The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:53 am

People who post racial hatred on social media should be treated like sex offenders and served with “internet asbos” banning them social networking sites and preventing them from hiding behind fake identities, a group of MPs alarmed by rising anti-semitism have proposed.

The MPs warn that racist abuse and violence directed at Jewish people in the UK is twice as common now as in the 1990s. Polling evidence commissioned by the panel shows that 37 per cent of the public think that anti-Semitism is more prevalent than it was 10 years ago.
A study by the Community Security Trust, a Jewish charity, logged numerous anti-Semitic posts on social media during the Israeli military action in Gaza in July and August, including the appearance of “Hitler was right” as a hashtag.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-new-antisemitism-treat-racial-hatred-trolls-like-sex-offenders-and-hit-them-with-internet-asbos-mps-propose-10032580.html

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:27 am

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:31 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ugh.

I actually think this is a good idea, because some out there are trying to incite violence and after all we are only guests using the internet. So if you are using someone else's domain just as we are your forum, then you should be able to deny people promote racial violence.

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:43 am

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Ugh.

I actually think this is a good idea, because some out there are trying to incite violence and after all we are only guests using the internet. So if you are using someone else's domain just as we are your forum, then you should be able to deny people promote racial violence.

Yeah, but you can leave it to forum owners/admins to regulate that, and there's a difference between saying something racist and inciting violence. Inciting violence should be a crime, but I worry that making racist statements illegal gives racism an anti-establishment cool factor it doesn't deserve.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:49 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

I actually think this is a good idea, because some out there are trying to incite violence and after all we are only guests using the internet. So if you are using someone else's domain just as we are your forum, then you should be able to deny people promote racial violence.

Yeah, but you can leave it to forum owners/admins to regulate that, and there's a difference between saying something racist and inciting violence. Inciting violence should be a crime, but I worry that making racist statements illegal gives racism an anti-establishment cool factor it doesn't deserve.

This is about inciting violence. If people cannot be responsible as guests using something, then they should have this facility taken away from them. Nobody should have to face such threats of violence. The fact is some owners do not regulate as you well know and actually endorse it. As I say, we are all guests on the internet but wrongly believe we have the right to do as we please on something we do not own or control.

by Original Quill Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Yeah, but you can leave it to forum owners/admins to regulate that, and there's a difference between saying something racist and inciting violence. Inciting violence should be a crime, but I worry that making racist statements illegal gives racism an anti-establishment cool factor it doesn't deserve.

This is about inciting violence. If people cannot be responsible as guests using something, then they should have this facility taken away from them. Nobody should have to face such threats of violence. The fact is some owners do not regulate as you well know and actually endorse it. As I say, we are all guests on the internet but wrongly believe we have the right to do as we please on something we do not own or control.

Actually, it's not. It's about people "who post racial hatred on social media." There's a big difference.

As far as who's ox gets gored, I would love to see all Klan members ostracized. But inevitably some RW'er would get a hold of such a law and turn it around. It's it's a slippery slope...and a bad proposition.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:19 pm

It suits didge and his ilk...just think all the conversations on here that we have had could be stifled....

you could be forced only talk about govt "sanctioned" things, and only in the approved way....
All dissent could be crushed....

A gift to the liberalists and the moneyed....

just think even insulting maggie could be made a crime.....

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

This is about inciting violence. If people cannot be responsible as guests using something, then they should have this facility taken away from them. Nobody should have to face such threats of violence. The fact is some owners do not regulate as you well know and actually endorse it. As I say, we are all guests on the internet but wrongly believe we have the right to do as we please on something we do not own or control.

Actually, it's not. It's about people "who post racial hatred on social media." There's a big difference.

As far as who's ox gets gored, I would love to see all Klan members ostracized. But inevitably some RW'er would get a hold of such a law and turn it around. It's it's a slippery slope...and a bad proposition.

Oh my goodness, what on earth do you think racial hatred is, if not inciting violence?
Try reading the article again as all this is in regards to is ban denying the access to social media sites not denying them access to the media all together. Its a great proposition because nobody should have to endure racial hatred directed at them. In fact to me it does not go far enough. Again you are in the realms of something you are a guest to and as such as a guest you abide by the rules. It is about time limitations were placed within the world of the internet because some people are irresponsible and take it as a free ride to be as abusive as possible. The reality is it is because people are responsible it has been brought about as a method to stem such hatred which is growing online

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:22 pm

darknessss wrote:It suits didge and his ilk...just think all the conversations on here that we have had could be stifled....

you could be forced only talk about govt "sanctioned" things, and only in the approved way....
All dissent could be crushed....

A gift to the liberalists and the moneyed....

just think even insulting maggie could be made a crime.....

Oh blow it out of your arse you old bugger, it seems mindless idiots like you want people to be hateful on the internet which you do not own and our just guest to use the system.
No such thing would be required if people were responsible, The fact os the matter is you are not allowed to use racial hatred at work, in schools, in public, so what makes you think you are exempted online from doing so. Learn the fucking law which is there to stop racial hatred, which you seem to wish to exempt people to do so. None of this would be needed if people were not such mindless ignorant racist idiots. The law rightly protects people from hate speech, get used to the fact now some of us are fighting back and taking the war to idiots.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:24 pm

I wish people would read all the article:

The report adds: “There is an allowance in the law for banning or blocking individuals from certain aspects of internet communication in relation to sexual offences.
“If it can be proven in a detailed way that someone has made a considered and determined view to exploit various online networks to harm and perpetrate hate crimes against others then the accepted principles, rules and restrictions that are relevant to sex offences must surely apply.”

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:24 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:It suits didge and his ilk...just think all the conversations on here that we have had could be stifled....

you could be forced only talk about govt "sanctioned" things, and only in the approved way....
All dissent could be crushed....

A gift to the liberalists and the moneyed....

just think even insulting maggie could be made a crime.....

Oh blow it out of your arse you old bugger, it seems mindless idiots like you want people to be hateful on the internet which you do not own and our just guest to use the system.
No such thing would be required if people were responsible, The fact os the matter is you are not allowed to use racial hatred at work, in schools, in public, so what makes you think you are exempted online from doing so. Learn the fucking law which is there to stop racial hatred, which you seem to wish to exempt people to do so. None of this would be needed if people were not such mindless ignorant racist idiots. The law rightly protects people from hate speech, get used to the fact now some of us are fighting back and taking the war to idiots.

and just so oh "coincidently" trying to crush dissent and even rational debate in the mean time.........very fond of imprecise and fuzzy laws that can be used as a "catch all".......

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:27 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Oh blow it out of your arse you old bugger, it seems mindless idiots like you want people to be hateful on the internet which you do not own and our just guest to use the system.
No such thing would be required if people were responsible, The fact os the matter is you are not allowed to use racial hatred at work, in schools, in public, so what makes you think you are exempted online from doing so. Learn the fucking law which is there to stop racial hatred, which you seem to wish to exempt people to do so. None of this would be needed if people were not such mindless ignorant racist idiots. The law rightly protects people from hate speech, get used to the fact now some of us are fighting back and taking the war to idiots.

and just so oh "coincidently" trying to crush dissent and even rational debate in the mean time.........very fond of imprecise and fuzzy laws that can be used as a "catch all".......

What rational debate.
Can you use racial hatred at work?
No
At school?
No
In Public?
No
So stop talking crap about debate, this is about hate racial hate being directed at groups of people and thank goodness they are closing this loophole in the system.
Bloody long over due

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:00 pm

yes exactly what you say....BUT the thorn in it all will be that it will be drafted in such a way as to render ANYTHING said against immigration etc will be rendered subject to such law......

we ALREADY have Gordon Brown subjecting a woman to a dose of this kind of thinking...and HE was unfortunate to be caught out....

How much easier wil it be for the politicians to stifle ALL debate if this is enacted???

Well I assure you THEY will make it VERY easy....
beware of what you wish for....

by Original Quill Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:01 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Actually, it's not. It's about people "who post racial hatred on social media." There's a big difference.

As far as who's ox gets gored, I would love to see all Klan members ostracized. But inevitably some RW'er would get a hold of such a law and turn it around. It's it's a slippery slope...and a bad proposition.

Oh my goodness, what on earth do you think racial hatred is, if not inciting violence?
Try reading the article again as all this is in regards to is ban denying the access to social media sites not denying them access to the media all together. Its a great proposition because nobody should have to endure racial hatred directed at them. In fact to me it does not go far enough. Again you are in the realms of something you are a guest to and as such as a guest you abide by the rules. It is about time limitations were placed within the world of the internet because some people are irresponsible and take it as a free ride to be as abusive as possible. The reality is it is because people are responsible it has been brought about as a method to stem such hatred which is growing online

Oh, i see the correlation to censorship ("all this is in regards to is ban"). I just don't see the correlation to violence; assumption is not proof. To be sure there probably is some, but I believe it is overreach.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Oh my goodness, what on earth do you think racial hatred is, if not inciting violence?
Try reading the article again as all this is in regards to is ban denying the access to social media sites not denying them access to the media all together. Its a great proposition because nobody should have to endure racial hatred directed at them. In fact to me it does not go far enough. Again you are in the realms of something you are a guest to and as such as a guest you abide by the rules. It is about time limitations were placed within the world of the internet because some people are irresponsible and take it as a free ride to be as abusive as possible. The reality is it is because people are responsible it has been brought about as a method to stem such hatred which is growing online

Oh, i see the correlation to censorship ("all this is in regards to is ban"). I just don't see the correlation to violence; assumption is not proof. To be sure there probably is some, but I believe it is overreach.

What is the alternative?
The fact is this kind of hatred is increasing online because some think they have a free reign to do so.
Something has to give Quill.
Again what is disappointing is such laws have to come into play because people are abusing the social networks to promote racial hatred.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:07 pm

darknessss wrote:yes exactly what you say....BUT the thorn in it all will be that it will be drafted in such a way as to render ANYTHING said against immigration etc will be rendered subject to such law......

we ALREADY have Gordon Brown subjecting a woman to a dose of this kind of thinking...and HE was unfortunate to be caught out....

How much easier wil it be for the politicians to stifle ALL debate if this is enacted???

Well I assure you THEY will make it VERY easy....
beware of what you wish for....

Sorry you are wrong Victor this is again on racial hatred and you are looking at this being abused, which is not the case at all. There is a huge difference between arguing on immigration to calling someone say that "all Jewish should face a second holocaust"
This is not something going to be done on anyone who has a disagreement on immigration this is on racial hatred. Again all that happens is they get a temp band from social networks, which all of them will be better for without such stupidity.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:08 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

and just so oh "coincidently" trying to crush dissent and even rational debate in the mean time.........very fond of imprecise and fuzzy laws that can be used as a "catch all".......

What rational debate.
Can you use racial hatred at work?
No
At school?

nice of you to mention this.....in fact in answer to that lets see

apparantly not....in fact you are NOT even allowed to refuse to allow your childern to be "forced" to attend an "education trip " to some "other" religion.

indeed were you to do so the poor child would get a black mark on his/her record

the excesses of the education establishment in this field are legion to the point of ridicule....

AND YET...were a "Muslim" family to demand the same...i.e refusal to go on a trip to say canterbury cathedral....no-one would say a word......

THIS of course is what happens when laws intended for one thing get used by others to promote a political agenda.....

No
In Public?
No
So stop talking crap about debate, this is about hate racial hate being directed at groups of people and thank goodness they are closing this loophole in the system.
Bloody long over due

NOW...convince me that the law will be drafted in sufficiently tight terms as to preclude political misuse and I will agree with it...untill then stop being such a chicken shit bent over and shafted PC pussy boy

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:09 pm

oh and that last line is for you calling me an "old bugger" Razz

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:10 pm

nyer nyer nyer...... Laughing

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:15 pm

darknessss wrote:nice of you to mention this.....in fact in answer to that lets see
apparantly not....in fact you are NOT even allowed to refuse to allow your childern to be "forced" to attend an "education trip " to some "other" religion.
indeed were you to do so the poor child would get a black mark on his/her record
the excesses of the education establishment in this field are legion to the point of ridicule....
AND YET...were a "Muslim" family to demand the same...i.e refusal to go on a trip to say canterbury cathedral....no-one would say a word......
THIS of course is what happens when laws intended for one thing get used by others to promote a political agenda.....

NOW...convince me that the law will be drafted in sufficiently tight terms as to preclude political misuse and I will agree with it...untill then stop being such a chicken shit bent over and shafted PC pussy boy

Sorry Victor but what a load of paranoid bollocks.
You are allowed to not attend a religious trip, this happened once and the headmistress got ripped to shit for doing so, you are again going off one Daily Mail story which has utterly no relevance to the point of racial hatred, that as absurd beyond belief. That headmistress got slaughtered and rightly so for claiming they would be marked as racist over not attending a trip and she rightly got her arse kicked over it. That is the actions of one teacher not the law. Two different things altogether.
Holy crap on a cracker.
A seen you did not even given a rational response where again the law will encompass what it already does on racial hatred in the public, school and the work place or are you saying that is wrong now then. The fact is the parameters are already there for what is racial hatred, so you have nothing of substance to counter any point here

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:32 pm

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the physical/technical nature of the internet.

This already Exists.. BUT it applies to the Physical location of the hard drive on which the data is located. Not where the screen is seen on and not where the input is from. (the catch 22 is that to send the input there is normally a local copy.. but it can be deleted). What Legal Jurisdiction does the UK have on a Server located in Russia? NONE Wink

The only way to enforce this in any way blanket monitoring of all communications which is of course fucked up and what they want to implement for terrorists and supposable ONLY terrorists... Seems to me they are trying to give any and every excuse possible to get people to accept complete monitoring and policing of communications ... pretty much North Korea

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:37 pm

Pretty much North Korea - right on the nose.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:40 pm

veya_victaous wrote:This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the physical/technical nature of the internet.

This already Exists.. BUT it applies to the Physical location of the hard drive on which the data is located. Not where the screen is seen on and not where the input is from. (the catch 22 is that to send the input there is normally a local copy.. but it can be deleted). What Legal Jurisdiction does the UK have on a Server located in Russia? NONE

The only way to enforce this in any way blanket monitoring of all communications which is of course fucked up and what they want to implement for terrorists and supposable ONLY terrorists... Seems to me they are trying to give any and every excuse possible to get people to accept complete monitoring and policing of communications ... pretty much North Korea

What a crock of shit, we are talking about temp bans from social networking.
You compare that to North Korea?

The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose 3489511464

The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose 3489511464

It seems some here wish online racial hatred to continue, sorry, you are in the domain as a guest and thus should abide by the law, if you do not then you are given a temp ban which is then imposed by the social network sites as imposed by the courts. They have to act on the courts decisions. This means accounts like twitter and Facebook etc.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:53 pm

Also technologically imposible to enforce......

I just looked at what my router can "see"

as it is ...with no enhancement.......I can see and access 4 other networks without any form of password protection...i.e they are "open " networks....

some people have NO idea of "security"

take a laptop for a "drive round and any number of easily accessed networks are available...moreover IF you go on the web on one of these...to the web you "are" the person to whom the open router is "registered"

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:58 pm

darknessss wrote:Also technologically imposible to enforce......

I just looked at what my router can "see"
as it is ...with no enhancement.......I can see and access 4 other networks without any form of password protection...i.e they are "open " networks....
some people have NO idea of "security"
take a laptop for a "drive round and any number of easily accessed networks are available...moreover IF you go on the web on one of these...to the web you "are" the person to whom the open router is "registered"

The thing is if you are caught again and you breach a SOPO, that is up to 5 years in prison.
Up to you to take the risk, but this is about making the social networks themselves act and exposing those who are trolls. They have very sophisticated equipment out there to catch you out and if you are already known and exposed, then you clearly are going to be someone known already to the Police. So on all levels not very smart to attempt to get around the system, as you will end up in jail.
Again this is about social nework sites like Facebook and Twitter that have poor complaint department facilities. This is ensuring they do act off a criminal case and to me rightly ousting the Trolls, which to me is the most important aspect here

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:03 pm

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the physical/technical nature of the internet.

This already Exists.. BUT it applies to the Physical location of the hard drive on which the data is located. Not where the screen is seen on and not where the input is from. (the catch 22 is that to send the input there is normally a local copy.. but it can be deleted). What Legal Jurisdiction does the UK have on a Server located in Russia? NONE

The only way to enforce this in any way blanket monitoring of all communications which is of course fucked up and what they want to implement for terrorists and supposable ONLY terrorists... Seems to me they are trying to give any and every excuse possible to get people to accept complete monitoring and policing of communications ... pretty much North Korea

What a crock of shit, we are talking about temp bans from social networking.
You compare that to North Korea?

It seems some here wish online racial hatred to continue, sorry, you are in the domain as a guest and thus should abide by the law, if you do not then you are given a temp ban which is then imposed by the social network sites as imposed by the courts. They have to act on the courts decisions. This means accounts like twitter and Facebook etc.

How did you track them? Rolling Eyes

So you can't follow a bouncing ball OR do you still think computers are 'magic' ?

whose Domain am I in?? If I run my own can I do what I want?
You don't even know the existing laws and physicality around them...

You See Newsfix's Domain... the UK has absolutely Zero Legal Jurisdiction over it.... It exists on a server farm in the USA therefore it is subject to US laws..

Twitter, Facebook?? Guess what... NOT Physically located in the UK, SO again no jurisdiction over the servers
this means the ONLY way the UK gov't could monitor them to even determine if someone was using hate speech is by monitoring all packet communications, a.k.a the Data as it is being transferred, because they do have jurisdiction over the cables and could force ISP to store a copy on servers located in the UK for ALL packets transferred... it would have to Save them ALL off to a server in order to view them (it would only be able to target the monitoring if it knew specific IP addresses to monitor)
They couldn't even rely on what appears to be posted as I easily have the capacity to edit one of your posts to make it display hate speech and it would appear that you posted it. Rolling Eyes

AGAIN to anyone that understands the Technical nature of the internet As in how it Physically works, this proposal is naive and obviously made by someone that doesn't understand how it works or is physically put together.
It might sound simple to someone that doesn't understand what is going on with all the 0's and 1's behind the screen but the proposal is like saying we are going to catch rays of sunshine in mason jars... Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:04 pm

Clearly Veya did not understand a thing, dear me.
Who said anyone is going to need to track it?
Read what has been stated to you, it is not a monitoring system.
Yes they do have jurisdiction where it is used in a country, why do you think Google in Europe now has to remove pages if there is a case of application to remove them from a person who rightly proves the right to remove such a page about them?
So you need to research more before coming out with Gobbledygook

Jesus wept

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:25 pm

Brasidas wrote:Clearly Veya did not understand a thing, dear me.
Who said anyone is going to need to track it?
Read what has been stated to you, it is not a monitoring system.

Jesus wept

then how do you prove someone did it??? it is not technically possible without monitoring (I am not talking about human eyes looking at it) the fact UK doesn't have access to the location it is stored nor do the have the capacity to force the Hardware owners outside the UK to store the meta data required to prove anything... This is literally how places like 4chan or Pirate bay operate. this means they will have to capture while it is in the UK which is literally fractions of a second as it moves through cables. this is technically possible by legislation that forces ISPs capture all packet communications with the associated meta data... thus there will be a copy in the UK under UK jurisdiction.

I mean Do I have to Spoof you and make it appears as you have posted hate speech? I really couldn't be bothered making the effort
then someone can screenshot it and send to law enforcement to have you harassed by the police and possibly black listed for jobs Suspect

and you can show us all how easy it would be to prove your innocence and test the level of 'Proof of guilt' the UK would require before fucking your life.

If you cant see how easily this can be abused well that is mighty innocent of you... Cause I can (and clearly victor can too) Twisted Evil

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:26 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Clearly Veya did not understand a thing, dear me.
Who said anyone is going to need to track it?
Read what has been stated to you, it is not a monitoring system.

Jesus wept

then how do you prove someone did it??? it is not technically possible without monitoring (I am not talking about human eyes looking at it) the fact UK doesn't have access to the location it is stored nor do the have the capacity to force the Hardware owners outside the UK to store the meta data required to prove anything... This is literally how places like 4chan or Pirate bay operate. this means they will have to capture while it is in the UK which is literally fractions of a second as it moves through cables. this is technically possible by legislation that forces ISPs capture all packet communications with the associated meta data... thus there will be a copy in the UK under UK jurisdiction.

I mean Do I have to Spoof you and make it appears as you have posted hate speech? I really couldn't be bothered making the effort
then someone can screenshot it and send to law enforcement to have you harassed by the police and possibly black listed for jobs
and you can show us all how easy it would be to prove your innocence and test the level of 'Proof of guilt' the UK would require before fucking your life.

If you cant see how easily this can be abused well that is mighty innocent of you... Cause I can (and clearly victor can too)

The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose Triple-facepalm

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:27 pm

Brasidas wrote:Clearly Veya did not understand a thing, dear me.
Who said anyone is going to need to track it?
Read what has been stated to you, it is not a monitoring system.
Yes they do have jurisdiction where it is used in a country, why do you think Google in Europe now has to remove pages if there is a case of application to remove them from a person who rightly proves the right to remove such a page about them?
So you need to research more before coming out with Gobbledygook

Jesus wept

Umm Google only has to remove them from the search result generated on sever Physically located in Europe... If Europe was a smaller market Or they Really didn't want to Comply they could just move those servers out of the Jurisdiction.

You want to See the Results go to Google.com.au or Just google.com without a European postfix.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:29 pm

LOLZ at Gobbledygook So it is Magic too you Razz

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:29 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Clearly Veya did not understand a thing, dear me.
Who said anyone is going to need to track it?
Read what has been stated to you, it is not a monitoring system.
Yes they do have jurisdiction where it is used in a country, why do you think Google in Europe now has to remove pages if there is a case of application to remove them from a person who rightly proves the right to remove such a page about them?
So you need to research more before coming out with Gobbledygook

Jesus wept

Umm Google only has to remove them from the search result generated on sever Physically located in Europe... If Europe was a smaller market Or they Really didn't want to Comply they could just move those servers out of the Jurisdiction.

You want to See the Results go to Google.com.au or Just google.com without a European postfix.

Which means a country has jurisdiction in its country over the facility

DOH

Jesus Christ almighty

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:41 pm

Brasidas wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Clearly Veya did not understand a thing, dear me.
Who said anyone is going to need to track it?
Read what has been stated to you, it is not a monitoring system.
Yes they do have jurisdiction where it is used in a country, why do you think Google in Europe now has to remove pages if there is a case of application to remove them from a person who rightly proves the right to remove such a page about them?
So you need to research more before coming out with Gobbledygook

Jesus wept

Umm Google only has to remove them from the search result generated on sever Physically located in Europe... If Europe was a smaller market Or they Really didn't want to Comply they could just move those servers out of the Jurisdiction.

You want to See the Results go to Google.com.au or Just google.com without a European postfix.

Which means a country has jurisdiction in its country over the facility

DOH

Jesus Christ almighty

Umm Again SO which countries laws do you have to follow here on NewsFix? I'll give you a hint it is not the UK Razz

they have Jurisdiction to the location of the Physical Server not the the location of the services it provides.. In the case of Google those servers are located in Europe so they have jurisdiction BUT as just shown You can Completely By pass European Restrictions by accessing googles services via an Australian or US server.

what is the 'Facility'? that is not a technical term or logical there 'servers' and 'services' that run on those servers manipulating data stored on the servers. the Services can be accessed from anywhere in the world (the Original Point on the internet as a Military system) but servers are still Physical devices and have Physical locations, this is also the logic behind employers owning company emails because they own the Physical server that it exists on.

by Guest Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:46 pm

Wrong again, they do have jurisdiction over any site of which this site is under the jurisdiction of forum motion.
So again you get it woefully wrong and Ben has to abide by forum motion, who can shut or act on any site that has signed its conditions.
Both Facebook and Twitter of which this is about have to abide by rollings within the EU whilst they operate from within.
Seriously, not having a good night are you veya

Razz

Night

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:02 am

Brasidas wrote:Wrong again, they do have jurisdiction over any site of which this site is under the jurisdiction of forum motion ?? umm that doesn't even make sense Forumotion doesn't have jurisdiction it is subject to jurisdiction in the nation its servers are located an the nation it is register as a company for taxation purposes, If it has no physical representation in UK than it is not subject to any of the UK's laws. because of the technical reality of sending data around the globe many major site have cache servers in there major markets this is so that its customer can access things faster how ever if the jurisdiction because too tough they woudl just move them and their customers would just have to accept the lag
So again you get it woefully wrong and Ben has to abide by forum motion, who can shut or act on any site that has signed its conditions.
Both Facebook and Twitter of which this is about have to abide by rollings within the EU whilst they operate from within. NO they have to abide by the ruling where the servers are and they do have server in Europe, but if Europe place to onerous a technical requirement on them then they will move the servers
Seriously, not having a good night are you veya Umm first off it's about 11 in the morning second this is not really a debate I know this for fact, I run real life services literally I am posting between scripting silent deployments to half a million computers. My career means that if it were implemented here I could well be on the project team to make it work, I have already been involved with some of the largest technical projects undertaken in the southern hemisphere

Night

they don't have to shut
Why would they have to shut because the Uk or Europe says so? That makes NO sense and Obviously Wrong (otherwise why does 4chan exist?)...
why would they stop them operating in Australia and the USA and everywhere else? by what logic or right could they do that?
they have Physical Servers in Europe they don't need them but because of the size of the market is convenient because otherwise the lag would be significant and degrade the efficiency of service possibly costing them customers.

the only way Your gov't could stop you accessing Facebook or Twitter that operated on servers Completely outside of European Jurisdiction is a National Firewall again back to North Korea..

And Forumotion's rules, In line with USA law not European law Because that is where the servers are located. Without putting in more effort than i have time for I could not say if they have Cache servers in the UK (they seem to have a lot of UK members so it is possible) in which case they will be forced to comply with UK laws too... See it is not where you are that matters it is where the data is and cache servers are local copies of the data that make it accessible in a more timely manner, not actually required and only the Biggest companies give Aussies Cache servers since we are a smaller market so not worth the additional investment and complying with the additional laws (the main one they don't want to comply with here is consumer protection laws that give customer non-surrenderable rights that make most terms and conditions void), just showing how they can get around it if the costs of complying make it not worth their while.

https://www.forumotion.com/terms-of-service

by Original Quill Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:55 am

Brasidas wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Oh, i see the correlation to censorship ("all this is in regards to is ban"). I just don't see the correlation to violence; assumption is not proof. To be sure there probably is some, but I believe it is overreach.

What is the alternative?
The fact is this kind of hatred is increasing online because some think they have a free reign to do so.
Something has to give Quill.
Again what is disappointing is such laws have to come into play because people are abusing the social networks to promote racial hatred.

You say abuse; they say free speech. To answer your question, the alternative is to leave it alone. We have no evidence that such speech--as much as you and I detest it--is causing acts of violence. We don't want to halt people from speaking merely because we don't like their ideas; there has to be some consequence that we wish to stop. But there is no proof it leads to violence.

In some ways it's like the old argument, does violence depicted on TV or in movies lead to violence in the real world? Or video games? Is SpongeBob SquarePants leading little children into a lifestyle of homosexuality (I've actually heard that one)? All these things are tossed about without an ounce of evidence of the correlation. People allege such correlations in order to make weight on their own preferences.

People who talk tough and mean on the Internet are probably the same ugly drunks we find down at the Pub. But, with rare exceptions, we leave it up the pub owner to decide who is banned and who is not. What you are proposing would require a whole new bureaucracy, new laws, new judicial proceedings...and I don't see the justification.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:28 am

@quill - agree but beyond that there is the technical infeasibility...

It's All pointless, as it's still trying to catch sun light in mason jars.
Better to deal with hatred in Schools, workplaces and real life.

there is already a Russian run alternative to facebook called VK (originally VKontakte, Russian: ВКонтакте, literally "in touch")
for people that want to escape the Western nation's 1984 style monitoring of it's citizens.. of course you give the Data to Putin instead Rolling Eyes

Cameron will just push more of the world into Russia and China's networks. And you can guess what Putin will tell him when he asks for access to the Data. The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose 4233679493

The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose 4233679493

AGAIN the only way to prevent someone accessing VK from the UK is a massive national firewall like North Korea or China have in place. and even then VPN to the USA or somewhere else and you can get around it.

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:56 am

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

What is the alternative?
The fact is this kind of hatred is increasing online because some think they have a free reign to do so.
Something has to give Quill.
Again what is disappointing is such laws have to come into play because people are abusing the social networks to promote racial hatred.

You say abuse; they say free speech. To answer your question, the alternative is to leave it alone. We have no evidence that such speech--as much as you and I detest it--is causing acts of violence. We don't want to halt people from speaking merely because we don't like their ideas; there has to be some consequence that we wish to stop. But there is no proof it leads to violence.

In some ways it's like the old argument, does violence depicted on TV or in movies lead to violence in the real world? Or video games? Is SpongeBob SquarePants leading little children into a lifestyle of homosexuality (I've actually heard that one)? All these things are tossed about without an ounce of evidence of the correlation. People allege such correlations in order to make weight on their own preferences.

People who talk tough and mean on the Internet are probably the same ugly drunks we find down at the Pub. But, with rare exceptions, we leave it up the pub owner to decide who is banned and who is not. What you are proposing would require a whole new bureaucracy, new laws, new judicial proceedings...and I don't see the justification.

That is utter nonsense.
What you are saying is we might as ell do away with every law protecting people from racial hatred.
Even more complete babble in regard to where racial hatred leads to, seriously, you think the rise of Nazism which was down to spreading racial hatred did not lead to violence? You are wrong on every level. To compare people acting on violence on TV is a moot point which has no utter comparison. There is a very good argument that if there had been laws in the 1930's denying Hitler the right to his racial hatred, Nazism would never have gotten off the ground, but to claim it does not led to violence is utter nonsense. How do you think there has been a rise of Islamist violence, because it is being spread through hate on the internet. Sorry Quill you are talking the biggest load of nonsense ever because it is hate speech that has always led to violence occurring if unchecked, because people are so indoctrinated with hate, where it is left unchecked, that it does turn to violence.

I suggest you read up on "Political scientist Susan Benesch has come up with five key qualitative variables to discern the dangerousness of speech, offering a useful model for analyzing hate speech case studies. These include the level of a speaker’s influence, the grievances or fears of the audience, whether or not the speech act is understood as a call to violence, the social and historical context, and the way in which the speech is disseminated."

As I say what you are advocating is that we should not even bother to have laws in the work place, schools and in public and that there should be no consequences for any such hate speech. The fact is not only do we have the evidence formulated through years of Lutheranism that led to so much violence against Jews in the west, Hitler was able to take this one step further with the genocide of the Jews, because for years it had been acceptable through Lutheranism. Not only that it can be seen today through the actions of the likes of Islamic extremism. Violence on TV@s is not asking people to harm others, someone left unchecked saying we should kill all the Jews, arguing that it is justified does lead to violence. What you are advocating absurdly is that people should just suffer hate and to that I say

Bollocks

Again you are being as silly as Veya not even understanding this, in fact Veya made himself look a right plonker on this, as this is about placing social media bans, which these companies would have to abide by, if these people were caught again whilst doing this they then because of this ban could face up to 5 years in prison. Free speech does not mean you have a right to hate speech, which you are advocating people have a right to hate. You cannot walk into a bank and tell them to hand over their money, I suggest you try this and see what happens, of walk up to anyone to their face and say you are going to kill their children and see the reaction of the people you have said this to. No matter what crap people come out with nobody really believes in free speech because we all have limitations to what we will allow on free speech and I can easily prove this as I have before. The reality is hate speech can and does lead to violence and in its worse for where left unchecked it has led to some of the worst genocide in history. You are again are saying we should not protect the well being of people, sorry, yes we should and thankfully do not listen to people who have not the first clue on this.

What is being proposed which shows again you did not read the article does not require any law change but an adaption to an existing law. Nobody is talking about banning hate speech but consequences for hate speech, but to claim it does not lead to violence shows how little you know about history. How on earth do you think ISIS has made violence to their followers acceptable, that they all just suddenly thought it okay to hate and act violence on many groups of people over night? Hence why you are talking utter babble.

People deluded themselves that they have free speech, when nobody ever really has, this is and always has been a illusions, because again there is levels for everyone and consequences for hate speech. Like I say, if you do not believe me walk up to someone with a rant of threatening abuse and see if you are are not gunned down where you stand in your own country. You have little conception of the human mind or how we will protect against hate speech. But to claim it does not lead to violence is the most short sightedness I have ever seen from you, being as 6 million Jews lost their lives due to hate speech going unchecked.

At the end of the day I am not advocating banning speech but this call to make a temp ban on social media, allows for an individual to lose the privilege of these facilities, I fail to what is wrong with that as it is a consequence of their actions. I would rather much people stood up more and counter such speech, but you will see people come outwith the worst reasoning to think it is best to ignore trolls, which is nonsense and fails to recognize the dangers of such hate speech. The fact is too many people at present are not countering hate speech, they are allowing it to go unchecked, and this is the danger and until we educate people on the need to counter hate speech then such temp measures are needed as a consequence until more people are educated to counter hate speech.

Benesch points out that there are several implicit assumption in that advice. We assume that if we ignore a troll, they will stop (which, in turn, tends to assume behavior that’s only on a signal platform.) There’s an assumption that online hate is created by trolls; in the few experiments that look at racist and sexist speech, at least half is produced by non-trolls. We tend to assume that all trolls have the same motivations and that they will respond to the same controls. And finally, we assume that the trolls are the problem – we need to consider effects on the audience.

(Benesch doesn’t define trolls until pressed by the audience and points out that it’s a term she uses with tongue in cheek, most of the time – she acknowledges that different trolls have different motivations. Her goal is to move away from considering trolls as the problem and towards understanding dangerous speech as a broader phenomenon.)

One of the benefits of online speech environments, Benesch posits, is that we can examine the effect of speech on people. In offline environments, it’s very hard to measure what reactions dangerous speech leads to – in online environments, it may be possible to track both responses and effects.

Benesch’s suggestion is that we should approach dangerous speech through counterspeech, in effect, talking back to the trolls and to others. In explaining her logic, she notes that the internet doesn’t create hate speech – in some cases, it may disinhibit us from speaking. But more often, the internet creates an environment where we are aware of speech we otherwise wouldn’t hear. Most of us wouldn’t have been aware of what speech is shared at a KKK meeting, and many of us wouldn’t have heard the sexist jokes that were told in locker rooms. Now speech is crossing between formerly closed communities.

by Original Quill Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:02 pm

Brasidas wrote:What you are saying is we might as ell do away with every law protecting people from racial hatred.

Well, there is only a very fine line between what the First Amendment protects, and what you are talking about. Two of the elements that Benesch talks about are "the grievances or fears of the audience", and "the social and historical context". As long as we are talking about what caused Nazi Germany, we have to consider the context. It's quite different from today.

Frankly, I am a lot more wary of the tactics of Bush, Cheney and the NeoCon Republicans, in starting the war in Iraq: lying, cheating and manipulating...leading eventually to kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder. That's serious tyrannical stuff. Governments have an organized capability that a loose-knit Internet conversations do not.

I agree that given the right context, what is happening to speech on the Internet could lead to danger. But so could state-imposed restriction, of which censorship would only be the beginning.

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:What you are saying is we might as ell do away with every law protecting people from racial hatred.

Well, there is only a very fine line between what the First Amendment protects, and what you are talking about. Two of the elements that Benesch talks about are "the grievances or fears of the audience", and "the social and historical context". As long as we are talking about what caused Nazi Germany, we have to consider the context. It's quite different from today.

Frankly, I am a lot more wary of the tactics of Bush, Cheney and the NeoCon Republicans, in starting the war in Iraq: lying, cheating and manipulating...leading eventually to kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder. That's serious tyrannical stuff. Governments have an organized capability that a loose-knit Internet conversations do not.

I agree that given the right context, what is happening to speech on the Internet could lead to danger. But so could state-imposed restriction, of which censorship would only be the beginning.

Who cares about the first amendment Quill, this about the UK, not America.
The fact is until more understand they needed to challenge such poor discriminating views, temp measures are need to prevent the spread and rise of violence where hate speech is left unchecked. There is so much evidence that correlates to violence spread through hate speech. Sorry mate, you have to counter this with temp measures until more people take up the gauntlet to challenge these people of hate.
What is the bigger concern here?
Hate violence of which we have seen countless examples ever today with Islamic extremism. To me those who claim to ignore them are appeasing them and aiding them by their inaction. These people will not go away if left unchecked.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:32 pm

You are stupid it is the WORLD WIDE WEB how the fuck to you think it is the UK? the only thing the UK can even Claim jurisdiction to is sites that end in .uk if the have no postfix i.e. just .com then they fall under US Jurisdiction. And that is only the URL portal the Actual Data can be somewhere else and under a different Jurisdiction. The Geographic barriers Are GONE the UK gov't cannot stop a UK citizen in the UK accessing a social media network that is completely out of UK jurisdiction and in a nation that it doesn't have information sharing agreements with... unless it implement a national firewall The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose 2396444674

The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose 2396444674

Obviously No fucking clue how it works as teens have already been by-passing facebook in favour of pretty much unrestricted eastern European social media sites for a couple of years already.

Here
https://vk.com/
Sign Up.. you just Bypassed All the UK social network monitoring Rolling Eyes

(most 16 year olds probably already knew that)

Cause VK will openly tell the UK suck it's Putin flavoured dick!!! the ONLY way the UK can stop you accessing it is to implement a FIREWALL like North Korea.

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:34 pm

veya_victaous wrote:You are stupid it is the WORLD WIDE WEB how the fuck to you think it is the UK? the only thing the UK can even Claim jurisdiction to is sites that end in .uk if the have no postfix i.e. just .com then they fall under US Jurisdiction. And that is only the URL portal the Actual Data can be somewhere else and under a different Jurisdiction. The Geographic barriers Are GONE the UK gov't cannot stop a UK citizen in the UK accessing a social media network that is completely out of UK jurisdiction and in a nation that it doesn't have information sharing agreements with... unless it implement a national firewall

Obviously No fucking clue how it works as teens have already been by-passing facebook for in favour of pretty much unrestricted eastern European social media sites for a couple of years already.

Here
https://vk.com/
Sign Up.. you just Bypassed All the UK social network monitoring (most 16 year old probably already knew that)

Cause VK will openly tell the UK suck it's Putin flavoured dick!!! the ONLY way the UK can stop you accessing it is to implement a FIREWALL like North Korea.

The new anti-semitism: Treat racial hatred trolls like sex offenders and hit them with 'internet asbos', MPs propose Double-epic-facepalm-meme-i3

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:38 pm

Try reading again how this a temp measure on those being exposed as being trolls inciting racial violence. Who if caught again face a prison sentence. It is not about monitoring, how many more times do you need to understand something so simple?
Seriously, try reading what has been said.
A temp ban is imposed, yes some will get around this again, butif caught face up to 5 years in jail and who are the Police going to come knocking on the door to similar views again being posted?
The same twat who incited hate before.
Try using you brain Veya.
I am more than happy the expose who they are, but the fact is not many are challenging this hate and because of that some measure need to come into force to tackle online hate, which can and does lead to violence.
This debate is just going in circles, as I say read what has been stated, not what you are inventing.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:45 pm

@Brasidas
Ok explain how you are going to implement it?
it is not MAGIC it doesn't just go Magic Pooff here I am.

are you going to pay people to manually trawl through ever UK citizens social media accounts (on a few dozen platforms) to see if they are posting naughty things? even then how do you plan to prove they sent it? and it is not a fraudulent poster, hacker or impostor?

For that you'd need META-DATA and that is located on the physical server the social network is running on (facebook is not on YOUR computer). So how do you get them to comply? Facebook and twitter might Suspect

they are going for the mainstream position which is why teens are already moving to other ones a lot of which are based in Russia Specifically because they will not hand over data to western authorities. the core design of the internet means it is not possible to just disconnect Russia you could bock it WITH A FIREWALL and if you were to do that on a National level... well that is exactly what we mock North Korea and China for.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:48 pm

Yes Nice Idea no one is deny it is nice sunshine fairy land solution BUT until you explain your plan for catching sunlight in mason jars any technical person will tell you it is not possible.

Unless you do it manually
require virtually no Actual Proof (Screenshot are not really admissible evidence as they are so easy to fake and don't provide any real hard data)
Or Implement a national firewall to block any site that doesn't do it for you.

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:48 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@Brasidas
Ok explain how you are going to implement it?
it is not MAGIC it doesn't just go Magic Pooff here I am.

are you going to pay people to manually trawl through ever UK citizens social media accounts (on a few dozen platforms) to see if they are posting naughty things? even then how do you plan to prove they sent it? and it is not a fraudulent poster, hacker or impostor?

For that you'd need META-DATA and that is located on the physical server the social network is running on (facebook is not on YOUR computer). So how do you get them to comply? Facebook and twitter might they are going for the mainstream position which is why teens are already moving to other ones a lot of which are based in Russia Specifically because they will not hand over data to western authorities. the core design of the internet means it is not possible to just disconnect Russia you could bock it WITH A FIREWALL and if you were to do that on a National level... well that is exactly what we mock North Korea and China for.

OMG, words fail me at someone who clearly cannot read..

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:53 pm

No, you're just as bad as Cameron and however else is suggesting this.

You just think you can ask the IT wizards and it will happen.

I am telling you it is possible but To make it so we have to build something we don't want to build because of how easily it can be used for the WRONG reasons. The cost will be huge and freedoms will be lost.

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:54 pm

so are you talking send people to jail for 5 years with no proof?

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:56 pm

Think About it

How are you going to stop people spouting race hate any differently than the Chinese Gov't stops it citizens criticising it on social media?

the mechanics of it is the same, data in post on a server located overseas

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:57 pm

OK didge...I think I see your difficulty

so ...someone reports a facebook or twitter post for racist commentary

the authorities look at it and say yep thats naughty...bust him

now

here's your "evidence" a facebook page

now I'm no lawyer....but I bet I know more about law than you.....

that "evidence" would NOT stand up in court

all the alleged poster needs to say is "nope, it were not me"

now...over to you as the prosecution.....

YOU PROVE it in fact was him that made that post , and NOT some one who has hacked his account.....

(which is dead easy to do)

You PROVE it wasnt someone who "parasitised" (veya can explain this better than me) his IP address by hacking his router security (which is relatively easy I understand)

If he'is careful there need be no trace on his computer

and without the data from the service provider....(who as veya says may not be inclined to hand it over) you are stuffed....

this is hot air and noise.....and will do sod all except sound good and cost a fortune....