self-hosting-advocacy/harmful-communications-201910
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity

Getting there

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Éibhear Ó hAnluain 2019-09-16 20:53:18 +01:00
parent b34ef48974
commit 9361d5876d
1 changed files with 354 additions and 232 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

586
HarmfulCommunications201908.org
View file

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
#+AUTHOR: Éibhear Ó hAnluain
#+EMAIL: eibhear.geo@gmail.com, 086 8565 666, http://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/
#+OPTIONS: ^:{} toc:2 H:4 num:t author:t email:nil
#+TODO: CONSTODO CONSNOTES | CONSDONE
#+TODO: CONSTODO CONSNOTES | CONSDONE CONSDONTDO
* Planning :noexport:
** Resources :noexport:
@ -245,42 +245,7 @@
* Abuse, child sexual exploitation, hateful conduct, private information, Sensitive media, voilent threats
* => 60,000 account reported/day
* => 0.02% of accounts reported
* CONSDONE Introduction
My name is Éibhear Ó hAnluain and I have been working in software
engineering and IT systems design since 1994. I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this contribution to your analysis of /issues
of online harassment, harmful communications and related offences/.
In this submission I am seeking to highlight 3 core concerns:
- The distinction between user behaviours and online services.
- The nature of the online services from the perspective of small
operators
- The potential damage legislative measures can have on small
operators of online services
However, prior to addressing these topics, I would like to raise
some ambiguities that this wider discussion will encounter.
- The first is the meaning of the term /self-regulation/. If a
measure of self-regulation to address these concerns is
acceptable, then it would be necessary for public-perception
reasons, to be clear on what that means. /Self-regulation/ could
mean either where each service operator manages matters of
harassment and harmful communications according to their own rules
and processes. This is currently how the large service providers
we're most familiar with operate. However, /self-regulation/ may
also refer to regulation by a non-governmental industry-funded
body, following the model of the press council or the advertising
standards authority, where rules and processes are agreed among
the operators as a set of standards, and where decisions of
compliance to these are made by this body.
In order to avoid this ambiguity, I will use the term
"self-moderation" to refer to the former, and the term
"industry-regulation" for the latter.
* CONSTODO The distinction between user behaviours and online services
* CONSDONTDO The distinction between user behaviours and online services :noexport:
The internet is awash with online harassment and harmful
communications, and responsible governments and legislators have
@ -362,8 +327,43 @@
- The new Copyright Directive...
-
* CONSTODO Self-hosting
** CONSTODO Self-hosting
* CONSDONE Introduction
My name is Éibhear Ó hAnluain and I have been working in software
engineering and IT systems design since 1994. I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this contribution to your analysis of /issues
of online harassment, harmful communications and related offences/.
In this submission I am seeking to highlight 3 core concerns:
- The distinction between user behaviours and online services.
- The nature of the online services from the perspective of small
operators
- The potential damage legislative measures can have on small
operators of online services
However, prior to addressing these topics, I would like to raise
some ambiguities that this wider discussion will encounter.
- The first is the meaning of the term /self-regulation/. If a
measure of self-regulation to address these concerns is
acceptable, then it would be necessary for public-perception
reasons, to be clear on what that means. /Self-regulation/ could
mean either where each service operator manages matters of
harassment and harmful communications according to their own rules
and processes. This is currently how the large service providers
we're most familiar with operate. However, /self-regulation/ may
also refer to regulation by a non-governmental industry-funded
body, following the model of the press council or the advertising
standards authority, where rules and processes are agreed among
the operators as a set of standards, and where decisions of
compliance to these are made by this body.
In order to avoid this ambiguity, I will use the term
"self-moderation" to refer to the former, and the term
"industry-regulation" for the latter.
* CONSDONE Self-hosting
** CONSDONE Self-hosting
For the purposes of this submission, /self-hosting/ is where an
individual or small group has opted to provide their own internet
services, making use either of computer capacity provided by an ISP
@ -385,116 +385,6 @@
self-hosting has more a direct implication on the former use-cases,
as the effect of poor regulation on vulnerable people would be more
direct, immediate and serious.
*** Why self-host?
There is a myriad of reasons for choosing to host one's own
service. Some examples might be:
** CONSTODO How accessible is self-hosting.
*** CONSTODO Technical protocols
In a previous, similar, submission[fn:dccae:Available [[http://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/posts/2019/04/15_harmful-content-consultation.html][here]] and
[[https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Documents/86/submissions/Eibhear_O_HAnluain.pdf][here]].], I provide an outline of the challenges before someone who
wants to set up their own services. There are few, and they are
small. In summary, the reasons for this are:
- The Internet is mechanism for computers to find each other and
then to share information with each other. The mechanism is
defined in a set of publicly-available documents describing the
relevant protocols.
- Due to the maturity and age of these protocols, software needed
to use them is now abundant and trivially easy to get and
install and run on a computer. Such software is also very easy
to develop for moderately-skilled software engineers.
- Neither the protocols that define, nor the software that
implement the internet regard any computer to be superior or
inferior to any other computer. For this reason, there is no
cost or capacity barrier for someone to cross in order to run an
internet service: if you have the software, and the internet
connection, then you can expose such a service.
Clear examples from the past of how the accessibility of the
internet technologies has benefited the world include the following:
- The /Linux/ operating system kernel began life in 1991 as a
college project -- Linus Torvalds wanted to write a computer
operating system that was accessible to all. Linux-based
operating systems now form the basis of a significant proportion
of internet connected computing devices
globally[fn:LinuxProportions:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems]
(including 73% of smartphones and tablet computers, somewhere
between 36% and 66% of internet-facing server computers), and
100% of supercomputers.
- The /Apache/ web server started development when a group of 8
software developers wanted to add functionality to one of the
original web server software packages, /NCSA httpd/. The Apache
web server now powers 43.6% of all web
sites[fn:apacheProportions:[[https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/web_server/all][https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/web_server/all]]. Incidentally,
the no. 2 on that web page, with nearly 42% share of websites is
/nginx/. It also started out as a project by an individual who
wanted to solve a particular project.].
- The /Firefox/ web browser was initiated by three software
developers who wanted to make a light-weight browser based on
the Mozilla code-base. At the height of its popularity,
/Firefox/ was used in 34% of web-page requests, despite not
coming installed by default on any computer or mobile
device. However, its real impact is that it was instrumental in
breaking the monopoly that Microsoft's Internet Explorer held
since the late '90s, resulting in far richer and more secure
web.
When we look at the main services that society is currently
struggling with, we need to consider the following historical
facts:
- Facebook started out as a crude service, developed in Mark
Zuckerberg's room in Harvard University, to allow users (men, of
course) to rate the women in the university in terms of
"hotness".
- Google started out as a search engine called
"Backrub". Development initially took place in a garage.
- eBay was originally an auction service tagged onto the personal
website of its founder, Pierre Omidyar.
- LinkedIn was initially developed in Reid Hoffman's apartment
in 2003.
- Shutterstock, a leading provider of stock images, was founded by
a photographer, John Oringer, who developed the service as a
means to make available 30,000 of his own photographs.
The ease with which internet technology can be accessed has given
rise to the explosion of services that connect people, and people
with businesses.
It is critical to note that many of these technologies and
services started out with an individual or small group developing
an idea and showing it can work *prior* to receiving the large
capital investments that result in their current dominance.
*** CONSTODO The nature of self-hosting
All of the above technologies and services can be considered truly
disruptive. In their respective domains, their arrivals resulted in
a dramatic improvements in internet technologies and services.
However, There are many alternatives to the systems that we are
familiar with, all developed by individuals, or small, enthusiastic
teams:
- /Twitter/ isn't the only micro-blogging service: there's also
/GNU Social/, /Pleroma/, /Mastodon/.
- An alternative to /Facebook/ is /diaspora*/
- /Nextcloud/ and /Owncloud/ are examples of alternatives to
/Dropbox/.
In the cases of all these alternatives, users can sign up for
accounts on "instances" operated by third-party providers, or
users can set up their own instances and operate the services
themselves.
Many of these services can federate with others. Federation in
this context means that there can be multiple instances of a
service, communicating with each other over a defined protocol,
sharing updates and posts. For users, federation means that they
can interact with other users who aren't necessarily on the same
node or instance. For administrators of instances, federation
means that they can configure their instances according to their
own preferences, rather than having to abide by the rules or
technical implementation of someone else.
*** CONSTODO Real examples of self-hosting
I host a number of such services:
@ -502,7 +392,10 @@
- [[https://social.gibiris.org/][/Social Gibiris/]] is a micro-blogging service that is federated
with others using the /AtomPub/ technology. Thus, /Social
Gibiris/ is federated with many other instances of /GNU Social/,
/Mastodon/ and /Pleroma/.
/Mastodon/ and /Pleroma/. This network of federated services,
operated by individuals, groups and businesses, all connected
together as peers, facilitate connections and communication in a
way that is very little different to twitter.
- [[https://git.gibiris.org/][/git.gibiris.org/]] is a source-code sharing site that I use to
make publicly available some of the software that I develop for
myself.
@ -523,21 +416,159 @@
2 of those services, /git.gibiris.org/ and /Social Gibiris/ can
process or post user-uploaded information.
** CONSTODO Regulation of self-hosted services
*** CONSTODO Why self-host?
There is a myriad of reasons for choosing to host one's own
service. Some examples might be:
- Privacy -- until recently many services were careless or
outright abusive users' privacy
- Tracking -- the extent to which organisations, particularly
those whose business models are based on advertising, facilitate
the tracking of internet users as they conduct their business or
personal activities across the internet.
- Autonomy -- to be able to configure ones own service is often a
powerful experience.
- Community -- While some of the global services with household
names offer features go small businesses and community groups
(like footall clubs or debating societies), often the lock-in
and exclusivity involved can make it hard to include everyone
who needs to be involved. Hosting your own services allows you
to set the rules and codes of conduct.
- Experimentation -- just by means of playing with interesting
software projects can people often learn about the tools and
systems they use, and grow their knowledge of the technologies
involved.
- Collaboration -- the softwas that implements self-hosted
services often some under the terms of a Free or Open Source
Software copyright licence, which allows for peope to copy and
improve software, and these improvements often find their back
to the original project for others to benefit.
- Protection -- Governments in countries where civil rights are
not regarded as highly as they are in Ireland very often delight
in the greater ease involved in surveilling their populations
when the record of all that activity is centralised in a single
service.
Very often, as with me, the reason to self-host is a combination
of more than 1 of these reasons.
** CONSDONE How accessible is self-hosting.
In a previous, similar, submission[fn:dccae:Available [[http://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/posts/2019/04/15_harmful-content-consultation.html][here]] and
[[https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Documents/86/submissions/Eibhear_O_HAnluain.pdf][here]].], I provide an outline of the challenges before someone who
wants to set up their own services. There are few, and they are
small. In summary, the reasons for this are:
- The Internet is mechanism for computers to find each other and
then to share information with each other. The mechanism is
defined in a set of publicly-available documents describing the
relevant protocols.
- Due to the maturity and age of these protocols, software needed
to use them is now abundant and trivially easy to get and install
and run on a computer. Such software is also very easy to develop
for moderately-skilled software engineers.
- Neither the protocols that define, nor the software that
implement the internet regard any computer to be superior or
inferior to any other computer. For this reason, there is no cost
or capacity barrier for someone to cross in order to run an
internet service: if you have the software, and the internet
connection, then you can expose such a service.
Clear examples from the past of how the accessibility of the
internet technologies has benefited the world include the
following:
- The /Linux/ operating system kernel began life in 1991 as a
college project -- Linus Torvalds wanted to write a computer
operating system that was accessible to all. Linux-based
operating systems now form the basis of a significant proportion
of internet connected computing devices
globally[fn:LinuxProportions:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems]
(including 73% of smartphones and tablet computers, somewhere
between 36% and 66% of internet-facing server computers), and
100% of supercomputers.
- The /Apache/ web server started development when a group of 8
software developers wanted to add functionality to one of the
original web server software packages, /NCSA httpd/. The Apache
web server now powers 43.6% of all web
sites[fn:apacheProportions:[[https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/web_server/all][https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/web_server/all]]. Incidentally,
the no. 2 on that web page, with nearly 42% share of websites is
/nginx/. It also started out as a project by an individual who
wanted to solve a particular project.].
- The /Firefox/ web browser was initiated by three software
developers who wanted to make a light-weight browser based on the
Mozilla code-base. At the height of its popularity, /Firefox/ was
used in 34% of web-page requests, despite not coming installed by
default on any computer or mobile device. However, its real
impact is that it was instrumental in breaking the monopoly that
Microsoft's Internet Explorer held since the late '90s, resulting
in far richer and more secure web.
When we look at the main services that society is currently
struggling with, we need to consider the following historical
facts:
- Facebook started out as a crude service, developed in Mark
Zuckerberg's room in Harvard University, to allow users (men, of
course) to rate the women in the university in terms of
"hotness".
- Google started out as a search engine called
"Backrub". Development initially took place in a garage.
- eBay was originally an auction service tagged onto the personal
website of its founder, Pierre Omidyar.
- LinkedIn was initially developed in Reid Hoffman's apartment
in 2003.
- Shutterstock, a leading provider of stock images, was founded by
a photographer, John Oringer, who developed the service as a
means to make available 30,000 of his own photographs.
The ease with which internet technology can be accessed has given
rise to the explosion of services that connect people, and people
with businesses.
It is critical to note that many of these technologies and services
started out with an individual or small group developing an idea
and showing it can work *prior* to receiving the large capital
investments that result in their current dominance.
All of the above technologies and services can be considered truly
disruptive. In their respective domains, their arrivals resulted in
a dramatic improvements in internet technologies and services.
However, There are many alternatives to the systems that we are
familiar with, all developed by individuals, or small, enthusiastic
teams:
- /Twitter/ isn't the only micro-blogging service: there's also
/GNU Social/, /Pleroma/, /Mastodon/.
- An alternative to /Facebook/ is /diaspora*/
- /Nextcloud/ and /Owncloud/ are examples of alternatives to
/Dropbox/.
In the cases of all these alternatives, users can sign up for
accounts on "instances" operated by third-party providers, or users
can set up their own instances and operate the services themselves.
Many of these services can federate with others. Federation in this
context means that there can be multiple instances of a service,
communicating with each other over a defined protocol, sharing
updates and posts. For users, federation means that they can
interact with other users who aren't necessarily on the same node
or instance. For administrators of instances, federation means that
they can configure their instances according to their own
preferences, rather than having to abide by the rules or technical
implementation of someone else.
** CONSDONE Regulation of self-hosted services
While it is attractive to create regulations to manage the large,
profit-making organisations, it is imperative that such
regulations don't harm the desire of those who want to create
their own services.
Regulations that apply liability a service-provider for someone
A regulation that apply liability to a service-provider for someone
else's behaviour, is a regulation that can be adhered to only by
organisations with large amounts of money to hand. For example, if
the regulation was to apply liability on me for a posting made by
someone else (and *somewhere* else -- these are federated services
after all) that appear on one of the services that I run, I would
have to shut them down, as I would not be able to put in place the
necessary infrastructure that would mitigate my
someone else that appears on one of the services that I run (and
originally posted *somewhere* else -- these are federated services
after all), I would have to shut it down; I am not able to put in
place the necessary infrastructure that would mitigate my
liability[fn:copyrightDirective:This assumes that my services
aren't forced to shut down by the new EU Copyright Directive
anyway]. Given that my services are intended to provide a positive
@ -564,92 +595,183 @@
pop into the heads of individuals, who will realise them with
nothing more than a computer connected to the internet.
* CONSTODO Abuse
* CONSTODO Other considerations
While the main focus of this submission is to highlight the
potential risk to self-hosters from regulation that neglect to
consider the practice, I would like to take the opportunity to
briefly raise some additional concerns
All systems that seek to protect people from harmful or other
objectionable material (e.g. copyright infringement, terrorism
propaganda, etc.) have, to date, been amenable to abuse. For
example, in a recent court filing, Google claimed that 99.97% of
infringement notices it received in from a single party in January
2017 were
bogus[fn:googleTakedown:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170223/06160336772/google-report-9995-percent-dmca-takedown-notices-are-bot-generated-bullshit-buckshot.shtml]:
** CONSTODO Abuse
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
A significant portion of the recent increases in DMCA submission
volumes for Google Search stem from notices that appear to be
duplicative, unnecessary, or mistaken. As we explained at the San
Francisco Roundtable, a substantial number of takedown requests
submitted to Google are for URLs that have never been in our search
index, and therefore could never have appeared in our search
results. For example, in January 2017, the most prolific submitter
submitted notices that Google honored for 16,457,433 URLs. But on
further inspection, 16,450,129 (99.97%) of those URLs were not in
our search index in the first place. Nor is this problem limited to
one submitter: in total, 99.95% of all URLs processed from our
Trusted Copyright Removal Program in January 2017 were not in our
index.
#+END_QUOTE
To date, all systems that seek to protect others from harmful or
other objectionable material (e.g. copyright infringement,
terrorism propaganda, etc.) have, to date, been very amenable to
abuse. For example, in a recent court filing, Google claimed that
99.97% of infringement notices it received in from a single party
in January 2017 were
bogus[fn:googleTakedown:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170223/06160336772/google-report-9995-percent-dmca-takedown-notices-are-bot-generated-bullshit-buckshot.shtml]:
Aside from the percentage of URLs noted that don't exist in
Google's index, that a single entity would submit more than 16
million URLs for delisting in a single month is staggering, and
demonstrates a compelling point: there is no downside for a
bad-faith actor seeking to take advantage of a system for
suppressing information[fn:downside:The law being used in this
specific case is the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It
contains a provision that claims of copyright ownership on the part
of the claimant are to be made under penalty of perjury. However,
that provision is very weak, and seems not to be a deterrent for a
determined agent:
https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedowns-are-not-a-crime-131115].
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
A significant portion of the recent increases in DMCA submission
volumes for Google Search stem from notices that appear to be
duplicative, unnecessary, or mistaken. As we explained at the San
Francisco Roundtable, a substantial number of takedown requests
submitted to Google are for URLs that have never been in our search
index, and therefore could never have appeared in our search
results. For example, in January 2017, the most prolific submitter
submitted notices that Google honored for 16,457,433 URLs. But on
further inspection, 16,450,129 (99.97%) of those URLs were not in
our search index in the first place. Nor is this problem limited to
one submitter: in total, 99.95% of all URLs processed from our
Trusted Copyright Removal Program in January 2017 were not in our
index.
#+END_QUOTE
More recently, there is the story of abuse of the GDPR's /Right to
be Forgotten/. An individual from Europe made a claim in 2014,
under the original /Right to be Forgotten/, to have stories related
to him excluded from Google searches for him. This seemed to have
been an acceptable usage under those rules. However, that this
claim was made and processed seems also to be a matter of public
interest, and some stories were written in the online press
regarding it. Subsequently, the same individual used the /Right to
be Forgotten/ to have *these* stories excluded from Google
searches.
That a single entity would submit more than 16 million URLs for
delisting in a single month is staggering, and demonstrates a
compelling point: there is no downside for a bad-faith actor
seeking to take advantage of a system for suppressing
information[fn:downside:The law being used in this specific case is
the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It contains a provision
that claims of copyright ownership on the part of the claimant are
to be made under penalty of perjury. However, that provision is
very weak, and seems not to be a deterrent for a determined agent:
https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedowns-are-not-a-crime-131115].
This cat-and-mouse game continues to the extent that the individual
is (successfully) requiring Google to remove stories *about his
use* of the GDPR's /Right to be Forgotten/. Even stories that cover
*only* his /Right to be Forgotten/ claims, making no reference at
all to the original (objected-to)
story[fn:RTBF:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190320/09481541833]. This
is clearly an abuse of the law: Google risks serious sanction from
data protection authorities if it decides to invoke the
"... exercising the right of freedom of expression and information"
exception[fn:FoE_GPDR:GDPR, Article 17, paragraph 3(a)] and it is
determined that the exception didn't apply. However, the claimant
suffers no sanction if it is determined that the exception /does/
apply.
The GDPR's /Right to be Forgotten/ is also subject to abuse. An
individual from Europe continues to have stories related to him
excluded from Google searches. However appropriate on the face of
it, the stories this individual is now getting suppressed relate to
his continued abuse of the /Right to be
Forgotten/[fn:RTBF:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190320/09481541833]. That
the "right" can be abused in this way is counter to the public
interest, as it can now be used like a "Super Injunction".
In systems that facilitate censorship[fn:censorship:While seeking
to achieve a valuable and socially important goal, this
legislation, and all others of its nature, facilitates censorship:
as a society, we should not be so squeamish about admitting this.],
it is important to do more than merely assert that service
providers should protect fundamental rights for expression and
information. In a regime where sending an e-mail costs nearly
nothing, where a service risks serious penalties (up to and
including having to shutdown) and where a claimant suffers nothing
for abusive claims, the regime is guaranteed to be abused.
While the GDPR allows for search engines "... exercising the right
of freedom of expression and information", if they are presented
with /Right to be Forgotten/ demands, they have to choose between
serious sanctions if they don't filter the results when they should
have, or no sanctions if they suppress the results when they didn't
need to.
* CONSTODO Harmful content definition
In systems that facilitate censorship[fn:censorship:While seeking
to achieve a valuable and socially important goal, this
legislation, and all others of its nature, facilitates censorship:
as a society, we should not be so squeamish about admitting this.],
it is important to do more than merely assert that service
providers should protect fundamental rights for expression and
information. In a regime where sending an e-mail costs nearly
nothing, where a service risks serious penalties (up to and
including having to shutdown) and where a claimant suffers nothing
for abusive claims, the regime is guaranteed to be abused.
This submission will not offer any suggestions as to what should be
considered "harmful content". However, I am of the belief that if
"harmful content" is not narrowly defined, the system will allow
bad actors to abuse it, and in the context where there is no risk
to making claims, and great risk in not taking down the reported
postings, loose definitions will only make it easier for
non-harmful content to be removed.
** CONSTODO Behaviour
** CONSTODO Content moderation
* CONSTODO Answers to consultation questions
The follows are some answers to the questions posed in the call for
submissions.
** CONSTODO Definition of communication in legislation
1. There are currently significant gaps in legislation with regard
to harassment and newer, more modern forms of communication. Is
there a need to expand the definition of ‘communications’ to
include online and digital communications tools such as
WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat, etc. when addressing crimes of
bullying or harassment?
- Éibhear comment :: (/Address in introduction/) It is necessary
not to assume that the current services that operate will
be the primary services in 5 or 10 years' time.
2. What lessons can be learned from models used in other
jurisdictions such as the UK, New Zealand, Australia and other
European countries where legislation is now in place to address
these issues? How do we establish an appropriate model without
compromising free speech?
- Éibhear comment :: (/Address in answer to specific questions/)
UK: duty of care is inappropriate. New Zealand: allowing a
committee to decide what is objectionable, thus restricting
not only those who want to share objectionable material,
but also those who want to report on it.
3. How do we ensure that any legislation that is enacted is
flexible enough to keep up with changing and advancing
technologies, new apps and other online forums, including the
more familiar social media sites?
- Éibhear's comments :: (/Core concern/) Hmm. This is the meat
of the submission.
** CONSTODO Harassment, stalking & other forms of online abuse
4. [@4] Online harassment can take the form of on-consensual taking
and distribution of intimate images or videos, otherwise known
as ‘revenge porn’, ‘upskirting’, ‘downblousing’ and other forms
of sharing of imagery online without consent. What approaches
are taken to addressing these issues in other jurisdictions?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
5. New offences are proposed to cover these issues in Deputy
Brendan Howlin’s Private Members Bill on this subject. Is the
creation of new offences necessary, or is existing legislation
sufficient? Should other forms of image-sharing issues - such as
exposure - also be addressed?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
6. What kind of oversight and regulation of online service
providers is possible/used in other jurisdictions? Currently,
online providers are self regulated. Is a proactive,
self-regulating approach from online companies to activities
such as revenge porn and other forms of harassment preferable to
the creation of more laws?
- Éibhear's comment :: Important to know the difference
between "self regulated", and pro-active
moderation. These service moderation according to their
own rules; there is no industry authority like the press
council or the advertising standards authority, which are
self-regulatory regimes.
7. Is any data provided by online service providers in relation to
the reporting or prevalence of activities such as
upskirting/revenge porn/cyberbullying and other online behaviour
that can be used to develop and draft future legislation?
- Éibhear's comment :: No data. However, services should be
encouraged to issue reports on their moderation efforts.
8. To what extent are An Garda Síochána equipped and resourced to
deal with the issues arising from harmful online communications
such as these?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
9. Should ‘cyberstalking’ be treated as a separate offence to
online harassment? What constitutes stalking-type behaviour
online? Is there a need to legislative specifically for this
activity?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
10. Based on the findings of other jurisdictions such as in the UK,
An Garda Síochána will require consistent training in order to
maintain an appropriate level of knowledge with regard to
indictable behaviours. Are resources available for this?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
11. Fake accounts/troll accounts used to harass or target others
with abuse – what measures can be taken in relation to these
without effecting freedom of expression?
- Éibhear's comment :: Care needs to be taken to ensure
manage/prevent false identification of accounts as 'fake'
or 'troll'.
12. Do other jurisdictions have statutory measures to protect
victim identities in cases of online harassment being released
online posthearings, etc?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
** CONSTODO Harmful online behaviour and young people
13. [@13] How do we most appropriately regulate social media
platforms to prevent cyberbullying and inappropriate sharing of
personal images?
- Éibhear's comment :: take details from earlier submission.
14. For young people who participate in such online behaviour as
consensual image sharing, how can it be ensured that they are
not inadvertently criminalised when legislation is enacted?
What safeguards can be put in place?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
15. Deputy Brendan Howlin’s Private Members Bill provides that
those under 17 should not be fined/imprisoned but put into
relevant education or supports. Would these supports be part of
the same educational supports offered to all young
people/schools or would they be a separate entity? Are current
supports being utilised? Are there sufficient resources to
provide for such a provision when enacted?
- Éibhear's comment :: No answer for this
* CONSDONTDO Answers to consultation questions :noexport:
** CONSTODO Strand 1 -- National Legislative Proposal
*** CONSTODO Question 1 -- Systems
- The legislation should state in an unequivocal manner that it is