Are spoof Twitter accounts at risk?

 
Screenshot of NotSteveDorkland Twitter account The account holder said he does not work for Northcliffe media

Twitter - a place where you can start a spoof account and have a bit of fun while being sure your anonymity will be preserved, right? Wrong. The case of @unstevedorkland shows that nobody can be that confident that they can mock a powerful organisation and get away with it.

The Twitter account in question is a somewhat crude - to some eyes offensive - exercise designed to mock Steve Auckland, the Chief Executive of Northcliffe Media, a regional newspaper business owned by the Daily Mail group.

Last week the blogger Guido Fawkes revealed that Northcliffe had taken legal action to try to force Twitter to unmask whoever was behind the account - and yesterday he followed up with news that the user had been warned his or her details would be handed over on 1 August.

Guido's verdict was that the individual in question was being "hung out to dry by a billion dollar US company." And indeed it seemed that Twitter had caved in under pressure from the Northcliffe assault.

But a closer look shows that Twitter has done what it does with all court orders - complied with the law while alerting those affected. Just as it did when the US authorities sought details of people connected with Wikileaks, or a British local authority tried to unmask an allegedly libellous account, the social network has informed "@unstevedorkland" about the progress of the legal action.

In all such cases, Twitter believes it has to comply with a ruling from courts in its Californian home, but give those targeted the information they need to get a lawyer and defend themselves.

What's more, the person behind the @unstevedorkland account contacted my colleague Dave Lee to reveal that Twitter had suggested that the civil liberties group the Electronic Freedom Frontier might help in the case.

Still, this is really sobering for anyone who thinks their anonymity is safe on the servers of a giant corporation based in a land where free speech is supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The American courts, it seems, are fairly welcoming to those seeking to unmask people they accuse of doing them harm.

Two other spoof Twitter accounts come to mind. @Queen_UK purports to be our monarch, and portrays Her Majesty quite affectionately as a gin-swilling granny with a mischievous take on the world. Typical tweet - "One would report that one is enjoying an olympic sized gin, but one doesn't have the necessary sponsorship rights."

Then there is our own dear The Killing Station (@killingstation), an account set up in tribute to Television Centre's very fine BBC staff catering facility, the Filling Station. It mocks both the food on offer and prominent BBC correspondents. Here's a typical offering: "What's so bleedin' special about our Special Correspondents? Apart from the fact that they never say please or thank you. Never. Ever. Rude."

All good fun - but what if Buckingham Palace or the BBC decided that they were not amused, that these spoof accounts were in fact offensive and constituted harassment of staff? Then both organisations could go to court in California and have a good chance of forcing Twitter to unmask the people behind @Queen_UK or @killingstation.

Which brings us back to Northcliffe Media. A spokeswoman for the company told me that the legal action was not a sense of humour failure but an attempt to protect staff from a stream of offensive remarks which constituted the kind of harassment no employer would tolerate.

If the tweets were really that offensive, I am not clear why Northcliffe did not take the matter to the police in the UK, who have investigated similar matters, rather than resort to the American courts. And if the account was really masquerading as someone else, then the company could have asked Twitter to take it down.

If Northcliffe Media hoped to make the problem go away, then the strategy has failed. Before the legal action @unstevedorkland had just 150 followers. Now 850 people are reading the account's tweets and the case is attracting global attention. The Daily Mail group, which owns Northcliffe, has a very clever online operation which is winning big audiences around the world for a diet of celebrity news and gossip - but this is one story which it did not want to take off.

 
Rory Cellan-Jones Article written by Rory Cellan-Jones Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

Instant translation – no longer sci-fi

Automated translation is no longer the stuff of sci-fi fiction, since Skype launched a beta version of its Translator service.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Rory

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 29.

    We should stop things like this happening by enforcing anonymity. Make it illegal for an ISP to disclose the identity of a user unless they are involved in murder/terrorism. This will safeguard the identity and privacy of everyone online.

    ISPs should be neutral mediums for providing access and not subject to the whims of bullies who go nuts because someone was making fun of them.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 28.

    @27 pb

    Removing anonymity won't improve the likelihood of gaining redress for any perceived injury. Accountability in the court system is rather more dependant on financial means and access to legal advice.

    Freedom is a paradox, there are no clear answers as to how we balance competing objectives. We should be cautious when considering the whims of wealthy individuals and businesses.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 27.

    Playing devil's advocate, Is anonymity aways such a good thing. I can see that its good for whistle-blowing but doesn't annonymity have a dark side by giving freedom to hurt, injure, defame and even commit crime without there being accountability. Where do we set the balance beteen freedon of speech, individual responsibility and the rights of individuals? Tough one - I have no answers.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 26.

    @23 IanKemmish

    Nonsense. A desire to remain anonymous indicates nothing other than that. It does not imply that someone is 'up to no good'. In fact, anonymity is legally provided for under numerous circumstances. Re-casting the 'if you have nothing to hide' argument for the internet improves neither the argument or the internet.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 25.

    this culture really is dead and bloated in the water huh? I mean when it's discussed like *this*, when the chavs, suits and mums are WELL into it, well it's all over.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 24.

    Cui bono? Suing somebody is often part of a business plan to gain more attention. If all users of twitter sued each other all of the time then twitter itself would benefit from the publicity.

    That aside, why would I want to follow another person’s life on twitter unless I was a teenage girl with a crush on someone?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 23.

    I'm not a Supreme Court judge, but surely the entire point of the First Amendment is that the protections it offers renders anonymity entirely superfluous? Provided what you have to say is covered by fair comment and breaks no laws, you can say what you want. The US is one country where one can safely assume that anyone who wants anonymity is up to no good. If only we had an equivalent here.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 22.

    The Streisand Effect strikes again.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 21.

    OMG TWITTER IS DOWN...Rory, you have tomorrow's article!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 20.

    Looks like it doesn't matter or the Daily Fail has won.

    Twitter isn't connectable for me. It's down, the world is about to end.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 19.

    So this guy's account is named UN Steve DORKland?
    How is he pretending to be anyone? It's quite obvious its a spoof account.
    In the eighties, did people demand ITV hand over the names of the people in the Spitting Image puppets?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    Isn't the EFF called the Electronic Frontier Foundation, not the Electronic Freedom Frontier. It may exist to protect people's freedom and digital rights, but I don't think that freedom is in the name.
    Or maybe I'm playing the People's Judean Front game. Or the Judean People's Front...

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 17.

    The only thing remotely interesting about this is that it shows how obsessed the media is with Twitter. There are a billion fake profiles on a billion blog websites...but do it on Twitter and all of a sudden it's news! Shame that the media thinks "iDevice + google + facebook + twitter = the internet"

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 16.

    This is one more case in an ongoing strategy by corporations and governments to kill anonymity on the internet. Once anonymity is gone it will be easier for corporations and governments to control public perceptions of a given event via threats of court action to ISPs and making 'examples' of certain individuals. Control, control; the usual response by power to something that scares it.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 15.

    The Daily Mail are happy to feed us their opinion", but can't stand that anyone might give their own opinion on the Daily Mail that doesn't suit

    Gotta love the double standards of the UK media

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 14.

    Twitter need a blanked policy on this.

    They should unmask anyone that the courts ask them too. That includes stalkers, terrorists and peadofiles.

    If you don't want to be named, don't do it.

    The spoof accounts want fame and an audience, why should they mind if they are named?

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 13.

    Perish the thought that a fine old institution like the Mail would ever harass anybody unfairly. Maybe Leveson should investigate Twitter.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 12.

    Its easy to publish to twitter while remaining 100% anonymous. You connect via TOR and sign up with a temporary anonymising mail account. If you are really paranoid you can chain sign-ups to mail accounts and access twitter via a proxy after TOR.

    The only information twitter can divulge is your IP address and the eMail address you signed up with. If both of these are bogus, you can't be traced.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    We need spoofs and spoofers need protection but please can we solve the this without a host of American lawyers getting involved? Provide spoofers with sponsors (companies willing to act on their behalf) and let the sponsors arbitrate the legal issues.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 10.

    There clearly needs to be more laws in place to stop companies from bullying twitter into giving away people's personal details.

    This is a complete violation of the user's privacy, and will simply drive people to use proxies and fake names even more.

    A harmless spoof account owner is being crucified for daring to make fun of someone powerful. Bullying at it's worst.

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.