SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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