[LINK] itNews: Tas Police fed up with Social Media

stephen at melbpc.org.au stephen at melbpc.org.au
Mon Jul 16 17:54:50 AEST 2012

Roger, Jan, Craig, Jim and Richard write on this issue.

> > it's not only 'computer hackers' who perform social-engineering
> > attacks on rule systems. kids test boundaries to find the limits
> > and the available exploits.
> ....is very pithy.

Yes and no doubt this will increasingly become another Internet issue.

Without necessarily commenting on kids, it's often said, 'as you sow,
so shall you reap' in relation people's children." Thus, the argument
that parents must, in the final analsys, carry the can for their kids
behaviour appears reasonable. Train them right or else. On this point
one local judge has recently been vocal. Ideally perhaps his thoughts
could also be extended to apply to racial and slanderous matters etc? 


"VICTIMS of bullying should be able to make parents of their tormenters 
pay for their pain, says a former chief judge of Australia's Family Court.

Alastair Nicholson, one of Australia's most respected legal figures, 
believes tougher laws could be crucial in the fight against "insidious 
and dangerous" bullying.

"If there's one thing that makes people tend to be cautious . . . it's 
the fact it might cost them a lot of money," he said.

Mr Nicholson argues that "Brodie's Law", introduced by the State 
Government last year after the suicide death of workplace bullying victim 
Brodie Panlock, 19, was not specific enough.

"When you look at the legislation, they don't use the term bullying at 
all," he said.

Instead he believes better defined criminal and civil laws could help 
prevent many cases of bullying "even if you don't run around prosecuting 

"A lot of kids tend to take this behaviour as normal, but if they are 
told and taught that 'it's against the law and you could be in trouble', 
I think it could have quite a good educative effect."

He said he did not believe tougher civil laws would lead to more 
litigation, just more care taken by adults responsible for children's 

> On 16/07/12 1:48 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:03:34AM +1000, Jim Birch wrote:
> >> This is an example of the popular intuition that the Internet is
> >> somehow official or something so higher standards apply and the
> >> government is responsible, when in fact the opposite - it's down to
> >> you baby - more often applies.
> > i thought it was because schoolkids today are taught to be gutless
> > dobbers rather than to stand up and defend themselves. in fact, they 
> > punished for defending themselves (verbally or otherwise) - it seems 
> > if it's a worse "crime" than the initial bullying.
> >
> > the "innocence of childhood" is bullshit and children are nasty 
> > amoral self-centred thugs - what bullies learn when their victim runs
> > and dobs rather than defend themself is that they are, in fact, a 
> > and can be targetted again in future.
> >
> > even worse, they learn that a *very* effective bullying technique is 
> > accuse their victim of bullying, thus engaging the allegedly 
> > adults around them to do the bullying and victimisation for them.
> >
> > it's not only 'computer hackers' who perform social-engineering 
> > on rule systems. kids test boundaries to find the limits and the
> > available exploits.
> >
> > craig
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server

More information about the Link mailing list