UK Facebook User's Name Appropriation Draws Huge Libel Suit 165
Slatterz links to a story which shows that nowadays, it's sometimes possible to find out whether someone is a dog on the Internet, excerpting: "A freelance photographer is facing a £22,000 bill after setting up a fake Facebook page that libelled a former classmate. Grant Raphael, a freelance photographer, set up a Facebook page in the name of former school friend Mathew Firsht and posted false information about his sexual and political preferences. He also set up another page for Firsht's television company, the latter entitled 'Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?' ... 'The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences,' media lawyer, Jo Sanders, of Harbottle & Lewis, told the BBC."
Profound news (Score:5, Insightful)
Libel is libel, even on the Internet.
Libel in Britain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
"I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
No.
I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose her ideas and will be taken seriously on their own merits.
Yes.
If she's posing as a 50 year old man, then whatever she is saying isn't being taken on its own merits but under the assumption that she may be more qualified simply because she appears to be older and/or male.
Re:Profound news (Score:2, Insightful)
No, libel is hugely different on the internet. Want to draw attention to opposing opinions, launch a libel suit, want to create the impression that you have a hugely inflated opinion of your self worth - launch a libel suit, perversely enough, want the convince people that you have something to hide launch a libel suit and, finally want to convince people that you have more money than sense, launch a libel suit.
So there is a huge difference between 20th century print libel and 21st century internet libel and a bunch of people and companies are just going to have to get over their inflated egos and realise that 1 page amongst billions of web pages doesn't really mean that much until you make yourself look like a fool by drawing attention to it.
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll take her absolutely seriously. It's a lot more important to listen to teenagers than 50 yo rambling farts. Teenagers are still discovering the world, can still be encouraged down the right path, and will impact the world a lot longer. Spending time listening to them, their fears, their ideas, their dreams, tells a lot more about the world we are going to live in than listening to someone born in 1958.
There are exceptions, of course, but generally this is my personal experience.
Disclaimer: I'm turning 40 this year, so I'm getting closer to ramblingfartness.
Re:Profound news (Score:5, Insightful)
If some dickhead with zero reputation is saying bad things about you on the Internet, sure, it's pointless to sue them for libel; in the US you might even have trouble proving damages. But if some dickhead is credibly impersonating you, using your own name and reputation to say false and derogatory things about you, that's a different matter. It would be worth suing to get an injunction if nothing else.
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the fault of the person she is conversing with, and basically the point I was making.
I'll take a 14 year old girls, and a 50 year old mans opinion/statement with an equal amount of salt. the 14 year old may have spent 4 years learning a subject, the 50 year old may have spent 30 years on the same subject, however the 14 year old doesn't really have much else to think about but that subject, whereas the 50 year old has well established political and ideological standards, its all intertwined with his family and employers/employees etc.
The 50 year old may have 30 years experience, but may be clinging to the same ideas from 30 years ago, and might be unaware of newer ideas, the 14 year old is most likely the reverse, they both have an equal amount of say on a subject as far as I am concerned. It's just more input to assist my own learning process, and in reverse I wouldn't favor teaching someone based on age or sex, only how interested they seemed to be, and/or how well we communicated with eachother.
Re:Profound news (Score:3, Insightful)
But if some dickhead is credibly impersonating you, using your own name and reputation to say false and derogatory things about you, that's a different matter. It would be worth suing to get an injunction if nothing else.
The problem with that approach is the same problem that the MAFIAA are having - enforcement is nearly impossible. Sure *THIS* case was enforceable, but its like taking down an ftp site of mp3s, pre napster. Anyone who wanted to do it "right" can do so today using tools like Tor, its just a matter of escalation.
A problem that the MAFIAA has, that impersonation cases don't, is the general desire of people to commit the 'crime' - people inherently like to share, but far, far fewer are into malicious impersonation. So, enforcement is going to be easier than it is against copyright infringement, but I still think it won't be easy enough to make a dent against all but the smallest fries.
I think the general solution is teach people to "trust no one" - maybe I'm just a paranoiac, but I think the long-term benefit to society is much greater if we all took a generally critical approach to what we see and read on the net rather than try to guarantee any particular group's idea of "truth" because impersonation is just one of a probably infinite number of ways to mislead on the net.
And if your livelihood depends on your reputation? (Score:5, Insightful)
The days of the Internet as some kind of Wild West where you can do and say whatever the fuck you want without having to take the consequences for it are coming to an end. If somebody want to be an asshole, he'd better be one anonymously from an Internet café... which shows just what a cowardly little shit he is.
A good many people depend on their good name for their living. Jerks who try to damage someone's ability to feed his children deserve to be punished.
Re:Profound news (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgetting the ethics of what this guy did, when will people learn that there are limits to anonymity online? I'm surprised how this keeps happening. People should know by now that they can be tracked.
People who are more technically inclined should know to use proxies. Especially those based in countries that are unlikely to give the UK access to their logs - read: China/Russia. What about Tor? Honestly, posting stuff online that could get you in trouble directly from your home computer is on the same level of intelligence as robbing a bank with a big sign bearing your name, address and phone number.
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a rather disingenuous statement because we all make assumptions about speakers and very rarely can set aside natural bias. We are bombarded by too much information to process without some level of filtering (for better or worse)
Re:not really true (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what you and the parent poster are missing is who has the burden of proof. In the US, the accuser has to prove that whatever was said was a lie (said knowingly and with malicious intent). In Britain, the default assumption is that the accused is guilty unless she can present the facts proving what she said was true.
The result is that in Britain, very rich (and very bad) people like Khalid bin Mahfouz (funds suicide bombers) and Roman Polanski (molests little girls) are able to shut up anyone trying to expose them.
Re:I enjoy the anonimity of the Internet. (Score:3, Insightful)
You just said that you will take the seriously because you can guide them. If you're listening to someone to determine the direction in which they are misguided, you're not listenting to them.
you're wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Profound news (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US, it means making derogatory statements (in written form) that are not factually true. Whereas in England it means walking on the cracks in the pavement (which is what they call a sidewalk) during the hours of darkness.
So yeah, entirely different is a perfect summary of the situation.