Australian PM proposes defamation laws forcing social platforms to unmask trolls

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The accused is allowed to say no and social media are well within their legal rights to withhold that information.

They are right now, but not if this proposal passes.

The entire proposal is about how companies will be held liable for user posted content unless the company can provide the Australian government with detailed enough information that the individual who made a post online can be tracked down.

 

A user has the "right" to say no, but if they do then it's up to the company to provide the information if the Australian government requests it.

If the company also refuses, then the company is punished.

 

Saying that users and social media platforms have the "legal right" to say no when they are being fined for it is like saying someone has the "legal right" to not pay taxes. Sure you can refuse, but you will be punished for it, and as such it isn't really a choice you have.

 

 

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think that is an awesome law if it is true and there aren't any further catches to it.

I am not surprised since you seem to always be in favour of Australian laws that potential weakens privacy and security of individuals.

 

Personally, I think legally requiring websites to collect so much data on their users that they can track down an individual is an awful idea. This seems like just another "if we argue in good faith, assume it won't be misused and ignore the implications of the implementation then it's good" laws that Australia seems to like.

It's like saying "we need to cut down on knife stabbings. Let's make it so that knife manufacturers are held responsible if someone stabs someone else with a knife". It seems well intentioned but once you start thinking about the "how" instead of the "why", it becomes a mess that just results in a ton of drawbacks.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's pretend like this law passes and I am an Australian citizen.

 

Scott Morrison has a really tiny penis. 

 

 

This can be seen as defamation under Australian law.

I am communicating this to a third person (this entire forum).

I identify the person (Scott Morrison).

The post potentially lowers the person's reputation and/or ridicules them.

 

If Scott Morrison felt like he wanted to, he could go after me for this. He could contact me and ask for my personal information so he could sue me. If I refuse or don't respond, he would contact Linus who is the owner of LinusTechTips.com by using a system linustechtips.com would have to implement.

If Linus isn't able to provide Scott Morrison with accurate enough information than could track me down, the individual behind the "LAwLz" account, Linus himself could be sued for defamation of Scott Morrison.

 

This is how I interpret the new purposed law and this seems to be the spirit of the law.

I think that's fucked up.

[cj09beira]

Australia is really going off the deep end.

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They are right now, but not if this proposal passes.

According to the article social media only have to  hand over any information if the court orders it.

 

 

Quote

 

If the user is unwilling to take down the content, or the complainant wants to take further action, the company asks a user for their consent to release their personal details.

If the user does not consent to their details being released, a court order can be made requiring the company to release them — allowing the complainant to pursue defamation action.

 

 

From what we know they only have to release that information or take down content if a court orders it. 

 

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The entire proposal is about how companies will be held liable for user posted content unless the company can provide the Australian government with detailed enough information that the individual who made a post online can be tracked down.

Not exactly, they are only held accountable if they refuse to handover the details after they have been ordered to by the courts, not if they can't.   There is nothing in the article that says they will be held accountable for people they literally can't identify.

 

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

A user has the "right" to say no, but if they do then it's up to the company to provide the information if the Australian government requests it.

If the company also refuses, then the company is punished.

As it should be.   This all only happens if a defamation case exists, it doesn't just happen because Person A doesn't like what Person B said.  You are assuming the courts are going to hand out orders like jelly beans for every twat on social media.

 

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Saying that users and social media platforms have the "legal right" to say no when they are being fined for it is like saying someone has the "legal right" to not pay taxes. Sure you can refuse, but you will be punished for it, and as such it isn't really a choice you have.

It's a choice they should not have at all,  All I am saying is the consequences for defying a court order currently are nothing to facebook, at least with this proposal a plaintiff still has the opportunity to have a court hear their case and have an entity to answer for it.  An entity that is not innocent.

 

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I am not surprised since you seem to always be in favour of Australian laws that potential weakens privacy and security of individuals.

 

Personally, I think legally requiring websites to collect so much data on their users that they can track down an individual is an awful idea. This seems like just another "if we argue in good faith, assume it won't be misused and ignore the implications of the implementation then it's good" laws that Australia seems to like.

It's like saying "we need to cut down on knife stabbings. Let's make it so that knife manufacturers are held responsible if someone stabs someone else with a knife". It seems well intentioned but once you start thinking about the "how" instead of the "why", it becomes a mess that just results in a ton of drawbacks.

 

As I said in the other post, if social media can't run their services without innocent people being abhorrently punished then they don;t deserve to run it.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-07/anti-vaccination-campaigners-target-wrong-person/8001202

 

People who do this deserve to be ousted and people like Peter Tiernan deserve to be able to take them to court for damages.  But under current law facebook doesn't have to say shit about who posted it.   At least under this new law facebook would have to remove the group that started it, release the names and IP addresses of the people posting on it (which is all that is needed to link at least a handful of people to the threats) or face the case themselves.  I am absolutely in favor of that, I can't see why any reasonable person wouldn't be.  EDIT: just remember this only leads to a court case where they get to defend themselves, it does not lead to a permanent censorship unless that person is actually guilty of defamation.

 

 

Don't forget, you need to get a court order before any social media platform is required to hand over any details they have.  You can't just get one of those from the corner store, you have to have sufficient evidence of defamation first.

[mr moose]

@LAwLz Also I'd just like to note, there is an awful lot of laws in Australia being passed by our current government that I strongly disagree with, but because this is a tech form and one that doesn't generally permit political discussion I don't tend to make a huge deal of it.   The reason you see me being positive about many of the laws discussed hear is because they are generally laws that are simply applying old legal protections and regulation to the new digital era.   

 

The internet is arguably the biggest thing to ever effect society, literally the last time anything this big happened was the railways in the 19th century.  Everything from fake news, to entire industries have be effected.  Some industries are even almost non existent due to the changes the internet has made.    We don't have to agree on whether the change is good or not, or even if the proposed laws are effective or not,  but it is nice to at least be open about the need to be able to afford everyone the same protections under law.   It's bad enough that facebook get to censor and control what the average user sees, without it also being able to choose to block a defamation case with no recourse for the victim. 

[Elisis]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This can be seen as defamation under Australian law.

No it fucking cannot. Don't talk about a country you clearly don't know anything about. 

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, Elisis said:

No it fucking cannot. Don't talk about a country you clearly don't know anything about. 

1) You're getting hung up on details that are fairly irrelevant, and missing the bigger point. It was just an example of what could happen to illustrate how obsurd the law is. Don't get hung up on the specific words I used in my example. 

2) There is an argument that could be made that it is defamation. I actually listed all 3 criteria for whether or not something is classified as defamation according to Australian law. 

 

Granted, this example would probably be too trivial and nobody would bother taking it to court, but my point about how Linus would be liable for defamation is true, and in my opinion ridiculous. The statement even says the platform would be responsible even if the platform owner wasn't aware of the existence of the post. 

[poochyena]

21 hours ago, Kisai said:

Just look at how DMCA abuse is handled. The DMCA complaint has to attach their legal name, and the counter-notice needs to attach their legal name, but nobody is ever required to verify that identity. See the problem?

That was my first thought. Considering how DMCA is abused, this would be too.

21 hours ago, Kisai said:

And more to the point you have sites dedicated to trolling like *chan and *cow and *farm sites who aren't going to comply. Unless Australia goes after cloudflare, these sites can blissfully troll away like they've been doing before, driving people to suicide.

You nailed it.

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, poochyena said:

That was my first thought. Considering how DMCA is abused, this would be too.

 

DMCA is an automated process that goes no where near a court, This new law requires a court order for any social media platform to be forced to do anything (including removing or censoring posts not the least divulging personal information).   So it cannot be abused the same way, in fact from the limited information we have DMCA is a very poor example.

 

 

[leadeater]

nvm, though they were quoting someone else haha. Tired 

Edited December 1, 2021 by leadeater
I can't read

[Rodinski]

On 11/28/2021 at 11:43 PM, adarw said:

everyone is a troll on the internet. we all going to get fined?

If you merely disagree with me or think my position is silly, does that make you a troll? If you call out something you think is ridiculous, are you a troll? These folk sure think you are. 

[soldier_ph]

This will backfire so hard. Can we please stop trying to destroy Net Neutrality, freedom of speech and anonymity/privacy on the Web ? While I totally agree that Cyberbullying and all illegal activites associated with it is bad, this is not the way to go about it. Individual countries should not have the power to impose sanctions on the Internet in any form to it's own Citizens and to everybody else. The Net is supposed to be decentralized IMO.

[adarw]

2 hours ago, Rodinski said:

If you merely disagree with me or think my position is silly, does that make you a troll? If you call out something you think is ridiculous, are you a troll? These folk sure think you are. 

im trolling, its part of the joke.

 

 

[Quackers101]

2 hours ago, soldier_ph said:

The Net is supposed to be decentralized IMO.

*most is owned and collected and abused by the US and spied on more than any huawei*

okey maybe that is going a bit too far. I have taken a bit too much silicon in my valley.

 

At least the EU have done something, although... maybe not enough.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, soldier_ph said:

Individual countries should not have the power to impose sanctions on the Internet in any form to it's own Citizens and to everybody else.

And why not?

 

3 hours ago, soldier_ph said:

The Net is supposed to be decentralized IMO.

Internet infrastructure is and will always be, being an illegal ass or in general an ass ain't got nothing to do with "the net being decentralized"

 

Anyone still has the right and potential means to come slap you for being a dick online, many just benefit from being hard to find or not worth the effort. Effort reduction is a good thing, means more people can be slapped who deserve it.

 

There was a point in time where air travel and flight wasn't regulated either and anyone was free to fly where and how they chose, landing on another nation was a different story however. But then air travel became vital to global commerce and society and could no longer be left to the whims of the people and became regulated. Welcome to change, it's a thing.

[Quackers101]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And why not?

hmm. a lot depends and what we are speaking of. but I would generally agree it would suck massive balls if it was to not just target 1 country but the global market or web. To impact certain freedoms or whatnot.

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Anyone still has the right and potential means to come slap you

means more people can be slapped who deserve it.

this means what? that most uwu people can be OwO'ed? oh god. I guess if they like that sort of thing, go for it... I guess.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

this means what? that most uwu people can be OwO'ed? oh god. I guess if they like that sort of thing, go for it... I guess.

It means exactly that, anyone will the legal right to and cause to seek justice can, always had, and should be able to. The reason why it's so rare is the difficulty and nothing more.

 

And if anyone wants to cry about what the Net should be then lets all refer back to the purpose and intent for why it was created, academia and education for the ability to disseminate knowledge, communicate and collaborate. The internet as it is today is about as opposite to that as possible, it still get used for that however that is now a tiny fraction compared to the sole purpose. Later on it moved in to general freedom to communicate but only by the privledged few that could afford it and had the knowledge to do it.

 

So if we want to roll out the "supposed to be" then I would advocate for the above, the origin and it's purpose. Of course I won't because I'm not stuck in the past and cannot accept change.

 

And FYI the origins of the internet absolutely did not have anonymity, that came MUCH later.

[Quackers101]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And if anyone wants to cry about what the Net should be then lets all refer back to the purpose and intent for why it was created, academia and education for the ability to disseminate knowledge, communicate and collaborate. The internet as it is today is about as opposite to that as possible, it still get used for that however that is now a tiny fraction compared to the sole purpose. Later on it moved in to general freedom to communicate but only by the privledged few that could afford it and had the knowledge to do it.

 

And FYI the origins of the internet absolutely did not have anonymity, that came MUCH later.

like you say, the media has changed and society with it. A sort of different use case for internet access and shops that are now only through the digital world (apps, webpages etc).

 

As with "anonymity", tracking and surveillance to targeted attacks and the world being a lot smaller and we become a bit too open on the web or in the digital world. personas, avatars, VR/AR, and a lot of mixed reality. One thing though, the origin was kind of decentralized, less about having a middle man too, with ads and everything else that comes with it in today's third party access to a lot of ID'ing information. The means of getting "YOU" back from being "YOU" on the internet to have the ability to or for education and communicate. While now... they "own YOU" on the web, no matter what you need to use it for now... they as in companies or countries that are going to own a part of "YOU" in one way or another. even if you just want a burger from mcdonalds and has to pay and order through their app.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

hmm. a lot depends and what we are speaking of. but I would generally agree it would suck massive balls if it was to not just target 1 country but the global market or web. To impact certain freedoms or whatnot.

this means what? that most uwu people can be OwO'ed? oh god. I guess if they like that sort of thing, go for it... I guess.

 

This law as it appears to be proposed does not impose on any freedoms as far as I can tell.  It merely gives the legal system the teeth to force social media to out a person (if possible) who has actually committed a crime and to remove said posts if they are found to be defamatory by the same court.  This bill does not make trolling a crime, it simply stops social media from hiding people guilty of defamation.  

 

They call it trolling because by colloquial standards of communication defamation is very like trolling.

[Zodiark1593]

On 11/30/2021 at 3:56 AM, mr moose said:

@LAwLz Also I'd just like to note, there is an awful lot of laws in Australia being passed by our current government that I strongly disagree with, but because this is a tech form and one that doesn't generally permit political discussion I don't tend to make a huge deal of it.   The reason you see me being positive about many of the laws discussed hear is because they are generally laws that are simply applying old legal protections and regulation to the new digital era.   

 

The internet is arguably the biggest thing to ever effect society, literally the last time anything this big happened was the railways in the 19th century.  Everything from fake news, to entire industries have be effected.  Some industries are even almost non existent due to the changes the internet has made.    We don't have to agree on whether the change is good or not, or even if the proposed laws are effective or not,  but it is nice to at least be open about the need to be able to afford everyone the same protections under law.   It's bad enough that facebook get to censor and control what the average user sees, without it also being able to choose to block a defamation case with no recourse for the victim. 

Someone looking to intentionally defame someone would be wise to take concealment measures anyway, rather than rely on Facebook or (social medic of choice) for protection from identification. Use of public wifi (many devices use false MAC addresses by default, so tying a MAC address to a user becomes much more difficult) and false names are sufficient to dead-end an investigation, let alone additional measures such as ToR or VPNs. 
 

IE: Think through your crimes people.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Someone looking to intentionally defame someone would be wise to take concealment measures anyway, rather than rely on Facebook or (social medic of choice) for protection from identification. Use of public wifi (many devices use false MAC addresses by default, so tying a MAC address to a user becomes much more difficult) and false names are sufficient to dead-end an investigation, let alone additional measures such as ToR or VPNs. 
 

IE: Think through your crimes people.

 

Absolutely, and the ones who set out to do it maliciously and know how to do this are going to regardless of any law they create.  However Karren's don't know even understand the laws they are breaking and so will genuinely think they are being oppressed because they are being held to account for their actions.   IE, you can't tell everyone the local grocer is a pedophile because he told you you had to wear a mask in his shop or he thinks vaccines are good. 

[Rodinski]

On 12/1/2021 at 1:47 PM, adarw said:

im trolling, its part of the joke.

 

 

I'm saying trolling is subjective and typically wrongfully accused by those who just want to win an argument. 

 

This would be easily abused. 

[Kisai]

On 12/2/2021 at 1:56 AM, mr moose said:

 

 

They call it trolling because by colloquial standards of communication defamation is very like trolling.

 

Trolling, Harassment, Bullying, etc are all the same, just like "libel vs slander", they are the same, and only different in the medium. Trolling is lies being told on the internet. Slander is lies being spoken. Libel is lies being Printed. Bullying is an all-encompassing "person causing harm to another though their actions or words."

 

The term "Do not feed the Trolls" is directed at not throwing fuel on an argument, or giving ammunitions to the troll by trying to defend yourself to the troll, because you won't win. That's akin to Beetlejuicing (posting someone's (user)name somewhere to lure them to a drama post about them) yourself.

 

The only way harassment ends on the internet is by either thin-skin politicians passing laws in countries that are already hostile to social media to drive the social media platform out of business, or by driving the social media platform into becoming it's own darkweb so that the average person can no longer find it. In some cases, we should all be okay with sites dedicated to harassment just disappearing. But those sites are not facebook and twitter. Facebook and Twitter are just regular people with too much time to argue.

 

Pretty much, there will never be a "safe space" for people to be protected from being harassed, there will always be a site out there that hates you for some reason, and politicians are at the top of the list, below celebrities.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

Trolling, Harassment, Bullying, etc are all the same, just like "libel vs slander", they are the same, and only different in the medium. Trolling is lies being told on the internet. Slander is lies being spoken. Libel is lies being Printed. Bullying is an all-encompassing "person causing harm to another though their actions or words."

 

The term "Do not feed the Trolls" is directed at not throwing fuel on an argument, or giving ammunitions to the troll by trying to defend yourself to the troll, because you won't win. That's akin to Beetlejuicing (posting someone's (user)name somewhere to lure them to a drama post about them) yourself.

 

The only way harassment ends on the internet is by either thin-skin politicians passing laws in countries that are already hostile to social media to drive the social media platform out of business, or by driving the social media platform into becoming it's own darkweb so that the average person can no longer find it. In some cases, we should all be okay with sites dedicated to harassment just disappearing. But those sites are not facebook and twitter. Facebook and Twitter are just regular people with too much time to argue.

 

Pretty much, there will never be a "safe space" for people to be protected from being harassed, there will always be a site out there that hates you for some reason, and politicians are at the top of the list, below celebrities.

People can troll without lying.    In that situation these proposals would have little to no teeth at all.

[RoseLuck462]

Skankhunt42 better watch out 

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

People can troll without lying.    In that situation these proposals would have little to no teeth at all.

Well if the troll is telling the truth, it's no grounds for removal under anything but "right to be forgotten" laws. Likewise there is public information out there on celebrities dirty laundry that can't be buried because the internet will keep digging it up with lawyers constantly in ambulance chaser mode.