Trouble with t

21 June 2012 OU Alumni 2013Foxcombe Hall, Oxford

Getting into & staying out of trouble on the Net – why joking on Facebook and Twitter is no laughing matter

Ray CorriganOpen University

http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/@raycorrigan

http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/


Stacey Snyder


Witch hunts & mob rule?


Andrew Feldmár

Canadian psychologist

Border guard internet search


Fabrice Muamba & Liam Stacey


Youth police commissioner

Paris Brown

3834 tweets deleted


Twitter joke trial

6 January 2010

@pauljchambers


“@Crazycolours: I was thinking that if it does then I had decided to resort to terrorism”


“@Crazycolours: That’s the plan! I am sure the pilots will be expecting me to demand a more exotic location than NI”


“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!”


11 January 2010


Duty manager home

Robin Hood Airport search


Procedure – refer up the chain


Credible threats

MoD


Non-credible threats

Police


Airport police

S Yorks police


7 days post tweet

Anti-terror squad – workplace

Bomb hoax arrest


10 February 2010

“no evidence at this stage to suggest that there is anything other than a foolish comment posted on “Twitter” as a joke for only his close

friends to see.”


CPS

127 (1)(a) Communications Act 2003

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent,

obscene or menacing character;


Nobody acts as though there's a 'threat'


No urgency

Self preservation

Tick the box


Magistrate convicts

Crown Court upholds:

"satisfied" that the tweet was "menacing per se" and that "an ordinary person" seeing it "would see it that way and be alarmed. The airport

staff did see it and were sufficiently concerned to report it."


"Yah hmm mmm"

“satisfied that the appellant was, at the very least, aware that his message was of a menacing character."


High Court

tweeting is sending messages by means of a "public electronic communications network"


High Court

s127 ok – update of misuse of phone for menace

No “newly minted interference with.. freedom of speech"

Interpreting s127 “disappointingly little coherence in English law’s approach to threat offences”


message which does not create fear or apprehension... lacks menace

No threat, no menace, no actus reus, no criminal conduct


No attention to simple fact that the tweet lacked any conceivable menace


message which does not create fear or apprehension... lacks menace

No threat, no menace, no actus reus, no criminal conduct


High Court para 31 - 34

“In any event, the more one reflects on it, the clearer it becomes that this message did not represent a terrorist threat, or indeed any other form

of threat..

...It was treated and addressed as if it was not a credible threat... no action... no minimal.. protective measures... no urgent response...

Police action was not exactly hurried”

“proper respect must be paid” to the Crown Court but...


“How this ever get this far?! A plethora of officialdom couldn't get their act together and we are blowing this case sky high!!”


56 days jail Liam Stacey – Fabrice Muamba

Racially Aggravated s4A Public order Act 1986

@rileyy_69 (aka Reece of Weymouth) – Tom Daley

s1 1988 Malicious Communications Act

“an indecent, grossly offensive, threatening, or false message with the intent of causing stress or anxiety”

s5 Public Order Act 1986

Harassment, alarm or distress... threatening, abusive or insulting


>4000 new criminal offences introduced by UK government 1997 – 2010

Twice the rate of their immediate predecessors

Stats for Con-Dem coalition not clear yet


Edward Snowden

Whistleblower

Traitor or hero?


US government response

Don’t look behind the curtain, there’s nothing to see

Balance

http://b2fxxx.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/obamas-initial-reaction-to-prism-leak.html


UK Government response

We’re doing nothing wrong

D-notice the media - advise not to publish for national security reasons

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide


2 Key revelations –

Documentary evidence of mass surveillance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

James Clapper: PRISM is about FISAAA

“The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to ... Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

They contain numerous inaccuracies. Section 702 ...designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign

intelligence information concerning non-US persons located outside the United States...only non-US

persons outside the US are targeted... minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally

acquired information about US Persons.”


Turing 1942 Ellis Island

5 eyes UK, US, NZ, Ca, Au


Timeline1952 President Truman sets up NSA

1972 US Supreme Court – warrants needed for domestic surveillance (the Keith case)

1970s Watergate

1975 Church Committee

1978 FISA

2001 – 2007 President Bush warrantless wiretapping

2003 AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein – NSA secret room San Francisco

2004 NYT report NSA domestic spying

2007 Protect America Act

2008 FISAAA (renewed 2013) Challenged by ACLU 2008 (argued Scotus 2012)

2013 Snowden PRISM leaks


EU personal data is unprotected from FISAAA

EU Commission, DPAs, Member States, MEPs, didn't know

about FISAAA 1881a until 2012


Bad news…Internet a surveillance state

Unrestrained data collection & processing

&

Laws on the statute books

mean

Using the Net opens you up to trouble


Good news…

You’re mostly lost in the noise

Everyone is subject to mass surveillance on the Net

Anyone’s data can be mined

Everyone’s can’t

Don’t become a person of interest…

Trouble with t

Education

Transcript of Trouble with t