends and colleagues aren't total fuckwits who would believe any old shit somebody wrote about me - even if it was supposedly me writing about it. Because NOBODY on facebook has heard of "fraping", right?
Prior to this prosecution, a couple of people (at most) might have looked askance at her. Not me, and not you because we'd never heard of her. Now, after her great legal success, several thousand people think she's brave standing up to bullies and several more thousand think she's a fucking idiot. Not seeing what she's won - apart from a total lack of anonymity.
@linbox
re: Shit sticks. You don't need to be a public figure. If someone makes an accusation against you on FB, Twatter etc, presumably completely unfounded, about child abuse you WILL be investigated, and you may even have your children taken away from you until you can PROVE you are a fit parent. That sort of shit sticks very well indeed, in the public eye or not.
Citation? Happened to a friend. Hence anon.
That is why this sort of things needs to be clamped down on.
Does ANYBODY think that the progression in this case was;
1. Innocent lady posts fluffy nonsense about a talent show.
2. Multiple Internet bullies take raging offence to teh fluff, hack her computer, post unlawful lies about her and try to ruin her life.
And that's it? Nothing between (1) and (2)?
Really?
"I'm upvoting the idea of you doing it".
Lovely. in the spirit of internet lolz, I'll treat your "incitement to suicide" (almost certainly a criminal offence) with the disregard it deserves.
You know when you read those once-a-year stories about how a neighbourly dispute about a hedge somehow spiralled out of control over a period of months/years and it ends up with somebody getting stabbed in the neck with a BBQ fork? You wonder, "how the fuck did that happen?". Well, as sure as shit sticks to blankets, that's what happened here. Much of the response to my OP misses the point that the hedge dispute could have been resolved by EITHER party letting it go. In that scenario, I'm not suggesting murder is absolutely fine. I'm not saying I'd be happy for you to come around my manor and stab Mrs. Linbox with a rusty butter knife.
I'm simply saying that while the end-game was deplorable and it's quite right that the perpetrators should be punished, the lady in question almost certainly had plenty of opportunity to leave this alone long before it turned critical. She didn't. Things went from bad to worse. Police, courts, jury, prisons, people losing jobs, bitter recriminations, angst and trouble. Nobody has really won anything or come out of it in a flattering light.
All for the sake of ignoring a fuckwad on the internet.
""incitement to suicide" (almost certainly a criminal offence) with the disregard it deserves."
I don't think someone saying they enjoy a thought is the same as them saying "Go on; do it", y'know. That aside...
"that's what happened here. Much of the response to my OP misses the point that the hedge dispute could have been resolved by EITHER party letting it go."
Well; you totally failed to communicate that, if that's the case. You came over as a total asshole whose attitude to abuse is that people should 'toughen up' and ignore it. Why should they?
"the lady in question almost certainly had plenty of opportunity to leave this alone long before it turned critical. She didn't."
That's assuming she ever struck back. Your hedge example is about escalation. If she just had abuse heaped on her, it's not the same thing. You leapt down her throat based on supposition.
"Nobody has really won anything or come out of it in a flattering light. All for the sake of ignoring a fuckwad on the internet."
I've won something. Hell: We've all won something. There's a sack of shit copper who shouldn't be doing the job hopefully losing his job.
That fuckwad on the internet was sworn to protect the public and uphold the law. That fuckwad on the internet clearly doesn't deserve to dictate right and wrong to us as a serving police officer.
@Linbox
So, would you be OK with someone going on to your FB page (or whatever), and accusing you of fucking your own children? Then allowing people of the street to come in and rape your 6 year old daughter for money? Because that the sort of level these arseholes stoop to. And shit like this sticks.
That sort of behaviour - a deliberate attempt to smear someone in such a obscene and disgusting way - deserves a jail sentence.
I wouldn't allow people like that to post on my FB page, if in fact I had a FB page. The problem with engaging with everyone is that some people are twats.
I have had people say stuff like that to me on the intertubes. The correct response is "".
Simplifying the way these guys went to town on her as "Someone said something unpleasant to me" is idiotic at best.
Indeed, that's often the way bullies operate. It's like a kind of subtle psychological torture. Subtle, because each act taken by itself might not seem so bad, and the victims often feel like they can't turn to anyone for support because others don't see what the big deal is with a few unkind words. Online bullying and harassment is a big deal though. It's never just about the odd dickhead making a one-off comment. It's co-ordinated and designed to be as hurtful as possible. And bullies love to hide behind the excuse that it's just "having a laugh" or that it's "not meant to be hurtful". It's often even worse online than in real life because it's easier for them to act in concert with no one bully needing to stick their neck out too far, and for them to conduct a campaign of "whispered" insults to further the victim's sense of persecution and isolation. It's no laughing matter and it deserves serious penalties.
Quite a few of the posters here saying that she should just "toughen" up are most likely bullies themselves.
I think the word you are looking for is "defamation". Spoken it is slander, written it is libel. This would be a civil case in high court - and it is from such a civil case that the high court ordered Facebook to reveal the identities of those involved. However, there is also the The Communications Act 2003 to consider and given that the victims email and Facebook accounts were hacked, I guess the Computer Misuse Act 1990 might come into play.
In my experience, when I hear of some dickhead saying victims of bullying should put up with it, etc. it's because aforementioned d/h is either a bully or would be one if s/he could hide somewhere dark enough.
So ,Linbox. Don't slit your wrists please. Someone would have to clear up the mess.
Why should they have to put up with that?
Nobody has mentioned that regardless of whether what the officer did was legal or not (court yet to decide), should a serving police officer allow himself to be in a position where this charge was even possible?
So how did this officer end up in this position?
Was the candidate a "bit of a hot head", and the selection process missed it?, or is it an officer that has become unstable afterwards?, and the management are missing this on review?
The answers to these questions are interesting, because if the system missed the officer's behaviour patterns when driving a keyboard, what are the traffic officers like when wound up chasing crooks, where a failure of the ability to keep control over behaviour can come with a body count?
With police management time being increasingly focused on paperwork and targets, how much of their man management (look after the team) work is being overlooked?
"With an entry requirement of 5GCSE's at grade C the bar is so low its laughable."
The same intellectual requirement is required to lead thirty men into lethal combat to protect the nation. I don't take issue with that.
The suitability for a job requiring moral integrity, perception, diplomacy, patience, and long hours should not be relevant to being able to do Home Economics coursework, or reading 'Of Mice and Men'.
Wow! Looks like all the nutters are coming out here! I never understood what is fun about hurling abuse at people. It seems that because it is free to post stuff on the Internet it has been happening a lot more. If it was free to post letters, then I am sure it would have been just as bad through the postal system.
The constant abuse by a minority will mean much worse to come with reference to Net freedom.
You know online bullying where its name calling ok, fair enough you can ignore it.
The guys this woman is pursuing allegedly set up site to make her appear a peadophile etc, its not name calling this is the sort of thing that not only can drop you in it with the law, and the subsequent doubts of everyone after plods raided your house and the papers have had their little bity and then failed to apologise etc etc.
Then maybe some muppet assualts them in the street because they are tough guys who cant read the full story before making a judgement either.
I think she had a fair point to take action against them.