UK Anti-Porn Crusader Responds To Website Hack By Threatening Blogger Who Covered The Story

from the a-screenshot-is-a-hyperlink-and-reporting-is-hacking----got-it dept

One of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's anti-porn advisers (Claire Perry) recently had her website hacked and goatse'd. This story was picked up by one of Britain's more infamous bloggers, Guido Fawkes, who accompanied his post with a SFW screenshot of Perry's hacked site.

Perry, who has been instrumental in the push to regulate the web, porn-wise, took to Twitter to accuse Guido Fawkes of hacking her website.

Perry's first tweet shows she doesn't understand the difference between a link and a screenshot.
That well known responsible campaigner @guidofawkes has been hosting a link that distributed porn via my website

Her second goes further, accusing Fawkes of "sponsoring" the hacking of her site.
Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes - proves so clearly what we are dealing with

Fawkes suggested Perry should "withdraw that defamatory claim immediately." Perry responded by threatening to call his editor at the Sun in order to inform his superiors that their contributor "gleefully publicises" the hacking of an MP's website. That's a very different claim than her first two, but Perry so far has refused to withdraw her claim that Fawkes was directly involved with the hacking.

Perry's threats are without merit but still a concern, as the pseudonymous Unity points out at the Ministry of Truth:
[T]hreats of this kind are absolutely characteristic of the would-be bully who fails to get their own way on the internet and a key reason why so many bloggers have, over the years, chosen to write under a pseudonym, particularly those of us who write about controversial subjects and issues.
Fawkes has chosen to fight back and will be pursuing a defamation case against Perry, a decision he's basing on the results of his online poll. (As one does these days...)
The people have spoken. Nearly three thousand of you voted in Guido’s consultation on whether he should sue Claire Perry for defamation after she accused him of “sponsoring” hackers to post porno pictures on her website. 2,404 co-conspirators said Guido should sue Claire Perry…
This has the possibility to be vastly entertaining, but a commenter named "Darrow" very succinctly sums up this "strategy."
A man who takes legal advice from a poll has a fool for Lawyer.
Whatever does result of this, it's obvious that Perry doesn't possess the technical knowledge she needs to act as an unofficial sidekick to Cameron on his anti-internet porn crusade. (Her actual position is Parliamentary Private Secretary to Phillip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence. In MoT's words, a "glorified bag-carrier" for a completely unrelated department.)
Remember, this is the same MP who ran her own sham ‘inquiry’ in online safety, publishing a report that most definitely was sponsored… by a Christian radio station, in order to inveigle her way into her wholly unofficial position as Cameron’s chief ‘doing it for the kids’ advisor – and by no coincidence whatsoever, Perry’s ‘report’ relies to a considerable extent on the exact same bullshit zombie porn ‘statistics‘ that I’ve since comprehensively debunked.
The Ministry of Truth also notes that Perry hijacked a recent summit between the Culture Secretary and internet service providers to push her agenda (and Cameron's). According to an insider, Perry took control of the meeting away from the Culture Secretary in order to pose lots of "if you can block this, why can't you block this" questions, ultimately turning the summit into a waste of time for everyone involved.
The insider claimed that little progress was made toward developing practical solutions to child abuse. “The Home Office opened with some encouraging noises about international efforts, but generally speaking the politicians there fundamentally – or wilfully – misunderstand the technical and legal aspects.”

“Little discussion was given to the measures put forward by industry, and any discussion of practical steps was closed down.”
The lack of "practical steps" hasn't stopped Cameron from proceeding with his plans, which apparently involve demanding search engines and ISPs do "more" but remain largely vague on what "more" should actually entail. (The few details actually nailed down on "more" seem to be redundant filtering efforts that do little more than allow Cameron to take credit for them.)

Perry's inability to understand the technology she's abetting David Cameron in regulating is par for the course for public servants. I'm sure part of the reason discussions between the government and tech companies fall apart so quickly is this lack of understanding of even basic terms. When government officials don't understand the terminology or the infrastructure, they tend to believe they're being misled or directly lied to when what they're hearing doesn't jibe with how they imagine it all works. This defensiveness leads to a lot of demands being made by frustrated politicians rather any actual progress towards a working relationship.

Even if Perry can't be bothered to nail down some basic internet terminology, the Ministry of Truth points her in the direction of one term she might want to familiarize herself with before firing off any other regrettable tweets.
What I would suggest, however, is that Perry really should take the time to acquaint herself with the meaning of the words ‘Streisand effect‘ before she starts trying to bully, threaten and libel bloggers.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:23pm

    You've Lost Your Tweeting Privileges

    What she really needs is a visit from Malcolm Tucker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:23pm

    "A man who takes legal advice from a poll has a fool for Lawyer."

    Except he is not asking whether he has grounds to sue (thats obvious), he is asking whether he should. It's moral advice, not legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Joseph Young, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 2:29pm

      Reputation Management

      crade wrote:
      “A man who takes legal advice from a poll has a fool for Lawyer.”

      Except he is not asking whether he has grounds to sue (thats obvious), he is asking whether he should. It's moral advice, not legal.

      I don’t think morals come into it. It’s a question of reputation management. Given Paul Staines’ strident criticism of English defamation law, would it be reputationally-damaging hypocrisy to sue?

      As you’ve suggested, you can’t dismiss the accusation as trivial or as an honest mistake. It appears to be a calculating, malicious falsehood that he’d committed a crime. Wouldn’t Perry’s attack even be covered by American law?

      I’m sure the idea is to get Perry to hand over a sizeable chunk of money, hurting her, which Staines can then give to a suitable children’s charity, making him look good. Of course, this doesn’t work if everyone calls him a hypocrite.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Pitabred (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:14pm

        Re: Reputation Management

        Defamation and libel are both suit worthy in American courts. I can't see how she's not guilty of both in accusing him of doing the hacking when he's simply reporting on it, and not recanting when the truth is brought to light. It's straight unfounded character assassination on her part, and uncalled for.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Pitabred (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:14pm

          Re: Re: Reputation Management

          Of course, IANAL (as is probably obvious), so I don't know any case precedent or anything like that. I'm just going off of surface appearances to the layman.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), Jul 25th, 2013 @ 7:42am

        Re: Reputation Management

        Potaeto Potawto..

        He is looking for the moralistic opinion from the poll. Whether he is using that info it to truly make a moral decision for himself or just to protect his reputation by not going against other's morals just depends on how cynical a viewpoint you want to take.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:28pm

    If they are truly concerned about the children, they would simply pass legislation that says it is perfectly legal to carry out DDOS attacks on kiddie pron sites. Let the internet do what it does best, police itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      This is just bad thinking. There are a lot of very successful Internet Amber Alert actions which can be organized by ad hoc Internet groups.

      DDOS sponsorship isn't one of those actions. If for no other reason than that DDOS attacks are generally carried out through malicious software on unwitting participants' equipment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:37pm

      Re:

      I do hate child 'porn' being referred to as 'porn'.

      Let's call a spade, a spade. It is child abuse content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 1:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Calling it child pornography is calling a spade a spade, "child abuse content" sounds more like someone beating their children, not children being raped.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Duke (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 5:57pm

        Re: Re:

        In the UK you shouldn't call it "child abuse content" either, because that implies that there is always "abuse."

        The legal term is "indecent images of children", and there's a court ruling that say it is the "image" that has to be indecent, not the child. The image could be a self-portrait by a teenager, or a married couple, or could be adults with a random child somewhere in the background (or photoshopped in).

        Yes, much of the stuff that gets people sent to prison involves child abuse, but far from all of the stuff that's illegal.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 9:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Good point. 17 year old girls sending nude images of themselves to their boyfriends is still counted as child pornography. The end result is a collection of "child pornography" that's entirely consensual.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:32pm

    I hope he sues the dopey bitch for everything she has.

    What a moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:35pm

    You know what the hackers should have done?

    Post the studies that show how cases of rape tend to go down where pornography is freely available.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    aldestrawk (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:46pm

    As a non-lawyer, my legal advice is forget the defamation lawsuit because Claire Perry is spouting tweets that don't make any sense. It is the second tweet that is potentially defamatory but it all hinges on the meaning of "sponsored". The literal meaning of her first tweet is that her website contains a link to Guido Fawkes website that, itself, has a link to pornography. This is so contrary to the reality of the situation that it demonstrates either very confused thinking or extreme sloppiness in the use of the English language. I actually believe she doesn't realize that "sponsored" could mean that Fawkes was an accomplice in hacking her website.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dirkmaster (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    A woman with such a poor understanding of how the web works

    should be fired from a position of making recommendations of parliamentarians concerning the web. But her last tweet of July the 23rd seems to indicate she is quitting.

    "Hungry family means I have to rejoin the (non-Westminster) real world. Suggest all those bloggers w made-up names (bless) do the same!"

    Or am I misinterpreting that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 2:31pm

      Re: A woman with such a poor understanding of how the web works

      That sounds like "I'm going to go cook dinner for my family. Why don't all you losers go spend some time dealing with people in real life as well?"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Sheogorath (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 8:10pm

        Re: Re: A woman with such a poor understanding of how the web works

        I would interpret it that way. No way that fatuous bint knows what the real world is like when you're on the other side of the financial divide, especially if you have the extra hardships of being elderly and/or disabled.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 1:04pm

    New Porno with Claire Perry

    Someone needs to make a new porno with a Claire Perry look-alike.

    I am not sure what it should be called, but something along the lines of "One Hoe to Screw Them All" and the plot is that her method of ending porn is to fuck all the porn stars in the world so they don't have to make any new videos.

    Obviously, open to creative suggestions/direction here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DavyD, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 1:14pm

    The woman has no clue what she is talking about. I'm all for protecting kids but these filters are over-reaching. The only way they could possibly work would involve far too much monitoring of your web use and invasion of privacy.

    Sign the petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:05pm

    Looking in the wrong place.

    The insider claimed that little progress was made toward developing practical solutions to child abuse.


    I'm reminded of this parable:

    A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is."

    In this instance, little progress is being made on the problem of child abuse because they're looking around the ISPs, but the crime they seek to prevent takes place in meatspace. The Internet may be "where the light is" because it's where it's easiest to encounter evidence of the problem, but it's not where the problem itself is.

    Unfortunately, politicians score more politics-points by making a problem less visible (or just being seen vigorously going through the motions of searching for the keys) than by solving it outright, when the latter is more work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:14pm

    with luck, Perry will be made to look publicly what she really is, a complete idiot, trying to get involved with those that could eat her for breakfast, if she ever allowed anyone chance to speak. having seen her in action, the only way she managed to get any sort of 'win' for want of a better term was to ensure that no one else had the opportunity to say a word. she is a dangerous woman trying to get above her station. Cameron would be wise to get shot of her, in a hurry, before she gets him to make a bigger bloody fool of himself and get a lot of young kids hurt in the process!! here's hoping she gets done good and proper in court over the defamation suit. perhaps this will teach her (and Cameron) that her mouth is far bigger than needed and open far too often!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Guardian, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:19pm

    stupid people tricks are fer kids

    SWIIIING

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Guardian, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:22pm

    #3

    @3 WE DO AND we do far more as in

    /rm -s *
    the fact is most people are not actively lookin for sicko pron
    so you aint gonna ever in glide into it as these retreds think you will...

    better off asking the italian ex president about under age girls and pics and keep an eye on him and his buds....they seem to be the ones "creating the market"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Guardian, Jul 24th, 2013 @ 3:43pm

    Opis Dei wont be happy

    perhaps the Canadian prime minister should give her a spanking for being bad....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ed Milliband (profile), Jul 24th, 2013 @ 8:05pm

    Claire Perry site hack

    It wasn't me who redirected links from Ms. Perry's website so they led to sites such as goatse.cx and asstr.org, I promise. *crosses fingers behind back*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This