#danielle keats citron

[xoxovalerie-c]

Blog Post Week 10: Due 10/31

How do cyber mobs normalize online harassment, and what does this mean for legal and social responses?

Using the book Hate Crime in Cyberspace, Danielle Keats Citron describes cyber mobs as, Mobs from dominant groups are notorious for shaming relatively powerless groups, in taking delight in the discomfort of the excluded and stigmatized. Cyber mobs gather online to harass individuals in degrading and threatening ways (Citron, 2014). So the normalization comes from creating an environment that feeds into abusive behavior, as individuals become so assertive in inflicting harm to others. The mob creates a culture as they tend to recruit members and celebrate them for their contributions to online hate. Currently, the lack of effective policies to address this form of harassment makes it increasingly difficult for victims to receive legal support, especially as technology continues to evolve. This leaves many individuals to navigate their challenges largely on their own. While it may be impossible to completely eliminate cyber mobs, it’s essential to recognize that anyone can fall victim to such groups. By educating ourselves about the harmful effects of these mobs, we can empower ourselves to speak up, report incidents, and assist those who are suffering from their impact.

How can the creation and sharing of fictional narratives, like the Grandpa Wiggly case on Reddit, lead to harmful consequences or negative perceptions?

The Grandpa Wiggly case on the social platform Reddit illustrates how fictional narratives can cause a line between reality and imagination. While it can be fun to create a storyline with plain creativity and community-based opinions, it can lead to misunderstandings and harmful consequences. When stories are taken seriously, they may result in misinformation, panic, or even harassment. Online communities can become negative making it dangerous for creators to continue these narratives as seen in the Grandpa Wiggly case. People were getting out of hand and even sent death threats to portray this image of being a victim to this story. Ultimately, both posters and audiences need to be aware of the potential repercussions of blending fiction with reality.

In what ways can online trolling impact an individual’s life, what does this reveal about digital harassment?

Online trolling can significantly impact an individual’s financial stability by leading to lost income, job opportunities,, and damaged lifelong professional reputations. It is truly devastating to think that your entire lifeline can depend on what happens in these online spaces. For instance, those targeted may be forced to leave their jobs. The emotional toll of trolling can result in mental health issues.  Demonstrating how big of an issue is online trolling.

To what extent did Leslie Jones receive support on Twitter? Was it based solely on her celebrity status? What does this reveal about social media platforms? 

I believe that Leslie Jones’s experience on Twitter highlights how celebrity status can significantly influence the level of support one receives while engaging in a social media platform. After receiving racist and sexist hate speech associated with her role in the Ghostbusters reboot movie she tweeted how all the negativity was affecting her. She would even tweet out to Twitter asking for help. Since she became a trending topic on Twitter, founder and CEO Jack Dorsey reached out to Leslie and tells her to “DM him.” Releasing this statement: This type of abusive behavior is not permitted on Twitter, and we’ve taken action on many accounts reported to us by both Leslie and others (Seetharaman, 2016). This makes me think back to the case of Grandpa Wiggly where someone who wasn’t well known made this fictional character and he received so much hate. Just like Leslie yet Reddit never took it upon themselves to support this user by “protecting” them in any way. This also makes me wonder about the other stories where other women experienced physical harm coming from online forces but the platforms don’t take it upon themselves to speak out or support. This shows to me that platforms depend on celebrities to demonstrate that they have this sort of “code of conduct” in honor of providing a safe and positive online environment for other users to engage as well. 

Bergstrom, K. (2011). “Don’t feed the troll”: Shutting down debate about community expectations on Reddit.com. First Monday, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i8.3498

Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press.

Seetharaman, D., & Wells, G. (2016, August 30). Leslie Jones’ horrific online abuse shows how Twitter’s troll problem has spun out of control. Wall Street Journal.

[estrada21]

Blog Post #8 (Due 10/28)

1.) What are some creative ways to combat trolls and trolling? What role do witnesses play?

I believe that one of the ways that we can combat trolls and trolling is coming together as a community and holding the trollers accountable for their action. By this I mean as a community we can monitor comments, users, pictures, etc. and report any harmful activity. In other words, we should actively keep trollers from infiltrating safe spaces. As witnesses, instead of contributing to the harassment we can stick up for the person being targeted or convey as a community that trolling is unwanted.  

2.) What are the dangers of the trolling mantra being “Nothing should be taken seriously”?

One of the dangers of the trolling mantra being “Nothing should be taken seriously” is the normalization of the harassment of the powerless. Passing everything off as a joke, or the weak argument of not meaning anything you say, is neglect to any responsibility the troller has from the emotional and mental harm done to the target. Not to mention the fact that sometimes trollers join forces to single an individual out, which is another danger because everyone wants in on the joke. As Whitney Phillips in “The Origin of Trolling” states “Targets of trolling, on the other hand, are expected to take trolls at their word, and are only trolled harder if they resist” (86). Meaning an individual can’t even stand up for themselves otherwise they will be trolled harder and, contrary to the mantra, the trolling is taken seriously.

3.) Where do we draw the line between trolling and role-playing?

It seems to be a thin line between trolling and role-playing. In fact, it can be rather difficult to interpret whether a user is trolling through identity tourism or “simply” role-playing. The distinction is found within the intent of the user which in itself can be tricky to determine. Kelly Bergstrom in “Don’t Feed the Troll” argues that a troll needs to know it is a troll in order for it to truly be a troll (7). However, in the case of Grandpa Wiggly, created by reddit user WordSauce, where the creator made a statement of creating Grandpa Wiggly for the entertainment of others and to tell a story, many still implicated him as a troll. To determine intent, we could either take his statement at face value or analyze his previous posts for malicious intent or disruptiveness. Everyone is still entitled to their opinions so as Bergstrom states “It seems that trolling is in the eye of the beholder (or really the person who feels like they are the one being trolled)” (8). In other words, it is up to the individual to draw the line between trolling and role-playing.

4.) Does cyberstalking and cyber harassment affect an individual outside the online space?

Cyber stalking and cyber harassment do affect the victim outside of the online space. Cyber stalking and cyber harassment can have dire consequences in reality. As exemplified by Danielle Keats Citron in “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace”, women who have been victims of cyber stalking and cyber harassment were forced to deal with the exposure of their private photos, exposure of their personal information, demoralization and humiliation, difficulty with employment, and even rape (7-8). Online spaces for them have become unsafe, and even their homes have become unsafe. Meaning one cannot ignore the online abuse by turning off their phone or computer because the abuse follows them outside the virtual space.

References

Phillips, W. (2015). Defining terms: The origins and evolution of subcultural trolling. This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things, 55–87. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10288.003.0004

Bergstrom, K. “‘Don’t Feed the troll’: Shutting down Debate about Community Expectations on Reddit.Com”. First Monday, vol. 16, no. 8, July 2011, doi:10.5210/fm.v16i8.3498.

Citron, D. K. (2014). Introduction. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674735613.intro

[zoeballs]

[Download] The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age - Danielle Keats Citron

Download Or Read PDF The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age - Danielle Keats Citron Free Full Pages Online With Audiobook.

  [*] Download PDF Here => The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age

[*] Read PDF Here => The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age

 Privacy is disappearing. From our sex lives to our workout routines, the details of our lives once relegated to pen and paper have joined the slipstream of new technology. As a MacArthur fellow and distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia, acclaimed civil rights advocate Danielle Citron has spent decades working with lawmakers and stakeholders across the globe to protect what she calls intimate privacy?encompassing our bodies, health, gender, and relationships. When intimate privacy becomes data, corporations know exactly when to flash that ad for a new drug or pregnancy test. Social and political forces know how to manipulate what you think and who you trust, leveraging sensitive secrets and deepfake videos to ruin or silence opponents. And as new technologies invite new violations, people have power over one another like never before, from revenge porn to blackmail, attaching life-altering risks to growing up, dating online, or falling in love.A masterful new

[tonkikiosk]

Mr deep fake

Mr deep fake software#

Mr deep fake series#

Sam Gregory from Witness, an organization that educates people on the use of videos and synthetic media in relation to human rights, has noted that some political figures and their followers have started claiming that real videos are deepfakes to avoid acknowledging wrongdoings or to maintain their desired narrative. Instead, the true risk that deepfakes pose to politics and public information is in what Robert Chesney and Danielle Keats Citron have coined the “ liar’s dividend.” Deepfakes cast doubt on real videos, allowing politicians to claim that a real video or audio recording of them doing something problematic is actually a fake. In a similar fashion, Bill Poster and Daniel Howe’s 2019 video project Spectre showed deepfake doppelgängers of Mark Zuckerberg and Kim Kardashian critiquing their own alleged misuse of social media data.Īs yet, the use of deepfakes by bad actors to purposely confuse the public is relatively low. Her videos, explicitly marked as fake videos so that there is no confusion, present individuals saying things that severely contradict their public personas.

Mr deep fake series#

Stephanie Lepp’s art series Deep Reckonings imagines controversial figures having a reckoning about their politics, past behaviours and ideologies. Both videos revealed onscreen that they were deepfakes and that their purpose was to educate the public of the potential misuse of deepfake technology.Īrtists’ use of deepfakes has also opened up a conversation about the ways in which people’s personal images can be manipulated and to bring attention to important social issues. During the 2019 UK election, Boris Johnson appeared in a deepfake by social enterprise Future Advocacy, in which he endorsed his opponent in 2020, Britain’s Channel 4 created an alternative Christmas message from the Queen in which she made uncharacteristic comments about her family and her position. In 2020, Sensity AI, an organization that monitors the number of deepfakes online, found that of the thousands of celebrities, public figures and everyday people who had deepfakes made of them, only 35 of these individuals were American politicians.Ī small number of deepfake videos featuring politicians have been intended to manipulate a political situation, but most videos of political figures have been used for parody or to educate the public about the role that deepfakes could play in spreading misinformation and disinformation. Political figures have certainly been the target of deepfakes however, the current risk of deepfakes directly influencing politics has largely been overstated. A study by Chandell Gosse and Jacquelyn Burkell found that media reports focused primarily on the negative use of deepfakes for these purposes, rather than on the harms caused by the non-consensual creation of sexual deepfakes, despite that being the most common use of deepfakes. Since that time, concerns about the misuse of deepfakes to manipulate elections, perpetuate fraud in business, alter public opinion and threaten national security have dominated the discussion about deepfakes.

Mr deep fake software#

In 2017, Motherboard journalist Samantha Cole reported that publicly available open source software made it possible for anyone with some programming skills and a decent graphics card to create these types of videos. Their initial popularity was fuelled by the non-consensual creation of sexual deepfakes of female celebrities. But many others are nearly impossible to distinguish from a real video and are not labelled as fakes. Some of these videos are clearly deepfakes, due to their low-quality visual effects, unusual contextual setting or the explicit acknowledgement that they are deepfakes. When done well, these realistic videos can be quite convincing, making a puppet out of the person featured in the film.įake videos have been made of politicians endorsing views contrary to their own, public figures confessing to wrongdoings, and women engaging in sexual activities they never engaged in. But the reality is that deepfake technology is predominately being used to create sexual videos of women without their consent.ĭeepfake videos are a form of synthetic media that uses artificial intelligence to swap out the faces of people in videos. Much of the public concern about deepfakes has centred on fears about them being used to disrupt politics or business. With the advent of deepfakes, viewers now need to question whether what they are seeing in a video is real or not. Deepfake videos have added to this confusion, sometimes presenting content that is meant to deceive the viewer or to drastically misrepresent the person in the video. In a culture that is rife with misinformation and disinformation, it can be easy for people to be duped into believing they are reading or seeing something that has no base in reality.

[jordiespace]

Online Trolling Blog Post #8

Have you ever engaged in online trolling?

I have engaged in online trolling. I have only “trolled” in online video games. I noticed that when I start to do it, it is when I am mentally tired of a video game, but can’t seem to stop playing it. I have played games competitively, and the definition of trolling can be skewed. Someone who may not be as skilled may be called a troll. Someone who may not be playing the game properly can also be considered a troll. There are definitely trolls, who go online to purposefully harass others. There are also others who do not intentionally troll, but are called them.

What are some ways that the internet perpetrates cyber harassment?

The Internet can reinforce cyber harassment by stalking by proxy, group cyber stalking, and cyber mobs. Stalking by proxy is where an individual recruits strangers to help them stalk somebody. Group cyber stalking is where more than one person is involved in online harassment. Cyber mobs are where groups are competing to see who can say the most abusive thing to an individual. When I think of cyber mobs, I think of stan Twitter. These fandoms will group together to go against individuals who may not agree with or like what they like.

What other examples of online abuse have you seen like Leslie Jones?

An example that comes to mind is Normani Kordei. She was a part of the group Fifth Harmony. When one of their members was growing distant and into their solo career, Kordei did an interview. The interviewer asked Kordei to describe said group member and she only used one word to describe her. The fandom went crazy. The fans of this individual started attacking Kordei. They were saying racial slurs, telling her to kill herself, and other discriminatory words. Kordei had to take a break from social media due to online harassment. She did not do anything to receive the harassment, but fans decided to take it into their own hands.

Do you believe some websites are easier to troll on than others?

Yes. I believe that websites like Reddit and 4Chan are easier to troll on. It is easier to remain anonymous, yet still look like a believable person than other platforms. On platforms like Facebook and Instagram, profiles can be looked at to determine whether a profile is legit or not. Websites like Reddit, have limited profiles making it easier to fake an identity.

Until Next Time! XOXO Jordan

Sources:

Hate crimes in cyberspace - danielle Keats Citron. - Danielle Keats Citron | Harvard University Press. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2021, from https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674659902.

Phillips, W. (2016). This is why we can't have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. The MIT Press.

Silman, A. (2016, August 24). A timeline of Leslie Jones's horrific online abuse. The Cut. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/a-timeline-of-leslie-joness-horrific-online-abuse.html. 

[e-chronicle-blog]

Η Αξία της Διαδικτυακής Ανωνυμίας

Η ανωνυμία στο Διαδίκτυο είναι μια σημαντική αρχή ενός ελεύθερου και ανοιχτού Διαδικτύου. Ιδιαίτερα σε μία εποχή συνεχούς ταυτοποίησης, υπάρχουν διάφοροι λό��οι για τους οποίους ένα άτομο δεν θα ήθελε να είναι αναγνωρίσιμο στο Διαδίκτυο. Ο David Kaye, ειδικός εισηγητής του ΟΗΕ για την προώθηση και την προστασία του δικαιώματος στην ελευθερία γνώμης και έκφρασης, τόνισε οτι η διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία «έχει γίνει απαραίτητη για την άσκηση της ιδιωτικής ζωής και της ελευθερίας της έκφρασης».

Η ανωνυμία είναι πολύτιμη διότι επιτρέπει στους ανθρώπους να αναζητούν ελεύθερα πληροφορίες, να συμμετέχουν σε πολιτικές συζητήσεις, να αναπτύσσουν ιδέες και να εκφράζονται ελεύθερα χωρίς τον φόβο των επιπτώσεων. Θεωρείται θεμελιώδης για τη συζήτηση αμφιλεγόμενων θεμάτων και γενικότερα για την ποικιλομορφία των φωνών. Ο φόβος της αναγνώρισης μπορεί να «παγώσει» την ελευθερία έκφρασης και να οδηγήσει σε αυτολογοκρισία. Η ανωνυμία ειναι επίσης μια βασική προϋπόθεση για το «whistleblowing», ώστε ο whistleblower να μπορεί να δράσει χωρίς φόβο.

Επιπλέον, η ανωνυμία αποτελεί πτυχή της ιδιωτικής ζωής. Δεν χρειάζεται να είναι δημόσια όλα όσα κάνουμε στο Διαδίκτυο. Η ανωνυμία είναι σημαντική προκειμένου να αποφευχθεί η εκτεταμένη παρακολούθηση τόσο από ιδιωτικούς όσο και από δημόσιους φορείς. Διαφορετικά, θα ήταν ακόμα πιο εύκολο να συνδυάσουν πληροφορίες που αφορούν τους χρήστες και έτσι να τους ξεχωρίσουν από το πλήθος.[1] Η ασφάλεια των δεδομένων μπορεί επίσης να διακυβευτεί, ιδίως αν λάβουμε υπόψη τις συνεχείς κυβερνοεπιθέσεις και παραβιάσεις.

Υπάρχει, ωστόσο, ελάχιστη διεθνής συναίνεση σχετικά με την προστασία της ανωνυμίας, όπου ορισμένα κράτη τείνουν να περιορίζουν την ανωνυμία περισσότερο από άλλα. Στην Ευρώπη, η προστασία της διαδικτυακής ανωνυμίας απορρέει από τα δικαιώματα στην ιδιωτική ζωή και την ελευθερία της έκφρασης. Η προστασία της ανωνυμίας, αν και πολύ σημαντική, δεν μπορεί να είναι απόλυτη και μπορεί να περιοριστεί για την προστασία άλλων συμφερόντων.

Η Νότια Κορέα το 2007 είχε εφαρμόσει νόμο που περιόριζε την διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία, απαιτώντας μια διαδικασία επαλήθευσης της ταυτότητας του χρήστη. Όμως, η ασφάλεια των δεδομένων παραβιάστηκε αρκετές φορές και οι προσωπικές πληροφορίες εκατομμυρίων χρηστών διέρρευσαν. Ο νόμος στην συνέχεια καταργήθηκε, καθώς τα δημόσια οφέλη δεν ήταν αρκετά σημαντικά για να δικαιολογήσουν περιορισμούς στο δικαιώμα ελευθερίας της έκφρασης. Ο νόμος δεν πέτυχε να σταματήσει τα καταχρηστικά και προσβλητικά σχόλια στο Διαδίκτυο, ενώ αναγνωρίστηκε ότι ορισμένες παράπλευρες επιπτώσεις της διαδικτυακής ανωνυμίας είναι απλώς α��απόφευκτες.

Παρόμοιες πολιτικές για τον περιορισμό της ανωνυμίας στο Διαδίκτυο συζητούνται στην Ευρώπη. Τον Απρίλιο του 2019, η αυστριακή κυβέρνηση πρότεινε ένα νομοσχέδιο με στόχο την καταπολέμηση της διαδικτυακής ρητορικής μίσους το οποίο θα απαιτούσε από τους χρήστες να παρέχουν την πραγματική τους ταυτότητα στις πλατφόρμες. Σχετικά με το θέμα αυτό, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή κατά του Ρατσισμού και της Μισαλλοδοξίας (ECRI), η οποία είναι ένα σημαντικό όργανο παρακολούθησης των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, τόνισε ότι «οποιοσδήποτε περιορισμός των ελευθεριών (των χρηστών) πρέπει να είναι ανάλογος προς τον νομίμως επιδιωκόμενο σκοπό και να είναι αναγκαίος σε μια δημοκρατική κοινωνία, όπως απαιτείται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου».

Η διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία, όμως, εκτός από την νομοθεσία ενός κράτους, μπορεί να περιοριστεί και από ιδιωτικούς φορείς. Για παράδειγμα, το Google+ είχε εφαρμόσει πολιτική πραγματικού ονόματος, η οποία κατόπιν έντονων αντιδράσεων καταργήθηκε. Tο Twitter δίνει την δυνατότητα σε κάποιους χρήστες να επιβεβαιώσουν την ταυτότητα τους και να λάβουν το χαρακτηριστικό μπλε σήμα επαλήθευσης, χωρίς όμως να απαγορεύει την ανωνυμία. Το Facebook , ωστόσο, απαγορεύει την διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία και υποστηρίζει ότι η πολιτική του που απαιτεί «αυθεντική ταυτότητα» κρατά τους χρήστες ασφαλείς. Ο Mark Zuckerberg έχει υποστηρίξει σθεναρά αυτή την άποψη και έχει δηλώσει ότι «το να έχεις δύο τ��υτότητες είναι…έλλειψη ακεραιότητας». Απαιτεί έγγραφα ταυτοποίησης για την επιβεβαίωση της ταυτότητας του χρήστη ή κλείνει λογαριασμούς για τη χρήση ψευδωνύμων. Ακόμη και αν ο χρήστης μπορεί να χρησιμοποιήσει ονόμα πέραν αυτού που αναγράφεται στην ταυτότητα του (τουλάχιστον μέχρι να γίνει αναφορά από κάποιον άλλο χρήστη ή να ανιχνευθεί από το ίδιο το Facebook), η μη χρήση πραγματικών ονομάτων παραβιάζει τους Όρους Παροχής Υπηρεσιών. Ταυτόχρονα, όμως, μια τέτοιου είδους πολιτική επιτρέπει στους παρόχους να προσωποποιήσουν ακόμη περισσότερο τις υπηρεσίες τους και έτσι να αυξήσουν τα κέρδη τους.

Οι «αντίπαλοι» της ανωνυμίας υποστηρίζουν ότι χωρίς αυτήν οι χρήστες θα είχαν περισσότερο αυτοέλεγχο και θα ήταν πιο πολιτισμένοι. Ωστόσο, η ανωνυμία δεν είναι άμεσος παράγοντας κακής ή ανεύθυνης συμπεριφοράς. Μελέτες έχουν δείξει ότι οι πολιτικές πραγματικού ονόματος δεν επιτυγχάνουν τα επιθυμητά αποτελέσματα. Αντίθετα, προκύπτει ότι οι χρήστες είναι εξίσου (ή και περισσότερο) επιθετικοί όταν χρησιμοποιούν τα ονόματά τους.[2] Αξίζει να σημειωθεί ότι το Facebook, παρά την πολιτική του, ανέφερε το 2019 μια τεράστια ποσότητα καταχρηστικού περιεχομένου, το οποίο κυκλοφόρησε από χρήστες που συχνά ενεργούσαν με πλήρη ονόματα.

Τέλος, προκειμένου να διευκολυνθεί η επιβολή του νόμου, οι περιορισμοί δεν θα πρέπει να εφαρμόζονται εκ των προτέρων και αδιακρίτως σε όλους τους χρήστες. Μια τέτοια εκ των προτέρων αντιμετώπιση φαίνεται να μην είναι κατάλληλη για το διαδικτυακό περιβάλλον, αφού μπορεί να περιορίσει δυσανάλογα τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών στην ελευθερία έκφρασης και στην ιδιωτικότητα. Επιπλέον, ο περιορισμός της ανωνυμίας μπορεί να δράσει υπέρ των μεγάλων πλατφόρμων, δίνοντάς τους, παρά την κακή τους φήμη, ακόμη περισσότερα δεδομένα.

Η επιβολή του νόμου είναι ευρέως εφικτή, με τη «μη ανιχνεύσιμη ανωνυμία» να ισχύει σε πολύ σπάνιες περιπτώσεις, ακόμα και με εργαλεία όπως το Tor ή VPN. Όταν χρησιμοποιούμε το Διαδίκτυο, αφήνουμε ψηφιακά αποτυπώματα με τα οποία μπορεί να γίνει η ταυτοποίηση μας (π.χ. από IP διευθύνσεις και παρακολούθηση διαδικτυακής κίνησης). Δεν είναι λοιπόν τυχαίο που η διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία θεωρείται περιορισμένη και χαρακτηρίζεται συχνά ως μια «ψευδαίσθηση».[3] Επιπλέον, η προστασία της ανωνυμίας δεν είναι απόλυτη.  Αποτελεί σχετικό δικαίωμα και μπορεί να περιοριστεί.

Επομένως, ο προληπτικός και αδιάκριτος περιορισμός της διαδικτυακής ανωνυμίας επηρεάζει όλους τους χρήστες χωρίς καμία εγγύηση για ουσιαστικά οφέλη. Αντιθέτως, η εκ των προτέρων διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία (ή «anonymity by default»)[4] μπορεί να προωθήσει μεγαλύτερη ιδιωτικότητα και ελευθερία έκφρασης. Εξάλλου, κάθε προεπιλογή θα πρέπει να προσφέρει το υψηλότερο δυνατό επίπεδο προστασίας της ιδιωτικότητας. Η συλλογή δεδομένων θα πρέπει να αποτελεί την εξαίρεση, όχι τον κανόνα. Ωστόσο, η επιβεβαίωση ταυτότητας θα μπορούσε να χρησιμοποιηθεί εκ των υστέρων για τη μη συμμορφούμενη συμπεριφορά των χρηστών ή και εθελοντικά από χρήστες που δεν επιθυμούν ανώνυμη επικοινωνία.

Η ανωνυμία στο Διαδίκτυο δεν είναι μόνο για εκείνους που έχουν κακές προθέσεις. Είναι σημαντική για όλους μας και αποτελεί θεμελιώδες κομμάτι της διαδικτυακής μας ταυτότητας. Ιδιωτικοί και δημόσιοι φορείς προσπαθούν να περιορίσουν την ανωνυμία και να μας «σκιαγραφήσουν» τόσο ως καταναλωτές όσο και ως πολίτες. Ειδικά σε περιόδους πανδημίας και μεγάλης αβεβαιότητας, η διαδικτυακή ανωνυμία πρέπει να προστατεύεται, ώστε να μπορούμε να απολαμβάνουμε τα δικαιώματά μας χωρίς παραβιάσεις. Παρά την συνήθη παρανόηση, η ανωνυμία μπορεί να συμβάλει στην ασφάλειά μας και όχι το αντίστροφο.

[1] Michael Froomkin, ‘Pseudonyms By Another Name: Identity Management In A Time Of Surveillance’ in Mark Rotenburg, Julia Horwitz and Jeramie Scott, Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions (The New Press 2015).

[2] Regarding the impact of Korea’s Real Name Verification System: Woo, J., Na, H., Choi, J., ‘An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of the Real-Name System on Internet Bulletin Boards: How the Real-Name System and User Characteristics Influence the Use of Slanderous Comments and Swear words’ (2010) 48 Seoul National University 71, 71-96.

[3] Michael Cross, ‘The Dark Side’ in Social Media Security (Syngress–Elsevier 2014) 172.

[4] Danielle Keats Citron, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press 2014) 239.

[iamebonybones]

THESE BOOTS WERE MADE FOR STALKING

(*Image from Take Over Art Exhibition, Switzerland by street-artist Jay Caes)

Often a professional, successful woman can be a target for a stalker, especially if they or their work – appears in the public domain.

Stalking is one of the most frequently experienced forms of abuse globally, with statistics showing up to 7.5 million people stalked in the U.S per year - 61% are female victims. That’s 1 in 6 women. 700,000 women in the UK are stalked each year according to data from the Crime Survey of England and Wales although the British Crime Survey estimated 5 million people experience stalking yearly. Nearly one in three women in France have been victims of stalking in their life - one of the highest rates throughout Europe according to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

According to new figures, Cyberstalking is now far more prevalent globally than face to face stalking and harassment, with many victims finding themselves pursued by complete strangers. With social media and other online methods making a stalker's task that much easier, the popularity of such sites means that cyberstalking can be done at the touch of a button. Inexpensive cell phone spy software, now makes it easier than ever for the average person to spy on a mobile phone from any country - rather than waiting at someone's house and following them wherever they go.

It’s all part of the on going issue of violence against women and girls.

There are many misconceptions about what stalking is. Described as ‘a criminal activity consisting of the repeated pursuing and harassing of another person’ - stalking is far from romantic. It’s about fixation and obsession and most of all it’s oppressive aswell as insidious, and can escalate to rape and even murder. 

To add to a long list of female specific problems, a women’s job could also make her more susceptible to stalkers . Yes, there’s a certain breed of stalkers who only seek to silence women. They are not attracted to their victims and don't even know them personally, but harass and ‘police’ women holding high-visibility jobs or positions normally held by men. Bent on ruining their reputations and self-perceptions of women who somehow or in some way challenge the status quo. They have no desire for a relationship with their victims, but yearn for a sense of power and control, sadistically finding pleasure in gathering information about their victim (sometimes fantasising about assaulting them, physically and sexually). But what drives an angry man-child to harass and cyberstalk women? The answer is pretty simple in short, these scumbags are bullies - they desperately need to feel bigger and better than someone else. Often a professional, successful woman can be a target for a stalker, especially if they or their work – appears in the public domain.

TODAY IN TOXIC FRAGILE MASCULINITY ✨

These stalkers and those they persuade to ‘stalk by proxy’ – stand in the way of gender equality.

The celebrity hacking scandal showed that even famous, successful women were victims to cyber abuse by fragile males who used nude photos as a weapon to silence and humiliate women - as if by doing so asserted some sort of power or dominance in the world. According to Stalking Crimes and Victim Protection, males who abuse, stalk and harass are likely motivated by jealousy, envy, insecurity, fragile identities and a desperate need to assert their masculinity (or lack thereof.)

Look Who's Stalking

So who are these creepy cyber-stalkers who seek to silence women? Who are these sick and lonely cowards who abuse the anonymity of the web as their only possibility to molest others? According to recent studies, many stalkers suffer from forms of mental illness including depression, substance abuse, and often Borderline Personality Disorder. However stalkers are not homogenous - they are motivated by different things and that motivator may oscillate over time. Not all stalkers have a mental disorder. However, when people fixate it's clear there are psychological issues of some description. This is why a mental health evaluation by a professional trained in stalking is important.

Women of colour face cyber-stalking and online harassment more than any other group, followed by caucasian women and then men of colour.

So is this a gender issue? Normally the most dangerous cases tend to be. It’s all part of what’s going on with violence against women and girls. What's most disturbing is a serious concern that many women might avoid positions that put them in the public eye, or jobs normally held by men - because they fear being harassed and stalked. These handful of cyber-stalkers, and those they persuade to ‘stalk by proxy’ online – could stand in the way of gender equality.

‘Im not Stalking, I’m just investigating’: Yes these stalkers as a group, have an impressive capacity to use moral licensing to rationalise, minimise and excuse their behaviors. They like to hide behind ‘credibility’ and go to extreme measures to track and attack professional women, by attacking their reputations, then ‘gaslighting’ them with vile smear campaigns.

So is this a race issue? According to Danielle Keats Citron’s book, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Women of colour face cyber-stalking and online harassment more than any other group globally, followed by caucasian women and then men of colour. White males are least likely to be harassed online, and when they are, they are largely targeted or attacked for being gay. 

PALADIN: LAURA RICHARDS

(*Laura Richards: Former head of Scotland Yard's Homicide Prevention Unit, FBI adviser & Founder and Director of Paladin, National Stalking Advocacy Service)

So how best to deal with these cyberstalkers? I had countless friends and peers in the industry who had endured years of cyberstalking, harrasment and even death threats, all in silence. I wanted to find out more about this damaging abuse afflicting millions across the globe, so spoke with former head of Scotland Yard's Homicide Prevention Unit, Laura Richards. Founder and Director of Paladin, the world’s first National Stalking Advocacy Service. Laura who seconded to the FBI and trained at the Behavioural Analysis Units in Quantico, is one of the world’s leading Criminal Behavioural Analyst and has trained thousands of police officers, and specialist professionals across the world including Europol, European Homicide Working Group, National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime, New South Wales Police, Australia, South African Police (SAPs), Johannesburg and more.

“It's the double standards and casual sexism that is commonplace, along with abuse and death threats that happens at the click of a button online, when we dare voice our opinion with serious impact - just because we are women.“

Paladin was set up following the highly successful All Party Parliamentary Stalking Law Reform Campaign spearheaded by Laura, which led to stalking becoming a criminal offence in 2012. After a decade of analysing violent crime at New Scotland Yard Laura became the violence adviser to the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) With a minimum sentence of 10yrs for cyberstalking, Laura helps to hunt down stalkers, and her organisation Paladin are currently doing wonderful work to build stalking cases, support victims, aswell as working to create a serial stalker register as most stalkers are regular offenders.

What's the best advice you’ve been given?

Believe and trust in yourself - you can do and be anything you want.

What is your proudest achievement in work?

Successfully spearheading two major law reform campaigns on stalking and domestic violence to better protect victims in England and Wales. The stalking law reform campaign was the shortest most successful campaign in Parliament (achieved in 15 months), I was told, until the domestic violence law reform campaign (achieved in 12 months). The domestic violence law whereby coercive control became a crime in 2015 is the first law of it's kind in the world. My hope is that other countries will follow suit.

And, of course, there's Paladin, National Stalking Advocacy Service - the only trauma informed national stalking advocacy service in the world, which has assisted over 2000 victims since it's launch in 2013. Without this service, so many would have suffered in silence. The team are lifelines to many.

What do you most dislike about contemporary culture?

The shit girls and women deal with on a daily basis and feel we have to put up with, and simply shouldn't. It's the double standards and casual sexism that is commonplace and the abuse and death threats that happens at the click of a button online when we dare voice our opinion with serious impact just because we are women. Yet so many people say and do nothing about it.

Not all stalkers have a mental disorder. However, when people fixate it’s clear there are psychological issues of some description.

What's your favourite city?

London - it's my home city and when the sun is shining, simply put, it's hard to beat! Steeped in history and culture, surrounded by beautiful buildings and with a river running through it, the diversity of people, smattering of fabulous and unique bars, restaurants and music - what's not to love

What do you like most about the age we live in?

The ability to travel and explore. I love adventures and experiencing new cultures and with the shrinking world and ability to hop on a plane, why would you not? Next stop... the moon!

If you have been a victim of any form of stalking or would like help, contact Paladin 

Laura Richards: Criminal Behavioural Analyst www.laurarichards.co.uk

To Donate to Paladin please click here: https://www.justgiving.com/campaigns/charity/paladin-nsas/stalking-takes-lives

[edisonashley]

Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230

Yesterday, the House Energy & Commerce Committee (the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce) held a hearing called “Fostering a Healthier Internet to Protect Consumers.” The hearing page. This post rounds up some links from the event:

Committee memos:

The Democrats’ memo.

The Republicans’ memo. The Democrats’ memo is mostly vanilla. In contrast, the Republicans’ memo is terrible. It is filled with inaccuracies, anti-tech venom, and talking points typically associated with the “libs.” TechFreedom’s must-read rejoinder to the Republicans’ memo.

Rep. Walden’s opening remarks.

Witnesses’ written testimony:

Steve Huffman, Reddit

Danielle Keats Citron, Boston University

Corynne McSherry, EFF

Hany Farid, UC Berkeley

Katie Oyama, Google

Gretchen Peters, Alliance to Counter Crime Online

Some commentary in conjunction with the hearing:

Elliot Harmon, EFF, Changing Section 230 Would Strengthen the Biggest Tech Companies. Lots of good lines, including:

“If lawmakers weakened Section 230, they wouldn’t just be threatening those spaces — they would risk kicking some people completely off the internet. Without Section 230, platforms would effectively have to determine the risk of a user before that user would ever be allowed to speak.”

“Future legislation to erode Section 230 might do nothing more than further harden Facebook and Google from meaningful competition.” For more on this point, see my Balkinization post.

Sophia Cope, EFF Urges Congress Not to Dismantle Section 230

Eric Goldman, The PLAN Act Proposes to Amend Section 230 to “Protect”…Landlords and Hotel Chains?

Eric Goldman, Top Myths About Content Moderation

Robert Winterton, Section 230 Should be in Our Trade Agreements. Here’s Why.

Matt Schruers, Myths and Facts about Section 230

See also Project Disco’s compendium of Section 230 resources.

The post Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230 appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230 published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.weebly.com/

[pearlpiineda]

Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230

Yesterday, the House Energy & Commerce Committee (the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce) held a hearing called “Fostering a Healthier Internet to Protect Consumers.” The hearing page. This post rounds up some links from the event:

Committee memos:

The Democrats’ memo.

The Republicans’ memo. The Democrats’ memo is mostly vanilla. In contrast, the Republicans’ memo is terrible. It is filled with inaccuracies, anti-tech venom, and talking points typically associated with the “libs.” TechFreedom’s must-read rejoinder to the Republicans’ memo.

Rep. Walden’s opening remarks.

Witnesses’ written testimony:

Steve Huffman, Reddit

Danielle Keats Citron, Boston University

Corynne McSherry, EFF

Hany Farid, UC Berkeley

Katie Oyama, Google

Gretchen Peters, Alliance to Counter Crime Online

Some commentary in conjunction with the hearing:

Elliot Harmon, EFF, Changing Section 230 Would Strengthen the Biggest Tech Companies. Lots of good lines, including:

“If lawmakers weakened Section 230, they wouldn’t just be threatening those spaces — they would risk kicking some people completely off the internet. Without Section 230, platforms would effectively have to determine the risk of a user before that user would ever be allowed to speak.”

“Future legislation to erode Section 230 might do nothing more than further harden Facebook and Google from meaningful competition.” For more on this point, see my Balkinization post.

Sophia Cope, EFF Urges Congress Not to Dismantle Section 230

Eric Goldman, The PLAN Act Proposes to Amend Section 230 to “Protect”…Landlords and Hotel Chains?

Eric Goldman, Top Myths About Content Moderation

Robert Winterton, Section 230 Should be in Our Trade Agreements. Here’s Why.

Matt Schruers, Myths and Facts about Section 230

See also Project Disco’s compendium of Section 230 resources.

The post Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230 appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230 published first on https://immigrationlawyerfirm.weebly.com/

[terabitweb]

Original Post from InfoSecurity Magazine Author:

Cyber-Harassment Expert Wins MacArthur Genius Grant

Lawyer, law professor, and civil rights advocate Danielle Keats Citron has been awarded a MacArthur grant for her efforts to address the scourge of cyber-harassment. 

Citron, a professor at Boston University Law School, is one of 26 individuals this year to receive a so-called genius grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Citron was awarded $625,000 to support her ongoing mission to study and write about online abuse and invasions of sexual privacy, the harm that they inflict, and how law and society should respond to them.

Through her work, Citron has found that cyber-harassment can have a devastating and long-lasting effect on victims, making it difficult for them to go about their daily lives. 

“Cyber-harassment is the targeting of specific individuals with a course of conduct that causes severe emotional distress and often the fear of physical harm, and it impacts them in a way that takes away what we consider crucial ability to make the most out of their lives in the 21st century; to get employment, keep a job, engage with other people, and go to school free from the fear of online abuse,” said Citron.

She continued: “We wouldn’t accept people walking down the street and being screeched at and threatened and humiliated and hurt, and we shouldn’t find it an acceptable part of online life.”

Citron has been studying and writing about online abuse for 15 years. During that period, she has worked with tech companies to update safety and privacy policies. She has also advised US legislators and state attorneys general on how to combat the most extreme forms of cyber-abuse, including cyber-stalking and revenge porn—the posting of intimate photos or videos without consent. 

The situation is improving, with the number of states to pass cyber-stalking laws rising from 4 in 2009 to 46 today.

Currently, Citron is focused on studying and writing about deep fake technology, which is machine learning technology that lets you manipulate or fabricate audio and video to show people doing and saying things that they’ve never done or said. 

She said: “The technology is advancing so rapidly that soon—within months—technologists expect that the state of the art will become so sophisticated that it will become impossible to distinguish fakery from what’s real. The impact that it has is not just on individuals; it has an impact on the truth and more broadly on our trust in democratic institutions.”

#gallery-0-6 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-6 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-6 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-6 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Go to Source Author: Cyber-Harassment Expert Wins MacArthur Genius Grant Original Post from InfoSecurity Magazine Author: Cyber-Harassment Expert Wins MacArthur Genius Grant Lawyer, law professor, and civil rights advocate 

[suitedgladiators]

ABAJournal

University of Maryland law professor Danielle Keats Citron: “Given what we do know about the bluntness of algorithms coupled with vague definitions, the more speech we will see filtered and removed.” https://t.co/tcU6Okf8SY #FirstAmendment pic.twitter.com/7bcXcO7bXZ

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) April 21, 2019

via Blogger http://bit.ly/2GCldwJ http://bit.ly/20qd6Z0

[newstfionline]

Will Deep-Fake Technology Destroy Democracy?

By Jennifer Finney Boylan, Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2018

There she was--not just alive again, but young. It was Carrie Fisher, at the end of the Star Wars film “Rogue One,” as Princess Leia. “What is it they have brought us?” one of her fellow resisters asked.

“Hope,” she replied.

And here’s Barack Obama, staring into the camera. “Ben Carson is in the Sunken Place,” he observes. Also: “President Trump is a total and complete dipstick.”

O.K., so the word that Mr. Obama says on the video is not dipstick, in fact, but that’s O.K.: it isn’t actually Mr. Obama saying those words, either, any more than it was Carrie Fisher saying “hope.”

Both images are the result of digital manipulation, and what, in its most ominous form, is called deep fakes: technology that makes it possible to show people saying things they never said, doing things they never did.

This technology has great potential both as art and snark: One set of deep fakes has cleverly inserted Nicolas Cage into a half-dozen movies he wasn’t involved with, including “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” You can watch that and decide for yourself whether Mr. Cage or Harrison Ford makes for the best Indiana Jones.

But, as always, the same technology that contains the opportunity for good also provides an opening for its opposite. As a result, we find ourselves on the cusp of a new world--one in which it will be impossible, literally, to tell what is real from what is invented.

Deep-fake technology exploits our natural inclination to engage with things that make us angriest. As Jonathan Swift said: “The greatest liar hath his believers: and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it hath done its work, and there is no further occasion for it.”

Consider the image of Emma Gonzalez, a survivor of the Parkland High School shooting in February who has become a vocal activist. A manipulated photo of her tearing up the Constitution went viral on Twitter among gun-rights supporters and members of the alt-right. The image had been digitally altered from another photo appearing in Teen Vogue. That publication’s editor lamented: “The fact that we even have to clarify this is proof of how democracy continues to be fractured by people who manipulate and fabricate the truth.”

That fake was exposed--but did it really make a difference to the people who wanted to inhabit their own paranoid universe? How many people still believe, all evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or that he was born in Kenya?

(The answer to that last question, by the way: two-thirds of Trump supporters believe Mr. Obama is a Muslim; 59 percent believe he was not born in America and--oh, yes--a quarter of them believe that Antonin Scalia was murdered.)

Now imagine the effect of deep fakes on a close election. Let’s say video is posted of Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat running for Senate in Texas, swearing that he wants to take away every last gun in Texas, or of Senator Susan Collins of Maine saying she’s changed her mind on Brett Kavanaugh. Before the fraud can be properly refuted, the polls open. The chaos that might ensue--well, let’s just say it’s everything Vladimir Putin ever dreamed of.

There’s more: The “liar’s dividend” will now apply even to people who actually did say something terrible. In the era of deep fakes, it will be simple enough for a guilty party simply to deny reality. Mr. Trump, in fact, has claimed that the infamous recording of him suggesting grabbing women by their nether parts is not really him. This, after apologizing for it.

If you want to learn more about the dangers posed by deep fakes, you can read the new report by Bobby Chesney and Danielle Keats Citron at the Social Science Research Network. It’s a remarkable piece of scholarship--although I wouldn’t dive in if your primary goal is to sleep better at night.

Their report examines solutions, too. One approach--”immutable life log technology”--especially gets my attention. This would be, essentially, a 24-hour alibi service, in which one’s every word and action is captured digitally--thus making it possible to disprove fakes when they arise.

I don’t know about you, but the idea of a future in which I’m surveilled around the clock in order to ward off the threat posed by fake versions of myself--well, let’s just say that the thought somehow fails to cheer me.

It is possible, however, that some good will come out of the deep fakes menace. Maybe we will better understand that the truth is both precious and endangered. Perhaps we will learn to pause before giving in to internet-stoked spleen.

[duaneodavila]

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Law eJournal

are here. The usual disclaimers apply. Rank Paper Downloads 1. Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security Robert Chesney and Danielle Keats Citron University of Texas School of Law and University of Maryland Francis King Carey... Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Law eJournal republished via CrimProf Blog

[newseveryhourly]

Harmful lies are nothing new. But the ability to distort reality has taken an exponential leap forward with “deep fake” technology. This capability makes it pos https://ift.tt/2LQguaz

[ideawhen]

We need clear principles to guide and secure meaningful digital free expression. This article charts a path to provide just that. Part I exposes crucial myths surrounding the digital speech and privacy in our networked age. Part II offers a conception of free speech based on a distrust of power, both public and private. Even if doctrinal analysis does not account for private barriers to free expression, the project of free expression should. Part III lays out four essential preconditions for a theory and a system of free expression in the digital age. These preconditions are substantive and procedural. They require legal intervention and extra-legal efforts. They draw some inspiration from due process guarantees and some from commitments to equality. Underlying these principles is a unifying normative commitment: If we want to ensure that our commitment to long-standing democratic theories of free expression survives its translation to the digital environment, we need to take a long, hard look at the digital public sphere we actually have, rather than one that we might want or one that has been advertised to us by Silicon Valley.