Here’s How China’s ‘Social Credit Score’ Punish And Reward Citizens, And It’s Terrifying

By Josh Reynolds

George Orwell’s 1984, Black Mirror S03E01, Psycho Pass, The Orville and many others have all theorised how technology can make our lives better… or worse.

The future is now.

More info: imgur.com

In a Fake Fact Era, Schools Teach the ABCs of News Literacy

• by Issie Lapowsky, 06.07.17 at WIRED

Fourteen-year-old Isabel Catalan stares intently at her laptop as she walks me through a recent assignment one sunny morning a few weeks before summer vacation. The studious eighth grader and I are sitting in a tiny, colourful classroom at Norwood-Fontbonne Academy, a small private elementary school in the tree-lined Philadelphia suburbs, which also happens to be my Alma mater.

In most ways, Norwood feels a lot like I left it nearly 20 years ago. Catalan wears the same plaid kilt and golf shirt combo that I did, and lugs her books from class to class in the same blue canvas tote we used to call our "daily bags." In the hallway I pass my old social studies teacher, who’s been working here for almost half a century. On a bookshelf in Catalan’s classroom, I spot a roughed up copy of The Face on the Milk Carton that I’m almost certain I checked out from the library sometime around 1999.But in other ways—important ways—the school is radically different. The clunky desktops and overhead projectors have given way to flatscreens and laptops in every classroom. And while back then Microsoft Encarta was our main research tool, today Norwood students have a world of information—and misinformation—ever at their fingertips.

Which brings us to Catalan’s assignment. On the screen in front of her is a viral tweet written by one TrumpsterMarty: "Muslims were already banned from the United States! 1952 US LAW! RETWEET." It comes with a screenshot describing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which barred immigration by anyone who seeks to overthrow the government "by force, violence, or other unlawful means."

Image by Issie Lapowsky

"This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States," the screengrab reads.

Catalan, who wears her pin-straight brown hair brushed all the way down her back, pauses for a beat. “This one, I had to think about,” she says. Then she talks it through. "I looked at who posted it: TrumpsterMarty," she says. "The person who posted this wanted you to retweet it. It just doesn’t sound accurate."

She decides the post is fiction, and Checkology, the online platform she’s showing me, tells her she’s right. Checkology is the latest creation of the News Literacy Project, a non-profit founded by former Los Angeles Times reporter Alan Miller. Since 2009, the tiny eight-person non-profit has been working one on one with schools to craft a curriculum that teaches students how to be more savvy news consumers. Last year, in an effort to scale its impact, the team bundled those courses into an online portal called Checkology, and almost instantly, demand for the platform spiked.

“Fake news is nothing new, and its impact on the national conversation is nothing new, but public awareness is very high right now,” says Peter Adams, who leads educational initiatives for News Literacy Project. Now, Checkology is being used by some 6,300 public and private school teachers serving 947,000 students in all 50 states and 52 countries.

Norwood began using the program in March following one of the most frenetic elections in American history. Inspired by the avalanche of "alternative facts" and fake news they were seeing in their own social media feeds, teachers Lindsey Sachs and Shannon Craige decided to launch a four month-long course in teaching students to sift fact from fiction online.

Checkology

"News has shifted so much. Everyone can be a reporter now," says Sachs, the school’s technology teacher. "It’s about them realising you can’t take everything at face value."

The platform offers lessons on the First Amendment, the difference between branded content and news, and how to distinguish between viral rumours—political and otherwise—and reported facts. Teachers help the kids understand sourcing, bias, transparency, and journalistic ethics. The platform also includes interviews with working journalists such as Matea Gold at The Washington Post, who help put a face to the boogeyman that has become known as "the media."

"This is no longer something that if we have time to expose children to, that would be great," says Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. "This is a crisis situation. We do not teach our students enough about what they need to understand about the world they live in." Checkology, she says, is one important tool helping to change that.

Infograzers

On the day I returned to my Alma mater, the students were categorising online posts as news, entertainment, propaganda, publicity, advertising, raw information, or opinion. As Craige stood by, 13-year-old Catherine Aaron, an 8th grader already dressed in her softball uniform for that day's game, puzzled over a headline from the left-leaning outlet Daily Beast. It read, "And Then They Came for Big Bird: Public Broadcasting Reels From Trump’s Plan to Destroy It." The sub-headline continued, "Next on President Trump’s hit list: public broadcasting. His plan to de-fund it will have a decimating effect on access to nuanced journalism and educational TV." Aaron had a hunch this was the author's opinion. "What makes you think that?" Craige prompted the 8th grader.

"The language of it is more of an opinion," Aaron says. "Decimating. Destroying." Sophie Giovonnone, 14, isn't so sure. She thinks it might be working as publicity for Democrats, "because it could cause some conflict" for Trump.

I ask Giovonnone whether she knows what the Daily Beast is. She doesn't. In fact, most of the students say that outside of class, they rarely encounter much news online at all. Only one student in the whole class uses Twitter. No one even has a Facebook account. Their social media lives consist mainly of Instagram and Snapchat, one of the few platforms that still meticulously curates what news is and isn't allowed in its Discover feature. (WIRED recently joined Discover.)

For a moment, I think, maybe the fact that these students aren't using Facebook or Twitter is a promising sign. Maybe the very nature of the platforms this generation is growing up with will shield it from the internet's onslaught of misinformation. But Adams stops me short. Kids today, he says, are "infograzers." Without realising it, the memes they share and and viral videos they watch each day are telling them stories about the world they live in—not all of them true.

"What counts as news has broadened for this generation," he says. "Unless they learn to flag content and figure out why something might not be sound evidence, it sticks with them." And even if they're not skimming social media, it's become second nature to them to whip out their smartphones and Google the answers to any questions they don't know. Tools like Checkology encourage them to dig deeper than the first headline that turns up.

As they get older, the spectrum of online sources they use will broaden even further, and that's when these skills will matter most, says Ciulla Lipkin. "When we were growing up some of the work we’re doing in school might not have seemed relevant at the time, but it’s teaching students skills they need for the future," she says. "It gets students to practice asking questions." Or, as Sachs puts it, "We're arming them before they hit the battle."

The question is—as it is for all school subjects—will that practice stick as students grow up and technology evolves? The company is currently crunching the numbers on its first quantitative survey that measures how students' understanding of the topic changes from the beginning of the course to the end.

Catalan, Aaron, Giovannone, and the rest of the 8th grade class walked away from Norwood on Monday for the last time. This fall, they'll head off for high school. If by some chance they return to this place 20 years down the road, as I did, they will no doubt find that the world of communication has changed even more drastically since they sat in these very seats. Now, as the country continues to fight over the fundamental definition of truth, it falls to educators across the country to prepare their students for whatever mayhem those changes may bring."

Facebook Wants To Teach You How To Spot Fake News On Facebook

Posted on April 7, 2017, at 2:00 a.m.

Written by Craig Silverman  BuzzFeed News Media Editor

What the new educational tool will look like in News Feed.

In its latest move to help blunt the flow of misinformation on its platform, Facebook today rolled out a new initiative to educate users on how to spot "false news."

Starting [April 8th, 2017], people in 14 countries will begin seeing a link to a "Tips for spotting false news" guide at the top of their News Feed. Clicking it brings users to a section offering 10 tips as well access to related resources in the Facebook Help Center. Facebook is also collaborating with news and media literacy organisations in several countries to produce additional resources.

"Improving news literacy is a global priority, and we need to do our part to help people understand how to make decisions about which sources to trust," Adam Mosseri, Facebook's VP of News Feed, wrote in a blog post about the initiative. "False news runs counter to our mission to connect people with the stories they find meaningful. We will continue working on this, and we know we have more work to do."

Facebook's 10 tips for spotting false news.

Facebook has now announced several initiatives to try and stop the spread of misinformation and to support trustworthy information. It's working with third-party fact-checking organizations to flag false content in the News Feed; the company recently announced the Facebook Journalism Project to work with news organizations on products and business models; and it's one of the funders of the new News Integrity Initiative, a $14 million project "focused on helping people make informed judgments about the news they read and share online."

These moves come in response to the outcry about the platform's role in spreading fake news stories during the recent US election, and to public pressure it faced after CEO Mark Zuckerberg was initially dismissive of the issue. Now he, COO Sheryl Sandberg, and other top executives talk frequently about the responsibility Facebook has to help provide accurate information to its more than 1.8 billion users.

"We know that seeing accurate news on Facebook is really important to people on all sides," Sandberg recently said on PBS NewsHour. "No matter who you are, seeing the accurate story and seeing a diversity of opinions is really important. We know we have a responsibility, along with newsrooms and classrooms and academic and other companies, to make sure people see accurate news."

Barbie's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit campaign is #unapologetic trolling

By Adi Robertson on February 12, 2014 04:39 pm 

Barbie is one of the enduring figures of American pop culture, and earlier this month, design VP Kim Culmone defended the doll against a common criticism: that her impossible figure created a standard that girls tried and failed to measure up to. "Barbie's body was never designed to be realistic," said Culmone. Now, this stylized form will be showing up in one of our other great fixtures: the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. As The New York Times reports, the 50th anniversary issue will feature Barbie in a redesigned version of her original 1959 swimsuit. As a media tie-in effort, the crossover goes deep. The doll will get a four-page advertorial spread shot by longtime Sports Illustrated photographer Walter Iooss, Jr., and a limited-edition "Sports Illustrated Barbie" will be sold separately.

The pairing is perfect almost to the point of parody: if you wanted to find the two long-standing cultural touchstones most likely to push buttons about body image and the presentation of women, you'd be hard-pressed to do better. Mattel, at least, certainly knows it. Barbie's latest ad campaign is summed up as "#unapologetic," a hashtag Mattel probably chose because "#sorrynotsorry" was already taken. It's usually paired with pictures of sparkly shoes and references to "legendary women," and Mattel frames the Sports Illustrated spread as an explicit rebuttal to criticism of both the doll and the magazine.

"As with Barbie, every year the Swimsuit edition sparks conversations about women and body image, and Sports Illustrated stands unapologetically behind this issue that women, in reality, love," a spokesperson tells Ad Age. "As a legend herself, and under criticism about her body and how she looks, posing in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit gives Barbie and her fellow legends an opportunity to own who they are, celebrate what they have done, and be unapologetic," reads a statement to Adweek. It's a judo attack on feminist critique: complaining that Barbie or Sports Illustrated promotes unrealistic expectations of women becomes body-policing a 55-year-old plastic doll.

But as Nicole Rodgers of Role/Reboot, which covers culture and gender roles, points out, there's a particularly awkward subtext to this team-up. Unrealistically photoshopped magazine covers have been alternately criticized and mocked over the past few years, and Barbie ups the ante: she's an object specifically built from the ground up to be impossibly beautiful, and now she's sharing space with real-life women. "In this context, the choice of this doll/human pairing seems to be moving in entirely the wrong direction," she tells The Verge. "It is quite literally a new level of female objectification to pair real women with inanimate objects, as equivalents, at least in terms of how readers are expected to appreciate and value their beauty."

People have been debating whether Barbie is a good role model for years, and this spread won't change minds on either side of the issue. "My first thought is that this is pure outrage bait," says Lisa Wade, Occidental College professor and founder of the blog Sociological. And while Mattel is asking the question of whether pinups and fashion spreads are empowering, it's eliding the question of why they're such a ubiquitous way to celebrate female success. The problem isn't necessarily that Barbie (who has roots in fashion dolls sold to adults) is posing in the Swimsuit Issue, or even that the Swimsuit Issue exists. It's that things like the Swimsuit Issue are where "legendary women" tend to end up. During the rest of the year, women are noticeably absent from Sports Illustrated covers, and while male athletes are usually shot in ways that demonstrate athletic prowess, women who do appear tend to have more passive poses and are less likely to be athletes.

In an interview (yes, an in-character interview) with People magazine, Barbie praised other Swimsuit Issue models, women who "exemplify that you can be both capable and captivating." Being captivating in a photo shoot — which involves extensive bodily maintenance and a great deal of patience and charisma — is its own kind of capability. Plenty of men possess it as well. But the overwhelming majority of men aren't urged to do pinup shoots, and successful male tech CEOs aren't generally asked to strike come-hither poses in executive profiles. Barbie has had hundreds of careers. Not all of them require looking good in a swimsuit.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/12/5405002/barbie-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-campaign-is-unapologetic-trolling

Guy Accused Of Being Part Of Anonymous Banned By Court From Using His Real Name Online

from the say-what-now? dept

 by Mike Masnick, TechDirt, Mon, Sep 12th 2011 1:00pm

Ah, the bizarre legal results of confused courts and confused laws. Four of the people arrested in the UK and accused of being a part of the not-actually-a-group Anonymous last week won a small part of a court battle. Prosecutors apparently had asked the court to bar the four from using Twitter or other social networking and chat services, such as TinyChat, arguing that "Anonymous as a group continues to be active." The court decided that it would not issue such a complete ban, though it had already blocked them from using IRC. Instead, it said that they could continue to use social networking and chat programs... but not use their existing online personas. It is, therefore, somewhat ironic that one of the people in question used his real first name as his online persona previously:

Peter David-Gibson, aged 20 from Hartlepool, who went by the online nickname “Peter”

Yes, you read that right. A guy accused of being Anonymous, but who used his real name online, can now no longer use his real name... because he may have been a part of Anonymous. That makes sense.

 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/10255815907/guy-accused-being-part-anonymous-banned-court-using-his-real-name-online.shtmlhttp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/10255815907/guy-accused-being-part-anonymous-banned-court-using-his-real-name-online.shtml

Responses to the London Riots

This Won’t End Well: Speaking before parliament, UK PM David Cameron said he has ordered an inquiry into the possibility of banning users from social networks such as Twitter and Facebook if it is determined that they are planning to engage in criminal behavior. “Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill,” Cameron said. “And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.” Cameron added that he asked the police “if they need any other new powers.”

Home Secretary Theresa May will hold meetings with representatives from Facebbok, Twitter, and RIM to discuss their role in preventing future riots. “All of them should think about their responsibility and about taking down those images,” Cameron said in reference to Facebook and Twitter posts he believes could incite further unrest.

In related news:

Among the post-riot measures to be enacted in Britain, Reuters reports, will be controls on face coverings and the possible use of the army to suppress future disturbances. Britain will crack down on gangs and may call in army support if this week's riots are repeated, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday, saying he would not allow a "culture of fear" to exist on the streets. The government will also give the police powers to demand people remove face coverings after many looters who ransacked shops during riots in London and other English cities this week wore masks to avoid being identified.

For what criminal activities (such as looting) is the appropriate response to demand someone remove a mask, instead of being arresting for the crime?

The Guardian has full details on Prime Minister David Cameron's report today in Parliament:

Instant messaging services will be reviewed. "We are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality," he said.

The police will have new powers to order people to remove facemasks. "On facemasks, currently [the police] can only remove these in a specific geographical location and for a limited time," Cameron said. "So I can announce today that we are going to give the police the discretion to remove face coverings under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity."

Curfew powers will be reviewed. "On dealing with crowds, we are also looking at the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary," he said.

Obviously the use of social media can only be used for evil, never for good. One of the most pernicious uses of social media and the internet is this horrific example:

Help Wanted of the Day: 89-year-old Aaron Biber has been cutting hair in Tottenham for decades. Last year, Aaron lost his wife. This year, he lost his business. Rioters ransacked his barbershop, smashed windows, and stole hairdryers. “I will probably have to close because I haven’t got insurance and I can’t afford the repairs,” Aaron says. “Not so fast,” responds the Internet. A website has been launched to help Aaron fix his shop. So far nearly £17,000 have been donated.

Bastards.

So here are some of the measures being proposed in response to the riots:

Cameron says Army could be called in if riots are repeated

Police are handed powers to unmask the wild rioters

Inquiry under way into how to clamp down on social media

There'll be talks with ex-US police chief about tackling gangs

Cameron shrugs off Labour's plea for police cuts U-turn

Prime Minister: 'This is a time for our country to pull together'

Labour leader Ed Miliband calls for full, independent inquiry

Calling on councils to use their powers to evict offenders from social houses;

Ministers looking into whether wider powers of curfew are needed;

A £20million fund to help high street firms affected by riots;

Businesses very badly hit will be allowed to defer tax payments;

Councils permitted to grant business rate relief;

Bellwin Scheme of emergency support to councils enacted;

£10million recovery scheme to help town halls in clean-up;

Government to meet immediate costs of housing families left homeless;

Gang injunctions scheme to be extended across the UK;

Ministerial group to prepare an action plan on gang culture.

No soul-searching into the reasons behind the riots.

UPDATE: "Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these Web sites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”
—Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain addressing Parliament during a special debate on the UK riots.

• Britain considers mask ban; may use army if unrest continues

80 students suspended over web security breach

Posted July 25, 2011 21:09:31ABC Newshttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/high-school-students-suspended-over-internet-security-breach/2809744

Eighty students at Prairiewood High School in Sydney's south-west have been suspended for illegally accessing a teacher's internet account. A statement from the New South Wales Education Minister says the students logged into the teacher's departmental computer account to access sites like Facebook and Twitter, which students are not allowed to view from their own accounts.

The statement says no illegal, pornographic or student record material was accessed, but police were called. The 80 students have been suspended for four days. They will have to attend a meeting where they will be warned by police about the criminality of accessing computer material without authorisation. All Prairiewood High School teachers have now changed their computer passwords and have been reminded about following appropriate IT security measures.

Expulsion threat for under-age Facebook users

Ben Grubb, The Age,June 25, 2011

A NSW school whose students participated in a Facebook site used for cyber-bullying has threatened to expel students under 13 who are using the social networking site. In an email to parents the principal of Northern Beaches Christian School, Stephen Harris, warned that students registered on Facebook and under the social network's age limit of 13 would have their enrolment reviewed. Either children had lied about their age or their parents had helped them join Facebook, he said. ''Let me be very clear - it is an immense parenting mistake to allow for either to happen,'' Mr Harris wrote in the email sent on Tuesday.

Yesterday the Herald reported that thousands of Sydney students from various schools had joined websites on which teenagers had been subjected to malicious sexual slander and cyber-bullying. The Christian school's general manager, Alan Schultz, said yesterday that conversations on sites such as Facebook could ''become an Animal Farm-style environment''.

''It's just complete anarchy and so open then for bullying and all sorts of negative things to happen,'' he said. Having a child's enrolment reviewed was a ''last resort'', Mr Schultz said.

The Education Department has arranged for police to run a cyber-bullying workshop at a school attended by recent victims. The department also admitted that one of the schools whose students were bullied in the sexual slander postings had received a complaint from a parent earlier this month, but the email was deleted. The principal of the school said on Thursday she had not received complaints of cyber-bullying until contacted by the Herald. But the department conceded yesterday that a clerical officer at the school did recall receiving emails addressed to the school's email account that referred to Facebook. ''As such emails are often spam or contain viruses, these were deleted, without being read,'' a department spokesman said.

The father of a victim of the bullying has threatened to report administrators of the sexual slander pages to police if they do not remove the content. The father, who did not wish to be named, said he had sent emails to his child's school and others with students involved on June 16 but had received no reply.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/expulsion-threat-for-underage-facebook-users-20110624-1gjtv.html#ixzz1QGTJB9WC

Twitter users and the courts go to war over footballer's injunction

Owen Bowcott and Josh Halliday, guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 20.26 BST

• Article history

As Twitter users repeatedly named a footballer who has taken out a privacy injunction, Lord Judge warned that 'modern technology was totally out of control'. Photograph: Ian Nicholson/PA



Attempts to identify a famous footballer hiding behind a privacy injunction have spiralled into an online battle over freedom of speech, as internet users responded to high court action by repeatedly naming him on Twitter. The high court granted a search order against the US-based microblogging site on Friday as the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, warned that "modern technology was totally out of control" and called for those who "peddle lies" on the internet to be fined. The attempt to compel Twitter to identify those responsible for the breaches comes after a number of its users earlier this month purported to reveal the name of the player who allegedly had an affair with the model Imogen Thomas.

The footballer's legal team began its action in London on Wednesday. There is a suspicion that a media company may be linked to the postings on Twitter, which were put up nearly two weeks ago. But the name of the footballer was spreading even more rapidly across Twitter in defiance of the court injunction, setting the stage for a confrontation between the judiciary and cyberspace. Earlier Lord Judge – welcoming a juridical report on superinjunctions – said readers placed greater trust in the content of traditional media than those "who peddle lies" on websites. He urged that ways be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology", in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police. "Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?" he asked. The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown". The "persons unknown" are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts".

Lawyers have applied for a court order that could force Twitter to hand over the name, email address and IP address of the person behind the account, the Guardian understands. The orders – known as a Norwich Pharmacal orders – are commonly used in illegal filesharing cases. The Guardian understands that the claim form, filed to the high court by the footballer's legal team, will not be made public until next week. Earlier this month, an unknown person or individuals published on a Twitter account the names of various people who had allegedly taken out gagging orders to conceal sexual indiscretions. The account rapidly attracted more than 100,000 followers.

Twitter said: "We are unable to comment." The London-based law firm representing the footballer had also not responded to a request for comment at time of publication. Twitter and other social networks were accused of making "an ass of the law" by the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and politicians after a number of celebrities with injunctions were allegedly exposed online. The socialite Jemima Khan was among those alleged on Twitter to have obtained an injunction. Khan described as a "bloody nightmare" rumours suggesting falsely that she had obtained a gagging order to prevent publication of "intimate photos" of herself and the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

Twitter has in the past said that it "strive[s] not to remove tweets on the basis of their content", but that it would remove "illegal tweets and spam". Previous defamation claims against the search engine Google failed on the grounds that it is not a publisher and not responsible for the contents of the blogs and articles listed in its search results. Richard Hillgrove, the owner of Hillgrove PR, which provides advice to celebrities, said that Twitter needed to be made as accountable as any other medium. "It has gone from 'the back bedroom' to mainstream medium. "Celebrities are being held to account if they Tweet commercial interests. It works both ways," he said.

Twitter faces legal action by footballer over privacy

Josh Halliday, guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 19.00 BST

Article history

Twitter has been sued by a footballer in a privacy row. Photograph: Chris Batson/Alamy



Website faces action after users purported to reveal name of player who allegedly had affair with model Imogen Thomas

A footballer has launched legal action against Twitter after a number of the microblogging site's users purported to reveal the name of the player who allegedly had an affair with model Imogen Thomas. The footballer's legal team began the legal action at the high court in London on Wednesday, in what is thought to be the first action against the US social media firm and its users. The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown". The latter are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts" in the court document, according to reports.

Earlier this month, an unknown person or individuals published the names of various people who had allegedly taken out gagging orders to conceal sexual indiscretions on a Twitter account. The account rapidly attracted more than 100,000 followers. Twitter declined to comment. The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, on Friday said Twitter and its users were totally out of control when it comes to privacy injunctions and court orders. Although there was no mention of Twitter in Lord Neuberger's long-awaited report on superinjunctions, published on Friday, Lord Judge said readers placed greater trust in the contents of traditional media than in those "who peddle lies" on websites.

Twitter and other social networks were accused of making "an ass of the law" by culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and politicians after a number of celebrities with injunctions were allegedly exposed online. The socialite Jemima Khan was among those claimed on Twitter to have obtained an injunction. Khan described rumours, which had suggested falsely she had obtained a gagging order to prevent publication of "intimate photos" of herself and Jeremy Clarkson, as a "bloody nightmare". Twitter has said that it "strive[s] not to remove tweets on the basis of their content", but that it would remove "illegal tweets and spam".

Mark Stephens, a senior media lawyer at Finers Stephens Innocent, said the lawsuit had little hope of succeeding. "This is not only scraping the bottom of the barrel, this is beneath the barrel. This [injunction] information is already available on servers outside of this jurisdiction and on website outside this jurisdiction," he said. "You would have to be a moron in a hurry to suggest to this footballer that he throw good money and publicly excoriate himself yet further." Schillings, the London-based law firm representing the footballer, had not returned a request for comment at time of publication.

Superinjunctions: Modern technology out of control, says lord chief justice

Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 13.39 BST




Lord Judge said he believed that ways would be found to curtail the 'misuse of modern technology'.
Photograph: Jonathan Hordle/Rex Features


Lord Judge: People who defy legal restrictions and 'peddle lies' over the internet should have to pay damages

Modern technology is totally out of control, the lord chief justice has warned in a call for action to be taken against those who defy court injunctions and "peddle lies" on social media and websites. Lord Judge welcomed a report by an influential judicial committee on privacy orders that called for superinjunctions to be granted only in "very limited circumstances" and normally for short periods of time. But he admitted that many bloggers and sites such as Twitter were publishing information that traditional newspapers and television stations were prevented from revealing by court orders.

There is no mention in the report of the impact of Twitter or the internet on the enforcement of court orders, but the lord chief justice said readers placed greater trust in the contents of traditional media than in those "who peddle lies" on websites. The internet had "by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers", which "people trust more", he said. The names of those people who had taken out anonymity orders have been circulating, sometimes inaccurately, on Twitter. "Anybody can put anything on [such sites]," he said.

Lord Judge said he believed that ways would be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology" in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police. "Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?" he asked. "I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions to stop them peddling lies."

In a report that repeatedly stresses the importance of "open justice", the study headed by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, proposes giving the media advance notice of applications for gagging orders. Dismissing allegations that judges have been creating new laws beyond the authority of parliament, the committee on superinjunctions nonetheless states that "there was justifiable concern [last year] ... that superinjunctions were being applied for, and granted, far too readily". The report also says that media reports of comments made in parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court. Reports of statements in the Commons and Lords are protected by parliamentary privilege only if they are published "in good faith and without malice".

Addressing the media at the royal courts of justice in central London, the lord chief justice: "It is, of course, wonderful for you if a member of parliament stands up in parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached. "But you do need to think whether it's a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament." On Thursday the Liberal Democrat Lord Stoneham of Droxford asked a question in the Lords revealing details of an injunction obtained by the former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin preventing coverage of details of his private life – which later led to the order being part-lifted.

Lord Judge said senior judges would be holding talks with the speakers of the Commons and the Lords over the issue. "It will take quite an effort for parliament to get a grip on this," he said. The study will be scrutinised carefully by ministers, who have sent out mixed signals about whether they believe a privacy law needs to be introduced to provide clearer guidance for judges. David Cameron's official spokesman said the government would consider Lord Neuberger's report before deciding whether to legislate on privacy issues. The spokesman told reporters at a regular daily briefing: "We think it is important to find the right balance between individual rights of privacy on the one hand and the right to freedom of expression on the other. We think this is a very useful report and it is something we will be considering very carefully."

While no one knows the precise number of privacy injunctions in circulation, the committee says it is only aware of two genuine superinjunctions – those whose existence cannot even be revealed – having been granted since January 2010. One was set aside on appeal and the other was in force for only seven days. "The principle of open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle," the report states, "although it is not an absolute principle. It applies to interim injunction applications as it does to trials. "... As they incorporate derogations from the principle of open justice, superinjunctions and anonymised injunctions can only be granted when they are strictly necessary. They cannot be granted so as to become in practice permanent."

The report sets out draft guidance on how applications should be processed in future, allowing third parties, including the media, to take part in, or lodge objections to, privacy proceedings. It is hoped the presence of other parties in such complex cases will provide reassurance that the cause of justice is being served and that the law is not being exploited by the wealthy to close down debate about matters of public interest. It is acknowledged that new legal procedures will be required to ensure that those who attend such hearings do not divulge details until they are reportable. "It will be a very rare case where advance notice of such applications to media organisations, which are likely to be affected by any order, can justifiably be withheld."

Lord Neuberger, who is the head of the civil judiciary, said: "Our starting point was the maintenance of the fundamental principles of open justice and freedom of speech. Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice. "However, where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice. And where it is ordered, the facts of the case and the reason for the secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment." In a clear rebuff to politicians who have accused judges of inventing novel legal precedents without reference to parliament, Lord Judge welcomed the report and observed: "Contrary to some commentary, unelected judges in this country did not create privacy rights. They were created by parliament [through enactment of the 1998 Human Rights Act].

"Now that they have been created, judges cannot ignore or dispense with them: they must apply the law relating to privacy matters as created by parliament – including those relating to the enforcement of privacy rights by injunctive relief, balancing them with the rights ... of freedom of expression. "The relationship between parliament and the courts has, for generations, been predicated on mutual understanding and respect. Judges have never asserted, and they are not now asserting, any authority or jurisdiction over parliamentary proceedings or debate, which are exclusively matters for parliament."