Cyberlibel Damages Awarded In Canada 247
mszeto writes "The Globe And Mail is
reporting that an Ontario judge has awarded an archaeologist 125k$ in damages after someone smeared her using email. According to the lawyer: 'People seem to think there is a level of anonymity to e-mail and the Internet. And that it's a lawless area. And clearly it is not, nor should it be.'"
Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:3, Funny)
Since spammers are evil, you should be in the clear...
Note: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and please play nice with the other kids.
steveha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And stuff like the Nigerian scam is a crime. The letter itself is evidence of fraud, if they can catch those that sent it.
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:2)
I agree with that to a certain point. There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I. Also, there are the different generations. Down here in Sunny Flordia, land of the retired Snow Birds, we get a lot of seniors who grew up in a different generation. A generation that was not filled with a
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent.. (Score:2)
Note that this is not true in all jurisdictions.
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent.. (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precedent.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't remember seeing anything to that effect in the laws I've read first-hand regarding the truth. In fact, the laws I recall give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and say that if there's reason to believe that they thought they were speaking the truth in good faith, they're still off the hook.
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:2, Informative)
The jist of Libel is [around section 297-8 of the CCC]
s297 - In sections 303, 304 and 308, "newspaper" means any paper, magazine or periodical containing public news, intelligence or reports of events, or any remarks or observations thereon, printed for sale and published periodically or in parts or numbers, at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days
Re:Uh oh.. this could be a bad precident.. (Score:3, Funny)
I hope they ALL do, that way we can find out who they are!
Lies! (Score:5, Funny)
Ha!
Re:Lies! (Score:5, Funny)
We logged your HTTP POST packet enroute to slashdot.org as it hopped across our "PATRIOT2 blackboxes", which are installed at the border of most ISPs, as required by anti-terrorism law.
Your IP is 149.101.1.32 and our reverse records indicate that your name and address is none other than ... oh, sorry, we didn't know it was you Sir. Excuse the intrusion and consider your logs erased for "national security" reasons.
Sincerely,
Stormtrooper #98562
New World Order, SubFloor 145
--
Re:Lies! (Score:3, Funny)
The power of this Orwellian monitoring network is insignificant compared to the power of the force.
[/Darth Vader Voice]
*Chokes annoying stormtrooper who interupted porn surfing session.*
Except that email can be forged (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't nail someone to the wall until you have a means to prove that they did what you claim.
Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:2)
This case merely proves what I've been saying for YEARS now: sooner or later, anonymity cannot be used as an excuse for lawlessness. At some point, you MUST draw the line between anonymity and the need to hold people accountable for their actions and abuses of the email system.
Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, there has been enough noise made about it lately. I jumped on to set up SPF in all of about 10 minutes, it really was that simple.
Since then I have been using the Thunderbird Extension for Sender Policy Framework [for.net] as a quick and easy way to see which and how many domains publishing SPF records and have noted a few interesting things.
Namely, depsite the fact that MS wants their own standard to be thrown out into the marketplace (namely Sender ID), they are publishing SPF records on both Microsoft.com and on Hotmail.com. If I was the kind of guy who used the word "kudos" I would say "Kudos to them". I am no more of a fan of MS than anyone else here, but, those two domains alone represent a not insignificant percentage of spam floating around that can be fairly simply removed with a mail server reconfig. AOL is also publishing, so well done there.
Gmail are as well of course, but would you expect any less?
Yahoo are not, which amazes me - I realize they want to push DomainKeys, but, I see no reason for them not to be publishing SPF records as well.
The one that absolutely staggered me though was Citibank.com. I recall reading somewhere (no link sorry, but a quick google [google.com] illustrates the point) that something like half all the phishing emails floating about are aimed at Citibank. For the sake of a few minutes, they could at least give people who want to, a surefire way of rejecting all phishing emails at MTA time. They must have among the crappest DNS admins on earth, or some very bad policy makers.
I shall end this spiel with a request. If you administer a DNS, and you relay, or can easily relay through known machines every time (which would be about 99% of us), then please publish SPF records. You don't have to use other people's records yourself to reject mail - just publish your own records so that other can reject mail that is purportedly from you, but isn't.
The nice thing about all this from the running a receiving MTA perspective, is you can phase it in. Pretty soon, I will be rejecting all mail that is fails SPF checks, but still accepting for people that don't yet publish records.
So please, do it now, jump over to the SPF link at the top of this mail - there is a webform there which dumbs down creating your SPF record as much as it can be dumbed down, and actually gives you a line to paste into your zone file.
Spam could be all but gone in a week for those who want to reconfigure their mail servers to reject it if those records are publish. Imagine that - effectively wiping out spam almost instantly!
If you won't do it for me, do it for the children, oh won't somebody please think of the children.....
Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Except that email can be forged (Score:2, Insightful)
If only that were so.
Scott Peterson
sweetcheeks@sanquinton.cdc.ca.gov
Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:2)
In th
Re:Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:2)
Actually, I think that Canadian defamation law is not that different from American defamation law anymore. English defamation law is more pro-plaintiff in part because the requirement that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted with malice is purely nominal. For practical purposes there is no such requirement. In contrast, in the US a public figure must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice", which is interpreted as meaning that he or she knew that the statement was false or spoke with fl
Re:Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:5, Informative)
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove what they wrote was true, but obviously this only happens after the plaintiff has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed write what they are accused of writing.
This is obvious. If someone libels me by writing that I committed a crime, then I don't have to prove that I didn't commit that crime in order to sue them - before they throw around accusations like that they have to be able to prove what they said (or I'd be considered guilty until proven innocent.)
Re:Canada has loose libel right though? (Score:2)
Libel is generally (always? IANAL) a civil matter. Like the US, the standard of proof in civil matters is "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for criminal matters.
-Rob
Mental Note: (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Gates is a big fairy!
--
Robert M. Shankely
348-8347
234 Niam St.
Provo, Utah.
You also need to be worth something (Score:2)
Yay for the courts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay for the courts (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't anyone think the fine is a bit excessive?
I do not condone his actions one little bit. I can understand a fine, or even jail time, but I think $125,000 is pretty steep. let's put it in perspective a bit:
these guys got fined the same amount [spaceforspecies.ca]
Re:Yay for the courts (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that a pretty severe penalty is called for, for two reasons. First, the impact on Cheryl Ross was quite serious. Universities generally take such ethical issues very seriously. She could have lost her job and been made unemployable as an archaeologist. Furthermore, native bands are very sensitive about anything to do with human remains. Even an unproven allegation could have interfered with her ability to do research. In other words, this was not simply calling her a bad name; it could have ended her career. Secondly, according to the article Holley didn't just spout off in a moment of anger. He actually went to the trouble of falsifying evidence. In other words, what he did was premeditated and unquestionably dishonest. If somebody deliberately falsified evidence in an attempt to destroy your career, I bet you'd think they should pay a pretty severe penalty.
Remember kids: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Remember kids: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember kids: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remember kids: (Score:2)
This is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is exceptionally easy to frame someone. I could easily send you an email with a return address of Bill Clinton. It's as easy to forge as the return address on regular mail. If someone claiming to be me went and slandered a bunch of people, should I be punished? Absolutely not. That is why this sort of thing should not be allowed until we have a reliable method for tracing emails (which we almost certainly never will.)
What are the facts of the case? (Score:5, Insightful)
This article doesn't give us enough detail.
However if you are being "framed" it should be trivial for even the most junior of lawyers to cast enough resonable doubt on the e-mails authenticity.
The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The ruiling didn't throw out reasonable doubt.. (Score:4, Informative)
Usually the standard of proof in civil cases is "a preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not."
yeah, because "framing" people is a new concept (Score:3, Insightful)
...and did it occur to you that the entire concept of "framing people" is not new to the justice system? That we have standards of evidence and guilt? Granted the case was in Canada, but in the US, the burden of proof is quite high, at least in criminal cases- in civil cases, it's lower, but you've still got to prove well beyond, on average, what one of us would consider good enough pr
Re:This is wrong. (Score:2)
The other option is that anything can said on the internet, no matter the truthfulness or intent of it. I could put up a website about how zerguy is a child molesting crack addict and make sure everyone you know reads it. I could ruin your life with allegations I know are false, and there would be nothing you coul
No, This Is Right (Score:2)
Re:No, This Is Right (Score:2)
Re:No, This Is Right (Score:2)
Good question. When I've dealt with lawyers about Internet issues, they've made it very clear that the mode of transmission or broadcast, or the mode pof publication, have no bearing on issues like this, or on copyright cases. E.g., a known lie remains a known lie whether it is published on the front page of your local newspaper or posted on your b
Re:No, This Is Right (Score:2)
If you want to see if a paper signature is a forgery, you compare it against other examples.
Similarly, you can verify that a PGP key belongs to someone by looking at other emails of theirs signed with the PGP key in question. Does the writing style match? Are the email headers similar?
Of course, this isn't absolute proof, but a judge or jury only needs proof "beyond reasonable doubt" ... based on all of the admitted
evidence.
I know for a fact that (Score:2, Informative)
Zerguy is a communist spy and so must be locked up to protect our great country.
Oh yeah, Zerguy is linked to a terrorist group.
You may choose to ignore one or two of these facts, but you'd be blind to ignore all this unrefutable evidence.
The sooner we get rid of zerguy, the sooner your kids can be safe.
For god sakes, think of the children!
I think the question on all our minds now is... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I think the question on all our minds now is... (Score:5, Interesting)
A scary prescedent? (Score:3, Interesting)
*I've never met Mr. Rob Malda, so I can't attest or unattest to his personality
-thewldisntenuff
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, you could say that CmdrTaco does a crap job at running slashdot (that's fair comment, some people might agree, other's might not) but saying that he's crap because he's never had any computer training would be libel (after all, he majored in computer science.) In short, you're stating a fact that isn't true. Like saying someone robbed graves when they did not.
In short, you can mouth off, but if you say something that isn't true....well, google is always watching.
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:5, Informative)
but (Score:2)
(Also, is posting a comment like this insinuating that said claim might be true libel, despite the fact that it does not outright assert it?)
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:2)
Most insults don't count (Score:2)
Saying someone drinks too much, or enjoys the services of prostitutes, or has their hand in the company till, now that's good ol' fashion defamation.
So which one applies to the commander?
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:2)
Unless of course you know something we don't
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:2)
There is also a lot more to libel than saying someone sucks; however, I'm too lazy to bother researching what the elements to libel are right now.
You'd probably have to show intent and actual damages as a minimum; and there is probably some measure of the type of statement made as to whether or not there is actually libel.
Re:A scary prescedent? (Score:2)
'cmdrtaco sucks cock' would be an insult
'cmdrtaco killed my sister' would be libel.
ianal of course.
The new get rich quick? (Score:2, Funny)
Sucks to be poor, even on the internet. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sucks even more to be stupid, even on the Internet (Score:2, Informative)
BTW, someone who had $150k in clear assets was not *that* poor. NOW, he's poor.
A voice from 1982... (Score:4, Interesting)
easily circumventable? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Cmdr Taco eats babies" -- libelous
"Cmdr Taco eats babies, says Scandinavian Web Page" -- fair game?
Re:easily circumventable? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, at least in the UK, maybe not such a good i
Re:easily circumventable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh, actually, there was (still is?) a provision in Canadian libel laws that said it didn't matter if you were reporting facts, but whether or not you were using those facts in an attempt to maliciously defame someone. Hard to prove that you're NOT doing this, and worse yet, the burden of proof that this was not the purpose of the published story relied upon the publisher. Good for curbing tabloid-style trash journalism, not so good for (eg) pointing out illegal practices by big Canadian-based companies in other countries.
Libel chill was (still is?) a big factor in Canadian media. It didn't matter if you were reporting a valid, newsworthy story. If the person being reported upon had deep pockets, and sensed that a story could hurt their image, they could lean on you to make sure that the story didn't come out. Worse yet, some smaller newspapers with intrepid reporters might have to have stories killed at the editorial level because the editor could sense what would or would not end up with a lawsuit landing on their doorstep.
Re:easily circumventable? (Score:2)
As a rule, politicians don't sue people because it tends to lose them votes ...
Ooooh Guess what folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, people will say 'oh, but email is notoriously unreliable for purposes of tracking down the origionator', but in most cases that isnt true. You can track email back to the server that sent it, and in this case the victims lawyer managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this message origionated from the defendant. And the fact that the defendant didnt even bother turning up to defend himself isnt a plus point in my humble opinion.
Re:Ooooh Guess what folks... (Score:2)
The harassment issue is a serious one and the less petty vindictive fuckers out there using email or the web to smear someone the better.
Re:Ooooh Guess what folks... (Score:2)
Caveat Lector (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
There is no element of libel which requires it to be "signed" or in a "reputable publication." Liable can occur via the mail, via the TV, via flyers left on someone's car or from someone yelling out in public. The internet is no different from any of those other means of transmitting information.
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
actually spoken word would be slander
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
That would be slander.
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
No, actually, it's not.
Google Groups means that, for example, newsgroup posts will now last forever.
So if you go for a job interview, better hope that there's nothing slanderous about you on Google - or they will bring it up. And possibly not hire you because of it.
If the 'net was transient, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, it i
Re:Caveat Lector (Score:2)
Still haven't learned (Score:2)
Slashdot got one thing correct using the term, "Anyomous Coward". It takes just as m
Re:Still haven't learned (Score:2)
Article's last sentence... (Score:2)
In that case, a homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.
to
In that case, a now homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.
I liked this line... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is this guy keeping human remains in his driveway?
I know some families have their own burial plots on their land, but usually they don't put a driveway over it.
Re:I liked this line... (Score:2)
I notice he also didn't say if said relatives were alive or dead at the time he buried them.
Yeesh (Score:3, Insightful)
-b
What are the odds she never collects? (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, the Goldman's still can't get O.J. Simpson to pay up the 33 million dollars [kesq.com] they won from him in a civil trial after the death of their son. I know that a judge can issue a bench warrant or declare someone in contempt for not showing up or paying, but that never seems to amount to much since the police don't actively try to find and arrest the person.
Re:What are the odds she never collects? (Score:2)
Re:What are the odds she never collects? (Score:3, Informative)
Collecting a judgement is much the same in Canada as in the US, so yes, it could be difficult for Ross to collect. In this case an additional factor is the fact that the defendant is native. If he is a status Indian living on reserve, there are further complications. For instance, the land his house is on does not legally belong to him but is technically held in trust for his band by Canada. It cannot be sold to satisfy a judgement.
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawrence Godfrey anyone? Cyber-libel in 1994. (Score:2)
So how is this news?
Re:$125,000? (Score:2)
If he throws your bones away and takes the jewelry you were buried with, he's a grabe robber. If he puts your bones in a museum, he's an archaeologist.
Re:$125,000? (Score:2)
In this case, as far as the article tells us, there is no evidence that the archaeologist did anything at all with human remains. There are real disputes about the handling of human remains, but this doesn't seem to be one of them - Holley just made up allegations that Ross was a graverobber in order to damage her.
Re:$125,000? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cluetrain (Score:2)
It was a CIVIL action, not a criminal action so there was no prosecutor. You have no civil right to representation even in Canada.
The reason he was not represented by counsel was because he failed to appear. In other words a default was entered against him.
Re:Libel is libel. (Score:2)
The only reason this is a story because those in charge of Slashdot obviously have no legal training whatsoever!
Re:Here in America (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Here in America (Score:2)
Re:how to respond to psychos (Score:2)
The suggestion you made (refutation) still doesn't correct the underlying problem that the person doing the slandering/libelling is likely ill and needs help. It might correct the problem, it might not, but it won't stop it recurring.
Although this would be much more
Re:Um (Score:2)
Well, apart from those who marked me as a foe. They're just nuts, though.
Whatever... don't listen to this guy (Score:2)