UK Man Jailed For Being a Jerk On the Internet 898
Xest writes "A man in the UK has been jailed for 18 weeks for 'trolling,' and has also been given an order banning him from using social networking sites for five years. 25-year-old Sean Duffy mocked a dead teenager who had jumped in front a train by posting offensive remarks on a page dedicated to her memory, and creating a YouTube parody of Thomas the Tank with the deceased girl's face in place of Thomas. Is it about time trolling to this extent saw this kind of punishment, or is this punishment simply too harsh for someone who perhaps didn't realize how seriously his actions would be taken by the authorities?"
Coverage from the Guardian explains that Duffy pleaded guilty to "two counts of sending malicious communications," and added that he must tell police about any phones he buys that can provide internet access.
Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
You will always be found, it's always possibly to trace back to the individual, everything leads a trail, data can always be captured; so we will inevitably get to the bottom of who they are, what they've done, on a site or on a system and be able to prove that in a court of law.
Even if they can prove a particular machine was used to commit the offence, how will they prove who used it? That isn't even taking into account things such as TOR. I'd go as far as to say he is downright lying.
Why would they do that?
Solving this problem (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a problem best solved with a severe (but non-fatal and non-permanently injurious) beating by one of the family members of the victim. That punishment is both less harsh and likely much more effective than having your activity on the Internet be severely restricted and monitored for years on end.
I've encountered people willing to do this kind of thing before. They seem to think that everything that happens on the Internet is just a harmless game and that anybody who's feelings are hurt is just being overly sensitive and deserves the pain caused. Some in-person exposure to the raw emotions this kind of nastiness creates is probably the surest antidote.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.
Re:Solving this problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If anyone disagrees with what you say, they should be beaten until they understand! That'll prove that you're not being overly sensitive!
Re:trolling vs free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm highly offended by your comment. You need to be put in jail!
It'd be the same if he'd sprayed grafitti on a gravestone.
Except that he didn't actually vandalize anyone's property...
Re:trolling vs free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
being offensive and posting 'hate-speech' needs to be punished
Really? Offensive to whom? Who decides what is 'hate-speech'? You should have a right to hate someone, and have the right to proclaim your hatred.
Just ignore it if you don't like it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always surprised that in these discussion someone always turns up to find excuses for twits like Sean Duffy.
What he did was harassment, and that's a crime everywhere. That it's happening via the Internet is irrelevant here.
And as for intent: if you go as far as he did, to deny that there was intent to harass becomes just plain silly.
Mart
Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.
If the guy would have punched the dead child's father, we would all be happy with throwing him to jail... for a good reason. We, as a society, have decided something along these lines: "If you cause other people harm and pain for no other reason than your personal amusement, you should be punished". We've then coded that principle to a more formal set of laws as well as we can. If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently? Just because it's "on the internet" doesn't mean that the same principles and laws shouldn't apply.
I know that in USA there is a concept of "Free speech!" and some people are willing to chant about that like a mantra. In most of Europe, we don't think that everything that comes out of your mouth is sacred. For example, the constitution of my country doesn't contain anything about "Free speech" but instead states that people have the "freedom of opinion, expression and assembly". That is because we think that we want to punish pricks like in this story but we still want to prevent government from squashing unwanted political movements, etc... So, our constitution protects civil rights in a way that doesn't much apply to cases like this. Sure, you can use the slippery slope fallacy, but history shows that it hasn't realized here any more than it has in the USA (despite the "free speech" law).
It's even more complex than that. In USA, there is some sort of a mentality of "Government vs. the People". Even your constitution is designed to limit the government's authority. In Europe, government is seen as a tool of the people. For example, our constitution doesn't say that government can't prevent us from expressing our opinions... it says that government must protect our right to express our opinions if other people try to prevent us from doing so. So I can see why many americans might be saying "Ah! This is a private affair! Government isn't required to interfere in stuff like this so it shouldn't" while mindset of the population (though not necessarily the SlashDot population) on this side of the pond is "This is just the kind of stuff that we designed our government for". So it's a different philosophy between different cultures.
Ah... Why do I even try. We all know that roughly 25% of the comments will be nothing more than "But fascists are squashing FREE SPEECH here!"...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
That really comes down to whether or not prison is an adequate deterrent for a wide variety of crimes. I'm finding it hard to muster up any sympathy for this genius though, I mean if he was calling them up on the phone with caller ID blocked, making nasty comments about the dead kid, nobody would have any doubts about whether or not he should be imprisoned. He comes across as a vicious, sadistic coward. Just because it's the internet doesn't make it different.
Re:Can't wait for the "NOOOO! Censorship!" crowd.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.
Just because the speech was illegal or "offensive" in some peoples' opinions, that does not mean it isn't censorship to censor and/or punish him for saying it.
We, as a society
Certainly not me. Perhaps most people.
If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently?
In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them. You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see.
That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
To those that ask whether in UK law the same behaviour would have had the same reaction were a computer not involved, the likelihood is "yes". There was a recent case in which a very stupid woman decided that shouting "bang! bang!" to a policeman who had been blinded in a high-profile shoot-out was amusing http://www.capitalfm.com/northeast/on-air/news-travel/local-news/sunderland-woman-faces-jail-shouting-abuse-moat-vi/ [capitalfm.com]. She was extremely lucky not to get a substantial jail sentence, but there was no suggestion that it was part of a long-term or deliberate scheme (she hadn't, for example, travelled to find him with the intent of shouting "bang!"). In this case, it clearly was not the spur of the moment or impulse: you can't make a custom video for the purpose of being obnoxious in a moment of madness. And the chances are the Duffy would have been too much of a coward to do it face to face anyway: it was precisely because he thought he was untouchable that he did it.
The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks. People had front gardens without barbed wire fences, but don't expect people to shit on the middle of the lawn. In fact, one reason why a heavy cluestick needs to be wielded at tossers like Duffy is precisely that they are willing to behave with a computer in a way they (probably) wouldn't in real life, and the idea that somehow things done online aren't real --- which was part of his "oh, it's my Asberger's" plea in mitigation --- needs to be stamped on.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a lot easier than you think. Every once in a while, a multinational task force will take down a child porn, warez, or credit card fraud group that is renowned for their paranoia and skill, just to remind people that they can do it. In many cases, encryption and tunneling don't actually increase the difficulty of the investigation but end up merely creating more paperwork, as the necessary court orders are acquired. You're a fool if you think that the VPN, anonymous proxy, or TOR node won't turn over their log files when the government comes knocking, with a warrant. What if they don't keep any logs? Yeah, that's a possibility, which does make everything quite a bit more difficult, but that's outright illegal in some jurisdictions, and even in libertarian utopias, the authorities take a very dim view of that. If I were the government, I'd even set up a few honeypots like that (which is probably how they catch some of the more paranoid types). Even if you know that you can trust the founder, can you trust every single employee who has physical access to the hardware? It's 2011 -- I wouldn't be surprised if the government had some moles in such places, though maybe I'm the one who's on the paranoid side now.
No matter how secure or anonymous you think you are, it's only a matter of time before you're hacked or tracked. I think history has proven this. The best you can do is make use of best practices and hope that your opponents are incompetent. In most cases, people are incompetent, on both sides of the law.
And... please. While an IP address doesn't resolve to a person, it's pretty damning evidence that your hardware was used for the crime. I know about the cases where someone hacks into a wireless AP and leeches child porn, but the people who are hacked generally are not leet haxors with the skill to engage in online crime. Running a completely open AP (or TOR exit node), in order to give yourself plausible deniability, is not generally accepted as a defense in court. Jurors don't respond well to arrogant, obvious plans like that, even if you truly are a saint who runs a free and open wireless AP (hint: don't do that, unless you're a fine, upstanding corporation who contributes to the community).
I'm not saying whether the government should have the power to track people so easily, but, in most cases, they do. It's not like the government has no clue about TOR, anonymous proxies, VPNs, etc. This isn't 1990, when the cops didn't have a single computer in their station, and there was one person at the FBI who had an AOL account. Really, they know about this stuff, and it's a part of their investigation. Thinking that you're the one mastermind criminal who's never going to be caught, despite his daring string of crimes, is a bit of a cliche...
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:1, Insightful)
Honestly, it isn't "sociopathic nonsense". What it is, is the notion of free speech combined with the notion that being an asshole shouldn't be illegal.
As to the "they are willing to behave with a computer in a way they (probably) wouldn't in real life" thing. Well, the same could be said for people be assholes to telemarketers or anything said over the phone. Or how about by fax. Or how about if a little guy has the protection of a group IRL and spouts horrible stuff because he know he'll not suffer any repercussions.
I mean seriously, how far do you want this slope to slip?
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
> The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks.
No, it's the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from borderline or actual sociopaths, or those people who lack the maturity and social awareness to think through the drivel that issues from any available orifice.
Before issuing said drivel...
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
She was extremely lucky not to get a substantial jail sentence
It may just be me, but jailing someone for shouting "bang! bang!" would be more offensive than the acting of shouting it at a blinded policeman.
Similarly, in this case, 18 weeks in prison (or even 9, with good behaviour) for "posting messages on Facebook and Youtube"? He could have assaulted the parents and got less. He could have burgled their homes during the funeral and got less. 18 weeks for merely upsetting someone is excessive, particularly for a first conviction.
Shit, I must be due a few decades, I piss people off online all the time. Freedom of expression has to include the freedom to offend people, or it's no freedom at all.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:trolling vs free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation "I blame the victim".
Bad analogy (pedestrians don't always have the right of way). Better analogy: It doesn't matter whether your door is locked or unlocked, it's still wrong for someone to enter and spray graffiti on the walls.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The argument that people who leave open tribute pages should expect to be trolled is the sort of sociopathic nonsense we can expect from geeks."
I'm the person (or one of at least) who submitted the story and posed the question as to whether it is right or wrong. Whilst I agree it's disgusting what he did the reason I pose the question is because I think there's a fair argument that trolls are an inevitable side effect of a free and open internet. I am not convinced that if we allow a clamp down on trolling that we can really continue to have an expectation of a free and open internet- I think it's a genuinely dangerous slippery slope.
So geeks saying they should expect it are probably not being as sociopathic as you suggest, but are merely making the point that it's a side effect of how the internet always has been, and hopefully, IMO, always will be.
It starts with blatantly offensive trolls like this sure, and few people care, but what if it then jumps to people not trolling per-se but having a heated argument if one complains that insults stemming from that argument are trolling? What if it jumps to fanboys slagging off or making up false accusations about some product and companies claim they're being trolled? Can we realistically expect the police to be a competent judge of what "trolling" is acceptable, and what "trolling" isn't - and in fact, what even constitutes trolling? In the BBC article their expert uses the example of someone posting on Apple forums negative comments about Apple or it's products trolling with the hope of winding people up. But how do you tell if they did so to wind people up, or if he did so because his Apple product really has failed and he's pissed off?
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Moderation online is not a feasible option in all cases. For one, the family still ends up having psychological pain inflicted on them by trolls who intended to do just that (or do you think they have money shooting out of their ears to hire a moderator?). Moderation is more common on the net than barbed wire on front lawns only because jackasses on the net are less likely to spend a week in the clink, so they keep abusing people like a pack of psychopaths (that they probably are).
There is a simple reason for fenced in back yards in the Southwest: Coyotes. It's one thing for a coyote to cross the front yard, but it's quite another for one to interrupt the kid's pool party or the backyard barbeque.
It is sociopathic nonsense to believe that an unmoderated forum deserves in any way the trolling it gets. Trolling someone's web forum is little different than going to their home and shouting obscenities from the sidewalk. At some point it transitions from a nuisance to a misdemeanor.
Re:Just ignore it if you don't like it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of expression is not absolute; for example slander and libel are forbidden. Why would someone intentionally abusing his freedoms to hurt others not be punished? Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say that a few weeks in jail will serve them an important lesson.
Yes, that in Britain sticks and stones are meaningless, words obviously have the ability to jail you. Don't you feel, deep down in your bones, that jailing people for the things they say is, to put it bluntly, PATENTLY WRONG? Are you nut jobs going to start jailing people for thoughtcrime as well? If not, why not? Where is the diving line on that? A competent defence solicitor will do a MAC address comparison, and if the thoughtcriminal here masked his MAC, or if the MAC doesn't match, simply tracing the packets to this guy's flat ISN'T beyond a reasonable doubt. Just another example of the fucked up english legal system. I have a problem with the free speech issue alone, but I poked two holes in this guy's prosecution, and I'm not even an investigator. Just think what some one in the profession would do to this prosecution.
Re:really?! (Score:2, Insightful)
You're correct that there are limits, but I want to be sure that *my* right to call this guy a class A asshole is protected. If I call him such, or set up a little "Sean Duffy is an asshole" web page, could I get in trouble? Where is the line between protected speech and criminal speech being drawn here?
That's a shame, really (Score:0, Insightful)
In my experience the UK has the highest concentration of jerks. :(
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely the purpose of law is not to give cover to psychopaths as they prey on the weak?
Oh, I don't know about that. We have many laws making audio recording of interactions with public officials illegal. Of course; those audio recordings could help to show wrongdoing by those public officials. What other reason would they want to have no evidence of their actions, which evidence could exonerate them?
Similarly, there seems to be a distressingly high rate of failure, during critical times, of the officers' dash cameras. Personally I see this as destruction of evidence, but then IA apparently doesn't. Anyway, yes, the purpose of law is to give cover to psychopaths in power.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a fool if you think that the ... TOR node won't turn over their log files when the government comes knocking, with a warrant.
What good would logs do? The whole point of TOR is that there is no way to know where a packet passing through a node is coming from because it will have passed through other unknown nodes as well.
TOR is extremely effective if used properly. The whole point is to prevent authorities from monitoring or tracing people who use it, so that in countries where free speech is dangerous there can be some protection. At best an attacker could figure out that a lot of encrypted traffic was coming from your net connection and then raid your house in the hopes of finding evidence on the computer itself, but as long as you use a live CD and ensure they can't get to it before incriminating data is wiped from RAM all they can do is lean on you. Obviously in some places that alone is enough, but in the UK we don't torture people (they are sent abroad for that).
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you feel, deep down in your bones, that jailing people for the things they say is, to put it bluntly, PATENTLY WRONG? Are you nut jobs going to start jailing people for thoughtcrime as well? If not, why not? Where is the diving line on that?
The dividing line is pretty clearly that something one says (or in this case, does) is objectively verifiable, whereas one's thoughts are not.
I poked two holes in this guy's prosecution, and I'm not even an investigator.
No you didn't. You speculated about two situations which might have occurred which might have harmed the prosecution's case. For all you know, the police came to Duffy's place to investigate and he broke down blubbering and confessed everything like the anonymous coward he is.
Just think what some one in the profession would do to this prosecution.
I don't have to imagine. I can read the fucking headline and see that the guy was jailed. The defense was clearly not very successful.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is because the US justice system was cooked up by a bunch of people who were used to the way the British PRACTICE, not the way those assholes preach.
In practice, the British system at the time was "tell us everything now. No lawyer in your defence. And when you go to trial you'll be in a cage and made to look as guilty as possible visually." They were used to being abused. So they made damn sure that the people had the RIGHT not to talk to the abusive, corrupt fucks called "police" that are still abusive corrupt fucks today.
The sad part is that in the US, people usually aren't smart enough to keep their damn traps shut, and the police have come up with all sorts of "right up to the line and we'll fudge it and lie about it if we have to" tactics to get around that darn 5th amendment anyways. See previous comment: police are a bunch of corrupt, abusive fucks.
Re:Propaganda or Bad reporting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Yes, it is, and shame on you sir for claiming otherwise. Shame on you, your parents, your teachers, and whoever else taught you such vile garbage.
Freedom of expression is a vital basic natural right. It is not something that is just permitted to "keep a society balanced", it is a fundamental requirement for fulfilled human existence.
There is no expression that a human being can made, spoken or written, that in and of itself justifies locking them in a cage. None. To be a threat requires more than an expression, it requires behavior and circumstances that render the threat credible. Slander and libel are civil issues, not criminal ones.
Offending people just for the sake of the offending is just as much freedom of speech as thrilling people just for the sake of the thrill (any action story), or titillating them just for the sake of the titillation (erotica), or amusing them just for the sake of the amusement (comedy). Speakers and writers do not need to justify their words to you or to the state.
Was this guy an asshole? Yes. What do we do with assholes? We tell them they're assholes, we don't invite them to parties, we decline to be their friends, we mod down or ban entirely their posts, we don't listen to their advice, we point at them and laugh. We shame them, and maybe they eventually get the point. But in a society with any shred of respect for human rights, we do not lock someone up for being an asshole.