Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

1…5455575960…65

Comments

  • #1682
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,026 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nodin wrote: »
    He may have been thinking something more Maplethorpe-ian.

    Something like that did cross my dirty little mind, but I thought I'd give rob the benefit of the doubt :)

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #1683
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    BR3N - cut out the offensive prose, please.


  • #1684
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Not sure how relevant this is to this thread, but -- assuming it's all true -- it's an interesting account of what an online troll can be like, and how one should be dealt with and neutralized. It's very unclear to me why the FTB'ers aren't taking a similar proactive approach.

    Column: How I came to shake the hand of a troll

    Leo Traynor tells how online bullying escalated to grim offline intimidation – and an emotional personal encounter.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/leo-traynor-online-bullying-610240-Sep2012/


  • #1685
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Why don't they pretend they can work out who individuals within house-holds are that are trolling thanks to having a "techy" friend?

    Even I'm sceptical about that...


  • #1686
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why don't they pretend they can work out who individuals within house-holds are that are trolling thanks to having a "techy" friend?

    Even I'm sceptical about that...
    I think the story is very possible. It is similar to an Irish guy recently whose wife was getting sent hate messages (iirc). He convinced the perpetrator to click on a link which logged his IP address (plus you can pull more info too if necessary) and tracked him down to a internet cafe where he watched the next time he was online to see which screen/user it was. All very possible.

    I have yet to be convinced that the issue about harassment on-line is an issue more affecting females than males or that the skeptic "community" is awash with offline harassment as is being suggested.


  • Advertisement
  • #1687
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why don't they pretend they can work out who individuals within house-holds are that are trolling thanks to having a "techy" friend?
    It can be done and it's not that hard either, especially if the troll is dealing with technical people who are smarter than he/she is.

    The FTB'ers have easy access to a large and very skilled technical readership and as I've said before, it's strange -- even if they don't want to speak with law-enforcement for whatever reasons -- that they haven't simply crowd-sourced the problem of identifying the culprits. Personally, I suspect there are very few of these sad individuals and that they could be identified quite easily if there were a concerted will to do it, or indeed any obvious interest at all in doing it.


  • #1688
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    robindch wrote: »
    It can be done and it's not that hard either, especially if the troll is dealing with technical people who are smarter than he/she is.

    They can get a home address from an IP? Legally? How?


  • #1689
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    They can get a home address from an IP? Legally? How?
    It depends. Ip hosts can give away some info. Some static ips can give even more, especially if in a business package. Then that combined with getting the user to inadvertently give extra info via fake websites or other means etc and you can find the person. Alternatively there is the illegal way.


  • #1690
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    It's pretty hit and miss, and depends entirely on how someone's internet is set up, and how the ISP's infrastructure is set up.

    You'll likely be able to figure out the ISP someone's on in most cases, and possibly the general area which the PC used was located.

    This is all assuming the troll is dumb and didn't use a proxy.


  • #1691
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Yeah but legally track it to a particular address in a built up area of Dublin? I'm still sceptical but very curious to know how it's done...I'll send a thank you card to anyone able to tell me. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #1692
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Well, they haven't gone into technical details in the article. It's not clear to me that they simply pinpointed the address from the IP. Likely what they did was got a general location and deduced that his friend lived near there, asked his friend what his IP address was, and it matched.


  • #1693
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    It transpired that the abuse had emanated from three separate IP addresses in different corners of Ireland. Two of them were public wifi locations but the third….
    The third location was the interesting one.
    The third location was a friends house.

    So you're getting abuse and your IT genius mate legally works out the IP is from a built up area of dublin in the general vacinity of your mate, so you deduce it's probably coming from there and ask them for their IP to confirm? That still sounds a bit far fetched to me... The bloggers refusal to be interviewed or answer questions on the matter since is also a bit odd...it's all a bit convenient really *grabs tin-foil and starts fashioning a nice hat*

    Of course, even if it were a lucky guess to check the IP, and the friends weren't so insulted/weirded out they were willing share that info, surely that system would be of no use to anyone who doesn't have the luxury of double checking what IP addresses people are using in order to cross reference?


  • #1694
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Ask this guy since he managed to do it.

    The are no straight forward ways of finding the information if a friend doesn't work for the ISP. Usually you have to outsmart the person you are trying to find but you can also find out more information about them by using whatever info you have. e.g. if you find the person uses the username elsewhere on another forum etc then you can find out more about them through that means.


  • #1695
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There's already an example of the skeptic and atheist community doing exactly what robin suggests.
    http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/David_Mabus


  • #1696
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    UDP wrote: »
    Ask this guy since he managed to do it.

    I read the story at the time - an "elaborate sting-operation" as it was dubbed which involves living locally so whomever is investigating can lie in wait in person until said troll publicly uses a public computer doesn't seem like a very easy or efficient way of catching internet trolls...never mind if they don't happen to be a politician or only on the computer with permission from mummy and daddy...tho I guess knowing their name/address would allow you to troll their life.
    UDP wrote: »
    The are no straight forward ways of finding the information if a friend doesn't work for the ISP.

    That's what I thought too but I did specifically say legal...
    UDP wrote: »
    Usually you have to outsmart the person you are trying to find but you can also find out more information about them by using whatever info you have. e.g. if you find the person uses the username elsewhere on another forum etc then you can find out more about them through that means.

    Of course - but surely it still relies on being able to accurately pin-point the IP the troll uses which isn't going to be simple in a built up residential area, have people willing to give you access to the computer in question as well as relying on the troll having absolutely zero cop-on/tech abilities in order to cover their tracks?


  • #1697
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    There's already an example of the skeptic and atheist community doing exactly what robin suggests.
    http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/David_Mabus

    It was hardly a tough detective job...

    From HERE
    The fifth email he sent me, on May 27, 2009, had his real name in his return address, next to the throwaway email account

    What was tough was getting the authorities to act on it...which given how prolific he was, is not encouraging.


  • #1698
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Yeah, most of the time when tracking down someone trolling, it's less about 1337 computer geniuses, and more about slip ups/lack of awareness of easily available identifying information by the troll/educated guesses based on correlation analysis.


  • #1699
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    It was hardly a tough detective job...

    From HERE

    What was tough was getting the authorities to act on it...which given how prolific he was, is not encouraging.
    And the people who are continually sending all these abusive emails have never left clues about who they were?

    The fact that Mabus was outed showed it could be done.
    And given that some of the abusive emails apparently contain far far more direct threats than anything Mabus ever posted the authorities are more likely to take them seriously.


  • #1700
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    And the people who are continually sending all these abusive emails have never left clues about who they were?

    The fact that Mabus was outed showed it could be done.
    And given that some of the abusive emails apparently contain far far more direct threats than anything Mabus ever posted the authorities are more likely to take them seriously.

    Just out of interest, what would you consider to be more direct than threatening to "execute" someone or harm their family? :confused:

    He wasn't outed - he both gave his name away and turned up in person to an atheist conference...and he trolled prolificly - up to 700 posts a day - since the mid 90's. Even then it took 3000 people signing a petition to get police to investigate...

    While nobody would love to see more trolls being outed and/or geting legal proceedings brought against them than me, I can also see why many more trolls exist than those willing to spend their afternoon on stake-out running covert sting operations or compiling thousands of names over and over again to insist the local constabulary inverstigate every incident of trolling...


  • #1701
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Just out of interest, what would you consider to be more direct than threatening to "execute" someone or harm their family? :confused:
    Directly threatening a person with rape and murder rather than just atheists in general.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    He wasn't outed - he both gave his name away and turned up in person to an atheist conference...and he trolled prolificly - up to 700 posts a day - since the mid 90's. Even then it took 3000 people signing a petition to get police to investigate...

    While nobody would love to see more trolls being outed and/or geting legal proceedings brought against them than me, I can also see why many more trolls exist than those willing to spend their afternoon on stake-out running covert sting operations or compiling thousands of names over and over again to insist the local constabulary inverstigate every incident of trolling...
    Why shouldn't they investigate every incident of trolling?
    Is it that the vast vast majority of these emails are from assholes looking for a reaction rather than people who are an actual threat, thus aren't actually worth perusing, or giving attention to?


  • Advertisement
  • #1702
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Directly threatening a person with rape and murder rather than just atheists in general.

    He made tweets to actual people, threatening THEM...he didn't have his own blog where he made general threats at atheists...that's directly threatening someone is it not? :confused:
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why shouldn't they investigate every incident of trolling?
    Is it that the vast vast majority of these emails are from assholes looking for a reaction rather than people who are an actual threat, thus aren't actually worth perusing, or giving attention to?

    Indeed why shouldn't they - preaching to the converted there...I suspect that were we comparing like with like and it was known who was sending the e-mails/tweets/blog responses, that they were sending hundreds a day to many people over many, many years that they too would have some form of action taken against them. It's a bit daft to take one of the biggest extremes of internet trolldom ever witnessed and then pretend to be flumoxed why every single troll post is not treated in the same manner by both those on the receiving end and by the relevant authorities...


  • #1703
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    They can get a home address from an IP? Legally? How?
    A lot of it can come down to what's referred to as social engineering -- the subtle, or unsubtle, manipulation of careless individuals to get them to reveal personally-unique information for whatever ends one wishes. It's an ethically gray area jointly occupied by black-hat and white-hat researchers. For somebody with access to full web logs which include a range of user-specific data blocks, the process can be relatively straightforward and may not even require social engineering.

    Here's an ethically simple example of reverse engineering a street address from a random photo:

    http://searchresearch1.blogspot.ie/2012/02/wednesday-search-challenge-feb-1-2011.html


  • #1704
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    He made tweets to actual people, threatening THEM...he didn't have his own blog where he made general threats at atheists...that's directly threatening someone is it not? :confused:
    The worst I've seen him say directly to an individual was along the lines of "times up" etc.
    Some of the stuff being reported is along the lines of "I am going to rape and kill you."
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    It's a bit daft to take one of the biggest extremes of internet trolldom ever witnessed and then pretend to be flumoxed why every single troll post is not treated in the same manner by both those on the receiving end and by the relevant authorities...
    No, I'm comparing what happens when a troll is an actual danger with trolls just looking to provoke a reaction.
    So if the threats being received on a regular basis were an actual concern they would be treated like Mabus.
    But they are not on any level. So even the people declaring that they are something to worry about or endemic to the skeptic/atheist community don't take them seriously.


  • #1705
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    robindch wrote: »
    A lot of it can come down to what's referred to as social engineering -- the subtle, or unsubtle, manipulation of careless individuals to get them to reveal personally-unique information for whatever ends one wishes. It's an ethically gray area jointly occupied by black-hat and white-hat researchers. For somebody with access to full web logs which include a range of user-specific data blocks, the process can be relatively straightforward and may not even require social engineering.

    Here's an ethically simple example of reverse engineering a street address from a random photo:

    http://searchresearch1.blogspot.ie/2012/02/wednesday-search-challenge-feb-1-2011.html

    So it's less about being able to get someone's IP when they don't want to reveal it and more about getting them/tricking them into stupidly revealing who they are - which is going to net dumb trolls and not much else, I would think.

    Would web logs reveal a specific address even if the poster in question did not want to be caught and made an effort to hide their identity?


  • #1706
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Nope, hiding your identity on the internet requires care and thought, but is pretty easy to anyone with technical knowledge who does a little research.


  • #1707
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    The worst I've seen him say directly to an individual was along the lines of "times up" etc.
    Some of the stuff being reported is along the lines of "I am going to rape and kill you."

    You didn't read the link I provided then?

    King Mob wrote: »
    No, I'm comparing what happens when a troll is an actual danger with trolls just looking to provoke a reaction.

    So what's your criterion? How do you judge which is which? Presumably trolling certain people is automatically non-threatening, bit of a laugh, shouldn't be taken seriously, what are they making all the fuss about...where as the rest is serious...?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So if the threats being received on a regular basis were an actual concern they would be treated like Mabus.
    But they are not on any level. So even the people declaring that they are something to worry about or endemic to the skeptic/atheist community don't take them seriously.

    I think you're grasping and assuming an awful lot there. Getting police to investigate trolling and bullying online is a relatively new phenomenon. Surely common sense would dictate there is much more likelihood of police being pressurised to investigate someone when the troll has identified themselves, has taken to physically approaching those they have trolled, have been trolling for over 10 years and their threatening posts number into the millions. That doesn't mean that in order to hurt people, cause damage to a movement, be deemed threatening or dangerous that you must have been THAT active for THAT long and it's just harmless ole fun or attention seeking.


  • #1708
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You didn't read the link I provided then?
    Yes, but he did not threaten to kill and rape him. And that's one example.
    Some of the reported abuse are repeated threats of violence and gang rape.
    So yea, it's still worse.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    So what's your criterion? How do you judge which is which?
    Turning up at conferences to stalk people is a good indicator.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Presumably trolling certain people is automatically non-threatening, bit of a laugh, shouldn't be taken seriously, what are they making all the fuss about...where as the rest is serious...?
    Ok, do you really think that I think that it's ever ok to threaten people on the internet even to provoke a reaction? Do you really think that I think it's ok to do to certain people?
    I don't think you do, yet you ask this question as if you do. This sort of rhetoric is unhelpful and divisive.

    It's non-threatening as trolls posting threatening, disgusting stuff is not unique to female bloggers. It happens all the time and people realise it for what it is: hot air to provoke a reaction.
    It is not comparable to incidents where the troll might actually be dangerous like with Mabus, nor is it comparable to incidents of physical harassment or stalking.
    Yet the people who are publicly doing so are not treating it as if it was as serious as they claim. This indicates that they are exaggerating and conflating the issue for whatever reason.
    That's the point people are trying to make.


  • #1709
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    So it's less about being able to get someone's IP when they don't want to reveal it and more about getting them/tricking them into stupidly revealing who they are - which is going to net dumb trolls and not much else, I would think.
    As yawha points out above, while there are fairly reliable means of securing one's online identity most, if not all, of the time, it does require a degree of skill and attention which is sufficiently high that, imho, it's probably beyond the abilities of the majority of regular computer users and, especially, users who are stupid enough to engage in online abuse in the first place.

    Watson's direct and implied claims that the online abuse directed against her and others is massive and pervasive may well be true, but without any supporting evidence, it's impossible to verify them. As somebody working in software security, I believe that a crowd-sourcing effort could be undertaken with little trouble which would have a high chance of identifying the majority of perps and consequently -- assuming the honesty of all complicit parties -- I'm having a desperately hard time understanding quite why Watson doesn't appear to want to.


  • #1710
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, but he did not threaten to kill and rape him. And that's one example.
    Some of the reported abuse are repeated threats of violence and gang rape.
    So yea, it's still worse.

    So threatening to execute someone isn't as serious as threatening to kill and rape someone or threatening them with gang rape? Do I have that right? :confused:
    King Mob wrote: »
    Turning up at conferences to stalk people is a good indicator.

    So it's only when they start approaching people in real life that it moves from hot air to dangerous? Righty-ho...

    It always strikes me as more of a first rung in the ladder of wierdo/worrysome/jayzus this guy has serious "issues" type behaviours...the internet equivalent to killing small animals.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, do you really think that I think that it's ever ok to threaten people on the internet even to provoke a reaction? Do you really think that I think it's ok to do to certain people?
    I don't think you do, yet you ask this question as if you do. This sort of rhetoric is unhelpful and divisive.

    Sorry what? You've just declared threatening to execute someone isn't as bad as threatening to kill and rape someone but neither should be taken seriously because it was done online and I'm indulging in unhelpful rehtoric? Are you serious?
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's non-threatening as trolls posting threatening, disgusting stuff is not unique to female bloggers.

    Wha? It's only threatening and disgusting if done to one gender? You're loosing me.
    King Mob wrote: »
    It happens all the time and people realise it for what it is: hot air to provoke a reaction.
    It is not comparable to incidents where the troll might actually be dangerous like with Mabus, nor is it comparable to incidents of physical harassment or stalking.

    So you are defending it - but you don't think it's okay? :confused:

    Again, internet trolling is a relatively new phenomenon. If someone shouts at me in the street and threatens to rape and kill me then it's a criminal offence, if they send me a letter threatening to kill and rape me then equally, it's a criminal offence - are you suggesting that if they do the same on-line it should be viewed in a different manner to all other mediums? Can I ask why?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yet the people who are publicly doing so are not treating it as if it was as serious as they claim. This indicates that they are exaggerating and conflating the issue for whatever reason.
    That's the point people are trying to make.

    Sorry, who's not taking what seriously? It seems to me that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they say nothing it's not serious and they're making it all up if they had said something you've just declared online threats are harmless hot-air and no doubt they'd be over-reacting...


  • Advertisement
  • #1711
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    So threatening to execute someone isn't as serious as threatening to kill and rape someone or threatening them with gang rape? Do I have that right? :confused:
    No, they are both serious. But one is worse than the other.
    If the content of the threats were the important factor, then the threats recieved by Watson et al would more concerning to the authorities as the threats made by Mabus.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    So it's only when they start approaching people in real life that it moves from hot air to dangerous? Righty-ho...

    It always strikes me as more of a first rung in the ladder of wierdo/worrysome/jayzus this guy has serious "issues" type behaviours...the internet equivalent to killing small animals.
    But not every single person who makes threats like these as a troll is going to go through with them, or even graduate to stuff like physical stalking (or online stalking etc).
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Sorry what? You've just declared threatening to execute someone isn't as bad as threatening to kill and rape someone but neither should be taken seriously because it was done online and I'm indulging in unhelpful rehtoric? Are you serious?
    You are accusing me of saying that it's ok to threaten some people.
    Please explain what I said that would possibly indicate I believe this?
    I don't think you do believe that I do and it was just a rhetoric point. One that is not helpful.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Wha? It's only threatening and disgusting if done to one gender? You're loosing me.
    Because I think you are trying to pigeonhole me and attribute to me thinks I did not say or believe.

    Trolls send threats, racist and sexist bile and other disgusting things to bloggers of all races and genders. It's all equally vile.
    And to be super clear, none of it is excusable.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    So you are defending it - but you don't think it's okay? :confused:
    How am I defending it?
    By saying it is not the same as stalking and physical abuse?
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Again, internet trolling is a relatively new phenomenon. If someone shouts at me in the street and threatens to rape and kill me then it's a criminal offence, if they send me a letter threatening to kill and rape me then equally, it's a criminal offence - are you suggesting that if they do the same on-line it should be viewed in a different manner to all other mediums? Can I ask why?
    It can be viewed differently as people on the internet will say things purely to provoke a reaction, but have no intention, inclination or ability to back those threats up. But there are people who might.
    One group is worth tackling more than the other. And while sending threats in either case is bad, one is more serious than the other.
    Some people are claiming that they are as serious as the other, yet still not taking one of them seriously at all.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Sorry, who's not taking what seriously?
    Why are the trolls not being actively pursued and reported in the same way that Mabus was?
    The ability to tackle at least some of the most prolific of the trolls is clearly there, yet it is not happening as if people realise the difference between people who are a threat and people who are trying to provoke a reaction.


Advertisement