Public outrage over the shocking vandalism of internet tribute sites for two young Queenslanders who died in terrible circumstances has again raised questions over freedom online.

The Facebook page which claimed it would give back missing Queensland boy Daniel Morcombe

The worldwide web next month celebrates its 21st anniversary. It has grown from a single web page to more than a trillion unique pages and is expanding rapidly every day.

Social network sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube transformed the web from largely static pages under a website owner’s control into something more fluid, with people interacting on the websites to create content.

User contributions through posting images, video, comments and discussions take place at an almost frenetic pace. Facebook alone says more than 700 million posts, photos, comments and links are shared on its network every day.

Typical of such content were the tribute pages set up for 12-year-old Elliott Fletcher, killed in a knife attack at his Shorncliffe school, and eight-year-old Trinity Bates, found dead in a drain just metres from her Bundaberg home.

Emotional messages and sympathies were posted on tribute pages, with any Facebook user able to add content. But both pages were hijacked when some users added offensive and obscene material, prompting Queensland Police to have the material taken down.

Facebook spokeswoman Debbie Frost told The Courier-Mail the company was “co-operating” with Queensland and federal police on the issue and was willing to hand over what information it could to help any investigations.

“We’re not putting up barriers,” she said.

Frost says abuse on Facebook pages is rare and this latest incident has prompted the company to consider improving its security at the same time as keeping the network open for users to freely express their views.

“I don’t think that anybody really wants anybody to have to change their behaviour because of what these few ridiculous people are doing,” she says.

“We definitely want to learn and see if there are other ways, both automated or technical systems, we can employ to try to make sure we either get rid of content very very quickly or can identify inappropriate material.”

However, she says the company still favours the current self-regulation set-up where users can report to Facebook any material they believe is inappropriate.

But Facebook boasts more than 400 million active users. As a nation, only China and India would beat it in population. Imagine a nation of 400 million trying to operate with no pro-active policing, preferring self-regulation.

The University of Queensland crime and corrections expert and Australian Association of Social Workers national president Bob Lonne says it is time for such organisations to take responsibility to protect the public.

“Public networking sites have a moral and other responsibility in this regard,’’ he says. “It’s up to them to try to protect the general public.”

Public outrage at any abuse on the tribute sites, he says, is natural at a time when families and communities are trying to deal with the grief at the tragic deaths.

“It’s simply not acceptable to run a business model that allows these events to occur.”

The problem, though, is what to do. Any talk of censoring the web raises the hackles of those who campaign for freedom on the internet.

Yet even the campaign group Electronic Frontiers Australia says action is needed to wipe out any criminal act on sites such as Facebook.

“That doesn’t raise any free speech issues,” vice-chairman Colin Jacobs says. “If something crosses the line then that’s a good time for the moderators to step in.”

It may be time to rethink and rebuild the web from scratch, argues Dr Mark Gregory, an expert in computer engineering at RMIT in Victoria. He says the web was originally built with few security concerns.

“Everything we have been doing since is trying to retrofit security on a thing that doesn’t have security to start with,” he says.

There are some rules and international standards but they can still be bypassed, with those who use the web for illegal and offensive activity such as organised criminals and peddlers of child pornography simply ignoring them.

Gregory believes the time will come when public outrage, like that expressed this week, will tip the balance, forcing governments to act. The Queensland Government has already written to Facebook about the abuse issue.

“I have been calling for a number of changes to be made to the digital network for a number of years,’’ he says. “I think it has to be rebuilt.”

At 21, the web is still young and many of the major players are in their early years of development. Facebook has been around only six years, YouTube five and Twitter is just a four-year-old with the first tweet released in March 2006.

Criminologist Paul Wilson, from Bond University, says police should have the same powers to act with abuse on digital networks as they do on any other communication network.

However, he says such powers should be limited only to people who commit a crime.

“If they are notes or something which are unpleasant but not criminal in any way I don’t think you can use the law,’’ he says.

Facebook’s Debbie Frost says some people are just vandals.

“We are doing everything we can today in light of the fact that you are dealing with people who are vandals, she says.

“They’re behaving badly online on Facebook just as they do in real life.”

Most commented

30 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:45am | 01/03/10

      It seems the old media have seized on a few isolated incidents to run a moral panic campaign against the new media.

      Anything to retain their fast-fading relevance.

    • E says:

      07:48am | 01/03/10

      I seldom agree with Eric, but this is one of those times.

      I would add that maybe the old Media’ obsession with online events is emblematic of their low quality and failure as a news source.

      Once the old media were intrepid reporters, uncovering news and sending corrupt people to jail, uncovering government faliure and generally keeping the bastards honest.

      Now they just recycle press releases, and have long winded unqualified and politically correct opinions. They are purely reactionary, they ‘report’ on events, but they never uncover anything new.

      The blogs are a much better source of information now.

      I dont think Rupert gets it, he claims that people need to pay for his services since they employ all these journalists, but the journalists are just copy and pasting press releases without any thought or investigation in a ‘yay corporate’ circle jerk. The only reasons anyone still reads is because its free.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:20am | 01/03/10

      Yes, but. Copy and pasting journalism has always occurred , what ever the medium.
      Could it be that the greater availability of alternate accounts / perspectives ,( a very important step for all societys)  via the net, has made us more aware , that there is usually two sides to every story, not just that of the vested interests / predominant culture?

    • Zeta says:

      09:59am | 01/03/10

      ‘The blogs are a much better source of information now.’

      I call bulls*&t. Name a blog that has 24 hour, up to the minute news coverage. HuffPo, Slate and Salon don’t count, they’re basically opinion aggregators. Name one. Bonus points if you name an Australian one.

      Even the Punch is just aggregating news content from mainstream News sites.

      I’ll award 50 Internets to anyone who can even name a news blog, +20 if it’s Australian, +10 if it’s been updated in the last 12 hours, +20 if it contains a topical news item not already on a mainstream news outlet.  +100 if it’s hosted on Blogspot, the armpit of ‘journalism’.

      Internet points are not refundable, and cannot be exchanged for prizes.

    • Eric says:

      10:25am | 01/03/10

      Nevertheless, blogs are better.

      Unlike the old media, blogs provide a wide variety of different viewpoints and a far more egalitarian discussion space.

      Blogs don’t need to run 243/7, because the Internet does. It’s no longer an age of single-source news where you read one newspaper in the morning to get all your information and analysis for the day - and your world-view is framed by what that paper chooses to print.

      Now the news is what you choose, not what some editor dictates. Same for opinion and analysis. The near-monolithic groupthink of traditional journalism is on the way out, to be replaced by a far more diverse, freer and ultimately more intelligent environment.

    • E says:

      10:29am | 01/03/10

      Zeta…
      zerohedge.com - 24 hours, often updated and also has plenty of original news and analysis.
      Its financial news, some aggregation but also they often break stories which the MSM wishes to ignore.

      You have a point though, i got a little enthusiastic, I cant think of a blog which has 24 coverage for ‘retail’ news which isnt an aggregator.

      What about the statement that Reuters and AP are the only real media sources left, pretty much everyone else are aggregators?

      Also I deny the value of most of the information presented by the MSM anyway, how much do I really need to know about Haiti, Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods or some Facebook vandalism?

      @T.Chong : no it hasnt, there wasnt the opportunity before the rise of the PR company and the press release, journalists acutally used to track down stories themselves rather than reacting to statements, they used to demand statements based on their idea of the public interest. We have the stories pushed from the press release, rather than pulled by the journalist, its totally different.

    • Zeta says:

      01:33pm | 01/03/10

      @ E - Aight. 80 Internets for you. You also get a bonus point because I added it to my RSS.

      But like politics, all news is essentially local. That’s why online news gives precedence to online related content. The Internet is the Internet’s neighbourhood. You just don’t get good local news on the Net. True facts.

      Check pages 2 and 3 of this morning’s Daily Telegraph. Great journalism, great localn story, a violent stabbing covered in detail, including reactions from Police, health officials and politicians.

      ‘Alison Bevege’, obviously the poor mid dawn shift worker who covered the yarn isn’t a big name in Sydney journalism, and I bet she’s had to spend a lot of time sitting around McDonald’s parking lots with crusty old snappers from midnight to dawn before a stabbing that hot went down, but when she started calling around in the wee hours of the morning to get comment, people answer the phone, not because of her name, but because she’s from the Daily Telegraph.

      When Joe Blog from myvanityblog.blogspot.com can get a phonecall answered at 3am, then I’ll believe blogs have clawed their way out of the journalistic waste basket.

    • E says:

      08:00am | 01/03/10

      Now that I have actually read the article, its pretty stupid:

      “Criminologist Paul Wilson, from Bond University, says police should have the same powers to act with abuse on digital networks as they do on any other communication network.”

      Umm pretty sure the internet is considered a ‘carriage service’ like the phones, and so anything which is criminal over the telephone or snail-mail is criminal on the internet.

      This event should be considered equivalent to vandalism, possibly desecrating a gravesite, and prosecuted accordingly.

      Oh and mr RMIT ‘the web needs to be rebuilt’ , who is he intending to replace the billions of dollars of servers? What protocol is he proposing? Or is he just talking bollocks? Sounds like it to me, i mean how on Earth would you ‘rebuild the internet’ and what sort of ‘security’ arrangements would stop people saying/posting rude or offensive things in public online spaces?

      He is a fool and possibly a mate of Conroys.

    • jk says:

      08:56am | 02/03/10

      Dr Mark Gregory from RMIT is an avowed fan of internet filtering - he has worked for ENEX , the company that conducted trials of the filter software. He believe the internet should be redesigned to allow more government control. He originally called this new network FEDNET. He is ex-military and has stated that there is too much anonymity and freedom on the net. He is about the only IT professional who supports this agenda and so he gets trucked out far too often by lazy journalists to give credence to the idea that there is something “wrong” with the internet - the greatest tool for freedom of speech and thought in the history of human ingenuity.

    • Johny says:

      10:54am | 14/04/10

      Remember, too, that Gregory is also on the extreme right in terms of his views.  His military history and his work with ENEX is only the first indication of this.  In recent months he has removed the blogs from his personal website (perhaps after he was receiving more attention in the media).  These blogs were extremely ‘out there’ and offered first hand insight to his views on the superiority of British values over multictural ones, his extreme protectionist views (even stating that “Australia is probably the only real democracy in the world”), and so on.  Luckily I kept a copy, if anyone is interested in more of his amuzing, yet troubling “insights”.  The fact that RMIT keep him on and let him deal with the media, despite such repugnant views is worrying.  The fact that the media hasn’t picked up on this is even more worrying.
      Why is it, when google, America and almost any other (non-extreme rightest) IT professional are against this historic move, that the media, government and parts of the public are still listening to extremists in regards to internet security. 

      It’s of course easier to attack the person than the message.  But Gregory is one of the only IT professionals with this message.  Why?

    • Nick says:

      08:21am | 01/03/10

      Interesting article.
      Perhaps The Punch’s parent company could let us know how they plan to prevent such nasty occurrences happening on MySpace,

    • Joe says:

      10:47am | 01/03/10

      Makes you wonder exactly what the reporters motivations are in their recent articles on this site, all of which have been critical of Facebook and seemed to have singled it out in particular, when it is after all, the biggest competition for Myspace, which is also owned by News Corporation, the same company that employs the journalists, as you correctly pointed out. 

      Admittedly the popularity of Facebook has led to Myspace attempting to reinvent itself, it would be very hard to argue that Mysapce wasnt in compeition with Facebook, at one time or another and its rise in popularity was not the reason behind the change in Myspace’s business model.

      Its disappointing the journalists didn’t point out this obvious conflict of interest, especially when they have failed to mention Myspace in any of their articles, despite occasionally mentioning numerous other social media sites.

    • sumguy says:

      12:08pm | 01/03/10

      Nick what you say is interesting considering a fake myspace account has been directly attributed to the death of a young girl in the u.s i didnt see any of the murdoch papers/blogs jumping to say censor regulate then it was also one of the least secure most exploitable services around the only reason its not any more is because its dead not because they fixed any of the problems it had.
      On another note facebook is a free service that is a biz equating it to a country is a massive false flag no one is forcing you to use the service if you dont like the content dont use it, its simple.. ive worked in IT comp sci for close to 15 years and have been a using the net since before the web even existed, i personally dont feel the need to have a facebook account or any one of the other social 2.0 media accounts i also dont see the need for the gov to regulate (even if it was remotely possible for them to do so) as its simple to regulate them for your self just dont create and account… there is no law saying you must put all of your details online and frankley i dont care what you had for breakfast or what you did on the weekend

    • Graham White says:

      08:39am | 01/03/10

      Myspace is quite different from social media platforms like Twitter. In faceit is is moving towards becoming an entertainment portal, driven by growth in Myspace Music.

    • Greg says:

      09:11am | 01/03/10

      What a terrible article highlighting media perpertrated moral panic. So a few pages are made on facebook that are offensive to some and we get quotes like that from Dr Mark Gregory “It may be time to rethink and rebuild the web from scratch”. Yes, rethink and rebuild the internet - the greatest technological invention and resource of information the world has ever seen because of a couple of offensive pages on facebook? Really Dr Gregory? Errr can I please see where you obtained your diploma?

      This whole issue seems to be a media flavour of the month but for all those journalists like Michael Lund who dont get it, let me explain it for you:

      There are plenty of idiots (or trolls, flamers etc) on the internet just like there are idiots in real life. The internet is slightly different because of the anonymity to some degree that it offers. Idiots love to say offensive things and love the attention that people like Michael Lund offer them in return.

      Yes Media, high lighting these people is in fact encouraging them to more idiocy. Ignore them and they will be less prevalent.

      But then I couldnt believe this “Gregory believes the time will come when public outrage, like that expressed this week, will tip the balance, forcing governments to act.” What can the government do exactly? Sure they can encourage Facebook to have stricter posting policies but they can’t do squat. Just like their ineternet filter wont do squat (except restrict freedoms and lower net speeds, but thats another issue).

      Dont forget how large and vast the internet is for this supposed policing to happen.

      As for Criminologist Paul Wilson saying “police should have the same powers to act with abuse on digital networks as they do on any other communication network.” Mr Wilson has no idea how the internet works and should actually look into this next time before opening his mouth.

      The EFA had the most common sense reaction as usual. They suggest more moderation on facebook which can be easily achieved by a few alterations here and there and rubbish like the offensive pages will be seen in lesser quantities.

      In whole this article is a terribly written biased sorry excuse for journalism. I cant wait til the media moral panic dies down and we get the next media moral panic of the month.

    • Grant says:

      09:16am | 01/03/10

      Dr Mark Gregory, We can rebuild it… 

      ‘rebuild the web from scratch’, classic comment.

      So what if there’s offensive material on facebook.  What’s gonna happen, someone gets offended, thats so terrible whats the world coming to.

      If its illegal report it to the police, otherwise suck it up and don’t use facebook.

    • Joe says:

      10:16am | 01/03/10

      Comparing Facebook to a nation, is about a very incorrect analogy.  All nations collect taxes and that is how they pay for services such as police or security services.  Facebook isn’t a nation, doesn’t collect taxes and is a completely free service for its users.  While as you point out, Facebook has more users than any nation, apart from China and India.  So basically you are proposing they literally employ an army of censors to monitor all content on their site that would dwarf even our own police forces?  Do you think that is commercially viable or even acceptable to their user base around the world? 

      These are very important considerations, as unlike nations and nationality, which people are born into and simply must accept, along with their laws and regulations, people choose to be members of Facebook and can just as easily choose to join an alternative social media site. In this world of free markets, do you not think that another commercial entity would simply take advantage of this situation and offer a free service with no active policing? That would mean all of this was a pointless debate.

      The media in their reporting of this controversy surrounding Facebook, have seemed to have totally forgotten that a website is governed by the laws of where it physically resides, the same as any corporation or citizen.  In this case for Facebook, the jurisdiction lies with the United States and the State of California.  Facebook isn’t an Australian company, isn’t governed by Australian laws and I challenge people to name one Australian social media site, let alone one as popular and vast as Facebook.  So while the government and media might like to try to crusade for Internet regulation, unless similar regulation existed in the United States, it wouldn’t matter what regulations where in place here in Australia when it came to Facebook,  as the Australian government would have to take action in the American courts,  under their laws and not ours.  With freedom of speech enshrined and protected in their constitution, it would be likely to fail, unless the material was already illegal, as in the case of child pornography, in which case the authorities there will already be investigating the matter in order to identify the culprits and prosecute them under their own laws, using their own budgets and really would be a waste of Australian tax payers dollars, enforcing the laws of another country.

      However, any regulation would really need to exist worldwide and be universal.  Otherwise there there would be nothing stopping corporations or websites simply moving to a different jurisdiction, in order to avoid this regulation.  The same is true in order to catch the culprits and prosecute them, which are after all the users of Facebook and not the corporation that runs the website.  Even if the government here in Australia or the US might introduce legislation, what happens if the users of that site are in another country, outside of this regulation?  If they have not committed a crime in their own nation, i doubt any country would agree to having its citizens extradited to face a foreign court under foreign laws.  You can Imagine the outcry here, if China suddenly demanded the extradition of Australian citizens, for commenting negatively about the Communist Party or Tienanmen Square massacre online, which might be offensive to them and illegal in China, yet perfectly legal here.  Yet the Australian media and government are suggesting exactly this, that foreign corporations, citizens and internet content, be regulated according to our own laws?

      Really, considering the world was unable to agree at Copenhagen on Climate Change, do you really think they world is going to be able to agree on regulation of the internet?  I would suggest it would be highly likely that say China and the US once again, would be unable to agree on any regulatory framework for the internet.  It might even surprise some people that the American government and others are very opposed to international Internet regulation, as it not only protects their own citizens, corporate interests and retains legal control over their own content, without interference by foreign governments, but also offers much greater freedom to their own government agencies such as the military, NSA or CIA, to monitor and collect intelligence or even conduct digital attacks if need be, without any international legal concerns.  For example the CIA requested Twitter keep open the posts from Iran during the recent protests there, in order to gather intelligence and support those opposed to the government, which the Iranian government opposed. While of course there are the allegations that the Chinese military was involved in the hacking of Google and other US companies recently, but which are impossible to prosecute, as they originated within China, where US jurisdiction does not apply.

    • TB says:

      04:43am | 02/03/10

      You have raised a very good point, Joe. The question you appear to have asked is “how do you regulate something with an (effectively) unfettered global reach in a world that is divided?” In my mind the answer is that it is impossible, and ultimately futile. Any kind of internet regulation that these (misguided) crusaders would be happy with would be an unworkable mess, and massively stifle freedom of speech and expression.

      I feel that the internet is something which is annihilating the remaining barriers to the free flow of information in our society, and it should be allowed to continue this task. I am also of the opinion that the internet has also inadvertently found another role as an inescapable “social and cultural mirror.” That is to say the contents of the internet and the activities of its users have an overwhelming tendency to reflect aspects of our society and culture, especially the negative and aberrant aspects which so many of us have a tendency to completely ignore in order to retain our sanity. It would appear that there are segments of the population who are (slowly) realising just how messed up our society is.

    • Kim says:

      10:32am | 01/03/10

      Kids spray graffitti all over everywhere, shall we rebuild our fences, trains, buildings?

      This is just another type of vandalism. Same old same old.

    • Jason says:

      10:47am | 01/03/10

      I think it’s unacceptable to charge people for posting text comments just because someone might find it offensive and disagree. People are holding Facebook in the same gravitas as a public candlelight vigil in a park or a funeral which is just not the case. It’s merely a privately owned social networking website and I think it is arrogant and populist to take legal action against comments posted on Facebook that aren’t defamatory but offensive just because some people don’t agree with them.

      Once you put the situation into context, it should be a public relations issue for Facebook and not an issue of law if legal action isn’t warranted. If Facebook isn’t taking responsibility, people should stop using it in the same way as you wouldn’t go back to a restaurant that served bad food or had poor service. People are treating Facebook as if it was a government owned organisation that is a necessity for the public.

    • E says:

      11:12am | 01/03/10

      +1
      good post

    • Jack says:

      11:47am | 01/03/10

      ‘nightmare week’?

      I think you are vastly overestimating how much a foreign company cares about Anna Bligh’s opinion or vote-grabbing faux-outraged ‘letter’

    • E says:

      12:08pm | 01/03/10

      how much is KRudds knee jerk media-cycle driven ‘Facebook Ombudsman’ going to cost? Oh wait, its the ALP, they will fail to deliver… phew.

      But its scary how little thought the ALP put into policy, i think its a case of the left poisoning their own well by degrading the public education system and reducing most people to the point of understanding little more than soundbites and basing their decisions on emotions.

      They are only able to recruit poorly educated soundbite popularists who go for ‘feel good’ policy which inevitably fails.

    • Jack says:

      02:25pm | 01/03/10

      I’m sorry - the ALP made people dumb?

      Wow.

    • E says:

      02:56pm | 01/03/10

      ALP -> Teachers Union -> Feelings over Fact

      Its like this new ‘curriculum’ where Dreamtime mythology is somehow part of the science curriculum.

      I mean how pathetic is that?

      And to add to the ridiculous failure, Dreamtime mythology is taught through primary school, whereas a factual scientific understanding of the universe isnt taught until year10. Which incidentally is the first year kids can choose to drop science.

      So effectively 100% of the population will have a working knowledge of a pre-stone age creation myth, but only those who continue science into year 10 will have any understanding of the real universe around them!

      If thats not dumbing down I dont know what is!

    • Pete says:

      12:19pm | 01/03/10

      @Jack
      Foreign Company only cares insofar as when Group admin removing all admins from group but leaving group remaining can be a PR PITA. Expect next update of platform will be groups with 0 admins to be autoremoved.

    • Jack says:

      01:50pm | 01/03/10

      Exactly. A minor technical change for a small loophope. Whatever.

      Perhaps Anna, Kev and the AFP should care less about people saying mean things on the internet, and more about the fact that two kids were murdered.

    • Anonymous says:

      05:51am | 04/03/10

      Boohoo…welcome to the internet.  No one here cares if you’re alive or dead.

    • Public Record says:

      10:10pm | 05/03/10

      Well, for interest here’s a comments moderation guide for a site The Punch likes. They use it, and it shows in the standard of discussion.

      A standard of guideline, and a standard of active moderation, that Punch readers can only dream of.
      http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/comments-policy/

    • No Deposit Poker Bonus says:

      09:53pm | 27/03/12

      Hello, I enjoyed your hark work here, you are writing down with great things! This site is much helpfull!
      I´m Lucia, I Live on Frankfurt, so I will be a fan of this web page, my hobbies may be boring but I say them anyway I like reading as well as tv shows, and I also listen a lot The Cure on my bedroom, I´m single now so boys watch out for me….Just flirting with you guys lol smile! I once tried online dating It did not work out very well….
      I made this comment because as I already said I really like your web site I also have a board just as you, but mine is many different from this, it is about free poker money….smile
      I will also apologize by my writting it is the only way I found to talk with you….
      Kisses to all of you, Bye

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter