Cybermob Justice

(picture source)

Fascinating article about "human flesh search engine". No this is not about porn (sorry Gramps) but about "digital lynch mobs". The major story in the article was about the "Kitten Killer of Hangzhou", where a chinese woman videos herself torturing and killing a kitten in the most stomach churning way, and then posts the video to a chinese version of YouTube. The torch and pitchfork carrying villagers (in this case played by the cyber-citizens of China) are so revolted by the act that they:

"were able to discover her location by analyzing the background of the video. Then they matched the shoes worn in the video to an online purchase. With this information they uncovered her identity and address. These details were posted online and she was attacked with thousands of phone calls and threats. She was mercilessly shamed, lost her job, and was forced to post a video apology online where she acknowledged her actions and asked for forgiveness."

Justice is served? Well that's an interesting concept. The comments on the blog where I came upon this story were varyingly retributively approving:

"The internet-justice connection is also about making information easily accessible to the public. And sometimes the public know what the police don't.
... "

or fearfully insightful:

"I also have a very bad feeling about this. If it is ok for kitten killers then it will be ok for whatever topic X society doesn't like as long as there is enough of society to make an impact in their personal lives."

I suspect that whilst the idea of collective 'justice' is not just a Chinese phenomenon, and this particular narrative has equivalents in every country that has the internet, lynchmobs are probably not the best way forward. However it does raise the question of exactly what can individuals or groups do when the justice system breaks down?

The mob quest for justice can have unintended consequences: In the US in 2008, Lori Drew was convicted of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because she had intentionally created a fake MySpace profile with which to taunt her neighbours daughter which resulted in her suicide. The case got a huge amount of publicity, and in a statement that the father of the victim read to the court:

"“I am no longer married to Megan’s mom,” he said, halting to catch his emotions. “We are both financially ruined, and I have gone through a living hell.
...
Ron Meier disclosed that after news about Drew’s role in the cyberbullying went public and the Drews received death threats, he had been advised by authorities to maintain a daily log of his activities and make sure that he was never alone, because if something happened to Lori Drew or her family, he was told, he would be the first suspect."

So whilst the actions of Lori were ethically and morally reprehensible
a: the laws of the land had not caught up the crime (which is why she was convicted of Computer Fraud, being the only law available to prosecutors due to the uniqueness of crime) and
b: cybermob-justice had unintentionally made life more difficult for the victim's father.

An "eye for an eye" speaks to a deep seated human desire to see evil punished. Society in liberal democracies has a range of checks and balances that supposedly weighs the rights of the individual relative to the State. The legal system prevents lynchmobs taking the law into their own hands and providing their own brand of justice. The internet promises unrestricted (and anonymous) freedom of speech which includes the ability of anyone to post personal details of alleged perpetrators without any oversight. Should there be?

Newspapers and the broadcast media have laws governing what they can and can't write about and broadcast. The internet provides a media and publishing outlet to individuals, which the vast majority include personal rantings and ravings (including this particular blog). Should it be regulated? Is it possible?