Police forces need to be better equipped to deal cybercrime and online misbehaviour, a couple of web grandees have declared. Lord Richard Allan, director of European policy for Facebook, said that firms providing services online had some ways to tackle bad behaviour on their websites, but needed a hand from law enforcement. “ …
I'm no fan of the police, but...
They are there to stop/catch people doing harm to people or property, ya know, crimes. NOT to stop some eejit posting offensive messages on your glorified bulletin board.
the social media lot want tax payers to pay to help keep the trolls away?
Lets focus on the real crime. If a company has a problem with an individual they can hire the plod to investigate - and yes the met are available for hire!
> “Often when we contact law enforcement, they don’t know what to do,”
> he said. “They need more training and need to know more about how
> it works.”
How much tax out of your profits do you pay in the UK to fund such things? If the answer is sod all then, it sound as if you are getting what you pay for...
Jimmy the Fail strikes again
The reason Wikipedia has problems with trolls:
1) Anonymous users can edit the site
2) They insist on not tieing usernames to real identities
3) No limit on the number of usernames you can use
If he actually cared, there are two or three simple technological solutions that would remove the vast majority of wiki trolls, but he doesn't care.
Plus, in most cases trolling is not illegal. Where it is illegal, get the police involved, but calling the fuzz because someone keeps calling you a tool on facebook is retarded.
Not Exactly Correct
Wikipedia does have a lot of faults, for sure, but if you're interested in a solid subject then it will lead you in the right direction. As the web becomes more defined/constrained, general users need a resource that gives them the correct search terms to use; which Wikipedia often provides.
Everyone forgets that print encyclopedias weren't exactly peer reviewed before their publication. All that's changed has been the speed of "publication" of the info, any commercially viable interest has access to is still the same tripe that's been being pushed out for years.
Nothing you said has got anything to do with anonymity on Wikipedia, multiple accounts and trolling - nice refusal. Did I say Wikipedia is a shit encyclopaedia full of misinformation?
No, I said that is a fail for Jimmy Whale to be complaining about trolling when any trolling on Wikipedia is due to his own rules. Nothing to do with the quality of Wikipedia.
Why not charge the criminals under the most appropriate charge that would already suit the crime.. Unauthorized Use, Theft of Property (identity theft), Criminal Mischief?, Breaking and Entering, or Felony Theft... Just because it's a new tech doesn't mean that existing charges wouldn't be appropriate.
>They need more training and need to know more about how it works
I suspect they mostly know how it works, figuring out if a law has been broken and gathering relevant evidence takes a lot longer.
As pointed out above, put up the pennies or STFU.
The peerage really should just STFU
Given Monkton, I really dont think any of the peers should be opening their big traps right now.
Officer come and get them!
I've got the parents of two twelve year olds threatening legal action against each other and my site because one kid called the other fat and I did not ban him from the site.
I can't decide what's worse...
...the fact that they honestly believe disruptive forum posts are within the purview of the police, or the fact that our glorious leaders and policy-makers are still using the word "cyberspace".
"Minister, what's cyberspace?"
"Well I'm lead to believe it's a little bit like that film TRON..."
Who gets upset by trolls? Morons and idiots, that's who. If we could ban them from access to the Interweb, we'd not have so many complaints like this.
What kind of nob sets up a Failbook page to remember a dead cat or get their MP removed? They deserve to have the piss taken out of them.
@ Jon Smit / Morons and idiots
Firstly that's not true: sophisticated trolls can cause you a lot of hassle in the office, believe me. There are organisations where unsubstantiated allegations in public have to be investigated
secondly: in a civilised society shouldn't morons and idiots, people who by definition can't look after themselves very well, be the sorts of people who should have most protection from the law?
"...hassle in the office..." WTF are you doing in your office? If the staff are spending worktime arsing around on Failbook - sack 'em.
As for them morons & idiots - its the rest of the population that need protecting from them.
If they want to fund the police to take on extra coppers to look after crimes against their businesses, then maybe. Otherwise I think most people would prefer the police stick to the more conventional role of protecting life, limb and property rather than corporate reputations.
Trolling problem? Repeat after me..
I'm rubber, your glue.. It bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Oh no, some anonymous person said something mean to me in a non-real place, I feel threatened. Anything short of a death threat, backed up with them having knowledge of my exact location is not a crime, but a playground issue. Leave the police out of non-crime, so they can focus on real crime, like muggings, breaking and entering, murders, and assaults.
Postman here. I have a fresh delivery of oxygen for Mr Trollington.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Dell's PC-on-a-stick landing in July: report