What are you talking about? There's PLENTY of resources availble to victims of cyber-threats



  • I hear this ALL the fucking time. "I received a cyber-threat! No one in law enforcement will help me. No one in LE knows anything about the Internet. They have my home address. They're threatening to rape me and my family then behead me."

    Boo-fucking-hoo, lady. You're so obviously just whining and not getting actual help from the perfectly well equipped law enforcement professionals who specialize in cyber crime! And they're on standby 24/7, working non-stop on these, the most serious of all cyber-crimes:

    Look at that! A dedicated hashtag, AND a dedicated Twitter account AND a dedicated phone number hotline, JUST for this case! There's dozens of officers tirelessly working NON STOP on protecting the true victims of cybercrimes: rich, white dudes paying for sex.

    I mean, if you REALLY feel that your silly little rape and death threats actually take priority over scrambling to protect influential white guys from their own poor choices, then sure, go ahead-- maybe call that number. Or look up your local law enforcement's version of that number (because believe me, every single LE agency in the continent is fucking SNAPPING TO ATTENTION to work on this case). If you ask really nicely, and are a polite woman, maybe they'll reassign an officer from this most important and pressing case to look into that "threat" of yours.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    Look at that! A dedicated hashtag,

    Hash tag #AMCaseTPS

    I'm impressed. Just in case you didn't know what a hash tag is...



  • @PJH said:

    I'm impressed. Just in case you didn't know what a hash tag is...

    Maybe I need more coffee, but... wat?



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    Maybe I need more coffee, but... wat?

    That was kind of my reaction to reading the OP here. I feel like I started reading in the middle of a conversation.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    Maybe I need more coffee, but... wat?

    This:

    It's a tweet. Anything prepended with a # is a hashtag. Anything prepended with an @ is a twitter account.

    What's with the redundant redundancy from the Redundant Department of Redundancy Department in that message?


    Edit: It is a tweet isn't it? I was presuming it was...



  • Heh. I didn't know Canadian cops were as bad as US cops.



  • @PJH said:

    What's with the redundant redundancy from the Redundant Department of Redundancy Department in that message?

    I presumed that they were pointing out that the hashtag was supposed to be about that. People put hashtags in for all sorts of reasons.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I wonder which Toronto politician is in the list. I should really download that, it sounds like fascinating statistical and data work.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    @PJH said:
    What's with the redundant redundancy from the Redundant Department of Redundancy Department in that message?

    I presumed that they were pointing out that the hashtag was supposed to be about that. People put hashtags in for all sorts of reasons.

    #I #can't #say #I've #ever #noticed #that #before.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I presumed that they were pointing out that the hashtag was supposed to be about that. People put hashtags in for all sorts of reasons.

    I assumed it was the difference between "this post is categorized as XXX", and "when you are categorizing posts related to this, use XXX"



  • @Weng said:

    I wonder which Toronto politician is in the list. I should really download that, it sounds like fascinating statistical and data work.

    Ohhhh... Pleasedon'tbeFordpleasedon'tbeFordpleasedon'tbeFord.

    shudder



  • @boomzilla said:

    I feel like I started reading in the middle of a conversation.

    You did. It's a conversation that's been going on for a while now. Here's how it goes:

    Woman online: {literally anything}
    Online mob: FUCK YOU BITCH I WILL RAPE AND MURDER AND RAPE YOU!
    Online mob: HERE IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS AND PICTURES OF YOUR FRONT PORCH BITCH I AM COMING TO FUCKING MURDER YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WHILE YOU WATCH!

    {Woman goes to police}
    Woman: Someone has made a credible threat against my life, and I am afraid.
    Police: Online? Please, that isn't real life.
    Woman: They have information about where I live and photos. I fear for my safety.
    Police: Have you tried just turning the computer off and ignoring it? It will go away.
    Woman: These threats are showing up non-stop, in my personal email, my professional life, being sent to my friends and family
    Police: We really don't have the resources to follow up on this. No one actually even knows how computers work. We wouldn't even know where to start
    Woman: This behavior isn't acceptable. People are threatening to kill me. That is a crime! A literal, actual crime.
    Police: It's just some boys online. People will be silly online.
    Woman: RAPE AND MURDER THREATS!
    Police: Sorry, i can't do anything until something happens in the real world.
    Woman: You mean when I'm raped and murdered?
    Police: {shrug} Maybe if you didn't provoke them, they wouldn't be so mad.

    {woman leaves police station no better off than she was. Worse in fact, since she knows she has no help or recourse}

    Repeat this every fucking day for any woman who dares to say anything "unacceptable".

    Compare this to the Ashley Madison "hack".

    Hackers: We have data that might embarrass some rich white men. We've sent extortion letters!
    Police: JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! Mobilize fucking EVERYTHING! Find these people. Offer half-million dollar rewards! Press conferences, NOW! Top priority. Drop everything else. We can find them. We WILL find them. This is absolutely unacceptable, even though it's all online and hasn't happened "in the real world". Forget death and rape threats. Forget asking them "why was your information on a cheater's website to begin with". This isn't their fault, and they are VICTIMS! VICTIMS!



  • @DCRoss said:

    Ohhhh... Pleasedon'tbeFordpleasedon'tbeFordpleasedon'tbeFord.

    shudder

    If it was, no one would be shocked. And the police wouldn't give half a rat's ass.



  • Ah. Of course, it all depends on your definition of "credible." Stuff like identity theft (which is probably the angle the cops are approaching the AM stuff from) is prevalent enough that it's automatically credible.

    Real question: how many online rape / death threats have actually resulted in something being carried through? The most common thing seems to be SWATTING, which seems to be starting to get the attention of police. IOW, if the actual carrying out of online threats is so low, how do you justify them as actually credible?



  • @boomzilla said:

    IOW, if the actual carrying out of online threats is so low, how do you justify them as actually credible?

    If someone sends you a death threat, then it's uttering death threats. Which is a crime. Therefore it's credible, because a crime has been committed.

    So either:

    1. The person is intended on carrying it out, in which case you stopped a rape and murder
    2. The person is just making the threat, so you can nail them on uttering death threats. You set an example for other people looking to do the same. You make the victim's life better. You teach an anonymous snot that you can't just make death threats and laugh it off. You discourage the behavior.

    Or:

    1. You do nothing, send the victim away and call it a day, otherwise, it'll be hard to track down the person making the threat. You have an open case for an extended period of time. It counts against your department's numbers, and you get yelled at by your supervisor.


  • Online harassment is real and it's illegal. But it also tends to be formless.

    Stealing something from a company is likely more obvious and easy to follow, and there's more money involved, so it isn't surprising it gets more attention.

    Racist sexists can say what they want, but individuals are always going to be passed over in favor of larger entities.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    If someone sends you a death threat, then it's uttering death threats. Which is a crime. Therefore it's credible, because a crime has been committed.

    That sounds like legal bullshit to me. I have no idea who these guys are, but I found this definition:

    The term credible threat means a threat that is “ real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1212 (D. Wyo. 2006)

    Some other interesting reading from a guy who knows his way around American speech issues:

    Of course, with the Internet, there are also likely to be some serious jurisdictional issues.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Woman online: {literally anything}
    Online mob: FUCK YOU BITCH I WILL RAPE AND MURDER AND RAPE YOU!

    Careful, the gamergate apologists will hijack the entire thread into a discussion of ethics in games journalism :trolleybus:



  • Oh look, it's the hyperbigot back again to protect the masses from wrongthink!



  • @boomzilla said:

    Ah. Of course, it all depends on your definition of "credible." Stuff like identity theft (which is probably the angle the cops are approaching the AM stuff from) is prevalent enough that it's automatically credible.

    Death threats are criminal harassment regardless of what communication technology was used to deliver them.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    HERE IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS AND PICTURES OF YOUR FRONT PORCH BITCH

    That's not what happens most of the time, and when it does, I've seen it being fairly unisex.

    What happens most of the time:

    Online mob: Jesus you're stupid. Fuck you with a pointed stick.
    Woman online: OOOOOH MY GOOOOOOOD RAPE THREEEEAAAAATS

    The actual, legitimate threats that have a chance of actually being carried out get lost in the noise caused by people taking insults on the Internet too seriously. That doesn't mean there aren't any, but there's simply no physical way to have the police investigate every single stupid thing some random asshole said on the Internet.

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Compare this to the Ashley Madison "hack".

    Which is a grand identity theft, disclosing PI on a major scale, disclosing fucking credit card numbers, which takes it straight outta the white-hat moral brigade teritory into black-hat vandalism.

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Forget death and rape threats. Forget asking them "why was your information on a cheater's website to begin with". This isn't their fault, and they are VICTIMS! VICTIMS!

    Last time I checked, it isn't illegal to be on a cheaters' website. And yes, this isn't their fault any more than it would be your fault if that dildo store you order online from got hacked.

    From the legal point of view, the fact that someone might have been kind of an asshole in his life does not warrant not having an investigation when he becomes a victim of a crime.

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    If someone sends you a death threat, then it's uttering death threats. Which is a crime. Therefore it's credible, because a crime has been committed.

    Fair enough. I'm not saying we shouldn't convict the people who utter legitimate death threats.

    The problem is, they get lost in the noise, and even if you find the guy (likely across the jurisdictions), and even if the court acknowledges a death threat for a death threat and not simply an overboard insult, it's still quite a lot of work for what would likely result in a negligible conviction.

    It's like chasing people with pirated Windows - yes, technically they are criminals guilty of a crime punishable by up to five years, but what you can do is at best pick some easy targets, make them an example and hope the rest just gets scared enough because it's impossible to chase them all down.



  • To be fair, the hack affects 40 million people. It's rational to spend more resources on it than on any single person, even if their case is much worse.

    But I still think your rant is kind of gratuitous.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Death threats are criminal harassment regardless of what communication technology was used to deliver them.

    Yes, if they're actually threats. If you looked at any of the links I gave, you'd have seen that it's more than just saying "I will kill you!"

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    That's not what happens most of the time, and when it does, I've seen it being fairly unisex.

    Right, I've seen it both ways. One of my previous links mentioned this sort of thing being done against a man (and his family).



  • @anonymous234 said:

    To be fair, the hack affects 40 million people. It's rational to spend more resources on it than on any single person, even if their case is much worse.

    And it's possible they set that up because other "regular" lines of communication were getting swamped. That they have a specific place for a likely high volume sort of complaint / question doesn't mean that anything will actually happen, law enforcement-wise.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes, if they're actually threats. If you looked at any of the links I gave, you'd have seen that it's more than just saying "I will kill you!"

    Apparently, under Canadian law, that's pretty much enough:

    To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously or to intimidate.

    It is not necessary for the Crown to prove that the person uttering the threat did so with the intent that it be conveyed to its intended recipient. Nor is it necessary to prove that the person making the threat intended to carry it out or was capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.

    In assessing whether the words constitute a threat, they must be considered objectively. The court must ask: In the context and circumstances in which the words were spoken or written, the manner in which they were used, and the person to whom they were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable person? How the words were perceived by those hearing them can factor into this assessment.

    There's still leeway, but it's not unreasonable to get a conviction based on someone saying to someone else "I'll kill you!".

    The problem is not with the law, it's with the enforceability of the law, which is really down the drain.


    Filed under: not really vouching for this website as a reasonable source, but hey, first bing hit



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Apparently, under Canadian law, that's pretty much enough:

    :question: What you say seems to contradict what you quoted. In particular:

    It must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously or to intimidate.

    But then there's the question of whom to convict? How do you find them? How do you arrest them? Etc. Far from trivial. I imagine that if people started following up on these things, more effort would be put towards policing it.



  • Well I'd say "I'll kill you" said in any context where it's not an explicit joke could be taken as "intimidating". There's explicitly no requirement that this threat should have a possibility of being carried out - if someone from, say, North Korea writes to you that he'll murder you in your sleep, he might not be able to and you'd probably not lose any sleep over it, but it's still intimidation.

    @boomzilla said:

    I imagine that if people started following up on these things, more effort would be put towards policing it.

    Well we kinda don't want people to start following up on these things. But overall I agree - in Poland, the case would be kicked out of court on the basis of negligible social consequences, not sure about other countries.



  • I don't think anything will happen law-wise in 95% of cases.

    If you post something online through tor or a proxy in china, you're almost certainly untraceable, whether it's a single death threat or 40 million names and credit cards.

    The only thing the police can realistically do is check if you made any dumb mistake like use your real email address somewhere.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Well I'd say "I'll kill you" said in any context where it's not an explicit joke could be taken as "intimidating".

    Could be. But it's still something that would have to be proven. Either to a jury or a judge or similar, presumably. I'll bet that if you go into the case history you'll find all sorts of complications and mitigating factors, etc. But like you basically said, a lot of the threats are separate from the actual doxing (that I've seen). So it's not usually as cut and dried as what @Lorne_Kates presented.

    Not that I'm saying we should think carefully and thoroughly about this sort of thing. <trolleybus!

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Well we kinda don't want people to start following up on these things.

    Definitely not.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    What's The Line Between Ill Wishes And Threats?

    The line between 3 wishes and threads is very thin!

    Filed Under: Oh snap, I went there!


    @blakeyrat said:

    Death threats are criminal harassment regardless of what communication technology was used to deliver them.

    Nah, if people use Discourse to deliver death threats then there is a 90% chance of server cooties and the thread will die off!
    It makes the internet more civil!

    Filed Under: What a great accomplishment!


  • SockDev

    @Yamikuronue said:

    Careful, the gamergate apologists will hijack the entire thread into a discussion of ethics in games journalism

    .....

    /me walks out of the thread. muting it on her way out.


  • area_deu

    Oh look. @accalia took the trolleybus.

    Well played, @Yamikuronue!



  • Also, as an extra bit of humor, apparently the racist sexist upthread thinks AM is a gay dating site.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    brb getting more :popcorn:

    It's been a decent flamewar so far. My only complaint is that the participants aligned themselves exactly as expected.



  • It's just funny to me. A cheating site is by definition used by men and women. Men and women get harassed on the internet. Race has nothing to do with either. But of course, some moron decides to bring them all in. And then to protect that position, we get the 'all x are Hitler' rhetoric.


  • area_deu

    @antiquarian said:

    flamewar

    That's already considered a flamewar?
    Dang.



  • This topic doesn't seem much different to me than complaining that someone is doing something instead of...curing cancer or whatever.

    :sleeping:



  • Better watch out before all the Feminism apologists try to say men benefit from the decrease in heteropatriarchal rape culture too!

    :trolleybus:

    Filed under: Am I doing it right?



  • But they're right! Sadly, we're all Islamophobic for saying that out loud. :tropical_drink:



  • That Engineer is a Spy!

    Filed under Blatant attempt to change the topic



  • Welp...they seem to think there have been 2 suicides so far. It's not clear from the article if those are in Toronto or worldwide or what:

    Toronto police warned hackers of the Ashley Madison infidelity website that their actions "won't be tolerated," and said there are two unconfirmed suicides linked to the breach.



  • @aliceif said:

    That's already considered a flamewar?

    Based on the standards of the counting topic, seemingly.



  • Man, those guys are wussies. Back in my days, it would hardly be an argument...



  • @boomzilla said:

    Welp...they seem to think there have been 2 suicides so far. It's not clear from the article if those are in Toronto or worldwide or what:

    "He didn't give any further details where the unconfirmed suicide cases may have occurred."

    Take a pool of 30-40 million random people. Any 30-40 million random people. Wait two weeks. You'll most likely have 1-2 suicides from that pool. Especially if you get to count "unconfirmed" suicides. There were also half a dozen unconfirmed alien abductions connected to the leak. And five unconfirmed pan-shittings. (note: I did originally try to write pant-shitting, but there's just as likely to be pan shitting, too).

    "Your actions are illegal and won't be tolerated" - Never said once in a press release to those uttering death threats to women posting an opinion about a video game.



  • @aliceif said:

    @antiquarian said:
    flamewar

    That's already considered a flamewar?Dang.

    Congratulations, asshole. You just fed into his "this isn't a flamewar" flame. LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE LET HAPPEN!



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    That's not what happens most of the time, and when it does, I've seen it being fairly unisex.

    snort I've been a pretty outspoken borderline asshole on the Internet for going on two decades. I'm fairly opinionated. Number of death threats: 0.

    In fact, hey every dude in this thread-- how many death threats have you gotten for expressing an opinion? Weight those death threats more heavily in proportion to how innocuous the topic was.

    Double in fact, hey @blakeyrat You ARE a full fledged opinionated asshole, and you've spent years specifically giving your opinion about video games. ON YOUTUBE. How many death threats have you gotten?

    We'll ask the ladyfolk afterwards. =|



  • "Are you sure you wants to be making so many of the post-type things, good sir? Why not do is the Jeff way with lots of @ all over the place like tear and cum stains on a body pillow? Pweeease BIG FUCKING RED POPUP"



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    JUST for this case

    Interesting.

    Personal information from identifiable accounts was compromised on a large scale. Plus the members of that site are not ONLY male.

    There's a national response to every national scale hacking.

    And last I remember, the legal system has been very cooperative with women that have received threats.

    ‘Thank you everyone for the messages of support. I’ve also been
    contacted by @TwitterUK who have been as helpful as they can be,’ she
    tweeted.
    ‘Police are here now and being very helpful. Am being advised to stay elsewhere tonight; have already sorted that out.’

    Anita contacted the cops?

    Bill from Kentucky
    looked into this – finding it a bit odd that a police officer would say
    something like that, in this era of overreaction and Slutwalks – and he
    learned that the San Francisco Police Department has no idea what she’s
    talking about.
    I’ve been trying to reach her for the past two days. If you have a way
    to contact this person and ask them for a case number, we’d appreciate
    that.

    Anita gets help from FBI

    Looks like she could have lied, maybe not. But once it became public knowledge that she said she attempted to contact them, they started working on it and didn't want to comment about failure to find previous contact.

    IMO, it doesn't matter who is lying, the police would not want to comment either way. Could you image if they asserted that she's lying, even if it were true?

    Later she receives a bomb threat at a convention, and FBI is on it first thing.


    In short, they are responding to the level of the threat, not the person the threat is against.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    How many death threats have you gotten?

    Has he said gamers are dead and videogames need to be censored?

    I'm totally against threats, but I do believe that the content is what is causing the threats.



  • @Lorne_Kates said:

    Double in fact, hey @blakeyrat You ARE a full fledged opinionated asshole, and you've spent years specifically giving your opinion about video games. ON YOUTUBE. How many death threats have you gotten?

    Zero. Same number of views I got.

    BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS I've been waiting for the JRPG fans to basically come to my house and murder me after that Final Fantasy debacle, but it hasn't happened yet.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.