Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 339 +-   Online Vigilantes, Or "Crowdsourced Justice" on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:14PM

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:14PM
from the when-internet-detectives-attack dept.
privacy
censorship
internet
destinyland writes "The Chinese credit the 'human flesh search engine' for successfully locating 'the kitten killer of Hangzhou' from clues in her online video. But in February, the same force identified a teenage cat-abuser in Oklahoma — within 24 hours of his video's appearance on YouTube. 'Netizens are the new Jack Bauer,' argues one science writer, and with three billion potential detectives, 'attempts to hide will only add thrill to the chase.' But China's vigilantes ultimately turned their attention to China's Internet Propaganda Office, bypassing censorship of a director's personal information using social networks, including Twitter. The author suggests there's a new principle emerging in the online world: 'The Internet does not forget, does not forgive and cannot be stopped. Ever.'"
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:17PM (#28281903) Homepage

    This is less about the vigilantism of the Crowd, and more about the utter stupidity of [some] criminal/deviants.

    Stupid criminals shoot video of their crimes. Incredibly fucking stupid criminals put the video on youtube.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Why can't it be both? The criminals are indeed stupid for shooting a video of their crime, and even more stupid for posting it on the internet for the world to see. But does their stupidity mean that the faceless masses on the internet can harass them until they lose their jobs or scrawl death threats on their doors? Those stories are nothing more than a return to anarchy and lawlessness dressed up as something noble by the article. The only story with redeeming qualities is when they found the name of an o
      • Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:13PM (#28282741) Homepage Journal

        Those stories are nothing more than a return to anarchy and lawlessness dressed up as something noble by the article.

        Vigilantism is the backlash against lawlessness; in this case the lack of a justice system capable of convicting and punishing sadistic animal abusers has been corrected by a band of on-line judge/jury/executioners. To say that it's the height of civility is a stretch, but 'lawless' it certainly is not either.

        • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:58PM (#28283315)
          Tell that to the black and Jewish victims of lynching in the south. Yes, in many cases vigilantism can be a form of law enforcement. The problem though is that when a group of citizens answers to no one the potential for abuse and stepping beyond law enforcement is definitely there. And while many of those lynched had committed capital offenses, most hadn't.

          Yes, in the two cases cited it seems to have worked out in the interest of justice, but they could just as easily have found somebody that wasn't guilty.
    • Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)

      by panthroman (1415081) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:40PM (#28282235) Homepage

      The internet-justice connection is also about making information easily accessible to the public. And sometimes the public know what the police don't.

      Ted Kaczynsky was identified by his brother somewhat due to his reversed (though also correct) use of the phrase 'you can't eat your cake and have it too.' [wikipedia.org] I imagine many aspects of a crime could be identified through that kind of esoteric data, if only the right people saw it.

  • urm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:17PM (#28281909) Homepage Journal

    'human flesh search engine'

    RedTube? [redtube.com]

    .
  • The Author (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Niris (1443675) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:18PM (#28281923)
    "The author suggests there's a new principle emerging in the online world: 'The Internet does not forget, does not forgive and cannot be stopped. Ever.'""

    So the author came up with that? Seriously? Pretty sure that's been a main line (well, at least a version of it) for the groups for a long while.
  • it is not a good thing,
    • by internerdj (1319281) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:29PM (#28282089)
      I also have a very bad feeling about this. If it is ok for kitten killers then it will be ok for whatever topic X society doesn't like as long as there is enough of society to make an impact in their personal lives.
      • by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:38PM (#28282215)

        I'd rather not live in a society in which 51% can arbitrarily sentence the other 49% to death.

        • by internerdj (1319281) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:51PM (#28282405)
          The examples in the article didn't even need that much. It could have been as few as a few hundred who tracked these people down and the results were the targets losing their reputations, jobs, etc. It is a scary scary thought indeed. Every reasonable human should always keep in their mind that if they wish to be treated above average as a majority, they must accept being treated equally below average when they are the minority. If you wouldn't want to lose the amount of life/liberty/pursuit of happiness you want to push on someone else, then you shouldn't try.
        • by the_humeister (922869) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:29PM (#28282951)

          I'd rather not live in a society that thinks impaling a kitten through the eye socket with high heels until the kitten dies is considered a good thing. Fortunately, I don't and neither do most people.

          • by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @02:00PM (#28283373)

            And our goals are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to recognize that killing kittens is wrong, but that that widespread vigilantism greater wrong.

          • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @02:04PM (#28283443) Homepage

            Neither do I. That's why I carefully studied all of the evidence available and have identified "the humeister" as the culprit. No, don't ask to see the evidence I used, it's all secret. But you can trust me, as I am held to the highest standards of professional conduct required for "some anonymous person on the Internet". Look, I have a video camera so you know I'm telling the truth. Be sure to round up all of your friends and storm "the humeister"s home tonight at sunset. Remember to bring plenty of torches and pitchforks.

            Would you really rather live in a world where everybody listens to people like me?

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:43PM (#28282291)

      The author of the article doesn't get it

      Fortunately, human flesh search engines don't end the lives of their victims, like the witch-hunts or lynching of the past.

      No, they just make it impossible to ever live a normal life ever again. They ruin your career and alienate your friends and family. They force you to live through humiliation and shaming every day, often for weeks or months at a time.

      All based on a single, often easily fabricated, piece of evidence. That isn't justice, it's just a mob being a mob and harrassing other people for the fun of it.

      • by scubamage (727538) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:27PM (#28282905)
        You obviously haven't been to law school, through a corrections course, or seen what happens to people who have ever been convicted of a crime. There's a reason we have higher recidivism rates than nearly any other country on earth. We destroy the lives of our convicts, often off of shreds of evidence that are flamboyantly paraded by charismatic lawyers while denying evidence that could change the verdict because of legal technicalities. Good luck getting a job if you've been convicted.

        These groups only really pursue people who do one of two things - 1) try to make information that is free unfree (the antithesis of the internet), and 2) do things so abhorrant that they rouse the majority to action against them.

      • by PitaBred (632671) <slashdot&pitabred,dyndns,org> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:49PM (#28283217) Homepage
        Easily fabricated? Surely you jest. They recognized backgrounds and shoe styles, then traced it to online accounts to find the kitten killer woman. How in the hell is that in any way "easily fabricated"? The Internet justice movement may be a bunch of vigilantes, but it's very fucking well-informed vigilantes. If something doesn't smell right, someone will say so and there will be a huge discussion of it. I'm much less afraid of Internet vigilantes fabricating shit than I am of my government fabricating evidence of, say, WMDs.
        • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:34PM (#28283027)

          The difference between this and a convict is that the convict was found guilty in a court of law. Say what you will about the fairness of the system, but at least the convicts got a chance to tell their side of the story and have the evidence judged. You don't know the facts about any of these cases and while some may be pretty clear cut (torturing animals on video) others aren't nearly so much simple.

          Take the woman who committed suicide 'because' her husband was cheating on her. How many men cheat on their wives every year? Do they all deserve to be harassed daily, fired from their jobs, and scorned by their friends? Even if their wife is chronically depressed and has been distant and unloving for years? For all you know, the guy's wife regularly beat him with a stick.

          Take the girl who very, very selfishly whined about the earthquake in China. Does she really deserve the same punishment as a convicted criminal?

          Finally, just because no one has fabricated evidence yet doesn't mean that it won't be done in the future. That's like saying "Well, the government didn't abuse its warrantless wiretaps this time, so we'll let them keep doing it". It's short sighted and negligent. Just because this threat to privacy comes from the mob instead of the government doesn't mean it should be any less concerning.

        • by Ironica (124657) <pixel&boondock,org> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @02:00PM (#28283365) Journal

          No, they just make it impossible to ever live a normal life ever again.

          How is that any different than going to jail and having a criminal record follow you around?

          They ruin your career and alienate your friends and family. They force you to live through humiliation and shaming every day, often for weeks or months at a time.

          Welcome to the life of any ex-convict. While the mob way was definitely the incorrect way to do this, all the people mentioned in the story got exactly what they deserved. Killing kittens, cheating on your spouse, etc should be cause for you to have to get humiliation and shame from others.

          Leaving aside whether that is appropriate punishment or not...

          I hope most people see the difference between a conviction in a court of law and Internet mob justice. While *these* people may be unequivocally guilty, there are no rules, no checks and balances in place to ensure that the next person is. There's no innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof, right to representation, or rules of evidence. There is what people believe to be true, and the actions they take based on it. If their belief is misguided, or doesn't happen to be in line with law (for example, if an Internet group decided to ruin a woman's life because she had a perfectly legal abortion), then you've got a big problem on your hands.

          The rules are there to protect everyone... especially the innocent who are accused anyway. It happens every day. Circumventing the rules may provide a certain visceral satisfaction, but it doesn't serve the greater good at all.

    • Grace Wang (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xplenumx (703804) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:12PM (#28282721)
      it is not a good thing.

      I'm sure Grace Wang [nytimes.com] would agree with you.

      In brief, Grace Wang [npr.org] was an international student at Duke and dared to try an initiate a discussion between the pro-Tibet and pro-Chinese sides of a protest. After being attacked on forums such as mitbbs.com "Online Vigilantes" decided to bring these attacks to the real world by posting her personal information (her student visa application) and providing maps to her parents' house (which was defaced, causing her parents to go into hiding).

      Defending kittens are one thing, but as with "think of the children", it rarely stops there.

  • Ooops. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:20PM (#28281955) Journal

    See, this is why you can't trust free speech and open information. One minute it's saving kittens, and then next minute it's BITING YOU IN THE ASS! I can has truth plz? kthnxbye!

    Always nice to see the Chinese circumventing the Great Firewall. There is no way you'll get good information if all you get is government information.

  • Cats (Score:3, Informative)

    by mcgrew (92797) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:20PM (#28281961) Journal

    Maybe the internet can catch this guy [google.com]. I hope so, and am glad he doesn't live here.

  • by pha7boy (1242512) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:21PM (#28281965)
    "The Internet does not forget, does not forgive and cannot be stopped. Ever." that's why I'm adding the internet to my Fav5.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:21PM (#28281981)

    The crowd makes a mistake and some random dude gets beaten down for something his lookalike neighbour did.
    Do a news.google.com search for: vilgilante mistake
    read
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1357909/Man-beaten-to-death-by-mistake.html

  • by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:30PM (#28282107) Homepage Journal

    I offer this:

    Look at history, and political science and take a hard look at why republics functioned beter then pure democracy. The Internet runs the same risk.

    Take heed and good luck, crowd sourcing has a hidden downside people are forgetting.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:40PM (#28282241)

    More like the new mob. It's fine if you fit in, if you agree with whatever "the internet" agrees on. It's utter hell if you don't.

    "The internet" is not much better than the average religious nutjobs picketing abortion clinics. They just picket different targets. Sure, today it's kitten killers and the Co$. But how long 'til the next groupthink target is a group you belong to? Will it take a lot to jump from hunting down criminals to hunting down people that dare to be different, that refuse to fit in, that did nothing really wrong but made someone feel "uneasy" thinking of what he does?

    And I'm not even talking about sexual fetishes that make me (and probably a few other people) cringe.

    It's a small step from vigilantism to harassment. From fighting a crime that the justice system ignores to beating people you just don't simply like.

  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:41PM (#28282249)

    Many people will SAY anything. I've seen people on /. advocate the murder of people who hold views of copyright different from their own. Extreme positions get amplified on the internet because extreme people can easily interact with other like-minded extreme people. That's all fine and dandy, so long as it's just idiots saying stupid stuff. Freedom of speech, whatever.

    The problem for me is that there is a very small minority of people who can be triggered to act by the incitement of others. These people will reach out and HURT people with little or no factual support. Unless stopped, people like this exert an evil influence all out of proportion to their otherwise insignificant place in society. Nazis did that kind of stuff in the 1930s and it really chilled the behavior of other law-abiding Germans. A real turd-Kultur was created there. That kind of history ought best not be repeated.

    If people alter their behavior because they are afraid of being tormented by Internet-spawned wrongful "meat world" attacks, then they are not free. Balancing protection from such acts with the right to freely interact on the internet is a serious legal and moral challenge.

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @12:54PM (#28282463)

    Sounds like he just watched The Terminator...

    'The Internet does not forget, does not forgive and cannot be stopped. Ever.'

    From the movie..

    That Terminator is out there.
    It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with.
    It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear
    and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

  • by bzzfzz (1542813) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:06PM (#28282625)
    The outcome ultimately is justice through online voting and consensus systems, like the moderation system here, or the various systems of community sanctions over at Wikipedia. The problem is not that these systems are unfair, since they are arguably no worse than traditional legal systems (whose track record is far from perfect). The problem is that they are open to manipulation by people who have the willingness and the knowhow to game the system.
  • by snarfies (115214) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:11PM (#28282701) Homepage

    http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheyenne_Cherry [encycloped...matica.com]

    Anonymous hates people, but loves cats (as evidenced by Caturday and the entire "lolcats" phenomena). Their most recent target is the evil Cheyenne Cherry, who put a kitten in an oven and roasted it alive. Anonymous went through a lot of effort to get as much info as possible, but jumped the gun at first. The NY Daily News reported a 75-yo retiree with a similar name had her phone number posted, and the result? "They're all saying, 'You'll burn in hell,' 'Who the hell do you think you are?'" Bernadette Cherry, 72, said of the 75 calls from cat lovers."

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:12PM (#28282719) Homepage

    My fucking god! Every time I turn around, there comes to my attention yet another sick thing I couldn't possibly have imagined on my own. "Kitten Killing Videos"?? Holy crap!! And no, nobody needs to list "things sicker than kitten killing videos" and definitely do not post links. To this day, I have not watched two girls and a cup. It was the Daniel Pearlman video that convinced me that if I am warned that I shouldn't see a video, I should probably heed the warning. It cured my "morbid sense of curiosity" forever. (Movie violence be damned, but for all my "kill the spammers" rants, I doubt I could actually stomach actually being the executioner... handing down the sentence is one thing, but actually killing another person? Probably more than I can handle.)

  • No surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2009, @01:13PM (#28282737)

    Wasn't this predicted years ago by Bruce Sterling in Makeki Neko [tqft.net]? Use of the 'net to commit "death by a thousand paper cuts", or harassment by many, many small acts, each of which individually wouldn't be considered unlawful, but in aggregate become overwhelming? I'm not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but it almost certainly is going to happen.

It is sweet to let the mind unbend on occasion. -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace)