from the a-screenshot-is-a-hyperlink-and-reporting-is-hacking----got-it dept
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
That well known responsible campaigner @guidofawkes has been hosting a link that distributed porn via my website— Claire Perry (@claire4devizes) July 23, 2013
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
Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes - proves so clearly what we are dealing with— Claire Perry (@claire4devizes) July 23, 2013
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.”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.)
“Little discussion was given to the measures put forward by industry, and any discussion of practical steps was closed down.”
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.