Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield


Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)


« Inquiring minds want to know | Main | The wrong side of history »

Defending the Law Commission

By Steven | August 29, 2012

The Law Commission’s brainchild is being bullied online. It has recommended the creation of a tribunal to hear claims of digital harrassment, privacy invasion, intimidation, bullying and defamation. Not surprisingly, perhaps, it’s now being attacked by netizens as a terrible threat to free speech. Also not surprisingly, many of these people do not seem to have read the Law Commission’s actual proposal, which answers many of the criticisms. There are also some thoughtful criticisms from sensible people.

There’s certainly room for debate about this proposal. I have some concerns about it myself, though overall I support it. (In fact, the Law Commission draws to some extent on some suggestions I made here). But if we accept that there are real harms being done to people here - many of them children - then what’s really needed is constructive dialogue about how to address them. The Law Commission spends two chapters marshalling the evidence of harm and explaining why existing remedies aren’t adequate to address it. If you think a tribunal with powers to issue take-down notices is a dumb idea, then what’s your alternative? Just putting up with photos of a kid being bullied being posted on Facebook? 

I want to deal with some of the objections I see as misguided before dealing with my own (much better directed!) concerns, in a later post.

“It’s a general censorship body”!  For some people, the tribunal seems to loom as something of a censorship juggernaut, bestriding NZ’s internet landscape pulverising innocent articles and comments. For example, Idiot/Savant from NoRightTurn asserts that the proposal is simply a “heckler’s veto”, meaning that anyone merely has to object in order to have something removed. That’s vastly overstating its likely impact. To get yourself a take-down order from the communications tribunal, you’re going to have to do all of the following things:

1. Show that one of the 10 principles has been breached (eg someone’s published a false allegation, a private fact, a threat, etc: these are designed to reflect the existing law);

2. Show that this breach has caused you - the victim - “significant harm”;

3. Show that you’ve pursued all reasonable other avenues first (this is in the Law Commission’s report, but not explicitly in the draft legislation);

4. Show that you’ve referred the matter to an “approved agency” (the Law Commission recommends Netsafe) first, and it has considered exercising its functions first. These include investigation and mediation. The tribunal is likely to take into account the agency’s determination and the reasons for it;

5. Convince the tribunal (a District Court judge) that a take-down order is appropriate. It is discretionary. The tribunal must weigh up things like the public interest in the communication, its truth, the good faith motives behind it, the robustness of the forum, a lack of evident harm, the limitation of circulation, the contribution of the victim to the harm — factors that, if present, will make your application a hard sell;

6. Convince the tribunal that a take-down notice is a demonstrably justified restriction on the right to freedom of expression contained in the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

The  person you’re complaining against will be given the right to argue against any such order before it’s made and (I’m sure) the right to appeal against it (this too is absent from the draft legislation, which only gives appeal rights to the complainant - this looks like a simple oversight to me). You will not get the right to seek damages. You will not be able to complain against mainstream media.

“The Law Commission hasn’t made out a case for this tribunal.” This is the main criticism of barrister John Edwards on Russell Brown’s Media3 programme on Saturday. He thinks there isn’t enough evidence of harm, and quotes the Law Commission saying:

We note that the paucity of quantitative national data on cyber-related communication harms creates challenges for policy makers.

But he doesn’t refer to the 20 pages of evidence assembled by the Commission it its briefing (chapter 2), and all the evidence amassed in its earlier report. That includes a string of particular examples and a series of surveys consistently revealing that at least 10% of people have suffered harrassment or bullying online. Nor does he refer to the Commission’s lengthy (and I think pretty compelling) discussion of why existing avenues of legal recourse are ineffective. The Commission’s conclusion is that at least some of the incidents are so bad that:

Irrespective of the quantum of the problem, in our view, this potential to cause significant harm, some of it indeed devastating, demands an effective legal remedy.  

“I’d like some mechanism for more speech, not less” This criticism comes from Thomas Beagle from TechLiberty, also on Media3. I incline to the view that the internet is not lacking in mechanisms for more speech. Anyway, presumably Thomas would be much in favour of the tribunal’s power to order a right of reply. The mere existence of that power could be expected to incentivise more-speech responses. But there are plenty of situations (threats, publication of private facts or confidential material, many types of bullying) where “more speech” isn’t really the appropriate answer.

Quick memo to Russell Brown: Couldn’t you find someone in favour of the tribunal for Media3? Why two opponents? After all, the proposal is supported by the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, the police, Netsafe, Trade Me, the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association, and most of the submitters including the members of the Auckland law faculty on the Equal Justice Project. Also: me. It would have made for a better discussion.

“We shouldn’t protect people from hurt feelings”. Too late, I’m afraid. Unless perhaps, you’d like to do away with the law of defamation and privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Privacy Act, the Harrassment Act, the Domestic Protection Act and laws concerning threats. And maybe you would. Maybe you’d also like to ignore the growing acceptance that psychological harms can be as damaging as physical ones.

But perhaps your objection is simply that the threshold has been set too low. If so, bear in mind the things that need to be proved, listed above. It’s not about “stopping people from ever getting upset”. If you’re still unconvinced, I’m up for a debate about it. Let’s see your re-draft.

The Law Commission doesn’t seem to be suggesting remedies for anything not already covered by the law, so why bother? Graeme Edgeler, step up to the plate. Graeme referred to two examples given in the Law Commission’s paper: two older guys coerced a drunken 16-year-old into performing sexual acts that they then recorded on a cell-phone, showed people, and talked about on Facebook; and young people being threatened in texts including pictures of mutilated bodies and said:

if someone could point out how a Communications Tribunal could possibly help in either of the scenarios described, it would be appreciated

But as Graeme surely knows, the power of courts to grant an injunction to restrain a crime is not clear (and very rarely exercised), and their power to restrain torts, or threatened ones, is expensive and unlikely to be exercised at an interim stage. That’s the gap the Law Commission is looking to fill here. In both these cases, but particularly the first, the tribunal could have made an order for the material to be taken off-line (Facebook would almost certainly have complied, as would any relevant ISP), or not distributed further. At present, the police and the courts don’t have this power.

To be fair, Graeme seems to backtrack shortly afterward, when he says:

There are clearly circumstances in which a low level Communications Tribunal will enable people to obtain a solution to a problem that they could not have obtained otherwise.

However using factual scenarios from the past where people have been (or could have been) prosecuted and in some cases actually ended up in prison as a reason to change the law is unlikely to win converts.

But this still misses the point. No doubt the 16-year-old would have been delighted to have an avenue to have this removed early. Prosecution isn’t what this remedy is about. The point of the Law Commission’s proposal is to reflect what’s already in the law and provide an effective, timely and cheap remedy for breaches.

“The horse has bolted”. This is Thomas Beagle again, and multitudes of others. If something is published online, they say, the harm is done. Russell Brown rightly rejects this. True, harm arises immediately something is posted online and may be very damaging if word spreads quickly. What’s more, the material may never go away. It may migrate overseas. But it can be made much harder to find, and it can be removed from sites that give it the most currency and credibility. I mean, really: if images of your daughter being sexually violated were posted on Facebook, and there was some opportunity to have them removed, would you be saying “oh well, the horse has bolted”?

“The police can deal with it.” The police say they can’t. They certainly can’t deal with tort issues (defamation, breach of confidence). They can try to persuade people to take things down, and they can charge them with offences, but they have no general power to force people to remove anything. Frankly, I’m a bit concerned that they seem to try to do so anyway. “In Netsafe’s experience,” the Law Commission says (para 5.8), “the majority of interventions by the law usually occur on an informal, ad hoc basis and involve police officers contacting the alleged offenders and requesting that the threats of harm desist”. I can certainly imagine situations where this would be entirely appropriate. I can also imagine others where police were leaning on someone to remove something, having an incomplete view of the facts, a limited understanding of the law, and an inflated sense of their own righteousness and power. Perhaps one salutary effect of a new tribunal would be to ensure that these sorts of requests were channeled to the agency and tribunal where they could be dealt with in a consistent and principled way.

There are criminal penalties! This too is a concern of Thomas Beagle’s. He’s right that it’s an offence to disobey a tribunal order. It’s hard to see how it could be otherwise. Are defendants supposed to be able to ignore a take-down notice with impunity? But this is different to making the principles they’re enforcing criminal offences. It’s not an offence, for example, to make a false allegation, or disclose a sensitive personal fact. It only becomes an offence if the process above is followed, and order is made, and the defendant fails to act on it.

Education is the answer. This emerged from the Media3 discussion, and all seemed to agree on it. We can be educated into being responsible digital citizens. I’m not opposed to anything that tries to help people understand the harms people can suffer from irresponsible communications, and tries to encourage them to behave civilly. But it’s surely pie in the sky to think this is the complete answer. People will be evil. And when they are, we need to act against the harm, not pretend that we might be able to convince the next generation of people not to be evil.

It doesn’t properly protect free speech, especially free political speech. I think it probably does. The tribunal must have regard to the importance of freedom of expression. It must consider “the extent to which the communication is in the public interest” and its content, purpose and context. And although it’s not expressly spelled out (I think it should be), the NZ Bill of Rights Act applies to the tribunal. There is little doubt that political speech will receive particular protection under these provisions.

It’s a licence for lawyers to print money. I doubt this. I suspect most people will be unrepresented, as is the case with the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority. The tribunal is required to act with as little formality and technicality, and as speedily, as it reasonably can. It is designed to be accessible to unrepresented litigants.

I don’t think the tribunal proposal is perfect. I think there are a few tweaks that should be made, and then it will still be imperfect. But the question is, will it do more good than harm? And I think it will.

Topics: Internet issues |

18 Responses to “Defending the Law Commission”

  1. Graeme Edgeler Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    I demand a right of reply!

    Oh wait.

    In the case of an online video being criminal, or being evidence of a crime, you don’t need an injunction. Police have the power to obtain a warrant seize it as evidence of a crime :-)

  2. John Edwards Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Hi Steven - I might comment in a bit more detail later - but some immediate observations - the Law Commission is getting bullied online? Really? OK - journalistic license aside - that’s a pretty lame over-statement of a few very moderate and legitimate discussion pieces on the proposals.

    Second - I “[don’t] refer to the 20 pages of evidence assembled by the Commission it its briefing”? Ahh - no - it is kinda hard to refer to 20 pages of evidence in a 12 minute TV piece.

    Third - those 20 pages of evidence do not in fact support the tribunal part of the recommendation. The Law Commission actually does not provide any good analysis of what legislative responses would address given concerns. An example from the submissions (or “evidence” as you describe it). The Police say people subject to domestic protection orders are using social media to be threatening. That will be a breach of existing law. Why are they not enforcing it? There are many similar examples.

    Fourth - most of the most egregious examples would be addressed by the other statutory updates (to the Privacy Act, Harassment Act and Crimes Act). The Law Commission cites gives no examples of cases that would not be caught by those, but that would require the new Communications Tribunal.

    Fifth, and this is one that I thought you might have been more interested in, there is no discussion of how the Tribunal proposal might affect freedom of expression by providing a new forum for online speech suppression and the furtherance of personal grievances. What might be the collateral damage of a free mechanism to seek speech limiting orders against “any person”? Don’t you think that warrants a bit more analysis, and maybe some evidence based policy? I don’t see the case made out.

    Finally - you suggest the naysayers haven’t suggested an alternative. I wasn’t asked on the Media3 show, but ahve some clear ideas about that. At the very least there should be a transition period with the other measures put in place, Netsafe to receive and assist with complaints, and some empirical evidence gathered about the dimensions of the problem, and the suitability of the proposed solution. Then we might have some basis for determining whether the policy was “demonstrably justified”. Given the amount of thought and ink you have put into s.5 of the NZBORA - i would have thought you would support at least that.

  3. John Edwards Says:
    August 29th, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    oh - and BTW you also have not commented on my concern that there is no requirement that the communication was targeted at the victim. I think that is pretty significant.

  4. Steven Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 11:36 am

    I’m glad you recognise the journalistic licence involved in the first sentence.

    Second, I think a mention of the large amount of material compiled by the Law Commission in its two reports might have been in order if you’re going to criticise them for “not making out a case”. And if you’re going to quote the passage you did, I think you should have mentioned their reasoning three paragraphs later where the Commission explains its justification.

    Third, I disagree that their evidence doesn’t bear out their conclusion. I’m happy to let readers look at the Law Commission’s two reports and see what they think. And I think you’re still missing the main point about the inadequacies of the existing remedies. Just because something is against the law doesn’t make it easy to have it removed.

    That responds to your fourth point as well.

    Fifth, again, I disagree that “there’s no discussion about how the Tribunal proposal might affect freedom of expression”. Look, for example, at paras 4.5-4.22, headed “The Bill of Rights Act 1990″ and “Applying these principles”, where the Bill of Rights Act implications are discussed at some length. For example, they note that greater justification will be required where political speech is challenged. The BORA is also referred to repeatedly elsewhere throughout the paper.

    You might say that the Commission does not focus enough on the specific impact of their proposals on online speech. I agree that their BORA analysis might have been better. But there are several powerful answers to this objection. One is that the entire paper is structured around demonstrating that the proposed restriction is justified and that other alternatives are inadequate. It does this explicitly in a BORA framework. The Canadian courts have said that what’s required here is a sensible reasoning process, not slam-dunk evidence.

    Another is that the Tribunal will be required to comply with the BORA: that is, any orders it makes must be demonstrably justified. Any order it makes could be reviewed on that basis. In that sense, this proposal is simply not inconsistent with the BORA.

    And if, as you contend, the Tribunal is doing no more than policing what the law already allows, and is unnecessary for that reason, then what is it that you think it proposes to do that requires extra justification? On your reasoning, it must surely be demonstrably justified to better enforce existing laws.

    Finally, I am not sure how the Law Commission would go about the analysis you propose, beyond what they have done (which I think is a lot). How do you measure its potential impact on online speech? They did, after all, signal their proposal in advance and invite submissions from interested parties, which they have taken into account.

    You suggest a wait and see approach. How do you answer the concerns of almost every official and lobby group involved in this area that the existing tools to enforce the law are not adequate.?

    More specifically, let me ask: what’s the remedy for the 16-year-old coerced into being filmed performing sexual acts while drunk by some 21-year-olds, who then post it on online, or discuss it on Facebook? Let’s assume she doesn’t have $10,000 to seek an injunction for breach of privacy…

  5. Steven Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 11:49 am

    >>oh - and BTW you also have not commented on my concern that there is no requirement that the communication was targeted at the victim. I think that is pretty significant.

    More than happy to oblige, John. My response is that your concern is overstated and your suggestion that it would somehow apply to the Hell Pizza campaign is flat wrong.

    You are right to say that there is no requirement that the communication be targeted to the victim. Your suggestion is that this opens up the field for rafts of complainants offended by particular publications.

    That sounds bad. But there are at least two important elements in the Law Commission’s proposal that reduce this problem to almost nothing. The first is that the complainant must demonstrate “significant harm”. Although this can include emotional distress, the Commission is clear that this is designed to be a significant hurdle. It won’t pick up people who are just run-of-the-mill offended.

    Second, a complainant to the Tribunal must be a “victim of the communication” (or their guardian or school, or in rare cases the police). That’s very unlikely to apply to someone who is merely offended.

    Added to that is the requirement that the Tribunal will need to interpret and apply its mandate consistently with the Bill of Rights Act, is specifically directed to take into account of the importance of freedom of expression, and must weigh up a range of pertinent factors such as the level of harm and the context, and I think we can safely conclude that the tribunal will rarely exercise its powers when people are not actually targeted.

    Of course, there is also the requirement that the authorised agency certify any particular complaint as appropriate for the agency, and weed out claims that are frivolous or vexatious or would not cause significant distress, humiliation or harm to a reasonable person.

    Enough?

  6. John Edwards Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I think you are still running different arguments together. I agree that the submissions to the Law Commission justify recommendations for law reform, for updating the various statutes mentioned, and for the creation of an offence of intentionally or knowingly causing harm by means of a communications device.

    The scenario of the 16 year old you mention would be addressed in the proposed amendments to the Privacy Act (the other Law Commission report), as well as the amendments in the draft Bill.

    What I don’t see in the Law Commission’s reports is any analysis of which of the matters identified as warranting a legislative response would not be dealt with by all the measures short of the Communications Tribunal - in other words, given the proposed changes, can the Communications Tribunal element still be said to be “demonstrably justifiable”.

    In its concession about the lack of quantitative data I think the Commission actually concedes that point. I think it is quite legitimate to wait and see what would happen if Parliament enacted the updating provisions of the other Acts, funded the schools programme and the Netsafe advocacy function, perhaps even enacted the communications principles (although I’m not so sure those are necessary), before forging ahead with a Tribunal. Call it a “freedom of expression precautionary principle” if you will.

    There is of course the precedent of the Privacy Act, where the principles were enacted, the Commissioner established, but no one had access to the tribunal for three years.

    Oh - and I think you are plain wrong on the Hell Pizza point. There is nothing in the Bill that requires a connection between the communicator and the victim.

    You are right of course that there are a number of ways the tribunal can deal with unmeritorious claims. They can’t stop them being made though, and they can’t stop ISPs, bloggers and others having to engage with them and to expend time, money and energy doing so. If you build it, they will come.

  7. ross Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    “The point of the Law Commission’s proposal is to reflect what’s already in the law and provide an effective, timely and cheap remedy for breaches.”

    How timely? The recent furore over Barbara Sumner-Burstyn’s comments about Jacinda Baker are a case in point. Sumner-Burstyn’s comments and the resulting criticism of them by some is likely to blow ever pretty quickly…possibly by the time any tribunal would have gotten to assess them. I agree that some action is better than none, but I suspect in many cases it will be too late. In fact, an argument could be made that by having a tribunal hear such a dispute, the issue might gain further publicity than if it had been allowed to die a natural death. Thus, the issue remains in the public domain longer than it ought to.

  8. Thomas Beagle Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Reading your back and forth, I think there’s a problem here in that there’s two different tests, one for the new criminal offence of ‘causing harm by means of a communication device’ and one that will be applied by the Agency/Tribunal.

    The criminal offence does not require significant distress. Indeed, looking at 21A(2) there appears to be no requirement for the victim to be distressed at all. Rather there is a requirement that the person sending the communication intended to cause distress to that person and that the court agrees that it would cause “substantial emotional distress” to someone in the recipient’s position.

    I also note that in 21A(3) “It is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that the message or other matter was directed specifically at person B.” and 21A(2)(c) that it just has to be established that person B saw the message. (e.g. it might have been passed on by someone else). I can’t help feeling that this part of the bill is not nearly as well constructed as it should have been.

    The rest I will leave for the article I’m working on which will be out soon. I hope.

  9. Steven Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    John: Excellent. I like a good scrap.

    Okay, I get that you support the offences and that you don’t support the Tribunal. You said that.

    So where do the police get the powers to issue take-down notices for the new offences?

    I think you might now be suggesting that it would be a good idea for the Privacy Commissioner to be given powers to issue take-down notices, which was the subject an earlier Law Commission report about the Privacy Act. Well, okay. That would take care of privacy abuses (at least those that fall within the data-management framework set up in the Privacy Act). What about bullying, incitement, defamation, threats? Too bad about those? Wait and see?

    Hell Pizza. Are you serious about this? Here’s what Hell Pizza published, the weekly winner of its email “Confessional” competition:

    “I once was at a party and saw this utter wanker, he passed out so I put a mask on and stuck my cock and balls into his mouth, til he woke up. To this day he still has no idea who it was, and gets shit for it all the time.”
    http://imgur.com/a/f61pj

    Now: note that there are no names here. Might the unfortunate person concerned complain (assuming this confession isn’t what it seems to be - a silly fabrication)? Perhaps, though there’s an identification issue. But that guy *is being targeted* so it’s not who you’re talking about.

    You’re arguing that someone else could complain. Let’s see what they’d have to show.

    Is it offensive? Tick. Grossly offensive? I’ll concede the tick there too. Grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position? I suppose someone who has been abused themselves might reasonably be grossly offended, and it may even be arguable that any reasonable person would be grossly offended.

    Now, can the complainant convince the agency that it would cause “significant distress, humiliation or harm to a reasonable person”?
    Then, can the complainant show it has actually caused him or her “significant harm”?
    Next, can the complainant show s/he is a “victim” of the publication?
    Next, can the complainant convince the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to have this taken down, bearing in mind the BORA and the statutory factors, which include the context (most of the comments were disapproving)?

    Your mission: make the argument. I think it’s an obvious loser.

    Anyway, my point was that - given these requirements - a complaint could rarely be established when the complainant wasn’t targeted. Perhaps you could address that contention.

  10. Steven Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Ross: if you think that the Tribunal might apply to Barbara Sumner-Burstyn’s comments, then I think you’ve fallen into the same trap as John.

    As for delay: of course. But that doesn’t mean we should do nothing to minimise harm where that’s possible. And there is a fast-track procedure in the draft Bill.

  11. ross Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Steven

    I wasn’t suggesting that Sumner-Bursty’s qualified, though they might have been the subject of a complaint. I was merely suggesting that if they did qualify, any take down order might come too late and might re-ignite the initial debate.

  12. Steven Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Thomas: my post only addresses the Agency/Tribunal proposal, not the criminal offence. (As for the criminal offence, I noticed that there’s no requirement for actual distress too, and I agree there should be).

    The tribunal would have to be satisfied that the “victim” suffered significant harm (including significant emotional distress).

  13. John Edwards Says:
    August 30th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    I don’t mind a scrap either, but I’m dashing to get off to New Caledonia -so will have to leave it there for now. I won’t be able to change your mind in any case, but will be discussing with my colleagues on the Human Rights and Privacy Committee of the NZLS, and no doubt will be making submissions to the SC if it comes to Parliament.

    Oh, and your a Nazi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

    :-)

  14. rich.d.rich Says:
    August 31st, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    what’s the remedy for the 16-year-old coerced into being filmed performing sexual acts while drunk by some 21-year-olds, who then post it on online, or discuss it on Facebook? Let’s assume she doesn’t have $10,000 to seek an injunction for breach of privacy…

    Rape/sexual assault is a police matter. The film would, I think, be classed as objectionable (coercion & depiction of young person) which would be a matter for DIA and the police.

    One would expect that those involved would be charged accordingly and a bail condition would involve removal of the content.

    what’s your alternative?

    Create and fund the “approved agency” but leave most of the current law alone (beyond areas such as bringing email into line with the law on telephone messages).

    The agency would be able to direct a complaint to appropriate agencies, issue complaints, takedown *requests* and warning letters on behalf of the complainant. They’d be able to have contact with the correct police / DIA staff to deal with these issues.

    The problem with the proposed law is that (rather like the use of ASBOs in the UK, but admittedly not as egregious) it creates a wide pool of potentially proscribed speech and then carves out exceptions and processes. That’s counter to the fundamental idea that “anything not forbidden is allowed”.

  15. Steven Says:
    August 31st, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Hey Rich,
    Bail is an interesting thought. I wonder (a) whether it is used this way and (b) whether it’s proper to do so. Bail conditions can only be imposed here if they are reasonably necessary to ensure that the accused person “does not commit any offence while on bail”. When someone is defending charges and arguing that no offence has been conducted, and simply leaves something up that’s already there, I’m not at sure that bail works here.
    I can’t see that the censor’s office or DIA have any power to take anything down. That seems clearly the case when something has not been classified. But even if it has been, I can’t see any power to order take-down, except the power to make an interim restraining order pending appeal of a classification to the board of review.

    I disagree that the proposal creates a “wide pool of potentially prescribed speech”. It is designed to reflect what’s already illegal, and generally achieves that, I think.

  16. Matt Taylor Says:
    August 31st, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    In the 16-year-old sex act example, I’m sure Facebook would be agreeable to remove what would seem like bragging about sexual violation without needing to see an order to do so.

    With the cellphone threats/mutilated bodies example, I’m sure cellphone providers would be agreeable to provide a change of number (albeit not effective if the new number is shared with someone who shares it with someone…)

  17. Steven Says:
    September 2nd, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Matthew: Facebook and Google say they’re excellent at dealing with complaints too. But their record at responding to complaints is very patchy. The Law Commission discusses this.

    I’m not sure that changing a cellphone number really addresses the harm here.

  18. Workshops on the communications bill are worth attending | NetSafe Blog Says:
    September 6th, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    […] TechLiberty has articulated some fears. Lawyer Steven Price showed his impartiality with a defence of the proposals, and a critique of […]

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.