... the Streisand effect.
An anonymous wag who lampooned a Daily Mail group boss using a spoof Twitter account has six days to prevent his unmasking. The publishing giant launched legal action in California to compel the social network to reveal the identity of whoever's behind the @UnSteveDorkland handle. The account sends up Steve Auckland, the …
... the Streisand effect.
Works for me, I have just 'followed' him purely because of dorkybloke lawyering up :-D
Its seems to be that the more powerful someone thinks they are the more sensitive they get.
Bless their little sensitive socks
Hows about everyone signs up to Twitter via TOR and anonymising email accounts and right-royally takes the piss out of "Dorkland"
The Fail group will have so much fun spending money on lawyers to obtain all those bogus ids.....
I like this idea, love Spartacus
I thought that spoof and parody was protected speech.
I think the problem is that the fake account was referring to real events almost as they were happening, and was disparaging of both Dorkland and other staff members. It's the latter I have sympathy with; very few of them are public figures so being made fun of in an open and public forum is, IMHO, not nice. Celebs or other high-profile figures, on the other hand, I'm much more relaxed about ripping the piss out of.
The fact that a co-worker is doing this is easily interpretable as harassment or even bullying, neither of which are really acceptable. I'd certainly hate to be working in an environment like that, not knowing who's next to be made a laughing stock at the whim of a mystery colleague.
Jeez, defening the actions of the Daily Mail. I may need to shower for a week before I feel clean again.
It probably is until the "wrong" (i.e. rich, powerful, self-important or close friends with someone in gubberment) people get spoofed. One rule for us, one... etc.
Bit fucking rich after Paul (C***ing) Dacre spat feathers over freedom of speech at the Levinson enquiry. As usual the Daily Heil is being hypocritical. Wankers
Why the hell should any company have any right at all to find out the personal details of an individual poster on a social networking, or any other, site? If the broke the law the police should investigate, otherwise the Mail Group should be told to fuck off.
As for the Dorkland account upsetting his colleagues -- there's an old saying that starts "You lay with dogs...".
There are (at least) two branches of the Law: Civil and Criminal. The police ONLY handle breaches of the latter. The "wronged" party has to do their own digging in the former. There has already been far too much migration of Civil law into Criminal law.
As far as I have seen, the police is NOT interested in a criminal case if it doesn't come with the potential for a massive fine and publicity. No wonder the country sinks under the weight of criminality.
On what grounds should private messages to that account from third parties be handed over to the Mail's muckrakers?
It's got nothing to do with their 'complaint' and could be extremely damaging to those third parties if the Mail finds something they can fake a scandal over.
Hey, I think we may be misjudging the dorkey bloke, apparently they have launched the lawyers, not to nail the tweeter but really to find out what his grievances are.
Oh look, whats that pig doing flying over there.
I note that in the past the Daily Mail have defended the anonymity of twitter users when other rags have reached for the lawyers. Not so f***ing defensive when the guy is twittering about them.
The law is the same for everyone in this sort of case. The companies such as facebook, google blogs, yahoo, twitter, etc, etc, etc... the only time they will disclose the details of an account is when they get a court order asking them to do so. The court order is issued when a judge agrees a law has been broken by the holder of the account and so the information must be revealed in order to prosecute. I was not aware that the owner of the account then had 6 days to defend themselves against the order but it makes sense. The decision to give the order for them to release the information could be based on shite so important that there is a chance to answer the case.
How in hell does this work ? My Twitter account is based on a (fairly randomly named) yahoo mail account. How can that be linked back to me personally ? We need to know.
Please don't tell me you don't know how to get round IP address logging!
This is suppose to be a place where people who know about IT congregated
tbut hat's not answering the question is it ... how do they prove it is me when 8 people share a router
So that narrows it down to the 8 people who share our router. Or maybe I did it from work, only 350 there. ??? And keep going, now prove it was me who typed it in.
or you could make your traffic anonymous
like your posting here LOL
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017