The inevitable truth is that hiding behind a screen allows and encourages people to say and do things they wouldn’t normally do in person. Europe’s recent General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that came into effect in May 2018 gives individuals the option to withhold their personal details online. This is a portrayal of support of Internet anonymity. The government of the United Kingdom on the other hand, is planning to take action to restrict on nasty and illegal online behaviour.
Digital Minister Margot James said the freedom to be anonymous has been abused in “such a substantial way, with such damaging effects”. James said that although new legislation could not be rushed, it would be brought to parliament at the “earliest opportunity after Brexit”. Some may argue that anonymity is necessary for those acting as whistle blowers and seeking psychological help. To ban anonymity may strip the online community from their freedom of exploration and expression that the online world offers. However, it should be acknowledged that if the UK government does not take any action of removing anonymity there could be issues in the way the government has chosen to define harm. It would portray that the UK government is not taking steps to address the extensive cyberbullying that is a modern day issue.
The notion that banning internet anonymity will cause online harassment to cease is a myth. Nevertheless, a code of practice would set out the bounds of ‘what is and isn’t acceptable behavior online’. Although anonymity does play a pivotal role in online harassment, it is not solely anonymity that encourages harassment, it is the lack of accountability.
For example, people might think twice about what they tweet and say if they are held accountable for the contents of their tweets.
According to a study by Carneige Mellon University, in the six months after he banning of anonymous posts in South Korea, cyberbullying decreased by 20%.
This clearly shows that banning anonymity does not tackle the issue as a whole but will improve the situation. Therefore, the upcoming laws need to address the parties whom are liable for content and for taking down content. This will be prudent in tackling the issue properly.
The UK government’s view on internet anonymity has received significant support. For example, Ben Wallace, Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime has voiced out that a major factor in bullying and grooming is anonymity. He said that banks can authenticate their users’ identities online, so there is no reason other websites could not do the same. He goes on to propose a solution by way of introducing a digital ID for every internet user as a way of resolving this issue.
Internet anonymity has its disadvantages and advantages. It is evident that the advantages that come with the ban of internet anonymity is necessary. The UK government is seriously considering the ban of internet anonymity and there is high potential this ban will come into effect in the near future.
Source: IBA Global IbsightCONSULTATION
Our team of dedicated lawyers has vast experience of working with start-ups, small and medium-sized companies.
We will ensure your business operation are fully compliant, saving you time and money so that you can concentrate on your company growth, and we’ll take care of the rest. Let us know how we can help you by choosing one of the services below. Not sure what you need? Not to worry, ask your questions by filling in the form below, and we’ll get back to you with the answers.
If you are unsure about what steps to take next, our lawyers are on hand to point you in the right direction.
Our comprehensive and competitive advice on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance includes, but is not limited to:More information
Sterling Lawyers represent clients in a wide variety of serious, complex and high profile criminal cases. We complete dozens of successful cases each year and represent clients in all manner of cases in England & Wales. Below are a few examples of areas we have experience in:More information
Sterling Law represent businesses and individuals in commercial matters including disputes and drafting agreements relating to:
At Sterling Law, we understand how challenging it may be to navigate UK immigration law, especially when you have a company to look after.
It is why we offer you full end-to-end support. Whether you are looking to relocate your company, become self-employed, apply for a Sponsor Licence to hire foreign workers, or check if your business is fully compliant with immigration requirements.More information
Our client, a non-EEA national, initially obtained a residence card as the spouse of an EEA national. Our client subsequently divorced from his EEA national spouse and obtained a residence card under the Retained Rights route. The client then applied for permanent residence, which was refused and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by First-Tier Tribunal as the Judge wrongly thought the client needed to be a qualified person, not his EEA national spouse during the time their marriage lasted. Permission to appeal on this basis was granted.
In the recent case of Topadar v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1525 the Court of Appeal examined two questions:
At what point is an immigration application decided by the Home Office?
Is it procedurally unfair for the Home Office to refuse an application due to the applicant’s sponsor (i.e. their employer) failing to provide additional information (without the applicant ever being made aware of the request)?
The Court of Appeal decided:
Two successful applications for leave to remain under the parental route. Our clients both parents of children in the UK had no status in the UK when they approached Sterling Law.
Sterling Law has successfully challenged a decision by Student Finance England to refuse a student loan to a settled non-EU national because it was not believed that he met the lawful residence requirements.
Our immigration team has achieved a successful decision in the asylum appeal of a Nepalese national and her spouse. According to the Immigration & Asylum Upper Tribunal, they should both be allowed to remain in the UK under the protection of Refugee law.
The appellant fell in love and married in the UK against the wishes of her family in Nepal, causing her to fear severe consequences upon return, including honour violence and persecution on the basis that she is a woman who married outside her caste and nationality.