Cyberbullying law in action

Minister of Justice Amy Adams has a report on the progress of the new cyber bullying (Harmful Digital Communications Act) in action.


Cyberbullying law holding offenders to account

Legislation passed in 2015 to curb cyber-bullying is effectively weeding out and punishing the worst offenders, says Justice Minister Amy Adams.

“The Harmful Digital Communications Act made it illegal to send messages and post material online that deliberately causes a victim serious emotional distress,” says Ms Adams.

“The law is also protecting those most vulnerable to online abuse by clamping down on bullies who encourage their victims to commit suicide, regardless of whether or not the victim attempts or is successful in taking their life.”

Since coming into force the Act has resulted in:

  • 132 criminal charges filed
  • 77 criminal cases finalised
  • 50 convictions and sentences
  • 4 diversions completed
  • 3 dismissals
  • 1 discharge without conviction

“One of the worst cases we’ve seen involved a man who was jailed for sending half naked photos of his ex-girlfriend to a shared work email address. This shows the law is working well to punish the most serious offenders.”

The Act also established an Approved Agency, Netsafe, and civil court remedies to assess, investigate and deal with complaints about harm caused to individuals by digital communications.

“Since Netsafe began in November 2016, it has received over 600 requests for assistance with harmful digital communications,” says Ms Adams.

“The law tackles cyberbullying head on and simplifies the process for getting harmful communications off the internet quickly and effectively, while still respecting the right to free speech.”


But one initial Court finding is being challenged: Police successfully appeal for retrial of man who posted semi-nude photos of his ex to Facebook

A judge’s decision not to convict a man who uploaded photos of his ex in her underwear to Facebook has been overturned.

The man, who has ongoing name suppression, appeared in the Manukau District Court last year charged with two offences – breaching his ex wife’s protection order and breaching the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

While District Court Judge Colin Doherty upheld the first charge, he ruled that the woman had not suffered enough “serious emotional distress” for the second charge to be upheld under s22 of the Act.

The police appealed this in Auckland’s High Court on March 21, on the basis that Judge Doherty had made a mistake.

In the just-released High Court judgment, Justice Matthew Downs ordered that the decision be quashed and a retrial held in the district court.

According to the judgment, police counsel Peter Marshall told the court that Judge Doherty erred in his conclusion that the evidence could not establish the woman’s distress.

In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considered relevant, including the extremity of language, age and characteristics of the victim, whether the communication was anonymous, repeated, true or false, and the context in which it appeared, the judgment said.

It can take a few trials for Courts and Judges to get the right balance and serve the intent of new laws.

Judge Doherty said in his judgment, however, that as she was not repeatedly exposed to direct communications and the audience seeing the photos were small, there was a lower degree of harm.

He concluded that while the evidence “clearly points to some degree of emotional distress,” it was not sufficient to satisfy him.

In the High Court judgment Justice Downs said Judge Doherty’s observations about the types of distress the complainant suffered were just that – observations.

“The judge approached the issue by isolating the various descriptions of how the complainant felt, rather than – as required – assessing the evidence in its totality,” he said.

He said that trying to quantify the harm caused was difficult, because it was part fact, part value-judgment.

Attention should have been given to the nature of the woman’s distress, its intensity, duration, manifestation and context, Justice Downs said.

It could be tricky arguing and determining significant harm.

HDCA: cot case bar set for ‘harm’

A judgment was been given on an application to dismiss a prosecution under the Harmful Digital  Communications Act that suggests that to succeed with a prosecution the victim would virtually have to become a cot case.

Judge C J Doherty ruled that the posting of semi-nude photos on Facebook had taken place with the intention of causing harm to the victim, but that there was insufficient evidence that “serious emotional distress” had occurred (as defined in s 4 of the HDCA).

It appears from this that the legislation, backed by this judgment, has set a very high bar for a prosecution under the HDCA.

This rules out a conviction under the act for malicious digital communications that may seriously harm someone’s reputation but that they don’t get ‘seriously distressed’ about. Getting very pissed off or angry or upset with a harmful attack would seem to be insufficient.

In this case an estranged husband still has to face a charge of breaching a protection order, but the judge ruled on a breach of s 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) “that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case that the complainant in fact suffered harm as defined in s 4”.

[3] The second charge alleges a breach of s 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) (“the second charge”). It is alleged that the defendant posted a digital communication, being semi-nude images of Mrs Iyer, from whom he is separated. The prosecution alleges that: in posting the communication, the defendant intended to cause Mrs Iyer harm; that posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in Mrs Iyer’s position; and that posting the communication caused serious emotional distress to Mrs Iyer.

From the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015:

22 Causing harm by posting digital communication:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
(b) posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
(c) posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

4 Interpretation: ‘harm means serious emotional distress’.

Posting a digital communication

First the judge considered in detail whether posting to Facebook constituted a digital communication:

“the defendant claims the prosecution has not proved that a Facebook post qualifies as a digital communication, as defined by s 4 of the HDCA”

The HDCA definition:

digital communication-
(a) means any form of electronic communication; and
(b) includes any text message, writing, photograph, picture, recording, or other matter that is communicated electronically

The judge ruled against the defendant on that:

I am satisfied, without evidence of the precise protocol and technological basis of Facebook, that the photographs included on the [name of account deleted] account constituted digital communications.

It would have been absurd if posting to Facebook was not a digital communication.

The judge next found that the timing of the posting of the photograph had happened after the HDCA came into force on 1 July 2015.

The judge then considered intention  to cause harm.

[51] The evidence must tend to prove that the defendant posted the “digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim” (in this case Mrs Iyer). Harm is further defined in s 4 of the HDCA as “serious emotional distress”.

[52] I have been unable to find the phrase “serious emotional distress” in any other piece of legislation. Accordingly, it does not appear to have been judicially defined, thus I must consider the definition in terms of the plain meaning of the words, and the wider purpose of the HDCA.

[54] It is clear from the inclusion of the word “serious” that the intended harm must be more than trivial. Being merely upset or annoyed as a consequence of a digital communication would not be sufficient to invoke the sanction of criminal law.

Also, I emphasise that the conduct criminalised by the HDCA is harmful conduct. Offensive, morally repugnant or merely upsetting conduct will not suffice. In order to attract criminal sanction, the conduct must go further.

[56] Turning to the purposive approach, in my view it is clear that the definition of serious emotional distress is designed to balance two competing concerns: the serious effects of calculated emotional harm, and the importance of maintaining free speech.

[58] This Parliamentary discussion reveals that any harm associated with digital communication must be taken seriously. It is important that the court does not assume that emotional distress caused by digital communications is inherently any less harmful than other forms of harm. From this, I interpret that the bar to a successful criminal prosecution must not be set too high.

But:

[59] However, it is also clear that the need to deter harmful online conduct must be weighed against the value of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a right protected by s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). It includes the right to “impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.

Although NZBORA rights are not absolute, s 6 of NZBORA requires that I consider s 14 when interpreting other statutes, a requirement that is reinforced by s 6(2)(b) of the HDCA.

This demands that the courts do not give an interpretation that would have an unduly restrictive effect on free speech. Indeed, this risk is heightened in the HDCA context, which criminalises expression that would not attract liability if it were communicated through a different medium.

Accordingly, I consider I must not reach an interpretation of “serious emotional distress” that is set too low. Taking a purposive approach requires that I balance the deterrence of online harm with the preservation of freedom of speech.

[60] The text of the statute and the wider purposive context both bring me to the same conclusion. In order to attract liability under s 22 of HDCA, conduct must be harmful to an identifiable victim. I conclude that the definition of “harm”, being “serious emotional distress”, may include a condition short of a psychiatric illness or disorder, or distress that requires medical or other treatment or counselling.

[61] The nub of this element is the intention of the defendant. An intention to elicit a serious response of grief, anguish, anxiety or feelings of insecurity would, in my view, qualify as intention to cause harm for the purposes of HDCA s 22(1).

[63] I stress that at this stage I need only find that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case. It is open to the defence to prove that the defendant was not motivated to control the complainant’s life, or that he could have achieved his motive without inflicting serious emotional distress. However, at this stage of proceedings I find that the prosecution has established a case to answer for this element.

Next the judge considered “where posting the digital communication would cause harm to a reasonable person in the position of the victim”

[64] The prosecution must prove that the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of Mrs Iyer (HDCA s 22(1)(b)). Section 22(2) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors which the court may consider, including:

(a) the extremity of the language used:
(b) the age and characteristics of the victim:
(c) whether the digital communication was anonymous:
(d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
(f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared.

[65] I consider that factors (b); (c); (d); (e); and (g) are relevant to the present
case.

[71] I find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case that the posting would cause serious emotional distress to an objective person in the position of Mrs Iyer.

Finally “whether posting the communication causes harm to the victim”:

[72] It is not enough to prove that the digital communication would cause harm to an objective person. The prosecution must establish that the communication did, in fact, cause harm to the victim.

[73] I have found that discovering the post of the photographs resulted in Mrs Iyer being frustrated, angry, anxious and very upset and that she considered taking time off work. (although she did not recall that she did so).

The only other evidence was from Ms Shroad who reported that at the time she viewed the post, Mrs Iyer almost cried and appeared “very depressed” and required someone to be with her for support. I hasten to add this was not a clinical diagnosis but a lay person’s description of what she observed.

Mrs Iyer did not elaborate on her frustration, anger, anxiety or upset. Ms Shroad did not elaborate on what she meant by “depressed” nor describe Mrs Iyer as exhibiting feelings of serious anxiety or insecurity. What Ms Shroad meant by Mrs Iyer needing “someone to be with her for support” was not elaborated upon.

While the evidence clearly points to some degree of emotional distress, it is not sufficient to satisfy me it has reached the threshold of serious emotional distress (as explored above at paragraphs [52]–-[60]).

I do not overlook the fact that Ms Shroad’s observation, while proximate to the time of discovery of the post, is not necessary determinative of the distress of Mrs Iyer; the distress may have manifest itself later. Nor have I ignored the notion that an inference might be drawn that the needing of support itself meant Mrs Iyer was suffering serious emotional distress.

But the absence of specific evidence as to the root cause of her need is a telling factor against the drawing of such an inference.

[74] The prosecution need only prove that the electronic communication caused harm; not that it caused harm immediately. Whether harm in the form of serious emotional distress was caused is a matter of fact. The prosecution has not led cogent evidence to this effect. Such evidence could have been provided by more detailed and specific evidence from Mrs Iyer as to her reactions, feelings or physical symptoms and their duration or by expert evidence, such as the evidence of a psychologist or counsellor. However, none has been led.

[75] On this basis, I consider that the prosecution has not established a prima facie case that the complainant in fact suffered harm as defined in s 4.

So in summary the judge ruled that:

  • Posting photos to Facebook constitutes a digital communication
  • The defendant intended to cause harm
  • The posting would cause serious emotional distress to an objective person in the position of the defendant

But

  • There was insufficient evidence of harm defined as “serious emotional distress”.

Based on this it seems that prosecutions for ‘harm’ under the HDCA will only succeed in fairly extreme cases proving “serious emotional distress”.

I don’t think this is the judge’s fault, he went to some length to understand and comply with the Act.

Those who deliberately set out to cause harm online shouldn’t have much difficulty keeping degree of the damage below this threshold, unless they misjudge someone’s emotional state and tip them over the edge.

The judgment is here: RESERVED DECISION OF JUDGE C J DOHERTY ON APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO S 147(4)(B) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

Harmful communications and Your NZ

From today people who believe they have experienced online abuse, harassment and cyberbullying van submit complaints to the appointed agency, Netsafe, to try to stop the attacks.

Your NZ may have to deal with this if complaints are received under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. I will do what I can to ensure comments posted here don’t breach the Act and moderation may be necessary to do this.

Now the Act has taken effect it is important to note:

What are harmful digital communications?

Harmful digital communications take a variety of forms such as private messages or content that others can see. It includes when someone uses the internet, email, apps, social media or mobile phones to:

  • send or publish threatening or offensive material and messages;
  • spread damaging or degrading rumours about you; and
  • publish online invasive or distressing photographs or videos of you.

What are the 10 communication principles?

The 10 principles work as a guide for how people should communicate online. Netsafe and the District Court will look at these when deciding if a digital communication breaches the Act.

The 10 principles say that a digital communication should not:

  1. disclose sensitive personal facts about a person;
  2. be threatening, intimidating, or menacing;
  3. be grossly offensive;
  4. be indecent or obscene;
  5. be used to harass a person;
  6. make a false allegation;
  7. breach confidences;
  8. incite or encourage anyone to send a deliberately harmful message;
  9. incite or encourage a person to commit suicide; and
  10. denigrate a person’s colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

I will moderate comments here that I believe risk breaching those principles. I don’t want that sort of behaviour here anyway, but if I don’t then it puts this site at risk of breaching the Act.

If you believe that anyone has posted comments here that breach any of these principles then contact me. You can do this either through comments or directly:

  • Email: YourNZContact@gmail.com
  • Phone: 027 327 3468

I will deal with it as soon as I can. I’m not always available so it may take a few hours but it will be as soon as possible.

If I decide a comment here breaches the Act I will edit or delete the comment. If I can’t deal with it properly immediately the comment may be deleted in the first instance and then later edited and reinstated.

The aim of Your NZ has always been to allow robust discussion but not to be nasty or abusive. The Act does not change this approach, but it provides different means of dealing with abuse.

Some abuse is obvious, but sometimes it can get tricky. One person’s ‘joke’ can be perceived by others as abusive or offensive.

We don’t have to be prudes but we should be decent humans in the way we interact here. Most of it should be common sense.

It shouldn’t change things much here as I done my best to maintain reasonable standards already, sometimes in very trying circumstances.

If this site was to be subject again to the sort of attacks experienced last year by a couple of malicious visitors using multiple identities then I won’t rule out making complaints to Netsafe myself.

For more details see Harmful Digital Communications or Netsafe’s website.


Your NZ has already experienced an attempt to gag the site and threats were made to imprison me prematurely under the ACT. A vexatious court order didn’t comply with the procedures specified in the Act, was nearly a year before this part of the Act came into effect (today), and relied on evidence planted in anonymous comments here. When this was pointed out to the Court it was immediately thrown out.The vexatious incompetents who attempted this are some of the worst online abusers I have seen, frequently breaching the principles of the Act.

Harmful Digital Communications

The Harmful Digital Communications Act has taken a long time to come into force, but from today anyone who is experiencing online abuse, harassment and cyberbullying can report to the appointed agency, Netsafe, who will “receive, assess and investigate complaints”. What they will do to help targets of abuse and how effective this will be is yet to be seen.

From Netsafe’s website:


Anyone who is experiencing online abuse, harassment and cyberbullying can get help from Netsafe thanks to the Harmful Digital Communications Act (the Act). Netsafe will receive, assess and investigate complaints related to harmful digital communications from 21 November, 2016.

UNDERSTANDING HARMFUL DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS

The Act tackles some of the ways people use technology to hurt others. It aims to prevent and reduce the impact of cyber-bullying, harassment, revenge porn and other forms of abuse and intimidation.

The Act provides quick and affordable ways to get help for people receiving serious or repeated harmful digital communications. A digital communication is harmful if it makes someone seriously emotionally distressed, and if it is a serious breach of one or more of the 10 communication principles in the Act.

What are harmful digital communications?

Harmful digital communications take a variety of forms such as private messages or content that others can see. It includes when someone uses the internet, email, apps, social media or mobile phones to:

  • send or publish threatening or offensive material and messages;
  • spread damaging or degrading rumours about you; and
  • publish online invasive or distressing photographs or videos of you.

What are the 10 communication principles?

The 10 principles work as a guide for how people should communicate online. Netsafe and the District Court will look at these when deciding if a digital communication breaches the Act.

The 10 principles say that a digital communication should not:

  1. disclose sensitive personal facts about a person;
  2. be threatening, intimidating, or menacing;
  3. be grossly offensive;
  4. be indecent or obscene;
  5. be used to harass a person;
  6. make a false allegation;
  7. breach confidences;
  8. incite or encourage anyone to send a deliberately harmful message;
  9. incite or encourage a person to commit suicide; and
  10. denigrate a person’s colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

How to get help?

If you are concerned about the immediate safety of you or someone else, please call 111. If you or someone you know needs help with a harmful digital communication, contact Netsafe toll free on 0508 NETSAFE or complete a complaint form at netsafe.org.nz/report.

Netsafe can look into your complaint and tell you if there’s anything else you can do to stop the abuse and stay safe. We may also work with you and the person harassing you to get them to stop.

If Netsafe can’t resolve things, you can apply to the District Court for help – but you have to have tried to resolve things with Netsafe first.

How can the District Court help?

The court deals with cases of serious or repeated harmful digital communications that Netsafe hasn’t been able to resolve.

The court will look into whether the person harassing you has seriously breached, will seriously breach or has repeatedly breached one or more of the 10 communication principles. It will also consider how people responded to the advice Netsafe provided.

The court has the power to order people to stop their harmful digital communications and take action including:

  • Ordering material to be taken down;
  • Ordering someone to publish a correction, an apology or give you a right of reply;
  • Ordering online content hosts (like social media/telecommunication companies or blog owners) to release the identity of the person behind an anonymous communication; and
  • Order name suppression to protect your identity or the identity of anyone else involved in the dispute.

Anyone who ignores the District Court’s orders can be prosecuted and penalised. The penalty is up to six months in prison or a fine up to $5,000. Companies can be fined up to $20,000.

What if the situation is really serious?

The Act also includes a criminal offence to penalise the most serious perpetrators. It is illegal to send messages and post material online that deliberately cause somebody serious emotional distress.

Police will handle these most serious cases. They may prosecute a person or company if:

  • they intended the communication to cause harm;
  • it’s reasonable to expect that a person in your position would be harmed by it; and
  • you were harmed.

The court will consider a variety of factors including how widely the material spread and whether what was said was true or not. The penalties for this offence are a fine of up to $50,000 or up to two years’ jail for an individual, and up to $200,000 for a body corporate.


How this affects  Your NZ and you if you comment here: Harmful communications and Your NZ

 

Amy Adams on free speeech and the Harmful Digital Communications

After the Harmful Digital Communications  passed in June the Minister of Justice, Courts, Broadcasting and Communications answered questions in a Live Chat at Stuff.

This gives some insight into what Adams hopes the Bill will achieve.

Is cyberbullying a real problem? Can’t the current law stop this now?

Yes it is. The Law Commission looked at this area in 2012 and found that 1 in 5 NZ’ers up to age 30 had experienced cyber bullying and this is likely to get more common. The current law doesn’t provide victims with a quick and simple means to get harmful content taken down.

I do wonder whether you can ensure that this bill will in no way impede on the right to free speech we have now, as I see this is a worry strongly expressed by some.

The right to free speech has never been absolute but it is impt that we carefully balance the significant harm that can be done by cyber bullying with the protection of free speech. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure this balance has landed in the right place and the select committee looked carefully at that issue and we have worked with stakeholders to make sure the threshold for intervention is appropriately high.

How will digital communications be monitored? What capability does the government/police currently have to monitor social media and online comms?

The Govt will not be monitoring social media around this. The Bill provides options for those who feel their rights have been breached to go to the Approved Agency to look at appropriate remedies and if the matter can’t be resolved directly then the victim can go to the court to seek necessary orders The court will then decide if that is appropriate in that case. It’s up to the victim to initiate action.

How will the act ensure that claims of cyber bullying are legitimate?

The Bill requires that in the first instance the victim goes to the approved agency who can reject any claims that don’t meet the threshold for intervention and only if the claims are legitimate will that agency, or the court, be prepared to take any further steps.

Why does the law only cover electronic communications? Don’t victims of off-line bullying deserve the same protections?

The Bill is designed as a specific response to the particular insidious forms of harm that are possible through the internet given the ability for digital communications to be anonymous and spread to potentially millions within short periods of time. Off-line situations are different in harm caused and are covered in different ways.

A friend and I were discussing this Bill the other day. She has a disgruntled ex-partner that she is afraid might post private photos of her online. Would this cover that circumstance? Also, does it only apply to communications after the date of assent or is there a retrospective application for current victims of cyberbullying?

Yes the prospect of what is called “revenge porn” is one of the key issues the Bill seeks to address and the circumstance you describe would indeed be covered however the Bill will only apply to behaviour after the law takes effect. The criminal offence part of the Bill will start immediately for the worst sorts of activity however the approved agency will take a little longer to establish.

Re the school sector, how will this complement the services of organisations such as Netsafe?

The work Netsafe are currently doing with schools and others to educate around the harm that can be caused online and how to be safe is critical and this work will be a core part of the Approved Agency’s mandate.

How does this law prevent cyber-bullying from offshore? If I run a server in NYC and use it to twitter-abuse max key will i get in trouble? How does this bill protect little max?

If the Court determines that the post is unacceptable in terms of the Bill then orders to remove the content can be made against the person who has written the post and/or the website host. If either of those is onshore the issue is straightforward, if they are offshore then the issue is harder but most website hosts are responsible and seek to comply with court orders from jurisdictions like ours.

This is a fundamental right of free speech that is being stolen from from New Zealanders with no mandate from the people who elected this government, despite the vaque assurances. Why is it we get binding referendums on non issues like a flag change and not this one?

Most issues that Governments have to provide for do not justify referenda. Constitutional changes such as the flag are often considered to be the exception. The mandate to pass this Bill arrives from the election of us as Government and we did campaign on this issue and our intention to pass this law if elected. Furthermore the Bill has to receive the support of a majority of parliament (we are a minority Government) and to date has received overwhelming cross party support.

Who or what will likely be the Approved Agency?

That is a process we will have to go through post the Bill’s passage. I will run a fair and transparent process to ensure that the best organisation for the role is selected. They will need to show they have strong skills, knowledge and experience in this area and high levels of public trust.

Will anonymity online still be protected? Does the government see the importance of having anonymous online communities and protecting privacy online?

The anonymous nature of any contributions is not an issue under the Bill, the issue is whether the contribution breaches the core communication principles and causes unreasonable harm. If that is the case then whether or not the post is anonymous, the ability to take action will exist.

When you have two diametrically opposed bloggers as Whale Oil and The Daily Blog condemning this legislation, doesn’t that send strong signals that the proposal as written has serious flaws that need addressing?

I am of the view that the allegations as to how the Bill will operate are in some cases overblown and baseless. The law has careful safeguards and I have great confidence in our courts to ensure that action is only taken where appropriate and that robust exchanges of opinion (including political comment) will continue to be a common occurrence in our society.

Why does the criminal offence not provide a defence for causing harm that may be justified? Some of the on-line criticism of the so-called roast-busters probably caused them serious emotional distress, but I’m uncomfortable with making that type of criticism of the roast-busters a crime.

The Bill specifically allows the court to consider the circumstances of the case, the truth of the stmt, any public interest in the stmt, the conduct of the person complaining etc in making any take down order. In terms of the criminal offence these matters are considered as part of any decision to prosecute and by the judge in their handling of the case.

I’m concerned that this casts a very wide net. Will media be subject to this?

The law applies to everyone however it is highly unlikely that media operating in accordance with existing journalistic standards would ever fall foul of this law. If they did however do so then it is right that they be subject to the same approach as everyone else.

While the courts might resolve things, just the mere threat of being taken to court is often going to be enough of a threat to shut down healthy debate. Or is that not the case?

The issue of balancing freedom of speech with the need to better protect NZ’ers from some of the appalling tragedies we have unfortunately already seen was the core issue throughout the Law Commission work and the development and passage of this Bill. It is a new approach for NZ so I can understand the debate, however I, and those who have worked closely on the Bill are of the view that we have that balance right and that healthy debate will not be inappropriately stifled.

Time will tell how this Bill works in practice.

Note: questions and answers are slightly edited to de-personalise.