Online liars' noses don't grow, but their wordiness does, Cornell researchers find

How to spot an online fibber
REPOSTING THIS IN HONOR OF SELF-INVOLVED BLABBERS - CYBERPATHS: DOUGLAS BECKSTEAD AND NATHAN E.B. THOMAS, JR. HONORABLE MENTION: self-styled politic pundit: JEFF DUNETZ aka Yid With Lid

(ITHACA, N.Y.) How to spot an online fibber: They talk too much, use more pronouns about others and use more terms about the senses, such as "see," "hear" and "feel," than people telling the truth, according to a new study by Cornell University communication experts.

"Our study suggests that people who are lying to another person in a chat room or in instant messaging use approximately one-third more words, probably in their attempt to construct a more cohesive and detailed story in order to seem believable," says Jeff Hancock, assistant professor of communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Cornell.

"Perhaps more important is the finding that people being lied to also change the way they talk, even though they don't explicitly know they are being lied to," says Hancock. He found that targets of lies on the Web ask more questions and also use more words than when they are being told the truth. Hancock says that this may be another reason for the extra words: targets of deception may become skeptical and ask more questions than those receiving truthful information.

The study is published in the Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2004). It was first presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Chicago.

Other studies have shown that liars use fewer words, but these studies examined deceptive monologues, not a conversation with a partner, and did not look at online communications, which, because they are written, give people more time to prepare their responses. Hancock's finding that liars use more pronouns about others ("he," "she," "they") than truthful communicators is consistent with other research and is probably liars' attempts to distance themselves from their deception and to deflect the focus.

Hancock's co-authors are Lauren E. Curry '04 (now at Fordham Law School) and Saurabh Goorha, M.S. '04 (now in Cornell's S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management), and collaborator Michael T. Woodworth at Okanagan University College, British Columbia. The researchers studied 66 people and paired them up for a conversation via an instant-messaging interface on computers. Participants were asked to discuss five assigned topics about themselves; one of each pair was randomly assigned to fabricate stories in two topics and was given examples about the kinds of lies to tell. They had five minutes to prepare.

Although more research is needed to observe deceptive face-to-face conversations to see what happens when nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, are available, Hancock says that text-based communication is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. His findings suggest that researchers might be able to develop techniques to identify online communication that appears to be deceptive.

~~~~~
The study was supported in part by the Department of Communication at Cornell and a federal Hatch Grant.

Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or availability.

Jeff Hancock

(Sounds a LOT like Ed Hicks, Dan Jacoby and Gareth Rodger, too!)

Online liars' noses don't grow, but their wordiness does, Cornell researchers find

How to spot an online fibber
REPOSTING THIS IN HONOR OF SELF-INVOLVED BLABBERS - CYBERPATHS: DOUGLAS BECKSTEAD AND NATHAN E.B. THOMAS, JR. HONORABLE MENTION: self-styled politic pundit: JEFF DUNETZ aka Yid With Lid

(ITHACA, N.Y.) How to spot an online fibber: They talk too much, use more pronouns about others and use more terms about the senses, such as "see," "hear" and "feel," than people telling the truth, according to a new study by Cornell University communication experts.

"Our study suggests that people who are lying to another person in a chat room or in instant messaging use approximately one-third more words, probably in their attempt to construct a more cohesive and detailed story in order to seem believable," says Jeff Hancock, assistant professor of communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Cornell.

"Perhaps more important is the finding that people being lied to also change the way they talk, even though they don't explicitly know they are being lied to," says Hancock. He found that targets of lies on the Web ask more questions and also use more words than when they are being told the truth. Hancock says that this may be another reason for the extra words: targets of deception may become skeptical and ask more questions than those receiving truthful information.

The study is published in the Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2004). It was first presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Chicago.

Other studies have shown that liars use fewer words, but these studies examined deceptive monologues, not a conversation with a partner, and did not look at online communications, which, because they are written, give people more time to prepare their responses. Hancock's finding that liars use more pronouns about others ("he," "she," "they") than truthful communicators is consistent with other research and is probably liars' attempts to distance themselves from their deception and to deflect the focus.

Hancock's co-authors are Lauren E. Curry '04 (now at Fordham Law School) and Saurabh Goorha, M.S. '04 (now in Cornell's S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management), and collaborator Michael T. Woodworth at Okanagan University College, British Columbia. The researchers studied 66 people and paired them up for a conversation via an instant-messaging interface on computers. Participants were asked to discuss five assigned topics about themselves; one of each pair was randomly assigned to fabricate stories in two topics and was given examples about the kinds of lies to tell. They had five minutes to prepare.

Although more research is needed to observe deceptive face-to-face conversations to see what happens when nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, are available, Hancock says that text-based communication is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. His findings suggest that researchers might be able to develop techniques to identify online communication that appears to be deceptive.

~~~~~
The study was supported in part by the Department of Communication at Cornell and a federal Hatch Grant.

Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or availability.

Jeff Hancock

(Sounds a LOT like Ed Hicks, Dan Jacoby and Gareth Rodger, too!)

Killer Used Facebook to Communicate

By Lori Brown

Prisoners are supposed to get limited contact with the outside world. That's why they're in prison - to be removed from the outside world. But at least one prisoner found a way to stay connected, in real time, through Facebook.

For months, convicted murderer William Joseph Hogan used Facebook to mentally escape prison life, communicating with friends from all over, as well as his mother.

"If the pen gets any better, I might not want to leave," he wrote in one post. "Tattoos dirt cheap, sleep all day, play volleyball, sun tan, workout and read."

Hogan's posts came from behind bars as he serves a life sentence at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.

"Hello free world folks, hope everyone is doing well," he wrote in one post.

"Good thing I have a way to stay in touch with my 'friends,'" he wrote in another.

Hogan was imprisoned for murdering Reba Garrett's granddaughter, Wendy Renee Thweatt Hogan, just over two hears ago in Horn Lake.

"He shot her eight times," Garrett said. "We had to have her cremated. We didn't get to say goodbye."

Garrett's three great-grandchildren were in the home as Hogan killed the only parent they had left. Their dad died in a car crash. They now live with their aunt.

"It changed their life forever," Garrett said.

There's been little change for Hogan, though, according to his posts on Facebook. He lists himself as widowed, and interested in dating and relationships with women.

"He's trying to act like he's an ordinary guy. (He posted) Pictures of himself in a boat. Sitting there in a boat like, ''Here, I'm just a regular, Joe,'" Garrett said.

"No, you're not widowed, you killed your wife!"

Hogan has broken the correction center's rules time and time again by using a cell phone. On Facebook, he's even posted swastikas and other Nazi symbols.

One Facebook friend replied, "Lol I didn't know they let u guys use Facebook."In another post, Hogan wrote, "Just got through visiting my mama everything went great..."

His mother wrote back,"I enjoyed my visit with you too. You are a great young man... you make a bad situation the best you can. Love ya."

Action News 5 asked Mississippi's Department of Corrections why Hogan was allowed to be on Facebook. At first, corrections officials thought someone from the free world may have been making posts on Hogan's behalf, because prisoners do not have Facebook access.

But the following day, a spokesperson replied in an email, saying, "Thank you Ms. Brown for bringing this to our attention. When we find instances where inmates have violated the rules, measures are taken. MDOC has reported to Facebook that this is an illegal account."

According to Mississippi State Senator Merle Flowers, with 21,000 inmates across the state, things like this are bound to happen.

"We want to thank Action News 5 for bringing it to our attention," she said. "Certainly, you don't know about some things until people tell you about them."

MDOC placed Hogan on lock down, and transferred him to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, home of the new Operation Cellblock. There, new technology intercepts illegal cell phone transmissions by inmates.

"It could have gone on for months or years," Garrett said.

Before prison officials shut down Hogan's Facebook account, his final post read, "Nothing goin on down here". Maybe now that's a little more accurate.

MDOC says the new cell phone blocking technology marks a turning point. The Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman was the first prison to use the new technology in the United States. During its first month of operation, the state intercepted nearly 216,000 illegal phone calls.

The technology is expected to be in place in all Mississippi State prisons within this fiscal year.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Killer Used Facebook to Communicate

By Lori Brown

Prisoners are supposed to get limited contact with the outside world. That's why they're in prison - to be removed from the outside world. But at least one prisoner found a way to stay connected, in real time, through Facebook.

For months, convicted murderer William Joseph Hogan used Facebook to mentally escape prison life, communicating with friends from all over, as well as his mother.

"If the pen gets any better, I might not want to leave," he wrote in one post. "Tattoos dirt cheap, sleep all day, play volleyball, sun tan, workout and read."

Hogan's posts came from behind bars as he serves a life sentence at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.

"Hello free world folks, hope everyone is doing well," he wrote in one post.

"Good thing I have a way to stay in touch with my 'friends,'" he wrote in another.

Hogan was imprisoned for murdering Reba Garrett's granddaughter, Wendy Renee Thweatt Hogan, just over two hears ago in Horn Lake.

"He shot her eight times," Garrett said. "We had to have her cremated. We didn't get to say goodbye."

Garrett's three great-grandchildren were in the home as Hogan killed the only parent they had left. Their dad died in a car crash. They now live with their aunt.

"It changed their life forever," Garrett said.

There's been little change for Hogan, though, according to his posts on Facebook. He lists himself as widowed, and interested in dating and relationships with women.

"He's trying to act like he's an ordinary guy. (He posted) Pictures of himself in a boat. Sitting there in a boat like, ''Here, I'm just a regular, Joe,'" Garrett said.

"No, you're not widowed, you killed your wife!"

Hogan has broken the correction center's rules time and time again by using a cell phone. On Facebook, he's even posted swastikas and other Nazi symbols.

One Facebook friend replied, "Lol I didn't know they let u guys use Facebook."In another post, Hogan wrote, "Just got through visiting my mama everything went great..."

His mother wrote back,"I enjoyed my visit with you too. You are a great young man... you make a bad situation the best you can. Love ya."

Action News 5 asked Mississippi's Department of Corrections why Hogan was allowed to be on Facebook. At first, corrections officials thought someone from the free world may have been making posts on Hogan's behalf, because prisoners do not have Facebook access.

But the following day, a spokesperson replied in an email, saying, "Thank you Ms. Brown for bringing this to our attention. When we find instances where inmates have violated the rules, measures are taken. MDOC has reported to Facebook that this is an illegal account."

According to Mississippi State Senator Merle Flowers, with 21,000 inmates across the state, things like this are bound to happen.

"We want to thank Action News 5 for bringing it to our attention," she said. "Certainly, you don't know about some things until people tell you about them."

MDOC placed Hogan on lock down, and transferred him to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, home of the new Operation Cellblock. There, new technology intercepts illegal cell phone transmissions by inmates.

"It could have gone on for months or years," Garrett said.

Before prison officials shut down Hogan's Facebook account, his final post read, "Nothing goin on down here". Maybe now that's a little more accurate.

MDOC says the new cell phone blocking technology marks a turning point. The Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman was the first prison to use the new technology in the United States. During its first month of operation, the state intercepted nearly 216,000 illegal phone calls.

The technology is expected to be in place in all Mississippi State prisons within this fiscal year.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Warrantless Attempt to Read Yahoo E-mail Abandoned by D.O.J.

The U.S. Justice Department has abruptly abandoned what had become a high-profile court fight to read Yahoo users' e-mail messages without obtaining a search warrant first.

In a two-page brief filed Friday, the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation. CNET was the first to report on the Denver case in an article on Tuesday.

Yahoo's efforts to fend off federal prosecutors' broad request attracted allies--in the form of Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation--who argued (PDF) that Americans who keep their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Two years ago, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama had pledged that, as president, he would "strengthen privacy protections for the digital age." This dispute had the potential to test his administration's actual commitment to privacy, which recently became the subject of a legislative push supported by Silicon Valley firms and privacy advocates. The administration has taken a position at odds with that coalition in a second case in Philadelphia involving warrantless tracking of cell phones.

Much of the information about the case in federal court in Colorado remains unclear, including the nature of the possible crime being investigated, how many e-mail accounts are at issue, and whether it was the flurry of publicity in the last few days or something else that prompted the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver to back down.

The brief filed Friday says that Yahoo had turned over more information since March 3 and that "the government has concluded that further production of records and information by Yahoo would not be helpful to the government's investigation."

On December 3, 2009, U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Yahoo to hand over to prosecutors certain records, including the contents of e-mail messages. Yahoo divulged some of the data but refused to turn over e-mail that had been previously viewed, accessed, or downloaded and was less than 181 days old.

Neither Yahoo nor Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne were immediately available for comment on Friday. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver sent CNET an e-mail message saying: "Because this involves an ongoing investigation, I respectfully decline comment, other than to say the brief filed today speaks for itself."

A 17-page brief that the Justice Department filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in "electronic storage" that are less than 181 days old. But, Rhyne had argued, the Yahoo Mail messages don't meet that definition.

"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne had written. "This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts." (The Justice Department says that what's known as a 2703(d) order--and is not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants--should let police read e-mail.)

A footnote to Friday's government brief says that the Justice Department "is aware that Yahoo and other various parties have now submitted briefs on various privacy issues in the context of the prior motion to compel. The government respectfully disagrees with positions taken in those briefs, but because the need for the motion to compel has been vitiated by Yahoo's further production, the government declines to litigate this matter in this moot context."

read entire original article here

Warrantless Attempt to Read Yahoo E-mail Abandoned by D.O.J.

The U.S. Justice Department has abruptly abandoned what had become a high-profile court fight to read Yahoo users' e-mail messages without obtaining a search warrant first.

In a two-page brief filed Friday, the Obama administration withdrew its request for warrantless access to the complete contents of the Yahoo Mail accounts under investigation. CNET was the first to report on the Denver case in an article on Tuesday.

Yahoo's efforts to fend off federal prosecutors' broad request attracted allies--in the form of Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation--who argued (PDF) that Americans who keep their e-mail in the cloud enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Two years ago, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama had pledged that, as president, he would "strengthen privacy protections for the digital age." This dispute had the potential to test his administration's actual commitment to privacy, which recently became the subject of a legislative push supported by Silicon Valley firms and privacy advocates. The administration has taken a position at odds with that coalition in a second case in Philadelphia involving warrantless tracking of cell phones.

Much of the information about the case in federal court in Colorado remains unclear, including the nature of the possible crime being investigated, how many e-mail accounts are at issue, and whether it was the flurry of publicity in the last few days or something else that prompted the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver to back down.

The brief filed Friday says that Yahoo had turned over more information since March 3 and that "the government has concluded that further production of records and information by Yahoo would not be helpful to the government's investigation."

On December 3, 2009, U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer ordered Yahoo to hand over to prosecutors certain records, including the contents of e-mail messages. Yahoo divulged some of the data but refused to turn over e-mail that had been previously viewed, accessed, or downloaded and was less than 181 days old.

Neither Yahoo nor Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne were immediately available for comment on Friday. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Denver sent CNET an e-mail message saying: "Because this involves an ongoing investigation, I respectfully decline comment, other than to say the brief filed today speaks for itself."

A 17-page brief that the Justice Department filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in "electronic storage" that are less than 181 days old. But, Rhyne had argued, the Yahoo Mail messages don't meet that definition.

"Previously opened e-mail is not in 'electronic storage,'" Rhyne had written. "This court should therefore require Yahoo to comply with the order and produce the specified communications in the targeted accounts." (The Justice Department says that what's known as a 2703(d) order--and is not as privacy-protective as the rules for search warrants--should let police read e-mail.)

A footnote to Friday's government brief says that the Justice Department "is aware that Yahoo and other various parties have now submitted briefs on various privacy issues in the context of the prior motion to compel. The government respectfully disagrees with positions taken in those briefs, but because the need for the motion to compel has been vitiated by Yahoo's further production, the government declines to litigate this matter in this moot context."

read entire original article here

Husband's online revenge nipped in the bud

Celebrity adulterers have human rights too

A wronged husband bent on revenge who threatened to reveal the identity of his wife's celebrity lover on the internet has been barred from doing so. An interim injunction has been served on human rights grounds.

In a case which could have serious repercussions for online and offline media law the High Court has ruled that the wife of the celebrity adulterer should be protected from the publication of the details of the affair.

The identities of all parties have been kept secret. The husband was referred to as AB, the celebrity adulterer, believed to be a figure from the world of sport, as CC.

Justice Eady ruled that the privacy rights of CC's wife under the European Convention of Human Rights would be infringed by AB's revelations about their affair.

"In personal and sexual relationships the courts have for some time recognised that there is what is now generally referred to as a reasonable or legitimate 'expectation of privacy'," said Eady in his ruling.

The case involved a balancing of competing EHCR rights, said Eady: that of CC's wife to privacy and that of AB to freedom of expression. Eady said that he had to make sure that his judgments were free of personal moral bias.

"It is not for judges when applying the European Convention, which is a secular code applying to those of all religions and none, to give an appearance of sanctimony by damning adulterers or seeking, as I was invited to do by Mr Bartley Jones, to 'vindicate' the state of matrimony," he said.

In assessing the free speech rights of AB, Eady said that not all speech was of equal value and due equal protection. "The communication of material to the world at large in which there is a genuine public interest is naturally to be rated more highly than the right to sell what is mere 'tittle-tattle'," he said.

Eady was particularly concerned with the effects that any publicity would have on CC's wife. She was said to be suffering stress and anxiety which requires medical attention and the court heard that she had talked of committing suicide.

"If I come to the conclusion that, in order to protect [CC's family life], it is necessary to prevent the Defendant going directly or indirectly to the media for no better reason than spite, money-making or 'tittle tattle', then I would be obliged to restrain him. The fact that he may be, or may see himself as, an 'injured party' does not accord him a special status, not given to others, which inherently raises the value of the communications he wishes to make to the tabloids on to some higher plane or renders them more valuable in Article 10 terms," said Eady.

The court issued a temporary injunction stopping AB from communicating with the media directly or indirectly or publishing on the internet any details of the affair.

SOURCE

Husband's online revenge nipped in the bud

Celebrity adulterers have human rights too

A wronged husband bent on revenge who threatened to reveal the identity of his wife's celebrity lover on the internet has been barred from doing so. An interim injunction has been served on human rights grounds.

In a case which could have serious repercussions for online and offline media law the High Court has ruled that the wife of the celebrity adulterer should be protected from the publication of the details of the affair.

The identities of all parties have been kept secret. The husband was referred to as AB, the celebrity adulterer, believed to be a figure from the world of sport, as CC.

Justice Eady ruled that the privacy rights of CC's wife under the European Convention of Human Rights would be infringed by AB's revelations about their affair.

"In personal and sexual relationships the courts have for some time recognised that there is what is now generally referred to as a reasonable or legitimate 'expectation of privacy'," said Eady in his ruling.

The case involved a balancing of competing EHCR rights, said Eady: that of CC's wife to privacy and that of AB to freedom of expression. Eady said that he had to make sure that his judgments were free of personal moral bias.

"It is not for judges when applying the European Convention, which is a secular code applying to those of all religions and none, to give an appearance of sanctimony by damning adulterers or seeking, as I was invited to do by Mr Bartley Jones, to 'vindicate' the state of matrimony," he said.

In assessing the free speech rights of AB, Eady said that not all speech was of equal value and due equal protection. "The communication of material to the world at large in which there is a genuine public interest is naturally to be rated more highly than the right to sell what is mere 'tittle-tattle'," he said.

Eady was particularly concerned with the effects that any publicity would have on CC's wife. She was said to be suffering stress and anxiety which requires medical attention and the court heard that she had talked of committing suicide.

"If I come to the conclusion that, in order to protect [CC's family life], it is necessary to prevent the Defendant going directly or indirectly to the media for no better reason than spite, money-making or 'tittle tattle', then I would be obliged to restrain him. The fact that he may be, or may see himself as, an 'injured party' does not accord him a special status, not given to others, which inherently raises the value of the communications he wishes to make to the tabloids on to some higher plane or renders them more valuable in Article 10 terms," said Eady.

The court issued a temporary injunction stopping AB from communicating with the media directly or indirectly or publishing on the internet any details of the affair.

SOURCE

Should IPs Lead in Curbing Internet Defamation?

A friend once said to me, “the internet is good for two things: slander and porn.” For those who have been the target of electronic harassment and bullying, that sentiment could not ring truer.


Too often, individuals and groups on the Internet abuse the free flow of thoughts that is the promise of the Web to turn around and attack or demean others. Oftentimes, those affected can do little to protect themselves, and find themselves on the short end of the stick.

Why does this occur? Simply put, the US has made it easy for ISPs to skirt any responsibility when it comes to what is posted on their servers. Thus some providers will turn a blind eye when a victim comes a-complaining.

It’s a shame. Take for example Google: they will only remove information when it contains personal or copyrighted data, but it is quite difficult to get them to act otherwise. While I can understand Google’s position not to get involved, in the same token most times its pretty easy to discern a malicious site from a legitimate one.

These sites will often abuse Google’s ranking algorithms to gain higher prominence in results — such as the good ‘ol Googlebomb — which is hit or miss as whether the search giant will deal with it.

Other ISPs will provide lip service to the fact that they’ll deal with this type of content, then dance around the fact when you contact them. I’ve had slanderous content written about me, and I’ve contacted the ISP whose servers hosted the content in an attempt to hold them to their policies.

What I found was a “pass the buck” mentality. This particular ISP said that since they were only leasing an IP from them, their terms of use did not apply. Strange: the traffic is still passing through you, so why would you not enforce your own policies?

Kind of like saying, “oh, this website that uses one of our IPs is a piracy site which we specifically prohibit, but we’ll let them go since they aren’t on one of our servers.” Yeah, I think the RIAA or MPAA would buy that one!

In the end, why are we so powerless against defamation in many cases? It’s all thanks to Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, basically. That reads:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Essentially, ISPs don’t have to do anything, thanks to this clause. In our effort to protect the rights of everyone, we’re indirectly protecting hurtful speech as well. That’s just great.

Other countries have begun to clamp down on online defamation. For example, in Canada, the courts are now increasingly more apt to compel websites to reveal the identities of anonymous posters when defamation is involved.

These same countries are also beginning to force ISPs to identify who’s behind websites that are defamatory. While I am a strong supporter of staying anonymous in most cases (journalism depends heavily on those types of sources), when its for malicious purposes, you shouldn’t be getting any protection.

While I am not saying the ISP should tell the defamed who’s writing about them without the courts, the threat of disclosure may stop many from writing purposely hurtful missives about their victims.

Neither am I coming at this solely because this has happened to me. I’ve always been kind of disturbed by the fact that a lot of speech that people couldn’t get away with in real life seems to be free game on the Web. It doesn’t make sense.

It is a First Amendment right to be able to say what you want. So I can understand some people’s wariness of control over what people say. But can’t those of us who are subject to the malicious words of others get some relief?

What’s so wrong with dealing with stuff like this out of a court room, that’s what I want to know?

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Should IPs Lead in Curbing Internet Defamation?

A friend once said to me, “the internet is good for two things: slander and porn.” For those who have been the target of electronic harassment and bullying, that sentiment could not ring truer.


Too often, individuals and groups on the Internet abuse the free flow of thoughts that is the promise of the Web to turn around and attack or demean others. Oftentimes, those affected can do little to protect themselves, and find themselves on the short end of the stick.

Why does this occur? Simply put, the US has made it easy for ISPs to skirt any responsibility when it comes to what is posted on their servers. Thus some providers will turn a blind eye when a victim comes a-complaining.

It’s a shame. Take for example Google: they will only remove information when it contains personal or copyrighted data, but it is quite difficult to get them to act otherwise. While I can understand Google’s position not to get involved, in the same token most times its pretty easy to discern a malicious site from a legitimate one.

These sites will often abuse Google’s ranking algorithms to gain higher prominence in results — such as the good ‘ol Googlebomb — which is hit or miss as whether the search giant will deal with it.

Other ISPs will provide lip service to the fact that they’ll deal with this type of content, then dance around the fact when you contact them. I’ve had slanderous content written about me, and I’ve contacted the ISP whose servers hosted the content in an attempt to hold them to their policies.

What I found was a “pass the buck” mentality. This particular ISP said that since they were only leasing an IP from them, their terms of use did not apply. Strange: the traffic is still passing through you, so why would you not enforce your own policies?

Kind of like saying, “oh, this website that uses one of our IPs is a piracy site which we specifically prohibit, but we’ll let them go since they aren’t on one of our servers.” Yeah, I think the RIAA or MPAA would buy that one!

In the end, why are we so powerless against defamation in many cases? It’s all thanks to Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, basically. That reads:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Essentially, ISPs don’t have to do anything, thanks to this clause. In our effort to protect the rights of everyone, we’re indirectly protecting hurtful speech as well. That’s just great.

Other countries have begun to clamp down on online defamation. For example, in Canada, the courts are now increasingly more apt to compel websites to reveal the identities of anonymous posters when defamation is involved.

These same countries are also beginning to force ISPs to identify who’s behind websites that are defamatory. While I am a strong supporter of staying anonymous in most cases (journalism depends heavily on those types of sources), when its for malicious purposes, you shouldn’t be getting any protection.

While I am not saying the ISP should tell the defamed who’s writing about them without the courts, the threat of disclosure may stop many from writing purposely hurtful missives about their victims.

Neither am I coming at this solely because this has happened to me. I’ve always been kind of disturbed by the fact that a lot of speech that people couldn’t get away with in real life seems to be free game on the Web. It doesn’t make sense.

It is a First Amendment right to be able to say what you want. So I can understand some people’s wariness of control over what people say. But can’t those of us who are subject to the malicious words of others get some relief?

What’s so wrong with dealing with stuff like this out of a court room, that’s what I want to know?

ORIGINAL ARTICLE