Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
There are all sorts of different ways that websites that allow comments have dealt with trollish behavior over the years, but I think the BBC's new policy is the first I've seen in which the organization threatens that it may contact your boss or your school (found via Frank Fisher).
The new policy has a short section on "offensive or inappropriate content on BBC websites" where it says the following:
Offensive or inappropriate content on BBC websites
If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.
Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.
To be fair, it does seem to limit this to cases where it believes you've violated the law, but even so, it seems like a stretch to argue that the BBC should be calling your boss to tell on you for being a [troll], even if you break the law.
Source: TechDirt
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:15AM (8 children)
Because I don't have enough problems with trolls mocking me, moderators downmodding me, and bullies threatening to doxx me. Now the BBC is against me too.
Fuck you, world! Fuck the whole lot of you!!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:26AM (2 children)
Is that the same mouth you use to say "hello" to your boss every morning?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:30AM
Nobody is the boss of me.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @03:27PM
No, but *this* is the mouth I use to say hello to *your* boss every night.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @03:39AM
I just route it all through Russia and Rachel Maddow.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Friday May 19 2017, @08:34AM
Notification sent. You will hear from your school soon, child!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:40PM
Quiet or we'll tell your Mum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @10:14PM
In this case the BBC is all of those. The media has gone unhinged on speech they do not like. These people are not your friends. They are not giving you good news. They sell you bad news. They think they are saving the world when they are making it much much much worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @10:51PM
BBC - British Bully Corporation.
They're welcome to moan to my boss as I am my own boss. :)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 19 2017, @02:23AM (17 children)
I don't know anyone that's dumb enough to give the BBC their real personal info. Always use spam catcher email accounts and burner phones for this kind of crap.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 19 2017, @02:33AM (6 children)
Bingo. fustakrakich wins the internet today. People who voluntarily give the BBC, or anyone else online, their real contact information, are chumps, asking to be burnt.
I'm looking at all the fools who post all the details of their lives to Facebook, first and foremost. But, while those are the worst of the worst, you can find chumps almost everywhere who invite predators into their lives. The internet is NOT the repository for all of your hopes and fears, it is NOT the place for all your personal details.
And, FUCK THE BBC!!
As for my employer, it is very clear where his authority begins and ends. My employer has jack shit to say about what I post online, unless I screw up and name that employer, and offer trade secrets and confidential information. ONLY IF I should cross that line, would my employer have any authority over my postings. Fuck my employer, and double fuck the social justice warrior who calls herself a "human relations" officer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:44AM (2 children)
double fuck the social justice warrior who calls herself a "human relations" officer
So, company whore?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 19 2017, @03:01AM (1 child)
Mmmmmm - uhhhhh -
That's a tough question. I don't think she whores herself at all. She is a BELIEVER!! You can't sell yourself for an idea that you believe in. Besides, she's almost the definition of "fugly", so she would have a hard time prostituting herself.
So, no, I don't suppose she's any kind of a whore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @06:56PM
I believe you are overthinking this. The emphasis should be placed on the "human relations" part of the job description to get the joke. As far the part about her being fugly, perhaps she is in fact a he. That seems to be a common thread among SJW advocates who claim femalehood these days. Is "her" name Caitlin or maybe L-O-L-A Lola?
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Friday May 19 2017, @03:17AM
Why would it have to be you who ties them together? A 3rd party reddit/twitter lynch mob leader will tie your name to your employer and demand your firing. ISP/Telco/Service provider staff will dox you to assist, provided your politics aren't sufficiently leftist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @11:05AM
> People who voluntarily give the BBC, or anyone else online,
> their real contact information, are chumps, asking to be burnt.
Yes, except that access to the BBC iPlayer service (watch BBC content via the internet at your convenience) is changing
1. First they made it a requirement that you have a TV license - it used to be the case that this was only required for watching TV live over the air. But it was an honour system - you clicked "Yes I have a valid TV license"
2. Now I see a message indicating that soon you will have to register and have an account to use iPlayer. I've not tried registering yet so maybe 3 is actually already part of 2.
3. Presumably at some point the registration process will cross-check against the list of TV licenses meaning there will at very least be a connection to a database that has your real [name and] address (licenses are by property, or TV or person).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:04PM
BBC: Dear Boss - One of your programmers is trolling on our internet site! They said very, very mean things. In public!
Boss: Dear BBC - Fuck off. Unsubscribe. Mark as Spam. Report to Authorities. I don't give a shit.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:54AM (6 children)
> I don't know anyone that's dumb enough to give the BBC their real personal info.
Like.... your IP address?
If you post from work and you break the law, it doesn't seem out of line for the BBC to report that someone at your company's place of business is using their equipment to break the law.
ISP and email providers are In the list of groups they will contact, seems like they don't care about your employer per se but the group responsible for the equipment you are using. This policy sounds completely ordinary to me.
This story, like everything else the mighty butthurt posts is just click-bait for the half-cocked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @03:39AM
Bleh! Go away, troll!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Spamalope on Friday May 19 2017, @03:49AM (3 children)
"inappropriate or objectionable content"
By whose standards? Only a fool could be comfortable trusting such a judgement call standard won't be subject to a political purity test.
Supporting the wrong political candidate is enough to be labeled a *phobe, nazi, etc. Mention that family law is biased? Sexist! Support individual liberty or privacy? Basement dwelling scumbag!
Media organizations have been supportive of post-modernist agendas of late. If find this or any policy easily abused by a cry-bully troubling in light of that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @04:30AM (2 children)
"inappropriate or objectionable content"
By whose standards? Only a fool could be comfortable trusting such a judgement call standard won't be subject to a political purity test.
Case in point.
That phrase does not appear in the BBC document.
So why are you so worked up over it? Because you didn't pay attention and went off half-cocked.
Exactly as the mighty blowhard intended. Do you enjoy being suckered?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 19 2017, @04:38AM (1 child)
That phrase does not appear in the BBC document.
It's not any hindrance for applying it. Official policy often isn't the real practice.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @11:55AM
> It's not any hindrance for applying it. Official policy often isn't the real practice.
Well, by that logic then, every website is going to report you to your employer for any reason at all because their terms of service don't say anything about it either! SMDH
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @12:08PM
If you post from work and you break the law, it doesn't seem out of line for the BBC to report that someone at your company's place of business is using their equipment to break the law.
Private law enforcement is better known as mob rule.
If the law has been broken, contact the police, not the employer. If the employer needs to be contacted, let the police do it.
The only reason for the BBC to contact someones employer over forum posts is that someone doesn't like the post, but the post is not against the law.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday May 19 2017, @12:18PM (1 child)
Out of curiosity I've just signed up to the BBC website. They did not even ask for my name, just an email address and a PW, a pity because I was looking forward to giving one of my standard falses IDs (actually, someone I want to piss off) but was never asked. I gave a spam-catcher email address. The only way they could identify me is by asking my ISP or my spam-catcher. Neither are mainstream and I expect the BBC would be told to fuck off if they tried.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 19 2017, @02:45PM
I expect the BBC would be told to fuck off if they tried.
:-) I wouldn't count on it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 19 2017, @05:46PM
Why would you give them fake ID, when you can give them the real ID of someone you really don't like?
Troll the Beeb and your foes by making them fight each other!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:25AM (6 children)
Troll them once: Shame on you.
Troll them twice: You're already unemployable and can troll them all day long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:36AM
Sure but the real questions are can you still collect jobseekers benefits and does being unemployable for trolling count as a disability and how can trolling be used as the thin edge of a wedge to basic income.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 19 2017, @02:51AM (4 children)
Shit, I'd been hoping those fuckers would torpedo my career with Boston Dynamics for the past fucking decade. I hate my workplace, Jews, and, shit, everybody. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 19 2017, @02:59AM (3 children)
You're employed? How the fuck did THAT happen, family connections?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 19 2017, @03:13AM (1 child)
Ask San Francisco. if somebody can get hired there, [youtube.com] they can get hired anywhere.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:46AM
I've never been there, but based on what you've told me about the place, I can only assume you sucked more dicks than a Richard Nixon exhibition in orbit around a black hole to get that job :D Almost said "position," LOL.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @06:27AM
Given his tech background and trollish personality I'm gonna go with: he just found someone he could blackmail.
"Love me, or else!"
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 19 2017, @02:26AM (2 children)
What kind of surveillance and investigative powers do they have that they can figure out who you and your bosses are? Especially if you don't use your real name?
Please don't tell the MAFIAA how you do--- oh, you are part of the MAFIAA.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 19 2017, @02:50AM
I sense some levity in your post, but the BBC is indeed married to the MAFIAA-like organizations of the world. I think we all realize that the US has no counterpart for the BBC. Maybe Netflix could become BBC-like, in time. But, Netflix doesn't control radio and television space, so probably not. We just don't have anything like the BBC.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 19 2017, @03:24PM
Doesn't every TV owner in Britain have to pay a BBC tax of some sort? I would guess they have a record of that they can use to cross-reference your IP address (since we all know an IP address = a person), and then go from there.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:36AM (6 children)
In America your own congressional representative will write to your boss for exercising your first amendment right to free speech. [thehill.com] And not even buzzard-approved punching-down free-speech, actual speaking-truth-to-power political free speech.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 19 2017, @02:46AM (2 children)
That is truly interesting. And, I quote,
"A lawyer told WNYC that the letter is likely not illegal, though it could pose a problem for the congressman politically."
If the activist groups failed to use that letter against the congressman, they missed a golden opportunity. Legal or not, the letter was immoral and unethical. Of course few people expect congress critters to possess morals or ethics.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday May 19 2017, @02:56AM (1 child)
The bit I liked was: “I had to write a statement to my CEO, and at my level as an assistant general counsel and a senior vice president, at this employer it was not something that I expected,”
I know what I would write to the CEO if put in that position: "Dear CEO, this is none of your business".
Also "Frelinghuysen's campaign office in a statement called the note “a personal letter” and maintained that the congressman is not involved with the “bank’s business.”
Weasel trying to weasel out of it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @03:03AM
> I know what I would write to the CEO if put in that position: "Dear CEO, this is none of your business".
The article implies that she was forced to resign as a result. So, CEO's business or not, she is the one who paid the price.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @04:00AM
I know a lot of people that are wealthy because they own their own businesses. and if they exercise their free speech in a manner that's legal and someone doesn't like it they have enough money to hire the best lawyers.
Heck, I know a lot of wealthy people that are rich because they trade the stock market. and they invested in housing at the right time. and they make a ton of money off of their tenants and can basically retire already. and they have ordinary jobs and they make more money doing side jobs than their ordinary jobs. and they can afford to comment on blogs, so long as they don't break the law, and can afford the best lawyers to defend themselves.
Heck, a lot of people have a lot of diversity in how they make their money and a single employer isn't going to single handedly make or break them. Even people without a ton of money can diversify how they make money. They can do things like Uber, Handy, lyft, etc...
The world is full of opportunity for anyone willing to work hard. Period. If you're not lazy there is really nothing that a single employer can do to unreasonably threaten you. You can find another employer. You can find alternative ways to make decent money from being a programmer that finds individual clients (like small businesses that need websites) to investing your money and doing your homework with respect to where to invest it (ie: which stocks) to fixing people's computer as an independent, to cleaning, to getting a job with a big corporation and, if they have a problem with what you do on your free time you can find a job with another employer. If you are willing to work hard you are valuable to someone (provided you aren't unreasonable).
If you can't find work the problem is likely you, not BBC contacting your employer. We live in a world full of opportunity and you don't really want an employer that cares so much about what you do on your free time provided you aren't breaking any laws or doing something to give away trade secrets, etc... There are plenty of other employers out there, this is a world full of opportunity from the illiterate willing to clean floors to the genius willing to tutor difficult subjects. You can make money making Youtube videos or music. You just have to apply yourself.
These nonsense threats are almost laughable and show how petty traditional media has gotten in their thinking and how they're still under the false illusion that they can exercise unlimited control over our lives. Those days are gone. The days that the RIAA/MPAA can dictate who is going to make it and who is not are gone. Whether you make it or not is entirely up to you now and how much effort you are willing to put in.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @04:56AM (1 child)
punching-down free-speech
For the initiated in SJW lingo, "punching down" usually means criticism against any of the arbitrarily selected so-called "marginalized" groups. Saying something akin to "ghetto culture is negatively impacting the success of black people in society" is considered punching down, whilst claiming that the jew*ahem* white men hold all the power in society and run some kind of conspiracy to keep everyone else down (except Asians for some odd reason) is totally okay because that's "punching up".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @11:59AM
Iknowrite? Stupid social justice wankers. Real men know that the real enemy are the ones least able to fight back,
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:40AM
All my BBC accounts show me to be Someone I don't like.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday May 19 2017, @02:41AM (12 children)
In the 80's and early 90's, days of usenet. Didn't understand why people didn't use their real names online, and it suddenly clicked.
It clicked so suddenly I had to get a username Right Fricken Now. Snotnose came to mind. Now I'm snotnose everywhere. And I'm not the only one, there are 3-4 other folks who go by snotnose. Fortunately we don't intersect in our interests, unfortunately it's easy to find out one is a sk8er dude and one is a minister. Still, potential boss googles me and they won't find anything they can tie to me. Cuz they don't know I'm snotnose.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:51AM (2 children)
Michael David Crawford uses his real name and Michael David Crawford can do no wrong. Michael David Crawford recovers from homelessness and long term unemployment in a world where unemployment is a death sentence. Michael David Crawford is a living miracle of blockbuster proportions. Michael David Crawford will have a movie made about his life starring Michael David Crawford as Michael David Crawford.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 19 2017, @03:00AM (1 child)
Fuck yeah. Michael David Crawford ROCKS.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by http on Friday May 19 2017, @05:21PM
Just remember, a homeless guy with mental health issues has more posts worth reading than you have.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @02:53AM (4 children)
Yes, I do know who you are, but I hired you anyway. It amuses me to keep you around.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday May 19 2017, @03:02AM (3 children)
I wish. Made the mistake of leaving a good job a few years back to join a startup, which went tits up a year later. Haven't been able to get an interview since then, let alone a job. Even chopped 10-15 years off my resume, nobody responds to my "um, u got a job, I would be really good at it, so, we good?" emails.
I did not plan to retire in my 50s, but that seems to be what I've done.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @04:44AM (1 child)
Ain't no jobs when you're over 30. Unless you're Michael-fucking-David-fucking-Crawford-fuck-yeah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @06:30AM
Wub a lubba dub dub!
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Friday May 19 2017, @07:54AM
I did not want to retire either... but we do have a Gawd-awful surplus of STEM people in the workplace right now due to all the aerospace companies which are no longer around.
Which has highly depressed how much organizations value us.
One organization I was dealing with seemed to have no problem paying $600 hour for attorney. I was not valued at even ten percent of that.
I was to be the one creating the content. The attorney was retained to protect the content. Geez.
Before I say too much on this, things for me could be far far far worse.... I could be thousands of dollars in student debt with a newly minted engineering degree right now.
Forced to work for peanuts as my training is so specialized I am only useful to certain corporations. Corporations which now have their pick of thousands of job applicants and they can pick the ones with the least expectations which makes for a good bonus for the hiring manager.
I had the choice to turn down those low-ball offers and accept pasture way before my time.
( Jumping up and down and throwing things.... "I am fed up with Cucumber! I want Grape!" )
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 19 2017, @02:56AM (1 child)
Yes, I learned that lesson pretty early too -- for me, it was someone posting emails on his website without permission, emails I had sent him just as casual comments on his site and not meant for public consumption. (This was back in the early days of the web when people just put up personal websites on whatever topic, and they'd have their email address prominently listed for comments/discussion.) You can still find those emails archived around -- the internet never forgot. It was nothing too embarrassing, but it was enough to make me realize I needed to be careful where I used my name when dealing on the internet.
I don't seem to have any competition for my username. Well, there was another guy, but he's been dead for over 300 years, so I don't think he's a problem. Most places I just go by Athanasius when that username is available -- there is occasional competition there (as there was on Slashdot, hence why I use my full name here).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @03:50AM
The internet was so slow 300 years ago that his emails are still *SENDING*........
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Friday May 19 2017, @06:55AM
Not good enough. All your nicknames must be different and they must not link to each other in any way.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:37AM
Pseudonymty FTW!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 19 2017, @03:08AM (6 children)
Seriously. First off, there's nothing in the BBC statement that implies they are going to contact your BOSS -- that's just unjustified spin in TFA. After "employer" they say "school email/internet provider." I take this to mean something slightly different than what TFA is reading into it -- namely, they will contact your email provider if you are using real-world info for your account AND doing something illegal. That email provider could be your employer (if you're using a business email) or your school or your other internet email provider.
And why shouldn't they? If you're using an employer's email, a university's email, or an internet provider's services to do something illegal, there's at least a theoretical possibility that those hosts could be held partly liable for your illegal acts. This isn't generally true legally in the U.S., but precedents have been set elsewhere that make this a real possibility. BBC isn't "telling on you" -- it's informing the entity you claim to be using for internet/email service that one of their users is doing something potentially illegal and for which they could be held culpable in some countries.
As other posts have said already -- only an idiot would be using a real name/email address that easily is tracked back to them to do something questionably legal online. But if you are, well, I'd say BBC has every right to let involved parties know.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday May 19 2017, @03:31AM (2 children)
If you're using an employer's email, a university's email, or an internet provider's services to do something illegal
The good old BBC does not limit itself to reporting an illegal (? probably "suspected illegal") content. Their conditions are much more relaxed:
If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.
Offensive, inappropriate or objectionable? Oh sweet Jesus... hold, I'm taking that back - the name of a well known literary character will be offensive and objectionable to many. The criteria that BBC published allow posting only of information-free content, probably cats' photos. Per the letter of this law, you may be reported for merely disagreeing with an article. In essence, their words permit them to report you if you displease the BBC in any way, as it's them who define what "offensive" and "disruptive" means. Or, even worse, they may adopt those definitions from one or another "vocal minority," [often] being driven by the demands of social justice. Then that minority will crucify you. Hold, I cannot say that either...
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 19 2017, @05:33AM
To be clear, my post was referring to the policy about contacting your employer, etc. I'm less of a fan of the other section of the BBC policy that you note, though that seems to fall under a separate standard of action.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 19 2017, @03:18PM
The criteria that BBC published allow posting only of information-free content, probably cats' photos.
My wife is a cat, you insensitive clod!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @05:11AM
doing something illegal
Trolling is not illegal, and non-trolling classified as trolling for political means is not illegal either.
If someone is doing something illegal, they should be contacting the legal authorities, but they wouldn't do that because they don't have a leg to stand on.
And why shouldn't they?
Because no due process was involved. The BBC has no authority to decide what is illegal and what isn't.
If you're using an employer's email, a university's email, or an internet provider's services to do something illegal, there's at least a theoretical possibility that those hosts could be held partly liable for your illegal acts.
No, there isn't. Entities in the UK are not liable for actions conducted using services rented over which they have no oversight. The providers will be no more liable than a car lease company would be liable for their car was used in a crime.
As other posts have said already -- only an idiot would be using a real name/email address that easily is tracked back to them to do something questionably legal online. But if you are, well, I'd say BBC has every right to let involved parties know.
One could say they were "asking for it".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @07:39AM
> If you're using an employer's email, a university's email, or an internet provider's services to do something illegal, there's at least a theoretical possibility that those hosts could be held partly liable for your illegal acts.
No, there's not. There's even precedent [eff.org] that when somebody knows somebody is doing something illegal on their network, they're still not liable for it. Quoting the reference of the judge there:
Merely providing a tool, like Internet access, that is used for infringement doesn't put you at fault if, as here, the tool is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
A huge issue here is that the UK is becoming ever more of a nanny state and their laws on defamation (which is specifically referenced by the BBC as a possible 'offense') and libel are some of the most free speech infringing in the world. Wiki [wikipedia.org] has lots of information on this topic. The US even passed a law, the SPEECH Act [wikipedia.org], specifically ignoring the judgements of other court's decisions on the issue of libel if they wouldn't hold up in US courts, because of the absurdity of UK law. I think this is why they consider 'your employer or school' a "relevant third party" as opposed to sending the information to law enforcement. Stuff that would be illegal in the UK would be laughed out of courts in most places and especially the USA - so instead they'll try to hurt you by talking to your employer, your school, or whatever else.
And they'll be able to be disingenuously misleading as well. For instance imagine I say, "Prince Charles cheated to pass calculus." That would be a potentially illegal statement to make under UK law, but obviously completely inane. Nonetheless they could package up a nice scary sounding letter without even necessarily mentioning what was said:
"John Doe registered at your university using the email john@school.edu has been found to be engaged in potentially criminal behavior in violation of UK Law sections 1234.56, 345.56, and 789.01. As you may be found to also be liable for the actions of Mr. Doe's actions originated from an internet connection at your university at 127.0.0.1 from times 4:20 to 6:40 EDT on 2 August, 1776. Consequently you may also be found liable for his actions and we are thus writing to inform you that we are considering pursuing legal action. Blah blah blah. Be scared and do something rash. If you have any questions and particularly if you've done something rash feel free to contact us at 867-5309."
I believe people ought be free to say what they feel without fear of a state organization then trying to use that information to hurt them if they dislike what was said. If something is illegal then by all means pursue criminal charges, but they don't need to put in a disclaimer that doing things that are illegal is illegal and may be treated as such. This is instead about trying to punish things are not illegal and opens the door for them to try to softly intimidate non-legal forces into becoming enforcers for them. That's not cool.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday May 19 2017, @08:15PM
According to the BBC's Data Protection Act registration [ico.org.uk], it is legal for the BBC to disclose any information about you to "current, past and prospective employers" at any time and for any reason.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @03:30AM (1 child)
By the way, BBC, go ahead and contact my boss if you like.
I work for myself. Can't wait to tell you limp-dick bad teeth
cowards to go fuck yourselves.
If anyone is wondering whether the US is different from the UK,
you can quit wondering now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @09:48AM
I googled "fuck the bbc" to see how many people share your opinion.
Wrong approach.
(Score: 4, Funny) by snufu on Friday May 19 2017, @03:48AM (2 children)
by ensuring the discussion community consists only of persons with no job or real life reputation to protect.
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Friday May 19 2017, @03:58AM
I guess I should switch from "Adolf Hitler" to some current politician's name when registering for accounts, then.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 19 2017, @05:52PM
by ensuring the discussion community consists only of persons with no job or real life reputation to protect.
So....wait....what's changing?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday May 19 2017, @04:58AM (2 children)
Just as I thought communist Soviet DDR crimes against thinking the wrong way was out of fashion. It's all part of punishing people for having the wrong opinion. And proof that organizations can't be trusted with "real names". Those that have weak arguments for their case always need to know "who you are" and then it just happens by pure chance that they loose their job, social network, money and maybe freedom.
People, recognize this shit and return it back to where it belongs. The scrap heap of human history.
Now some people will say.. we can always get you through your ISP. Well, there's a cure for that too.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday May 20 2017, @09:52AM (1 child)
After 1989 stasi came to this side.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 20 2017, @02:10PM
Almost like operation paper clip infected the US with Nazi ideology. The fall of Soviet infected the west with Stasi thinking. Obviously there's a need to remove this.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Friday May 19 2017, @06:58AM (1 child)
The comments sections of BBC news articles are cesspits for the following reasons. Comments are limited to 400 characters so it's very difficult to make any argument of any depth whatsoever. The comments are not threaded either so it's very difficult to reply in place to a troll or someone talking outright drivel, and you are limited to one post every three minutes.
The result is that BBC Have Your Say is a platform for a continuous torrent of Alt-Wrong stupid signalling, platitudes and soundbites. Other than keeping loonies and paid trolls occupied, it's difficult to see what purpose it serves.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:43AM
How do I become a paid troll? Right now I'm freelancing, but could use the cash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2017, @08:23AM (1 child)
Emphasis by me:
Note the term "relevant". If you are using your private account to post stuff unrelated to your employer, then your employer is clearly not relevant to it (and I'm sure they couldn't find out anyway who is your employer unless you either yourself disclose it, or your employer happens to be the BBC to begin with), and according to that policy shouldn't be informed by the BBC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:46AM
If that' s the case, why is the employer being mentioned at all? Why not just say relevant parties will be notified? Mentioning the employer seems to be a veiled threat.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday May 19 2017, @12:27PM (1 child)
So who do they call when Donald Trump makes a problematic post?
And you know he will. :P
(Score: 3, Funny) by lx on Friday May 19 2017, @03:10PM
Dear mr. Putin,
He's at it again!
Please tell him to stop.
Sincerely,
the BBC
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday May 19 2017, @03:16PM (1 child)
I'm retired; I have no boss.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:49AM
Also must not have a wife.