diff --git a/HarmfulCommunications201908.org b/HarmfulCommunications201908.org index a5a840c..bdff420 100644 --- a/HarmfulCommunications201908.org +++ b/HarmfulCommunications201908.org @@ -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