Internet Policing - How much/How little?

[Namehere]

With the recent spate of online lynching being justified as a basically 'shoot first or die' event - metaphorically speaking of course - is it time that we had a more active law enforcement community on the internet. What form could/should this take? Do we need embedded Interpol officers to coordinate internationally on catching people who utter death threats and the like? Would having a legal authority you could appeal to for and reasonably expect help from, cool down the internet a little?

Your views are called for Escapists!

Update:

Hey all, thanks for your input. I see most of you are on the side of internet freedoms, which is good. I would like to clarify that my suggestion for using Interpol wasn't as some sort of international monitoring hub, but more to coordinate with foreign law enforcement agencies. For instance... French national in France hacks Americans, Canadians and Mexicans - has a thing for North America, pick you're reason. The local authorities couldn't arrest the suspect for trial with out cooperation, and Interpol seemed a natural organization to help get around red tape. I wouldn't even advocate this for hacking necessarily, but extortion, death threats and things of that like, being able to apprehend a suspect quickly by bypassing red tape - which is by no means to say skipping extradition - through the use of Interpol rather then federal or local law enforcement, seemed important.

I also wasn't advocating for round the clock monitoring. I suspect that by and large that's already happening at any rate thanks to recent NSA revelations and the like.

I was thinking more along the lines of dedicated and well known electronic police divisions. Going to the police today with a problem with online stalkers or just random threats isn't likely to be taken seriously. And whether I'm right or wrong, it's a belief held by me and countless other people. I think if we could rectify that gut impulse that 'they won't or can't help' it might make the internet a little more conscious of itself.

Cary on with the discussion and I'm pleased to see that nobody thus far is willing to trade freedom for safety. It's nice to at least feel like we've earned our freedoms for standing on them from time to time, isn't it?

 

[DOOM GUY]

Despite recent events, I really don't think we should go down that route, as it will probably lead to even more restrictions down the road.

 

[JoJo]

I'm not really in favour of policing the Internet, with the exception of a few serious crimes like hacking and sexual predators. Realistically, 99.9999%[footnote]May not be actual statistic, terms and conditions apply[/footnote] of 'death threats' online are just hot air, heck I've got death and rape threats in the past for making a YouTube video where Pikachu dies. I laughed and moved on because it was obviously bullshit. It think it's dumb and waste of public money too that people in the UK have actually be arrested and even jailed for 'offensive' remarks on social media.

The current Internet gives a great freedom of choice, if you want a moderated forum where people like that are weeded out fairly quickly, you can choose the Escapist or similar. If you want somewhere you can say whatever you like and have other people do likewise to you, there's 4chan and friends. I'd much prefer to keep this freedom rather than instituting one legal standard across the entire Internet.

 

[Ratty]

I would opt for as little regulation as possible, or at least not any more than we have now. Because the greatest strength of the internet for the furtherance of mankind is the free and instant exchange of ideas across the globe. But greater regulation is coming all the same, because the free exchange of ideas is always dangerous to whoever's currently running the show. And because there's too much money for further regulation to NOT happen. Never trust anyone who tells you they have the best interests of the public in mind when they push for censorship.

captcha: "window dressing" how very zen of you captcha.

 

[DirgeNovak]

If you commit an actual crime on the Internet (such as, oh I don't know, doxxing people, threatening to rape/kill people, DDoSing a bunch of companies, or calling in fake bomb threats), you should be prosecuted just as you'd be if committed a crime in (massive quotation marks) "real life".

But active surveillance of most/all Internet activity by law enforcement? Fuck no. Investigating complaints is enough.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

If you commit an actual crime on the Internet (such as, oh I don't know, doxxing people, threatening to rape/kill people, DDoSing a bunch of companies, or calling in fake bomb threats), you should be prosecuted just as you'd be if committed a crime in (massive quotation marks) "real life".

But active surveillance of most/all Internet activity by law enforcement? Fuck no. Investigating complaints is enough.

I'd have to agree here. But, consider how much of the population would be fined or in jail from YouTube comments alone. It'd be enough to take the U.S out of debt! (HEYOOOOOO!) But seriously, I agree, there has to be a minimum level of prosecution for some really shitty thing you could do or say on the internet. People only do or say what they do because they know they can get away with it. People who know they can't get away with it (Ideally) won't do it!

 

[DEAD34345]

I don't see why the internet needs policing at all, personally. With very few exceptions (mainly actual hacking where real money and information is involved, and maybe things like DDOS attacks) all potential "crime" on the internet can be avoided by simply going on a different website or blocking an email address or whatever. Websites are entirely capable of moderating themselves, and users are free to use the websites and services that have the level of policing/anonymity that they desire. With the system as it is now, everyone wins.

Hacking and the like is already totally illegal, adding any further laws would simply be restricting people's freedoms and expression without any tangible benefits in return.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Yes, an international law enforcement group, dystopias get me so hard. /s

A terrible idea, just like an "internet government" would be. It'd get corrupt real quick, and all the freedom of the internet would be quashed.
DDoSers and fake bomb threats are already hunted by the authorities, there's no need to blow more money for corrupt ass-wipes to go on power-trips.

 

[snowpuppy]

The internet is great in that it is real anarchy.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Every country should have a known governing body for all things communication that could be reported to and trusted to act by law. Just so we are clear you getting mildly annoyed by some strongly worded comments would mean jack shit to actual law enforcement, even death threats need to first exhibit actual intent to harm someone before it becomes a criminal offence, wouldn't hurt to contact people and put them on notice however, most act on of belief that they can never be found.
And those law enforcement groups must equally keep an eye on companies, there is an awful lot of illegal personal data collection and distribution that only gets into public light once a gigantic lawsuit is cobbled together, otherwise it's a free for all buffet. Not to mention most digital distributors do not abide by other countries laws at all.

 

[K12]

I don't see any reason why threat, harassment or conspiracy should be any less illegal when it's done on the internet. Having said that I think an internet police (over and above the amount that various nations convict and pursue people for actions on the internet already) wouldn't really work.

If you're going to try and catch the sad losers who send violent death threats to people for no reason its more trouble than its worth. I think it makes more sense for web services to have more responsibility to police themselves and block/ban people who are do this kind of thing. I think the people who sent horrible messages to Zelda Williams on twitter should just be banned from Twitter permanently but getting them convicted of a crime would probably just fail.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, OTOH, sending people death or rape threats is flat out wrong.

OTOH, who do you trust to deal with these issues, especially when crossing jurisdictions?

 

[Gunner 51]

I can understand the desire for something like this. But I don't think you truly need an international effort to clean up the internet. Just co-operation from one's own local law enforcement agencies.

The way I see it is that whether you are online or outside, you should always act in a responsible manner. After all, most of us don't go around making threat of violence and rape in public.

If that means a few children get put in a jail cell for a night, so be it. It should be a lesson to them that using threatening language is socially unacceptable wherever you are. But as for something like a DDOS attack, something like that needs a much sterner punishment than a mere night in the cells.

But all offenders should be tried by their own local jurisdiction because extradition is too much trouble and turns the whole thing into a legal maelstrom.

But that's just my two penneth worth.