Well it's Saturday and I have a few minutes spare so I thought I would just do a post which is blogging about blogging, and I apologise for how long it is. In recent days the female blogger Ellee Seymour has found herself the latest target of the ever so tenacious Tim Ireland. This attack has followed the now standard modus operandi of any of Tim's targeted onslaughts.
The whole thing revolves, as ever, around Tim's one-man crusade against anonymous blog comments, or what he calls the abuse of them, and a comment on Ellee's blog which called Tim obsessive. Now, whether Tim is indeed obsessive is a matter of debate and comes down to one's own personal prejudices and definitions of obsessive behavior of course, so I am not going to say he is an obsessive, rather I will say that I can understand why someone might think he was if they were simply watching from the sidelines.
However, putting aside the content of the comment which Tim considers a libelous smear, it's worth noting what happened next. He started to email Ellee demanding the IP address of the person that posted. When Ellee refused, quite rightly, to disclose the data belonging to her users the attack took on a more aggressive edge with veiled legal threats relating, bizarrely, to EU laws and commercial astroturfing.
At this point a reference to a recent legal precedent on this very subject is required I think. A case has just closed about postings on Sheffield Wednesday message boards where the unfounded suggestion was made that the Wednesday CEO "blew money on hookers". The judge, Richard Parkes QC, refused to force the bulletin board owners to disclose the IP address details of posters saying,
"I do not think that it would be right to make an order for the disclosure of the identities of users who have posted messages which are barely defamatory or little more than abusive, or likely to be understood as jokes." The judge also said that the messages "border on the trivial" and were "no more than saloon bar moanings".
As I said above, I'm not going to call Tim Ireland obsessive or even a stalker. However, if such a case ever reached court it's highly likely a defense case would present argument to uphold that such a statement could be a valid use of adjective to describe someone's character and/or behaviour without directly being a libel. And in specific reference to the precedent set by Parkes' judgment, it is unlikely that a political blogger (who like most of us political bloggers) is actually no one of great consequence, thus making such comments considered to be trivial and not worthy of forcing the disclosure of identity.
There is also another very important thing to remember here. This was not a libel case, but was a case brought to force the disclosure of IP addresses in order to seek libel action. Tim's email demands for that data from Ellee thus holds zero legal weight without first going to court. He neither has the right, nor the power to make such demands, and as such Ellee had every right to refuse as she did. If he wants the data he will have to go to court and convince a judge that the comment on a blog with a niche market reach did not "border on the trivial" and could not be seen as "saloon bar moanings".
However, it's not just anonymous comments and what they may or may not say about Tim that is the problem for Tim. He also has an issue with Ellee, and others, who may (or may not in the case of Ellee) delete comments from threads on their websites for whatever reason. For Tim and many of his supporters, deleting critical comments is morally reprehensible, or, as Justin McKeating said, "disgusting. Craven, nauseating behaviour". A little over the top I know, but we should remember that both Tim and Justin's outrage is 100% wrong because they're talking about someone else's property which they have zero rights over.
What does and does not remain on any website anywhere, as comments, uploaded files, or whatever, remains down to the decision of the owner and admin of the site in the first instance. This is the Bastard Operator From Hell approach to IT. My website, my rules. Think of it like this. If you go into someone's home in the real world and start saying things that they dislike in an aggressive accusatory manner you're not going to offer them a cup a tea, you're going to kick them out. Same principle applies online. Don't like something? Delete it.
Of course, whether you do this perfectly legitimate act of maintaining your property in the way you choose or not, then you will, as Ellee discovered, find yourself written about in detail. Evidence of your alleged immorality will be presented to the world with "mirror" shots of your website. The veracity of these mirrors, not just in Ellee's case but anyones is questionable though. After all they are simply plain text files that can be edited. The time stamps of the files can easily be manipulated too, and the image content if the person involved has considerable photoshop skills.
Of course doing this would be totally dishonest and make someone a liar, and it would be wrong of me to say that Tim Ireland had faked screenshots or is lying, so I won't. However, what should be remembered in all circumstances where electronic data is presented as evidence online, is that it can be easily faked. Things are not always as black and white as they seem when it comes to such things. In the case of Tim versus Seymour however, whether Ellee did or did not delete comments matters not as the act of maintaining one's own website, as I have already mentioned, is neither morally or ethically wrong because the ultimate arbiter of those rights is the website owner.
What however should have been done by Tim in this whole situation was to follow the standards and protocols hat have been laid out in the thousands of RFC's that self-regulate the technical and communication specifications of the Internet. If you find something that you believe is libelous against you online in the first instance you contact the hosting provider via the abuse@ email alias that is reserved for such things. You take it to honest arbitration. What you don't do is send emails with no legal weight, and attempt to intimidate someone into disclosing information that you have no legal right too.
Interestingly, anyone can write an RFC and submit it to the Internet community for peer review with the hope that it will be adopted as a standard. If Tim Ireland and his supporters genuinely believe that there is a problem with both anonymous commenting and the owner of a website acting in their interests to protect their property, then they should write an RFC and put their proposals to the community to decide whether they should be adopted. If the community agrees then those ideas will become accepted standards.
I should probably now declare an interest that I did actually point this out to Tim Ireland on his blog, but unfortunately he decided to edit my comment, post the full comment in a text file that is difficult to read because there are no carriage return word wraps, and then banned me for 12 hours. This is of course his right, as it's his website, so it is run under his rules. Some might say that makes him a hypocrite, but I don't. I think he acted in a way that protected his property and argument quite legitimately.
However, even though he did that it doesn't change the fact that his campaign on standards takes the wrong approach. Instead of attacking through email and web pages, he should be using the proper channels for dealing with abuse online, and for his wider campaign he should be submitting a Request For Comment to the wider community.
24 comments:
Tch. At least have the courtesy to link to the relevant posts and exchanges, where much of what you say here is addressed, refuted or contradicted by documented evidence.
For example, had you linked to the original post, your readers would be able to see that - contrary to what you claim here - at no time was I "demanding the IP address of the person that posted".
Tch. At least have the courtesy to link to the relevant posts and exchanges
Why bit of my website, my rules didn't you understand then?
where much of what you say here is addressed, refuted or contradicted by documented evidence.
"Much of" what a lovely vague terms that is.
For example, had you linked to the original post, your readers would be able to see that - contrary to what you claim here - at no time was I "demanding the IP address of the person that posted".
Well thus is highly debatable. You may think your email are polite, but I think they're little more than displays of passive aggression. You emailed Ellee to "help" her get an IP whilst also making baseless legal threats with a link to a meaningless article about EU commercial law. An exchange took place in which she refused and then you just had no choice but to write a web page all about how she should have acquiesced to you.
Either way, you had no right to make such requests, and your claim of a smear and/or libel, along with the claim that it will be a legal obligation to hand over such data is..... well it's bollocks, that's what it is.
Could we all stop gazing at our navel/Tim Ireland and get back to life and politics please?
Tomorrow I promise.
Well, you can argue about points of view on aggressive tone as much as you like, Dizzy, but the fact remains that at no time was I "demanding the IP address of the person that posted", and this is just one fundamental flaw in the argument you lay out here.
I'd address the others, but you'd probably just talk around it or skip over it as you always have in the past and have done so again right here.
And the 'my blog my rules' excuse is a poor one for not linking to a specific post you're criticising. It shows an appalling lack of respect for your readers.
http://hobycartoons.blogspot.com/2007/01/blog-wars.html
This is an anoneumouse comment
Tim Ireland is an obsessive
;-)
Well, you can argue about points of view on aggressive tone as much as you like, Dizzy, but the fact remains that at no time was I "demanding the IP address of the person that posted"
You were demanding information by using passive aggressive threats of legal action. Glad you've decided to zero on in this word "demand" though, quite amusing really.
I'd address the others, but you'd probably just talk around it or skip over it as you always have in the past and have done so again right here.
Of course you would. I guess this means that you won't be commenting again. So that's the end of it.
And the 'my blog my rules' excuse is a poor one for not linking to a specific post you're criticising. It shows an appalling lack of respect for your readers
Nonsense, my four readers are intelligent enough to follow the link to your website and find your post without my help if they really want too.
So Tim Ireland bans you for 12 hours, thereby shutting down debate with you on his blog, Dizzy, then stamps over to rant at you on your blog. Hahaha! You're an unbelievable hypocrite, Mr I.
Auntie Flo'
Dizzy in your judgement is there a distinction between something that is illegal and something that is immoral. I can see that I should never be banned from putting stuff up on my website or dealing with it the way I want to (within limits to do with paedophilia incitement etc) but that doesn't mean it isn't immoral for me to put certain content up does it.
Then again, short-term memory isn't Timmy's strong point, is it?
As he has admitted himself.
"Into the room
greeting, pre-amble, standard line of questioning, got all the important bits right... then there was this right at the end:
"Now, what's my first name?"
Damn.
For the record, I didn't get that job. But my wife stuck with me even though I'd forgotten *her* name on our first date".
Gracci, whether it can be immoral to put certain content up is a bit of moot question because that refers to the act of upload (adding new content) rather the specific in my post about the act of deletion (maintenance).
Unless of course the intent of the question was to take us off on an academic line of inquiry of defining where acts in relation to websites can be immoral and where they can not be?
Personally speaking I would consider it immoral and unethical to upload certain content, illegal or otherwise. However, I cannot think of a scenario where the deletion of something on a server I own can be immoral or unethical. Ultimately I own that web space/server and if I do not want something on it, then it cannot be an act of immorality for me to remove it if I so choose too.
Is Tim Ireland an obssessive? Let us examine the evidence.
Bloggerheads.com domain search results:
"Guido" 264 results
"Iain Dale" 261 results
"Paul Staines" 192 results
I hold no particular brief for these chaps but I think anyone who writes that often about someone and goes to the trouble of setting up parody sites can fairly be said to be obssessed.
Tim has lost all sense of perspective and become boring to read. A lot of it smacks of sour grapes. He should stick to positive campaigning, nobody outside of a small section of the blogosphere actually cares what goes on in Guido and/or Dale's comments. It doesn't warrant thousands of words being written about it.
I am only anonymous because I can't face Tim turning his, yes, obsessive attention towards me.
In essence Tim, focus your campaigning ability on more worthy targets.
"Tim has lost all sense of perspective and become boring to read."
I'd have to disagree with that statement. It implies that, at some point, his site was interesting to read...
"...the 'my blog my rules' excuse is a poor one for not linking to a specific post you're criticising. It shows an appalling lack of respect for your readers."
Indeed. It's not like we can't Google it if we want to. But perhaps Li'l Timmy is going by the poor netskills and reasoning capcity of his own readers ;)
Tim used to have a mini cv on his site which he has removed. This cv was most revealing in that it explains his weird, obsessive and 'crusading' behaviour and his itellectual narcissism. Tet he suffers from low self esteem and needs our understanding more than the brickbats that are tossed his way.
"The time stamps of the files can easily be manipulated too, and the image content if the person involved has considerable photoshop skills."
Come on, Dizzy, this is just silly. You don't need "considerable photoshop skills" -- a trained monkey could do it!
DK
That reminds me, Did you get those bananas I sent you? ;)
"I cannot think of a scenario where the deletion of something on a server I own can be immoral or unethical."
Really? What about if you use your knowlege of such information for your purposes and refuse to let others see the same information?
That is a different act separate from the act of deletion so it's moot. The act of deleting content, which is really just binary data and may not even be words, remains an amoral event in that circumstance. So again, I can think of no scenario where deleting content on a server I own can be immoral.
OK. What is clearly moot is that it's all "binary data". Mind you, that's entirely irrelevant. Why do you submit that? Is it just binary data that can be trashed?
The act of deleting content - with intent to change people's perceptions - has to have consequences, surely.
Why do you submit that? Is it just binary data that can be trashed?
Anything I own can be trashed, and when it comes to computers everything is 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100100 01100001 01110100 01100001
The act of deleting content - with intent to change people's perceptions - has to have consequences, surely.
If my house is green, and I want to paint it blue, when I paint it I am changing people's perceptions and conceptually deleting the green house for anyone driving by for the first time.
The point of that little illustration is this simple question. When does the act of content deletion not have the intent of changing perception underlining it?
Your question is my proposition mate. Paint as many houses as you want, but you still haven't engaged it.
My question is not your proposition at all, it was deliberately written in reverse to make a point which have not seemd to grasp.
If you delete content then there must always be some form of intent relating to altering perceptions. Redesigning a website for example, removing an image you don't want up there anymore because you don't want others to see it. It still does not change the fact that the act of deletion is itself an amoral act because of where ownership of the content lies.
You may think of the above comments by you are "yours". But their presence on my web pages makes them mine and I have the moral authority to remove them if I want too by virtue of my property rights over them.
Your question relates to consequences not to the moral value of the act itself.
Post a Comment