Death of bullied teen Amanda Todd being investigated by RCMP
Public_Domain @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:03 am
Zipperfish @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:20 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/16/bc-amanda-todd-scam-websites.html
Apparently RCMP are concerend that "unfounded" allegations on the interwebs are delaying their invesitgation. First off, if the RCMP showed a little more alacrity, there'd be a lot less vigilantism--justice delayed is justice denied and all that. Heck, they system hasn't even got all the Stanley Cup rioters into court yet.
Secondly, the RCMP and the traditional media better get used to this. It's the new reality and moaning about ain't gonna change anything.
peck420 @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:48 am
It's only a reality as long as people live through social media.
A trend that, IMHO, is already starting to die out.
Imagine my surprise when one of my children, during a discussion about appropriate internet usage, states, "why would I be on Facebook...that's for people like, you know, your age..."...seriously.
I know that that is a very small sample size, but they are a group that distances themselves from on line social media as much as possible because they have grown up watching all sorts of bs like this.
andyt @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am
So what does your child do to connect and how old is s/he. The problem isn't just Facebook, it's the speed and breadth of distribution of electronic media. Is your child really going back to just visiting friends in person and tying up the landline like we did? I would be surprised.
People promoting vigilantism are just nuts. I'd rather the police take their time and maybe even miss a few, than go back to the future and have digital lynchings. Who do you think will be the lynched. Last time is was the blacks, this time it will be other out groups or individuals. Catching some bad guys isn't worth also ruining a lot of innocent people's lives, no more than executing a bad guy makes it OK to sometimes execute a good one. The reason our justice system grinds so slowly (and of course improvement is possible) is in large part because it is set up to protect the innocent from the state.
Zipperfish @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am
peck420 peck420:
It's only a reality as long as people live through social media.
A trend that, IMHO, is already starting to die out.
Imagine my surprise when one of my children, during a discussion about appropriate internet usage, states, "why would I be on Facebook...that's for people like, you know, your age..."...seriously.
I know that that is a very small sample size, but they are a group that distances themselves from on line social media as much as possible because they have grown up watching all sorts of bs like this.
A trend that, IMHO, is already starting to die out.
Imagine my surprise when one of my children, during a discussion about appropriate internet usage, states, "why would I be on Facebook...that's for people like, you know, your age..."...seriously.
I know that that is a very small sample size, but they are a group that distances themselves from on line social media as much as possible because they have grown up watching all sorts of bs like this.
I can see FB dying out, but not the almost virtually instantaneous exchange--and response to--information.
I can also see a movement at some point (perhaps too late) for people to try to get back their privacy. As it is, people--myself included--have been pretty cavalier about sharing personla details for the world to see. I write a blog. I post here, and--though reasonable most of the time--have probably posted a few spur-of-the-moment diatribes that I'd hate to see my face rubbed in now. And I'm a "member" of literally dozens of on line "communities" from here, just because that's the price of the internet: to get whatever free service you're after you have to give them a little bit of yourselves, that can sold to advertisers.
peck420 @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:07 am
andyt andyt:
So what does your child do to connect and how old is s/he. The problem isn't just Facebook, it's the speed and breadth of distribution of electronic media. Is your child really going back to just visiting friends in person and tying up the landline like we did? I would be surprised.
She is 13. And she has a cell phone, tablet, wifi throughout the neighbourhood.
She and her friends (per her account...and my keeping tabs on her electronic devices histories) only use the devices for texting, calling, and research.
There is a huge amount of fear growing towards online socialization. Since she has been able to use electronics, she has been constantly told how dangerous it is, how personal information should never go online, etc, etc. From myself, her friends, her teachers.
As to your land line question...I don't think I am allowed to use it any more...it seems that it is constantly in the hands of one of the kids or my wife...
And, I am just as shocked as you!
peck420 @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:09 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I can see FB dying out, but not the almost virtually instantaneous exchange--and response to--information.
I can also see a movement at some point (perhaps too late) for people to try to get back their privacy. As it is, people--myself included--have been pretty cavalier about sharing personla details for the world to see. I write a blog. I post here, and--though reasonable most of the time--have probably posted a few spur-of-the-moment diatribes that I'd hate to see my face rubbed in now. And I'm a "member" of literally dozens of on line "communities" from here, just because that's the price of the internet: to get whatever free service you're after you have to give them a little bit of yourselves, that can sold to advertisers.
I can also see a movement at some point (perhaps too late) for people to try to get back their privacy. As it is, people--myself included--have been pretty cavalier about sharing personla details for the world to see. I write a blog. I post here, and--though reasonable most of the time--have probably posted a few spur-of-the-moment diatribes that I'd hate to see my face rubbed in now. And I'm a "member" of literally dozens of on line "communities" from here, just because that's the price of the internet: to get whatever free service you're after you have to give them a little bit of yourselves, that can sold to advertisers.
It's fear.
Plain and simple.
It is the boogey man of her era. The 'on line peado's, the bullying, the 'foreverness' of anything online.
Or maybe it is because she has a paranoid whack job of a dad...
Zipperfish @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:13 am
andyt andyt:
So what does your child do to connect and how old is s/he. The problem isn't just Facebook, it's the speed and breadth of distribution of electronic media. Is your child really going back to just visiting friends in person and tying up the landline like we did? I would be surprised.
People promoting vigilantism are just nuts. I'd rather the police take their time and maybe even miss a few, than go back to the future and have digital lynchings. Who do you think will be the lynched. Last time is was the blacks, this time it will be other out groups or individuals. Catching some bad guys isn't worth also ruining a lot of innocent people's lives, no more than executing a bad guy makes it OK to sometimes execute a good one. The reason our justice system grinds so slowly (and of course improvement is possible) is in large part because it is set up to protect the innocent from the state.
People promoting vigilantism are just nuts. I'd rather the police take their time and maybe even miss a few, than go back to the future and have digital lynchings. Who do you think will be the lynched. Last time is was the blacks, this time it will be other out groups or individuals. Catching some bad guys isn't worth also ruining a lot of innocent people's lives, no more than executing a bad guy makes it OK to sometimes execute a good one. The reason our justice system grinds so slowly (and of course improvement is possible) is in large part because it is set up to protect the innocent from the state.
You need to make the moral differntiation between a digital lynching and an actual lynching.
andyt @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:19 am
It can cause great harm and even lead to suicides. As well as some numbnuts taking matters into their own hand. There's no moral diff between what happened to Amanda and hounding somebody you think is guilty but have little or no proof. Just because somebody says so on the internet doesn't make it so. People just use this supposedly guilty party being exposed to get their own hate and bullying on. But, maybe your brain is too small to understand that. There's a reason we have developed the justice system we have, and it's slow speed, and the maxim "better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be imprisoned" still applies.
Zipperfish @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:38 am
andyt andyt:
It can cause great harm and even lead to suicides. As well as some numbnuts taking matters into their own hand. There's no moral diff between what happened to Amanda and hounding somebody you think is guilty but have little or no proof.
There's a huge difference in my book. For how many Stanley Cup rioters did it lead to great harm or suicide? I don't recall any, though the howlings of "lynch mob" were all over at the time. Apparently, my writing a letter to a corporate sponsor of one of the rioters, with his picture cheering in front of an upturned burning car, is just as bad as flipping a car and setting it on fire. Not in my moral code, sorry.
andyt @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:20 am
In black and white world, there's good guys and bad guys, we can tell the difference and we're always on the side of the angels. In the real world YMMV.
If you have a picture of a guy jumping on a burning car, and the real identity of that person (not what somebody on the internet claimed it is) feel free to hound him/her since that's court worthy evidence, assuming the pic is not faked (and you know this how?) If you have a pic of the face of somebody in a rioting crowd you have no idea what their situation is, so leave them alone.
Charges of pedophila are very serious. Just because Anonymous says some 32 y/o guy in New West is behind it doesn't make it so. Her own mother says she doesn't think it's him because the police traced the IP to the states. (Of course he could have used an IP cloaking thingy). So Anonymous should give their evidence to the cops, not lay a huge burden on somebody, that they can never get rid of, when the evidence is so scant. If the evidence is solid, you bet the cops would act on it - they would love to show some results in this case.
DrCaleb @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:35 am
andyt andyt:
Just because Anonymous says some 32 y/o guy in New West is behind it doesn't make it so.
Quite true. You are only guilty by circumstance if you are Lance Armstrong.
Brenda @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:15 pm
andyt andyt:
Just because Anonymous says some 32 y/o guy in New West is behind it doesn't make it so.
I totally agree with you.
andyt @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:20 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
andyt andyt:
Just because Anonymous says some 32 y/o guy in New West is behind it doesn't make it so.
Quite true. You are only guilty by circumstance if you are Lance Armstrong.
Nice try. When people under oath say they sat on the team bus while they both injected drugs, that's not considered circumstantial evidence.
2Cdo @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:28 pm
andyt andyt:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
andyt andyt:
Just because Anonymous says some 32 y/o guy in New West is behind it doesn't make it so.
Quite true. You are only guilty by circumstance if you are Lance Armstrong.
Nice try. When people under oath say they sat on the team bus while they both injected drugs, that's not considered circumstantial evidence.
Except lawyers hate eye witness evidence as it isn't a "smoking gun".