Libel Ruling RE: Internet Forums

Interesting given the libel position :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/28/newspaper_anonymous_commenters/

Open season on [insert name here] defamation...

I often wondered about that, plus if you post on here under a stupid meaningless name like mine it's surely impossible to prove who posted it anyway.

They could only possibly prove what computer was used not who was actually using it.

I often wondered about that, plus if you post on here under a stupid meaningless name like mine it's surely impossible to prove who posted it anyway.

 

They could only possibly prove what computer was used not who was actually using it.

I'd imagine (no actual knowledge) that forum t's&c's could be re-written to make the registrant of the forum account is responsible for any post made by that account.

I often wondered about that, plus if you post on here under a stupid meaningless name like mine it's surely impossible to prove who posted it anyway.

 

They could only possibly prove what computer was used not who was actually using it.

Defamation is a civil matter. The standard of proof is balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

In any regard, it's easier than you'd think to prove, even in a criminal prosecution.

I'd imagine (no actual knowledge) that forum t's&c's could be re-written to make the registrant of the forum account is responsible for any post made by that account.

I expect so, and in the eyes of Saintsweb you are responsible and they can ban you, but Saintsweb rules are not law. If you cannot prove who wrote it I don't see how anyone could be convicted of it whatever the t&c's say.

I expect so, and in the eyes of Saintsweb you are responsible and they can ban you, but Saintsweb rules are not law. If you cannot prove who wrote it I don't see how anyone could be convicted of it whatever the t&c's say.

Oh, indeed. I was more thinking about forum owners being able to cover their own arses.

I often wondered about that, plus if you post on here under a stupid meaningless name like mine it's surely impossible to prove who posted it anyway.

 

They could only possibly prove what computer was used not who was actually using it.

Unless of course the club bring pressure to name the culprit, what would you do take charge yourself with the associated ban perhaps from the club or let the suspected perpetrator or person who is signed up under that name take the charge.

If somebody is stupid enough to make defamatory remarks they should man up and take any punishment due.

Unless of course the club bring pressure to name the culprit, what would you do take charge yourself with the associated ban perhaps from the club or let the suspected perpetrator or person who is signed up under that name take the charge.

 

If somebody is stupid enough to make defamatory remarks they should man up and take any punishment due.

Should do but I'm just talking hypothetically. Nowadays you can't post on the internet with a phone. If you are down the pub with your mates and someone posts something defamatory, there is pretty much nothing anyone can do to prove who is responsible.

It would also be interesting to know what right posters have in regards to privacy and data protection, does the SaintsWeb have the right to give out our details?

Should do but I'm just talking hypothetically. Nowadays you can't post on the internet with a phone. If you are down the pub with your mates and someone posts something defamatory, there is pretty much nothing anyone can do to prove who is responsible.

 

It would also be interesting to know what right posters have in regards to privacy and data protection, does the SaintsWeb have the right to give out our details?

data protection v freedom of information act

thin line

if I passed my phone to someone or allowed someone to use my home computer and they looked up kiddy fiddling sites..I would no doubt have to take my share of responsibility.......being as I made a conscious choice to allow someone use MY provider

data protection v freedom of information act

 

thin line

 

if I passed my phone to someone or allowed someone to use my home computer and they looked up kiddy fiddling sites..I would no doubt have to take my share of responsibility.......being as I made a conscious choice to allow someone use MY provider

Yes, but you would be guilty of irresponsible use of your computer, a big difference to being guilty of kiddy fiddling.

Only cowards hide behind an internet persona anyway - which is why I try to stay neutral and light humoured.

What I really want to know is can the Mods see the swear words behind the swear filter? I say this because they are a bunch of hard ****ing ****s...

... (working chaps)

Yes, but you would be guilty of irresponsible use of your computer, a big difference to being guilty of kiddy fiddling.

oh, is that what the law says and fact..or what you have just decided ?

oh, is that what the law says and fact..or what you have just decided ?

Don't know what the law says, but it is a fact that anyone can use someone's phone or someone else's computer to post stuff on the internet.

Don't know what the law says, but it is a fact that anyone can use someone's phone or someone else's computer to post stuff on the internet.

I know, but im sure that means you are held to account of some sorts since you are consenting to A N other using your services.....

Surely this title should reference Bill Hicks?

Surely this title should reference Bill Hicks?

ah, the late great Bill......

Shouldn't this thread be elsewhere?

Thanks

Don't know what the law says, but it is a fact that anyone can use someone's phone or someone else's computer to post stuff on the internet.

I do

It's all about context.

If someone were to post a remark that could be true and could be seriously damaging to the subject and was likely to add to the "knowledge" of those reading it (in the sense of influencing their opinion on the subject) then in a different case a judge may think it was proportionate to compel disclosure.

Don't know what the law says, but it is a fact that anyone can use someone's phone or someone else's computer to post stuff on the internet.

I think that in this case the onus would be on you to prove that it WASN'T you using the phone or computer.

Hmmmm. I got infracted for writing a humorous comment:

[importantly, within the context of a thread on libel / defamation]

Dronkisaint: "Shouldn't this thread be elsewhere?"

Alain Perrin: "The mods will never move this. They're too busy ****** ******"

Reaction? Infraction. Deletion.

Really? Seriously? You think that was an insult, it's not it's called comedy or irony (but I always get confused on that. Damn you Alanis).

What I should have written was: "The mods will never move this. They're too busy looking for their sense of humour"

Ridiculous over reaction. Free the Alain Perrin one etc.

Its very easy for whoever runs a forum to locate someone from the IP addresses of each poster. I moderate on an IPB forum and within about 5 mins, I can find the home address and landline of most of the forum members using their IP address. We've used these in the past with the Police to bring action against someone who was scamming via the forum, selling things they didnt own.

Theres ALWAYS a paper trail.

???? How the hell can you find out from someone's IP where they live? All you will get is the ISP they are connected to. If you want their address you have to go through the courts to force the ISP to give up those details.

???? How the hell can you find out from someone's IP where they live? All you will get is the ISP they are connected to. If you want their address you have to go through the courts to force the ISP to give up those details.

I tend to agree. The Police don't need a court's authority to obtain that information, obviously, but it wouldn't be available to a third party (if it was the ISP would be breaching DPA by releasing it)

ISP's post it online, its easy to find via a WHOIS search.

ISP's post it online, its easy to find via a WHOIS search.

I've done that with my own ip addy, it showed up as metronet in Reading rather than my own details.

Er, no they don't.

The only Ip you can feasibly get is one from the ISP's range. Some ISP's won't even display that as they will be NAT'd. For other ones you'l be lucky if you get as specific as the rough geographical area. For instance, I live in Romsey and I come up as Andover as that's the site where I'm routed through to get out onto the net.

I think someones watched two many episodes of 24 and got confused between real life and the fantasy world they inhabit.

IP is enough to track someone down with the assistance of both the police and the ISP. I've had involvement with the police on more than one occasion due to you 'orrible lot.

Well obviously taht's the way you do it (fairly easy as the ISp has a log of which accont had what IP at what date/time), but being able to "find the home address and landline of most of the forum members using their IP address" within 5 mins is plainly bull. The only people who can do taht are the Police and the Courts. Even then it's not 5 mins.

IP is enough to track someone down with the assistance of both the police and the ISP.

This is correct - I've had 2 enquiries from the Old Bill this week @ work, and in the past have even had the FBI asking for details of who is 'hiding' behind our NAT.