The Crocels Trolling Academy

Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems

The Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park,
Swansea, West Wales & The Valleys, SA2 8PP, Wales, GB.
Telephone: 0845 4786390 Web: www.trollingacademy.org

12 September 2012
Colin Green
Ministerial Support Team
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
Dear Mr Green
Re: Internet trolling
I am the worlds leading authority on Internet trolling. I therefore find your comments that
it is me that is confused deeply offensive. It is more to the point that the Government lack
a concept of the big picture in relation to messages sent via public communications
networks that authorities like me possess. Rather than condemn me as confused the
Government should be engaging with me to develop more effective policy. Ministers might
get a better idea if they were to read the book I edited for IGI Global, Examining the
Concepts, Issues, and Implications of Internet Trolling, due out in January.
The fact that the Government cant see the advantages of using OfCom and Identity
Protection Services as a means for the public to enforce their rights is disappointing. The
fact is, as you would see if you read my 2010 journal paper, Tough on data misuse, tough
on the causes of data misuse: A review of New Labour's approach to information security
and regulating the misuse of digital information (1997-2010), published in the International
Review of Law Computers and Technology (IRLCT), the current criminal law system does
not work for the vast majority of people. Whilst Section 5 of the current Defamation Bill
would protect free speech by preventing ISPs from being the piggy in the middle it would
do nothing to solve the problem if the content they are hosting is actually malicious or false
and not in fact free speech judged by the test of fair comment. Public opinion is currently
of the view that police time should not be spent on Internet trolling.
As you will be able to see in that paper above, towards the end of Gordon Browns
premiership the approach to the Internet was one not based on court action. Most people
cannot afford legal action to bring a civil claim for harassment, let alone a claim for
defamation. Therefore there needs to be a cost effective arbitration system for resolving
disputes where free speech is put up against the protection of reputation and privacy to
efficiently adjudicate whether that content is fair comment.
You can see in the above paper I suggested an Internet Ombudsman which could be
funded by the Internet industry, and in my forthcoming paper in IRLCT I will be proposing
the amendment to the Communications Act 2003 I wrote to you about, which would be
funded by consumers themselves through Identify Protection Services. I currently use CPP,
which among other things scans websites for my personal details. As a private sector firm,
it would be a simple matter of them building up experience in cost-effectively dealing with
OfCom should my privacy or reputation be compromised.

Now, if you would give me the chance to respond to your more detailed remarks:

You claim that ISPs are not liable for the content that is carried over their networks.
This is in fact incorrect. ISPs that provide electronic communication services via a platform,
known as sysops in the field, are subject to the same duties under the Data Protection Act
1998 to process data fairly and avoid distress as other data controllers. Sysops have the
same obligations under the various Unfair Contract Terms rules as other undertakings,
including those in Sections 124-128 of the Equality Act 2010. Sysops who publish obscene
content can be open to protection under the Obscene Publication Acts 1959 as much as
those accessing them. Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also
requires that sysops do not publish unfair criticisms of a work, for which is there is no cast
iron test.

Far from the Nicola Brookes case being an exemplary example of dealing with Internet
trolling as you suggest, and also your mention of the cases against repeat offender Sean
Duffy, show more than ever the need for efficient non-criminalising measures outside of the
civil and criminal court system to avoid disenfranchisement and repeat offending. This may
include the use of OfCom or an Internet Ombudsman. The fact is that most flame trollers
as they are called in the field are young people in their 20s. The reason they target people
like Nicola Brookes is because they resent anyone with any ounce of confidence or success.
This is fuelled by the problem that young people face a future without the job prospects
their parents or grandparents enjoyed. Being tough on the causes of crime is therefore
more relevant than being tough on crime, and it is a shame that Ken Clarke was removed
from the Ministry of Justice as one of the few people on the Conservative side of the
Government who isnt a hang them and flog them type.

You are right, however, about the ineffectiveness of IP addresses for identifying most
home users, but IP addresses can often reveal nameservers which can link a user to an
organisation or locality in many cases. Also, where someone has a fixed-IP-address like
this, they can be blocked from accessing a website completely. You are right about the
powers in RIPA, which in many cases have existed since the now repealed Interception of
Communications Act 1985. However, these are rarely used by authorities for Internet
trolling, even though in my view it is one of the most effective tools the police have for
Internet forensics, as an order can be made by a chief constable.
I hope I will have been able to show you that dealing with Internet trolling in its many forms
requires an interdepartmental strategic approach in order that cases are resolved so that
both freedom of expression is protected alongside the rights to privacy and protection of
ones reputation. The problem is certainly not going to go away while there is lack of equality
of opportunity across the board, due in part to the poverty that comes out of the bust in the
boom and bust cycle of the market, which 1930s economics policies will not solve.
With best regards,

Jonathan Bishop LLM FBCS CITP