Senator Ned O'Sullivan wants online commentators registered.

DeVore · 24-09-2014 08:17PM

Because people are dicks offline. They just hide it better there.

DeVore · 24-09-2014 08:18PM

ps: that's why our first and primary rule here is, "don't be a dick."

FloatingVoter · 24-09-2014 08:19PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

But your bound to run into VPN or burner problems, if you have enough knowledge you could daisy chain your way out of the IP, but I agree, a digital fingerpoint is easily traced back.

Why do people have to be d*cks online?

Generally because they're quiet as mice offline. NinjaKeyboardSASMan is normally Eoin who would like to be an accountant but he didn't get the marks for it.
ReasonableDoris is often away from the keyboard due to work matters in Syria.

The_Valeyard · 24-09-2014 08:20PM

DeVore wrote: »

ps: that's why our first and primary rule here is, "don't be a dick."

Think thats why I usually avoid getting into a heated debate on boards, can very easily descend into a pissing contest over certain issues. You can get, otherwise nice, decent, knowledgeable, outgoing people turning into complete and utter b*stards.

Odyssey 2005 · 24-09-2014 08:23PM

I haven't seen a man to empty a room like that in years. Fookin troglodyte.( he will prob be after me for that now):eek:

Lyaiera · 24-09-2014 08:29PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Its interesting nobody has addressed the point of clip instead it all about FF and or Ned o Sullivan.

Yes I do think on line commentaters should have to provide some sort of identification which does not have to be made public. It would stop the worst of the vitriol and keep out the underlying nastiness.

What about victims of abuse, trans people yet to transition, gay people yet to come out, victims of stalking and harrasment, alcoholics or addicts looking for support, people from politically oppressive countries working or studying here? Who would secure this list of people? Who would have access to it?

Kermit.de.frog · 24-09-2014 08:33PM

In fairness whilst the senator's argument is clearly ludicrous in the round he does have a point about individuals who leave deeply offensive and distressing comments, say, over one's appearance or whatever. Most wouldn't do that in real life so why have free reign online?

I don't think people should be let away with blatant libelous stuff either.

Dravokivich · 24-09-2014 08:53PM

People should be free to make eejits of themselves. Im more than happy to leave'em to it, I dont feel like I'll ever need to know who they are though.

mikom · 24-09-2014 08:54PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Who would secure this list of people?

Irish water.

Dravokivich · 24-09-2014 08:56PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In fairness whilst the senator's argument is clearly ludicrous in the round he does have a point about individuals who leave deeply offensive and distressing comments, say, over one's appearance or whatever. Most wouldn't do that in real life so why have free reign online?

I don't think people should be let away with blatant libelous stuff either.

A lot of people make such comments about others off the internet. The only difference is its not there for all to read again and again. If you have an issue with what someone said or wrote it makes bugger all difference where it was done. If someone is going to feel victimised by it, itll make no difference if it was a comment on a photo or whispers barely in earshot.

conorh91 · 24-09-2014 08:58PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

People should be free to make eejits of themselves. Im more than happy to leave'em to it, I dont feel like I'll ever need to know who they are though.

Nobody's trying to save them from themselves. The problem arises when they baselessly attack or injure others' reputations, characters or appearance.

Nobody ever discovered the identity of that daithii4u idiot on youtube who wrongly identified a young man who ran from a taxi without paying. The wrongful identity was subsequently repeated across other sites, leading the victim to incur very great personal costs.

If you google the victim's name, as his future employers will, all the results relate to the case in question, and even ongoing claims that the victim was guilty despite his court action, even though there is evidence that the victim could not possibly be guilty.

S.8 of the Data protection act was no good to the victim in that case. it's not as easy as people claim.

ScumLord · 24-09-2014 09:13PM

Every time a politician stands up to make a speech about the internet it reminds me of that ad where yerman stands up on the bus and says "I don't know what a tracker mortgage is".

Today we have a guy who doesn't understand the difference between bloggers and commentators.

They should tell him IP means Internet Person and the numbers that follow are the persons GPS coordinates, at least that would keep them occupied for a few days while they go on a witch hunt.

Reiver · 24-09-2014 09:14PM

ScumLord wrote: »

They should tell him IP means Internet Person and the numbers that follow are the persons GPS coordinates, at least that would keep them occupied for a few days while they go on a witch hunt.

This.

It'd be a comedic version of the Running Man. Dya reckon RTE would bankroll it to try and get some deascent shows for once? Or TV3 just nick the idea?

PopePalpatine · 24-09-2014 09:44PM

twinytwo wrote: »

The problem is certain people think that because its the internet they can say whatever they want, without any form of repercussion.

This should not be the case, newspapers get sued if they dont have proof to back up their articles/ comments.

This would be the same for random internet posters, the same goes for racial abuse, online bullying etc.

If you wouldn't say it to the persons face you shouldn't be allowed to post it on the internet just because you can hide behind a username

By any chance, is twinytwo your real name?

Dan Jaman · 25-09-2014 01:12AM

DeVore wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMUfKgM1-cA

Well.... He wants a debate and he wants to have it with "online anonymous bloggers"....

We'll I'm happy to step up to that debate. I'm happy with any location and time he chooses.

I'd like to ask for help pushing this into social media (or in fact any media!) to make this happen

Just wondering - was there a round of the National Gurning Competition being held behind him?

Iwasfrozen · 25-09-2014 01:16AM

Good idea, I've long said the concept of online anonymity has gone too far. The internet needs more regulation and this would be a good start.

Davarus Walrus · 25-09-2014 01:28AM

Ned is right. But for the wrong reasons. While I'm far from a libertarian; the overarching principles of the internet were created through freedom, sharing, and the distribution of knowledge. Every Government in the world has rushed to legislate for it. Even the Cubans and the North Koreans are starting to get access. But for the wrong reasons. A true Internet is a pretty anarchic principal. It cannot involve a Government interfering. It is what it is.

porsche959 · 25-09-2014 01:37AM

I will debate Senator Ned O'Sullivan once it is agreed I can wear one of these masks throughout.

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00770/TH31-OPED-MASK_770303f.jpg

shruikan2553 · 25-09-2014 01:40AM

We should have some sort of number that's tied to where you are or who you are. Something that let's your ISP inform the gardai of your name and address if they request it. We could call it Internet Pin-number.

I'm probably not the best person to ask about this sort of thing as I have actually studied this in college. Maybe ask Mary down the road, she has a grandson who is always showing her videos on the google facetube.

FloatingVoter · 25-09-2014 01:41AM

porsche959 wrote: »

I will debate Senator Ned O'Sullivan once it is agreed I can wear one of these masks throughout.

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00770/TH31-OPED-MASK_770303f.jpg

I'll debate him providing I can be balls naked and smoking crack. Its the way I roll.

porsche959 · 25-09-2014 01:46AM

twinytwo wrote: »

The problem is certain people think that because its the internet they can say whatever they want, without any form of repercussion.

This should not be the case, newspapers get sued if they dont have proof to back up their articles/ comments.

This would be the same for random internet posters, the same goes for racial abuse, online bullying etc.

If you wouldn't say it to the persons face you shouldn't be allowed to post it on the internet just because you can hide behind a username

So - just to see if you're consistent - would you also advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to say, for example, in pubs or in private homes anything about politicians, celebrities or other public figures unless they would be prepared to say same in person to said politician or celebrity's face?

Are you honestly going to tell us you have never uttered, in fustration after reading about some scandal or allegation of bad behaviour involving, say, a politician, or football player, or other public figure "what a tosser, I'd love to box him"? If you admit you have, how likely is it, in practice, that you would carry out the threat? And if you haven't ever made such an utterance, well, then you must have the patience of the proverbial Job.

You starting to see the implications of the slippery slope you are advocating?

FloatingVoter · 25-09-2014 03:27AM

I've slammed the door in the faces of shinners. My actual thoughts and murderous intent towards them is visible in my previous posts. Tick off UVF / extremist "muslims" and neo-nazis - we'll have a full house (the shinners always come twinset)
Of course our online persona is an exaggerated version of ourselves.
So is the real world persona.
We rarely tell the truth even to ourselves.

As for hiding behind a name - anybody with half a brain could find the street I live on inside ten minutes of those previous posts. The only thing missing is a number.

And for the use of "names", may I present to the world the following

Flann O' Brian
George Orwell
Jack Higgins
John Le Carre
Boz
William Shakespeare (NOT the conspiracy but half the lesser plays were co-op jobs)
Joe Stalin.... **** you Djugashvilli.

VinLieger · 25-09-2014 08:52AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good idea, I've long said the concept of online anonymity has gone too far. The internet needs more regulation and this would be a good start.

Online anonymity is a myth if someone really wants to find out who you are it can be done very easily.

P_1 · 25-09-2014 09:00AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good idea, I've long said the concept of online anonymity has gone too far. The internet needs more regulation and this would be a good start.

There is no anonymity online. If you break the law online then you can be tracked down no matter what your nom de plume is..

25-09-2014 09:07AM

porsche959 wrote: »

So - just to see if you're consistent - would you also advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to say, for example, in pubs or in private homes anything about politicians, celebrities or other public figures unless they would be prepared to say same in person to said politician or celebrity's face?

Are you honestly going to tell us you have never uttered, in fustration after reading about some scandal or allegation of bad behaviour involving, say, a politician, or football player, or other public figure "what a tosser, I'd love to box him"? If you admit you have, how likely is it, in practice, that you would carry out the threat? And if you haven't ever made such an utterance, well, then you must have the patience of the proverbial Job.

You starting to see the implications of the slippery slope you are advocating?

Saying it in the pub or in at home is different it has a limited audience, of course everyone get annoyed or even enraged with politicians at times, however some of the vicious and down right nasty stuff said on line is different plus it has a much wider audience than you local pub.

I acutely think online commenting can have a positive effect as well for example ill-informed nonsense in the pub is unlikely to be challenged but it will be challenged on line ...so on line commenting is often a good thing as well.

VinLieger · 25-09-2014 09:36AM

The main problem here is requiring everyone who wants to have their voice heard register could be a very slippery slope.

Look at Russia for instance there is a recent law requiring anyone with a blog that has over 3000 daily readers has to register with the government and then also conform to the normal media regulations which in Russia means towing the party line or disappearing one night.

This could lead very easily to censorship and putting down dissenting opinions by not allowing them to be heard.

And before people say "oh of course that wouldnt happen" yes you may be right that that might not happen tomorrow if this law was introduced but what about in 10 years or 20 or even 50 years time can you honestly say this law will never be used to stifle dissenting opinions?

Laws need to be carefully considered with legacy problems in mind which is a huge problem with this country we never consider the future implications of things.

PopePalpatine · 25-09-2014 09:55AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good idea, I've long said the concept of online anonymity has gone too far. The internet needs more regulation and this would be a good start.

Says the guy who isn't posting under his own name. :rolleyes:

conorh91 · 25-09-2014 11:28AM

porsche959 wrote: »

So - just to see if you're consistent - would you also advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to say, for example, in pubs or in private homes anything about politicians, celebrities or other public figures unless they would be prepared to say same in person to said politician or celebrity's face?

Uttering lies or personal attacks in frustration down the pub is arguably less serious because (i) it doesn't reach the same audience as online commentary (ii) it is transitory and not permanently published (iii) oral speech is less calculated than written speech; words of passion can be more easily uttered in the heat of the moment, whereas written material is calculated. And that distinction is usually appreciated by listeners, who will attach credibility accordingly.

Having said all that, people are sued for for things they say in pubs.

But with online material, it is very difficult for the person on the receiving end of the attack to identify the attacker by their real name. This gives "masked" keyboard warriors a sense of bravado to say things that they would never say with their real face on.

P_1 wrote: »

There is no anonymity online. If you break the law online then you can be tracked down no matter what your nom de plume is..

Yes, at great expense.

Despite what DeVore has said here, the costs involved are enormous. In a recent High court case, the legal costs in obtaining a series of orders to identify people came to about €700,000. The judge in the case expressed his own frustration that it is not a remedy that is open to ordinary people who have been wronged.

DeVore · 25-09-2014 11:46AM

Getting a Section 8 does NOT cost 700,000 Euros... Its is not without cost but if something is serious enough that you want to have us collect all the data for you then you should be willing to do some work yourself first. But that number is a few 0's off unless your lawyers were on crack.

Francie Barrett · 25-09-2014 11:49AM

recylingbin wrote: »

We had our chance to get rid of these cnuts, didn't take it.

We took the chance. We turfed out Fianna Fail and elected Enda Kenny. When you look at where we are now compared to where we were, you just have to give that man credit.

Senator Ned O'Sullivan wants online commentators registered.

Comments