User Charged With Felony For Using Fake Name On MySpace 931
Recently a user, Lori Drew, was charged with a felony for the heinous crime of pretending to be someone else on the Internet. Using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Lori was charged for signing up for MySpace using a fake name. "The access to MySpace was unauthorized because using a fake name violated the terms of service. The information from a "protected computer" was the profiles of other MySpace users. If this is found to be a valid interpretation of the law, it's really quite frightening. If you violate the Terms of Service of a website, you can be charged with hacking. That's an astounding concept. Does this mean that everyone who uses Bugmenot could be prosecuted? Also, this isn't a minor crime, it's a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment per count. In Drew's case she was charged with three counts for accessing MySpace on three different occasions."
I'm George Bush (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the subject, not the content... I'd bet that it isn't his real name.
Re:I'm George Bush (Score:4, Insightful)
What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Informative)
This is about the girl who committed suicide.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24670474/ [msn.com]
And I agree. I think they should have taken a different angle in the prosecution.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Interesting)
>_ Yet another thing where someone did something heinous, and can't be charged for it, because there was no law against it.
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
At the very least, I'm sure there are laws protecting people against other people sending harassing and intimidating emails. I know it happened at college (almost every other year, there was a story about someone who faked an email address in order to harass someone.)
Unfortunately, if nothing else sticks, then TOO BAD. The protection of "everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" is that laws shouldn't be jury-rigged to punish someone for something that was otherwise something not illegal.
I recall there was a problem in Enumclaw with a man who would film himself having intercourse with a horse, and eventually ended up puncturing his intestines and died from it. As a result, prosecutors tried to get his friend who was filming for something, anything, but there were no real laws against bestiality at the time. So, they had to go with a misdemeanor or something of "animal abuse". Either way, they changed the law to ensure that someone couldn't do it again, or anymore.
So, the state they're in needs to pass a new law, saying that creating a false identity for the express purpose of harassing someone else is illegal. BOOM, problem solved for the future. Does it suck that she gets off? Yeah, it does, but that's how law is supposed to work.
But then, the only way we got Capone in jail was with tax-evasion... so...
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a woman in the office who gets offended if she sees two people talking quietly - because she just assumes that they're talking about her.
So, if she gets depressed about this and kills herself, you'd want everyone in the office to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
You have to base laws on the act and not on the effect the act has on someone.
Suicide is NOT manslaughter (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's one thing to make fun of an irrational person and a different thing to make fun of an irrational person? I certainly would classify as "irrational" a person who commits suicide based on something someone wrote in a website.
I remember the case of a guy I knew many years ago. He was a drunk who could never hold a job, but people bought him drinks because he told funny stories in the bar. One night he was walking home and took a shortcut across a garden when it was raining. He fell face down in a pool of rainwater and drowned. Would you say the people who bought him drinks were guilty of manslaughter?
Both cases are more or less the same, people who are basically unfit for life causing their own death. Normal people would need much more than reading an abusive webpage or walking through a garden in the rain to die. The teenage girl could have suicided because her favorite pop star got married, the drunk could have electrocuted himself in the bathtub.
It may seem callous, but people with such a distorted personality are living on borrowed time, no one can predict which act will cause their death. Of course, it's wrong to make fun of a neurotic teen or giving drinks to an alcoholic, but I don't think these should be classified as homicidal acts, because death couldn't be predicted, it wasn't even the most likely probability, it just happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
someone did something heinous, and can't be charged for it, because there was no law against it ...the state they're in needs to pass a new law, saying that creating a false identity for the express purpose of harassing someone else is illegal.
If the prosecutors couldn't find a law related to psychologically abusing somebody until they commit suicide, then probably they're not very good prosecutors.
If their laws really are crafted so this can't be conceivably called murder or manslaughter or bullying, then probably they're not very good legislators, and they should fix it.
But there's no reason any such law need to be concerned with false identities or cyberspace.
Contracts of adhesion & seeing what sticks. (Score:5, Interesting)
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
They're just doing what any good prosecutor does -- throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks.
That said, I think this is a real loser for the prosecution. There's no way the Supreme Court is going to let people be criminally liable for failing to obey a contract of adhesion. That's just madness. I doubt that this'll survive even at the trial level if her defense attorney hasn't forget everything about unconscionability since graduating law school years ago.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Creating permanent law to address temporary or one-off social problems or self-destructionism is exactly why our legal system is so screwed up today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that this was likely a rhetorical question, but IMO, the rulemakers do not live in the same world as us slashdotters. I would bet that many of the lawmakers still have VCRs hooked up, and the clock has been blinking 12:00 for 10 years. The lawmakers are just like every other "old" person. They call thier son/nephew/grandson for technical support w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"ou don't throw someone to the wolves for just using a pseudonym."
They do not throw people to wolves for just using a pseudonym.
"If MySpace even thinks of dragging my kids into criminal (or even civil) court just because they used a pseudonym? I will make it my business to do everything in my power to bring MySpace down."
They won't. Let's take a step back, look at the facts of the case, and avoid slippery-sloping this.
MySpace isn't going after Lori Drew just because she used a pseudonym. They are going
Re:Commonsense... (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic, it would be okay to go after someone for driving a car, as long as they drove the car over a few living bodies (whereas the crime is not in driving the car, but in driving the car over the bodies).
If you prosecute one person for the use of a pseudonym, you really need to prosecute everybody for the use of a pseudonym.
(see, I'm comfortable with prosecuting all tax evasion, I'm not comfortable with prosecuting all use of a pseudonym)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
Quite right. I don't expect this to be a regularly enforced rule. I believe it's more like getting Al Capone for Tax Evasion.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it sets a precedent, and every precedent shows up somewhere else, always more stringently enforced.
US law used to say that using any name one chooses was not illegal as long as it was not for the purposes of fraud.
E.g, if I called myself Tom Cruise and never made any attempt at connecting myself with THE Tom Cruise of acting semi-fame, I'm fine. "Are you THE..." "No I am not." End of problem.
If I went online as "Tom Cruise" and tried selling "Katie's used panties" for $100 each, well, that's fraud, and that makes the use of the name illegal.
The question here is if MySpace would have provided their service to this woman under her "real" name, or did they only do so because of the name she used. If they would have provided the service under any name she used, then there is no fraud. She got nothing she would not have gotten otherwise.
This charge is chilling. I have no doubt nobody expects my birth certificate to contain the words "Obfuscant", and "oahazmatt" doesn't contain that as his legal name, either, I expect.
It actually sets two bad precedents. One is that using a fake name is a felony. The other is that websites can determine when someone is committing a felony, instead of the legislature.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right. I don't expect this to be a regularly enforced rule. I believe it's more like getting Al Capone for Tax Evasion.
The problem is that in the wrong hands, this law would make an Al Capone out of EVERYONE. If they need to address a specific case, then make the law for that specific case!
Re:What the.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having laws which are only enforced at certain times or against certain people is folly. The authorities love it because it gives them leeway to enforce whatever rules they make up, under penalty of being convicted for a "crime" everybody commits. It's easy to see how this can lead to abuse; for example imagine a racist cop who pulls over only black people for speeding. Making the rules is the job of the legislature, not the police or the judicial branch. Laws must be defined precisely and enforced consistently. If there is a law that sometimes shouldn't be enforced, then it should be changed so as to explicitly exclude those times.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they do. They're not interested in enforcing this in general, but if you pull a stupid, nasty stunt that turns out worse than you'd imagined and they're under public pressure to do something to you (as is the case here), they have something in their pockets with which to charge you.
Most laws are not written with the intent to oppress others. Many of the worst ones in non-totalitarian states are written like this one: an overly broad law that can be used to arrest nearly anybody, and gives a well-meaning authority figure an unprecedented amount of power.
If we allow someone to have this power now, then we cannot take it back, if and when it becomes abused. (See the patriot act for an example)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's no law against tearing the tag off your own mattress. There's a law against tearing the tag off a mattress you're going to sell to a consumer.
People with allergies have a right to know their furniture isn't going to kill them. Once you've been informed by the tag on a mattress you've bought, you can do whatever you like to the tag.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree.
Does MySpace actually take any action to verify any of the personal details entered during account creation? Most sites required account activation based upon your e-mail address, and that is all. They send an activation e-mail to verify an identity. I personally have never received snail mail or even a phone call from MySpace asking me to prove any of the identity information that I entered was accurate. If MySpace takes absolutely no action whatsoever to verify a persons actual identity for their hundreds of thousands (millions?) of users then this seems like extraordinarily selective enforcement of the TOS.
MySpace TOS also states:
This Agreement is accepted upon your use of the MySpace Website
Seemingly they want to hold you to an agreement that you didn't even necessarily agree to. If your server keeps sending me pages upon request I'd like to know how that is not authorized use? You can revoke that authorization only if I actually agree to your TOS, IMO.
BTW, does using a proxy or anonymizer count as impersonating another person or using a false identity? Is it a felony? What if a friend is logged into MySpace and I browse the site using their computer? Is that a felony? Is it two separate felonies because one of us broke the TOS by letting someone else use their account and the other used an account that wasn't theirs to browse a few pages? What if I type a funny message on their messenger? What if I enter accurate account information but mistype my address or phone number? That's also in breach of the TOS. Is that a felony?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This scared me at first that it was just another case of "Sheriff Joe Bob" not understanding what these internets are all about but, its not as bad as it sounds.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is not as overbroad as the poster makes it out to be. As others have mentioned, this is the case where a mother created a fake online profile with the specific intent of harassing a girl (that ended up committing suicide). I haven't seen the court papers but she's most likely charged under the law NOT JUST for merel
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point though is that nowhere was there anything remotely resembling "unauthorized access of a computer". This was nothing but regular bullying done over the internet.
The equivalent of this is the popular girls in high school convincing the local star to be friendly with the ugly girl, only to humiliate her in the most public fashion possible. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is not the proper way to deal with this.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Funny)
Slow Down, Cowboy (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the people that make laws have absolutely ANY idea how the internet works and is used?
First of all, nobody's making a law here. This is a grand jury (12 ordinary people) getting persuaded to indict Drew based on a weird legal theory that probably won't stand up in court.
So if this indictment isn't going anywhere, why issue it? Because millions of people are pissed off about the suicide of Megan Meier [wikipedia.org], which occurred after she was humiliated via that bogus MySpace account. Of course, using an online account to humiliate somebody isn't illegal (if it were, we'd all be accessing Slashdot from jail!), so all this outrage had nowhere to go — until a creative Federal prosecutor came up with this ToS theory. Which, as I said, will probably go nowhere. Lawyers come up with strange legal theories. Judges shoot them down. Happens every day. That's why we have judges.
People need to dial back the outrage. Drew was allegedly pissed at Meier over some stupid teenage thing that happened between Meier and Drew's daughter. Then millions of people got pissed at Drew and demand that she be thrown in jail, never mind what the law says. Now you're pissed at some half-assed legal maneuver whose only really purpose is to appease all the people who are pissed at Drew. Too much pissedness, not enough thinking. Chill out, America!
Anonymity hurts us all. (Score:3, Insightful)
The more of you hide behind anonymity, the more denial will take place.
The more denial there is, the fewer decisions will be made rationally.
The less rational decisionmaking is, the worse our laws will be.
The more of you hide behind anonymity, the easier it is for the things you value to stay illegal or othe
Re:Anonymity hurts us all. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with you thinking that way, and what you say has a certain logic to it.
However, I am entitled to be anonymous. Yes, that's right. ENTITLED.
This country was founded upon belief that one person should not have the right to "screw" with another person. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. Well that includes absolute privacy and anonymity. You DO NOT have the right to come on my property, or stop me while traversing public property, and demand my identification. I am entitled, as an American, to say, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on".
Police officers are violating my constitutional rights when they demand my identification without adequate proof of suspicion that I have committed a crime. I have refused several times to the point of almost being put in handcuffs.
Let me qualify that a little. If I was driving a vehicle, the police officer DOES NOT have a right to demand my identification. However, he does have a DUTY to make sure that I am authorized by the state to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. In the course of fulfilling his duties, he would verify my identity. I don't have a problem with that. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. I DO have a problem when I am a passenger in the back seat and the officer asks me for my "drivers license".
So although you may see anonymity as a challenge, I see it as an absolute that must be protected at all costs. The country would be far less free with anonymity being outlawed.
That being said, I also believe that I have a right to demand the identity of any entity that wishes to deal with me. "Private Number" on the Caller ID? Leave a message. Don't want to give me your real name when I am doing business with you? Fine, we won't do business.
MySpace can demand the identity of a person wishing to use their services, but it is still not a crime to obfuscate that information.
Since there are plenty of people, and you certainly seem to be one of them (no disrespect intended), that are demanding that everybody "grow a pair" and reveal their identities there SHOULD be JUST AS MANY PEOPLE DEMANDING THAT THE INFORMATION BE PROTECTED.
However, that is not true is it? There is so much abuse, so my identity fraud and theft, so much distrust on the behalf of citizens in regard to their own government and private dealings with other corporations.
"Lying" about your information on applications for websites is just the tip of the iceberg. I not ONLY lie to ./ and other websites, but I lie to the GOVERNMENT. It is a defense mechanism. It only costs a little money and some time for somebody to obtain information about me from the government that is supposed to be protected.
There is a conflict of interest when the government makes money from the sale of your information while at the same time being charged with protecting it. That goes for private corporations as well. There is real danger to my person, my family, and my property by "growing a pair" and "standing up in public".
The decent thing to do is to be honest about who you are when you deal with people personally. However, while I am writing this post to you, millions or hundreds of millions of other people could also read it. I just can't simply say, "Yeah Rustin, that new $15,000 speaker system is AWESOME. I got one for myself in my home theater room" while at the same time having accurate first, last, address, phone, etc. information available in my profile.
There are too many predators out there and anonymity, either forcefully obtained or through "artifacts" of the Internet, is a required survival tool.
So if you really want to put your money where your mouth is, then post ALL of your contact information in your Journal. I want:
First, Middle, Last Name
Home Address
Work Address
All Phone Numbers
SOS#
Emergency Contact Information
Height, Weight, Eye Color, Hair Color, etc.
Children's information, information on your spouse, etc.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Funny)
You appear to be using an alias, would like to come with us for a little while. -TLA(Three Letter Agency)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You appear to be using an alias, would like to come with us for a little while. -TLA(Three Letter Agency)
Funny, but it brings up a good point.
I was under the impression that using an Alias is not a crime, unless you are using it to perform an illegal act.
Is this no longer the case?
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Signing up with a false name should only be fraud if one party can show financial harm or intent to cause damage. Otherwise, it is simply a breach of contract, which falls squarely into civil, not criminal law. I'd bet money that this case will be laughed out of court. At least on the surface, this screams prosecutorial misconduct.
That said, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is pretty broken, particularly with the "PATRIOT" Act "enhancements". They pretty thoroughly make working with computers into a minefield. Nearly everyone on the Internet has probably been on the wrong side of it at least once. Basically, it's a law designed to ensure that everyone is a criminal so that they can screw people over if you get on their bad side. Sadly, this could be interpreted as falling into the list of things that are criminal acts under that law.
What makes this particularly bizarre is that the only reason this is in any way a criminal act is because of the incidental use of MySpace as a vehicle. The same sort of attacks could have driven this person to suicide without that technological help and it would have been legal. In effect, the CFaAA basically boils down to "illegal on the Internet" laws, which is really idiotic. Something legal in person should be legal on the Internet, regardless of the inadvertent side effect of driving some kid to suicide. If you want to make it illegal on the Internet, it should also be illegal to do that same thing IRL. The Internet certainly shouldn't be held to a higher standard, and given the lack of any real verifiable identity on the Internet, should generally be held to a much lower standard.
Re:What the.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lori Drew signed onto MySpace under a false name (pretending to be a teenager named "Josh") with the intent to first pretend to be the friend of Megan Meier, then stab her in the back, getting other people online to gang up on her and torment her, even going so far as to tell her "the world would be a better place without you, and have a s**t rest of your life." After that last message, Megan hung herself.
I agree that charging Lori Drew with a felony simply for signing onto MySpace under a false name is reaching, but using a false name with the intent to harass someone should be illegal. If your harassment causes the person's death, then you should be liable for at least involuntary manslaughter.
Re:What the.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kind of hard to argue that she would have been able to do nearly the same thing without the internet, though. Let's say that, through some elaborate scheme, she could have gotten Megan to become pen pals with "Josh." No part of those conversations (or Josh's existence) would have automatically been publicly available to all of Megan's friends. She could have, say, photocopied the letters and mailed them to Megan's friends, but that would probably be seen by them as more creepy than anything Megan said. And none of it would have happened in realtime - Megan would have had significant cooling-off periods between letters. She could have gotten a guy to pretend to be Josh and talk to Megan on the phone, but getting a teenager to act convincingly for long conversations and not either blow his cover or actually start to feel bad for Megan would be difficult.
All around, it seems VERY unlikely that she could have pulled off anything near what she managed to without the internet. And at that point, it probably could be considered mail fraud at least.
I'm not saying they charged her with the right thing, or that there's a law in existence to cover what she did. Or even that there should be. But I don't think the issue is JUST that she did it over the internet instead of in real life. It's that this is a new kind of... crime? rude/bad behavior?... that may have existed in some form before the internet, but is so changed and enhanced and extended because of the internet that dealing with it is entirely different than dealing with whatever the non-internet version would be. So now that this kind of misbehavior has been taken to new heights thanks to the internet, is that new kind of misbehavior covered by the existing laws? Does it need new laws? Has it crossed the line into "things that should be illegal"? Asking those questions doesn't necessarily mean you're saying "Oh, this is bad now because it's on the internet."
Re:What the.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, you know, signing up to a website under a fake name is entirely justified with 15 years of prison time. Maybe you'd like the death penalty to anyone who steals a snickers bar or crank calls you as "I P Freely".
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why they couldn't have charged her with some form of harassment, endangering/abusing a minor, or any other number of things. I guess the prosecution saw violating the TOS as the easy way out.
Are you telling me that if she verbally abused that girl in person to the point where she killed herself that it would be A-OK by the law simply because she wasn't violating a TOS?
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there's a case for criminal harassment, it's just that no charges be filed against someone for 'inciting' suicide.
Committing suicide is an inherently irrational act. It's not anyone's fault but the person who does it.
If people could be held responsible for 'inciting' suicide, it'd be terrible. Imagine, you break up with your girlfriend and she decides to do something stupid, and suddenly you're to blame. Imagine, you tease someone a little, as is normal among friends, but that person takes it too seriously and a court finds that you've incited suicide. Imagine you do nothing, but this girl has a crush on you and kills herself because she thinks she can't even talk to you.
If there's a criminal act, such as criminal harassment (a very tough charge to make stick), or slander or libel, then charge for that. Don't charge for the consequences where someone else makes a very stupid, irrational decision.
Re:What the.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This wasn't a case of a little good humoured teasing. This was a case of somebody taking deliberate and malicious actions with forethought and planning with the express purpose of causing extreme personal distress to somebody. The person involved should be held responsible for the outcome, aka imprisoned and her kids taken into care. The only issue here is that the authorities don't have the laws needed to prosecute other than this lame fraud law.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're injecting them with anti-depressants and altering their brain chemistry, the final choice rests with the person who commits suicide.
Virtually every person on this site has a story to tell. We're nerds. The people who tormented us will never be charged on trumped up charges, because no matter how much it hurt, most of what's happened is legal. The reason then that this girl gets justice, is that she killed herself. We don't get justice, by contrast, because we didn't commit suicide.
It's not fair that we punish the few bullies whose targets choose to martyr themselves. They didn't choose to have their target commit suicide.
Re:What the.... (Score:4, Funny)
or crank calls you as "I P Freely".
Is that some sort of net neutrality joke?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You will also have to give out all of your personal information to every 2 bit site on the internet to spam you with.
Only if you want to take advantage of the services they're offering. If the price they ask (your personal information) is more than you're willing to pay, nobody will make you sign up.
If they want you to register and their TOS says "Enter any name and birth date you feel like here:", then put in whatever you'd like. If it says "Enter your name and birth date here or go away:", then either you need to enter your name and birth date, go away, or commit fraud. In most cases, fraud is an acceptable and very
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Build a web site with a fine-print ToS that prohibits visiting from any OS but <pick your favorite alternative OS, like, I don't know, Haiku [haiku-os.org] perhaps>.
2) Paste links to your site all over the web.
3) Search your web server logs for evidence of connections from other operating systems, in violation of your ToS.
4) ???
5) Profit!!!
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slander is a crime. Fraud is a crime. Already. The name used is irrelevant.
But say, it was to impersonate a person's friend, in order to lure them to a location to kill them, then maybe fifteen years isn't enough.
Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. Murder is a crime. Already. The name used is irrelevant.
Few, if any, judges would impose the highest sentence for a minor case.
Is this a minor case? Someone died. Is that less a crime than your colleague not getting a promotion?
Also, there is a significant difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of one.
Tell that to someone who's life is turned upside down because they had the laws twisted into a grotesque form just so they could be charged with something, anything, because what they had done was not actually a crime. Tell that to Steve Jackson, or anyone else whose business has been ransacked and destroyed because of a raid from the government looking for evidence of the crime he was charged with.
Tell that to the Duke lacrosse players.
The conviction of the prosecutor in the latter case is rare. Having a precedent like this in the books will make any case of prosecutorial misconduct for whipping up a frenzy over a "fake name" that much less likely, if not impossible.
This is bad precedent, bad application of marginal law.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. This is a serious issue about which I care.
The point of the law, I assume, is to make it difficult to commit the crimes you mention.
The point of the law is to enact a penalty for committing certain crimes. While there are certain laws that try to make it harder to break others (prohibition on buying certain chemicals so it is harder to make meth, for example), the laws involved here don't. A law against fraud does not make it harder to commit fraud, only that it can be punished when it is.
Your assertion is a lesser degree of saying, well, carrying an assault rifle into the post office shouldn't be a crime because attempted murder is already a crime.
Untrue. My "assertion" is that the law used to be that you could use any name you wished as long as it was not for the purposes of committing fraud. My use of the handle I am using here does not intimidate or scare any reasonable person; it does not make you fear me or do anything out of the ordinary (like cross to the other side of the street). Carrying an assault rifle is already a crime by itself. Carrying one into the post office is not "attempted murder".
I wasn't referring to my example but to the case mentioned in the article.
Comparative words like "major" and "minor" don't mean anything unless they are compared to something else. On a planet where there is no crime at all, stepping on the flowers is a capital offence (and Wesley should have been executed, it would have saved a lot of trouble in the future.) You were saying that the five year sentence would not be issued for a minor crime; most people I know would not call a crime where someone died a minor crime.
but I would argue being charged with a crime and then convicted is worse than just being charged.
A conviction brings some finality to the process. It is a spot from which you can try to rebuild your life. Being "charged" means you are always under suspicion, your property is always "evidence", and your life is open to even more searches for "evidence". "Being charged" means your name is in the papers and you haven't had the chance to clear yourself in a court of law yet.
I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of that statement, and trying to illustrate that there needs to be leeway in the range of punishment for any crime.
I agree.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to be photographed at the baseball game, you won't be arrested for covering your face with a baseball cap as the photographer snaps the picture.
You won't be sued for breach of contract if you cover your eyes during the scary/gross parts of the horror film.
Enter false information on the Internet site that wants to add you to their e-mail marketing list -- and the e-mail lists of their 1000 closest friends -- and you can be sentenced to 5 years in jail.
It's not the same.
Re:What the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be a perfectly valid reason for a company to delete an account. It's not a good reason to charge somebody with a felony.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are confusing "not okay" with "a criminal offence".
Just because a website has a ToS doesn't mean it gets to dictate what the law is. What the provider "expects" has got nothing to do with it. I don't get to pass my own laws, and neither should MySpace.
PS - I take it teknopurge isn't your real name, in which case, time to call the police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These websites routinely ask for information that is none of their business to know. It's not their business what my home address is, what my home/fax/cell phone number is, and so I've always lied. If anyone asks, my zip code is 90210, and half the time my name is Bob Dylan. I don't know of any internet saavy person who would put real information onto the Internet about themselves. It's the first thing they teach you.
Frankly, this should be struck down upon on summary judgement. The law goes against a basic
Re:Fudgepackers. (Score:4, Interesting)
Alternatively, you can say that most people will never be pursued for this kind of thing, but if they fraudulently open an account and then use that account to hound a 13-year-old girl to suicide, it's not surprising that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on them. Drew can't be prosecuted for harassment or child abuse, of both of which she is apparently utterly guilty.
It's not great, but I have to say that I'm glad she's being prosecuted for something. It's like Al Capone being busted for tax offences - it may not be the ideal, but it's better than letting her go entirely unpunished.
Al Capone... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the Al Capone argument is that it means you have to make everything illegal so that when people step out of line you always have something to charge them with, no matter how unrelated (eg. arresting murderers for tax evasion).
I'm not sure it's a path we should tread.
Re:Al Capone... (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit, I'm at a loss on how Lane's fraud can be punished directly. My first thought was try her for (psychological) child abuse, or maybe under some kind of anti-harassment statute. I wasn't able to find anything that seemed to fit. Any ideas?
Re:Al Capone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Capone was prosecuted for a form of tax evasion that is a secondary effect of living a life of crime, and a crime that 95% of law abiding people don't commit. This woman is not being prosecuted for being a criminal, she is being prosecuted for lying on a trivial form at a website that few take seriously.
Re:Al Capone... (Score:4, Funny)
a crime that 95% of law abiding people don't commit.
IANAL, but I think you're off by about 5% here.
Re:Fudgepackers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I think that is total bullshit.
People are having an overly emotional reaction to this case because it involves a 13 year old child who killed herself; but as horrible and disgusting as what Lori Drew did was, it does not make her responsible for Megan Meier's suicide. Megan Meier is the only responsible for that, and if it wouldn't have been this situation it could have been any other that occurs to teenagers every day; she suffered from acute depression. She didn't "hound her to suicide." People are responsible for their own actions.
We cannot allow laws to be created based on these sort of emotionally charged "one of a kind" situations. Violating Myspace's TOS is not a fucking felony, and it is NOT okay for DAs to decide to come up with some dubious legal strategy just to make someone pay.
That is wrong...In America it isn't supposed to work that way. you don't decide that someone needs to be punished more than what the law allows for based on what they did and decide that you are going to create some bullshit trumped up crap to do it.
IMO this particular charge should be thrown out, and if the court has any legal sense and a competent judge it will be.
Re:Fudgepackers. (Score:4, Insightful)
So then the people at "Catch A Pedophile" are committing a felony too. Damn, now how will we be entertained.
Careful with that double-edged blade.
Well, drive a girl to suicide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Drive a girl to commit suicide, and get prosecuted for loggin in under a fake name...
I don't know whats worse, the ACTUAL crime that isn't criminal, or the prosecution under criminal statutes for something which shouldn't be considered a crime?
Re:Well, drive a girl to suicide... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not as familiar with US law as I am with UK and NZ law (and IANAL, yada yada) but isn't this how prosecutions in the US usually work? She's being charged with anything and everything (three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress, and one count of criminal conspiracy [wikipedia.org]) in the hope that at least one charge will stick. To me at least, Criminal Conspiracy seems fair enough and I'd imagine that that would be the charge that stuck. Have faith in the defense, the jury and the judge...
Re:Well, drive a girl to suicide... (Score:5, Interesting)
How it usually works is that they'll charge you with everything possible in the hopes that you'd rather plead guilty and get 10 years instead of taking a chance with a trial and getting 30 years. Whether you're innocent or not doesn't matter. What this really amounts to is punishing you for exercising your constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial. Plea bargaining is damned abusive, and should not be allowed.
Re:Well, drive a girl to suicide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our society has gotten lazy with law enforcement. Proving that somebody commented THE crime is hard, and making all really bad behavior is hard. So, we just make it a crime to do silly normal things and selectively enforce the laws. EVERYBODY in America is a criminal - do you think you go through a single day without violating SOMETHING in the Code of Federal Regulations, or any aw passed by any legislature in the last 200 years that hasn't been repealed, or anything contrary to common law? Plus, those laws make a convenient excuse for performing searches/etc (your honor, the grass looked taller than 2.3 inches so I knocked on the front door, and in plain sight it looked like there might have been an illegally-copied CD sitting on the table, and when I walked in to grab it I noticed some cigarette packages on the table in the other room so I went over to check their seals and then I noticed the lamp that could also be used to grow weed and so I called in SWAT to bust open every wall in the place...).
The job of the cops is to figure out who the bad guy is, and the job of the prosecutor is to figure out something in those aforementioned library-filling tomes to pin them with. Gotta love it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand
Quoted from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html [brainyquote.com]
Re:Well, drive a girl to suicide... (Score:5, Funny)
Drive a girl to commit suicide, and get prosecuted for loggin in under a fake name...
Yeah, what's the deal with that? That's like "Orchestrate the St. Valentine's Massacre, and get prosecuted for tax evasion." Just so friggin' wrong....
Sincerely,
A. Capone
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Mr. Capone,
You did evade taxes, which was still illegal.
Love,
The IRS
Circumstances? (Score:4, Interesting)
Guilty of Extremely Bad Behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, of course, the Lori Drew who worked hard online to bully and demoralize a teenage girl to the point where she committed suicide.
The question is, since no laws exist which would allow her successful prosecution for her actual offense, why prosecute her for a violation of a site's TOS, which would establish a dangerous precedent for many users who simply don't want a site to have their private information?
This case belongs in civil court, not criminal. Let the dead girl's parents sue Lori Drew, prove their case, if possible, and collect monetary damages.
Re:Guilty of Extremely Bad Behavior (Score:5, Interesting)
What monetary damages? Millions from a woman who probably has more debt than assets? While I agree the setting of precedent is kinda scary, I think the woman should be punished as a criminal in every way possible to punish her for directly driving a girl to suicide. Then again, I think what she did should be criminal - psychological harassment - but, I don't write the laws...
And that is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why we have so many bad laws. You're essentially saying "I want blood and I don't care what the wider effect on society is."
Sometimes the first person to commit a particular type of crime will simply need to be left unpunished. The proper thing to do is to pass a new law that specifically targets the bad behavior without catching normal behavior in a dragnet.
Allowing prosecutors to stretch an existing law so that it can target largely harmless behavior is not a good idea.
If you like that sort of behavior then why not just pass a law that says "prosecutors are allowed to punish anyone with 5 years imprisonment for any reason" and then allow them to selectively punish people whenever they do something nasty that isn't illegal. What could possibly go wrong?
Not that it makes it any better... (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that because of that, IMO, the feds are out to nail her on whatever they can, not because of a site's terms of use policy. Though this would set a terrifying precedent.
oh no not again (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot needs to change it's slogan from "News for nerds" to "Editorials for nerds."
This type of legal action is nothing new and has been happening for decades and there's nothing wrong with it. If you commit a heinous crime, they will charge you with every single criminal act they can find no matter how small.
Slashdot would love for you to believe that this is something new that's never been done before that will have incredibly powerful effects in the future when the opposite is true. It's been happening for a very long time.
I should keep count of how many "articles" here aren't actually news but heavily biased editorials designed to feed the paranoid.
Not that bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Patriot Act, Telco Immunity, now this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I should post this as AC...
Lori Drew is reprehensible. But we HAVE laws for harassment and disorderly conduct and libel. These can all be applied. There are even laws regarding prank phone calls (which might be best used as reference here). We DO NOT need new precedents that reduce the ability of the individual to access information anonymously.
See...we have the first amendment that guarantees the freedom of speech, press, and religion. What we don't have is a guarantee of unfettered access to information. Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught fucking someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam).
Damn...imagine the implications for 10minutemail.com
Under common law (Score:3, Insightful)
You may use any name you wish unless you intend to commit fraud. From wikipedia:
* One may be employed, do business, and enter into other contracts, and sue and be sued under any name they choose at will (Lindon v. First National Bank 10 F. 894, Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1, In re McUlta 189 F. 250).
* Such a change carries the exact same legal weight as a court decreed name change as long as it is not done with fraudulent intent (In re McUlta 189 F. 250, Christianson v. King County 196 F. 791, United States v. McKay 2 F.2d 257).
* This at will right is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment (Jech v. Burch 466 F.Supp. 714).
wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read the indictment, and that's not what it says. The relevant federal law requires that the unauthorized access to be done in furtherance of some tortious or criminal act. To extort money, to cause physical injury, to get government secrets, to damage the computer, etc. In this case, the defendant gained unauthorized access to myspace to intentionally inflict emotional harm on this girl. Now whether that qualifies as "physical injury," I don't know; they might have to show that the defendant intended the girl to physically hurt herself or sustain injury as a result of the abuse. But even if it gets thrown out, it is still close enough to justify bringing the charge in the first place. No, it is not a symbol of the horrible legal oppression everyone suffers here. I am not especially pro-prosecutory; in fact, I almost joined the public defender's office after law school, and I am very skeptical of prosecutors in general. But I'm also sick of the ridiculous overreaction everyone here has everytime anyone anywhere is charged with a crime.
Fake or impersonation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Were they using a pseudonym or trying to impersonate someone else?
Its perfectly legal to have a pseudonym in the real world, so how the hell can it be illegal in the cyber one?
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me enlighten you... "Ethanol-fueled" is a screen name, alias, or nick name. When you sign-up for Myspace you are asked to complete a form with your name and identifying information, however you can choose to have a separate and unrelated screen name, alias or nick name. My Yahoo e-mail address, for example, has no relation to my personal name, but I provided my personal name to Yahoo to sign-up for the service.
Since everyone is going haywire about this, let's look at an offline example. If I complete a loan/job/cell phone application and indicate that my name is George Bush (it's not) and provide other false information, I could face legal consequences for providing such false information. Should we get all up in arms about that? Most companies are going to take additional steps to verify my identification before they give me a loan/job/cell phone. Even though they will verify my identity that doesn't make me less liable for providing false information. Either the user is responsible for providing accurate information or the company is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information provided. Do you want MySpace/Newegg/TigerDirect to call references, run a credit report, or take additional measures to verify your identity or do you want them to accept your promise that you are accurately representing who you are?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Under the law, and this has been tested repeatedly, you can call yourself anything you wish SO LONG AS THERE IS NO INTENT TO DEFRAUD. There is no legal requirement that you call yourself by your birth name, except on certain documents relating to property. Since there is no monetary loss here, there was no fraud. Deceiving someone SOCIALLY is not fraud. If it were, every high school clique would be in jail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I complete a loan/job/cell phone application and indicate that my name is George Bush (it's not) and provide other false information, I could face legal consequences for providing such false information.
I'm sorry, but signing up for MySpace is not in the same category as applying to any of those things. The closest real-world equivalent I can think of is signing up for a hobby/book club.
If you tried reporting someone to the police for signing up for the chess club with a pseudonym, the police would right
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Listen up (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not a bad law. It is a unique and inventive use of a law intended to punish people who crack into systems.
And, they have a point as the terms of service for MySpace state that, in order to use the service, one must provide correct information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any law that is "intended to punish" is a bad law. The purpose of a law is to set absolute standards of behavior; the punishment is merely a necessary component of the law to deal with noncompliance. If a law is drafted such that you don't feel like punishing some people who have violated the absolute standards of the law, that law has failed and is a bad law. So tell me: Do you really feel that the government should punish everyone who falsifies their identity in violation of the law?
Yes it is a bad law. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not a bad law. It is a unique and inventive use of a law intended to punish people who crack into systems.
It doesn't matter if it can or is intended to be used against genuine criminals. If it is so broadly written that it can be used to turn a minor breach of contract into a federal felony it is a bad law, period.
Breaking a contract is a matter of civil law not criminal, and is punishable only by restitution of actual and punitive damages, not prison time. The actual damages caused to MySpace by her actions are at most harm to their reputation, but even that they would have a hard time showing. The proper punishment for false registration in this case is no more than terminating the account.
And, they have a point as the terms of service for MySpace state that, in order to use the service, one must provide correct information.
People can put just about anything into their Terms of Service. Can you honestly say that you have even read every TOS for every site you have membership on? Do you honestly believe that it is reasonable to charge someone with a felony for not following any random thing that is put into the TOS? Do you honestly think that providing a false name is the same level of crime as hacking a system? Because that is exactly what the prosecution is arguing in this case, and from reading the law, that seems to be what it says.
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Interesting)
If you abuse this law (meant to deter actual computer crime) to criminally enforce the TOS of any random website, it sets such a bad precedent that we can basically jail anyone that uses the web, a phone, or any device with a computer in it such as a car or a washing machine.
The biggest problem, besides the overreaching law, is that any idiot can -- and does -- write his own TOS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please explain how "we can basically jail anyone that uses the web, a phone, or any device with a computer in it such as a car or a washing machine" in detail.
Or, are you arguing by hyperbole, which is basically a lie?
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Insightful)
There are SEVERAL things they could get her on: criminal child abuse, coercion of a minor, etc. But no, that would be too much work. Instead, they want to give her felony charges for violating the TOS of a website. I'm all for making sure she's punished, but this is not the way. Have the DA actually DO HIS JOB and not hoist her on something that can set a precedent which can be later used to fuck all of us at will...
Re:Listen up (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiight. Your exactly the reason why this law is being abused.
Your emotional reaction to this young girls death has clouded your judgment. You even admit that the "American Legal system" is "messed up" with regards to technology, but have no problems allowing the law to "malfunction" as long as it hurts Lori Drew. That's hypocritical and a desire for nothing less than mob justice.
What you don't understand is that this would create precedent. This is bigger than Lori Drew and it is bigger than that poor little girl who committed suicide. I am not an "unfeeling monster" either. That little girls death was a horrible tragedy, Lori Drew's actions were unconscionable, and it is a sad commentary on just how degraded society has become.
Terms of Service is a legal contract, a CIVIL agreement, between two parties. To say that the deliberate obsfucation of information while signing that agreement is a felony is outright lunacy. It is at most fraudulent and MySpace would have to prove what damages it incurred as a result of said fraud IN A CIVIL COURT.
Lori Drew's actions with respect to MySpace (and only MySpace) were not remotely "hacking" and not remotely criminal in any sense whatsoever. The only action she committed that should be investigated by the DA is contributing to that little girl's death. I don't know what criminal laws apply to that, but hacking is not one of them.
So although I can understand why you are angry and upset at Lori Drew for her actions, and I empathize with the parents and family of the little girl, it DOES NOT JUSTIFY anyones desire to apply criminal law incorrectly to a civil dispute.
If this precedent were to be created it allow ALL websites the ability to verify your information and forward any disputes about its veracity to the local DA. Having the DA prosecute people for "lying" to MySpace, Google, Yahoo, HotMail, Slashdot, etc. is not in the best interests of our society.
Quite simply put, the fact that Slashdot has NO accurate information regarding me and my account is NOT hacking and it is NOT a crime. If you believe it is, be careful. All somebody has to do is hack your connection at home, create a fake profile at MySpace, notify the authorities and you will be playing the "Mammas and the Pappas" in some prison.
P.S - For those that might not get "Mammas and the Pappas" its a joke and use your imagination.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you don't trust a judge and jury to appreciate the difference?
What about email? (Score:3, Funny)
Guess that makes me a felon? Or am I only a felon if I get caught?
Re:just respect the Terms of Service (Score:5, Insightful)
And just how many people have a) the time to read 20 pages of small print and b) the education to understand all the legalese ?
Simply put, NO one but lawyers or lawyer wannabes reads the terms of service because the average man on the street can't understand it
Re:Anti-Pedophile Law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction please: Why some of /. love her so much.
Personally: If this law is the only one they can find to get her under then so be it. Personally I'd rather it was something like manslaughter but this is better than nowt.
Re:Anti-Pedophile Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes she should. But the charge should be "lethal harassment" or something, not "using a fake ID on a website" or "not following the terms of service".
It's always such bullshit cases that set extremely dangerous precedents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the case of a criminal acquittal, they can't. Double Jeopardy would apply.