New CFAA Could Subject Teens To Jail For Reading Online News 230
redletterdave writes "Anyone under 18 found reading the news online could hypothetically face jail time according to the latest draft of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is said to be 'rushed' to Congress during its 'cyber week' in the middle of April. According to the new proposal floated by the House Judiciary Committee, the CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service – or an employer's Terms of Use policy – as a criminal act. Applied to the world of online publications, this could be a dangerous notion: For example, many news websites' Terms of Use warn against any users under a certain age to use their site. In fact, NPR and the Hearst Corporation's entire family of publications, which includes Popular Mechanics, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle, all disallow readers under 18 from using their 'services.' According to the DOJ, this would mean anyone under 18 found accessing these sites — even just to read or comment on a story — could face criminal charges."
What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the next step will be to make it a crime to use the internet to complain about the Gov on Gov sites as long as the Gov sites' ToS state it.
"Thank you for visiting congress.gov. By visiting this site you agree to contribute the legal* maximum to each member of Congress ..."
* by "legal" we mean as much as you have because no one even prosecutes us for breaking election laws (which we're going to get around to repealing anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear on how this law would directly infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Welcome to the USSA, where you get all the justice you can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior restraint. If a website entirely forbids the posting of an entire class of image, let's say abstract art, then because this law establishes a criminal charge for doing so, it should be considered prior restraint in that case.
Since this law does not rule out cases like the above (and it would be incredibly difficult or impossible to write it in such a way that it did), and there almost certainly are websites with such restrictions in their TOS, it thus violates the first amendment quite grievously. As
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time.
All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time.
All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.
Thanks Aaron. [wikipedia.org]
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but this law would count as quite the double-edged sword...
Y'know the old cheesy warez-site belief that you can ban cops or require them to identify themselves as such when asked on a sign-up form? This gem of a turd would make those true.
Beautiful. Truly beautiful.
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
>Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time.
>All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.
Not everything, but yeah. A US Attorney can make your life a living nightmare if they get a bug up their ass about you. It's happening to a friend of mine. He owns land, and leases it out to farmers. Farmers grew pot on it without his knowledge. Now US Attorney Wagner is trying to take his land, and, you know, why not? All his other assets too. And all his family's assets. Just because he wants to make an example out of them.
If you want a book that will simultaneously enlighten and enrage you, I highly recommend Harvey Silverglate's "Three Felonies a Day". In it, he talks about how DAs and other prosecutors will laugh and joke about all the different ways they can throw completely innocent people into prison, and runs through hundreds of case studies showing how they abuse their power in conjunction with ambiguous laws to throw people into jail who had no idea they were committing a crime, and even the prosecutors didn't try to argue had a mens rea.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 [amazon.com]
What needs to be done:
1) Decriminalize a lot of things. Aaron's Law (which is the polar opposite of the law in TFA) would be a good step in this direction - make violations of EULAs civil, not criminal, cases. And do this for a whole set of things. (In the book, one artist was thrown in jail because his scientist friend bought some stuff for him - got sent to jail because arguably the wrong name was on the application).
2) Require a mens rea ("guilty mind") to go to jail for most things. Right now, many statues operate on strict liability that really should require intent to commit a crime instead.
3) Eliminate or clarify ambiguous laws. While it sounds nice to be able to make something nice and vague, in reality it means that US Attorneys can warp or twist the wording to bring a life-ending case against a person or business they don't like.
4) Eliminate prosecutoral bribery. A defense attorney would get disbarred if he offered a witness a million bucks to tell a certain story in court, but prosecutors can and do do this all the time. They approach some underling in a business, arrest them, threaten them with a life in prison for having the gall to work for Enron as a middle manager... but then offer to let them off if they only tell a certain story in court against the Big Fish they're trying to land. It shouldn't be constitutional, but SCOTUS ruled it is, because it would otherwise destroy the "justice" system as it stands right now.
Re: (Score:2)
A principle even older than the 1st amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
A significant principle of the 'rule of law' and 'freedom under the law' for a long time has been that there should be no penalty without a law that imposes it. The principle is so old it was there in Latin too, "nulla poena sine lege", and some (including me) regard it as one of the important foundation-stones of a free society.
What the maxim didn't spell out (maybe because it was thought obvious, or should be) is that the law needs to be one that makes it clear and specific enough so that people know in advance what the penalty-earning conduct is going to be.
The ingenuity of some modern legislators subverts this principle while pretending to respect it. They design and pass blanket laws -- such as, arguably, the CFAA -- which are so broad, that they generically criminalize harmful and harmless conduct alike (or, harmful conduct along with other conduct that ought to be considered harmless except it goes against the interests of the legislators' friends). It seems to be assumed (occasionally said right out) that the harmless acts swept up into the breadth of the law will be treated as 'de minimis'. Then it is left to the discretion of prosecutors to pick the cases 'really' deserving of punishment.
Of course one big question about these blanket laws is whether prosecutors should be trusted with that kind of power (I'd answer 'no', and point to the recent Aaron Swartz case).
But an even bigger issue is that the result of subverting the principle of 'nulla poena sine lege' in this way is, that no-one really knows any more what conduct is going to be forbidden in practice. A whole lot of folk get theoretically criminalised for the harmless actions swept up into the over-broad laws, and can only rely on the legal system ignoring the 'de minimis' actions. This is obnoxious for so many reasons, including that harmless acts ought not to be criminalized even theoretically. But it is worse when the blanket law becomes used as justification or pretext for punishment when a prosecutor wants to really get nasty with somebody for some quite ulterior reason not made publicly known. Then the real motivation for punishment can become deceitfully concealed under a veneer of sanctimony '. . .but he broke the law'.
I can hardly think of any subversion of the legal system more poisonous to freedom and the rule of law than this.
-wb-
Re: (Score:3)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obviously, 'the people', in keeping with 'the people' in the second ammendment, refers to gov't organized and sancioned groups and 'the press' refers to established and licensed newspapers and news reporting organizations. Of course, the ri
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it doesn't sound like you've looked at TFA too closely. It just points out that some news sites happen to have provisions in their TOSs that (purport to) restrict access to people over a certain age. The new draft CFAA would apparently make it a crime to violate those terms.
This is a stupid, unjust law, but I think it's probably not the product of a dastardly conspiracy to keep the public away from the news.
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Simply talking about breaking the terms of service caries the same felony punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
What part of the law are you looking at?
Conspiracy is not "just talking about." You have to make an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. It's a tricky area of law (and one I don't much care for) and some statements, under some circumstances, might constitute overt acts, but it's safe to say that "just talking about breaking the terms of service" isn't enough, without more. And in this respect CFAA is really no different from any other law. Of course, if the law is bad, conspiracy liability for breaki
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, let's try this variation:
Me:Honey, I'm thinking I'd like to sign our daughter up for a Facebook account, even though she is twelve.
Wife: That's probably okay. All her friends are already on it, and she is very responsible.
Suddenly...
BOOM! Conspiracy to commit computer fraud. Which carries the same penalty of actually committing computer fraud. Which includes potential jail time for both parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, could be. Although I think the main thing to be outraged about is that there could be direct liability for this kind of behavior. Conspiracy liability just adds to the crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So does that make schools guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor is they suggest keeping up with current events?
Re: (Score:2)
That was what second amendment is for.
QUICK FIX: amend TOS to prohibit congresscritters (Score:2)
and other legal types like justices, sworn officers, etc.
as soon as the jails fill up with them, and you find out everybody else in the courtroom is guilty under examination, this gets fixed quickly.
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't attribute to malice that which can be accounted for by stupidity. Congress is an example of representative government in action. Most people now are idiots and they elect idiots who make idiot laws. Hence we have crazy legislation like this that we don't even need. At least once we're all in jail we'll be safe.....I guess.
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, most people now are not idiots. But curiously some /. commentators can make such a crass generalisation without understanding who is left looking stupid as the words come tumbling out.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not that they are outright idiots, its just that there is a massive culture of willful ignorance gaining popularity in the US over the last couple of decades.
This has a side effect of making a lot of them seem too stupid to even talk to.
Re: (Score:3)
Most citizens are apathetic. Whether or not this is a sign of stupidity or just a simulation of stupidity remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
The result is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
its just that there is a massive culture of willful ignorance gaining popularity in the US over the last couple of decades.
And how is that any different than any other time in human history? The fundamental dynamic of ignorance is our very limited ability to understand reality and death.
Re: (Score:2)
What most people don't have is the opportunity to select from a range of choices that goes from very good through excellent and up to perfect. That range only exists in the imagination of people who have lost touch with reality. So people try to make the best choice they can.
Meanwhile because they didn't all choose the non-existent imaginary fantasy option then some self regarding conceited dicks call them stupid and talk about them with contempt, the same contemptuous attitude they claim to observe in th
Re: (Score:2)
Man I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Don't take it so hard. Just take a look at television, massive mental drivel and guess why? It sells! Why are we inundated by SPAM? Because idiots, well okay, people who don't have opportunity to make good choices, respond to the SPAM. Why do we get assaulted by telemarketers? Because people buy stuff from them! Of course I guess you think if they just had better choices they wouldn't do these things. Ah well. Have fun with your idiot friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows they are being bombarded by attempts to manage their behaviour and attitudes. The idiots are the ones who mistakenly think that others don't know this and who believe themselves too intelligent and insightful to be influenced. Just because you can combine this conceit with some snobbery about mass media production values doesn't make you either specially intelligent or any less probe to manipulation. It means you are influenced a little differently by those nasty cheap shows with garish ad
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even most idiots realize that things like this are fucking crazy...the representatives don't care, though, because they make the $$ and have the power. Oh wait, they make some of the $$ and have some of the power but they have corporate puppeteers to answer to that helped put them in office, hence legislation like this. Terms of Service as LAW??? Holy shit...that has media organizations written all over it. Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
More power in the hands of corporations (Score:2)
Because they have handle the power so well so far...
Only in America (Score:2, Insightful)
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Psh, we wave our dick and canada/europe/australia will copy paste the same law in a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not really. Think of the British Terrorism Act. One thing this outlaws is being in posession of information that may be of use to a terrorist. A recipe for bread could be information that is of use to a terrorist (they have to eat, after all).
More importantly, law writing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I might just declare everyone tax exempt.
You can't do that, but you can make everybody stop paying taxes under the ToS of your website or face criminal penalties for the violation. Bwahahaha.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me... (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of a female blogger several years ago after that tennager suicide case. She reported that she heard match.com didn't allow married people to use their site. She said that couldn't risk confirming this herself, since she was happily married.
The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?
Re:This reminds me... (Score:5, Funny)
The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?
"You've got to accept the Terms of Service, so you can find out what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a really stupid f-ing idea.
Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.
So if I create a Facebook account without real information I've committed a crime now?
Anyone voting for this is too damned stupid to be passing laws about technology. We've been giving too much power in terms of EULAs and 'licenses' where companies make up their own terms which would be otherwise illegal -- applying the force of law behind this shit would be bad for all of us.
Morons.
Re: (Score:3)
So if I create a Facebook account without real information I've committed a crime now?
Yep.
On the other hand, this mixes in a pleasingly perverse way with that law to make it so that you have to give you rfacebook password to an employer discussed earlier, since they are comitting a federal crime if they USE that password.
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful. Employers and people looking after copyrights will be given exemptions to use 'extra legal' methods in order to pursue their requirements.
Thee and me get screwed, but companies and other donors will be exempt. Politicians, as always, will be exempt.
Just like how Sony never got prosecuted for installing root kits or the *AAs can use shady techniques to investigate -- because they were protecting copyright, so all of those pesky law
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most sites have TOS lines which say you can't share your password with anybody, and that you're not allowed to log into someone else's account or ask for their password.
So this notional employer logging into your Facebook account most likely is in violation of the TOS, and would have broken the law.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really stupid f-ing idea.
Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.
You think they don't know this? Believe it or not, politicians are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are not writing this law so it can be applied to every violation of every TOS. They are only going to prosecute violations of the TOS of powerful corporation
Re: (Score:2)
and only when it serves the interests of the powerful corporations.
And corporations are fictional constructs to limit liability to bad actors granted by __________________ .
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to write that, but it's not quite accurate. See the Aaron Swartz case. JSTOR didn't want to press charges, and MIT didn't make their opinion known. It was because Swartz was a political activist that he got the book thrown at him.
Ban Politicians (Score:4, Interesting)
ToS *SHOULD NOT* Be Criminal Law (Score:5, Insightful)
These constant actions by Congress to make ToS Violations Criminal Offenses sheds light on the true goal of major corporations to essentially take direct control of the population and do and end run around the American Legal System.
I am a professional contractor -- when a jackass client tries to weasel out paying because they got the specs wrong (which can happen when I subcontract for a shady jackass), and want me to pay for their fuckups, can I have them thrown in Jail for Breach of Contract? HELL NO.
But it seems that if you violate a ToS - which is nothing more than an agreement of conduct vis a vis a Contract -- it seems Congress thinks Corporate America should be able to have you thrown in jail for not playing by whatever arbitrary rules they concoct. And more startling these criminal sanctions will be FEDERAL OFFENSES, trumping State Rights. Essentially making the DoJ the strong arm of the Fortune 500.
Frankly, I find this startling and to be unashamedly over-dramatic -- a testimony of the true intent of the US Congress and their Masters to enslave the unwashed masses of the US into a captive audience for the American Citizens -- the Corporations and the .5% subject to criminal persecution and Federal Mandates to buy products (insurance and whatever else they decide to create "free markets" for of US Corporate Cartels)
At this point it doesn't matter if this Bill passes or not -- a very clear message has been sent: COMMON PEOPLE ARE NOT WHO CONGRESS SERVES AND CONGRESS IS WORKING AS HARD AS IT CAN TO ELIMINATE COMMONERS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND SUBJECT THEM TO THE WILL OF THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS.
In light of this, I'm changing my TOS (Score:2)
Too bad it appears the article is wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
The article is sensationalistic click bait.
I don't see any such language in the document that was linked within the article. All I see are laws against trafficking in passwords, unauthorized access to a computer system to obtain financial information, non-public information from any government agency, or damage critical infrastructure computers.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A TOS governs authorized access to computers. You could argue that the TOS by itself is a form of protection. It's a weak form of protection like CSS.
If you are reading the law like a programmer, then you're reading it wrong because it will get bent out of shape by lawyers. The worst possible interpretations will be acted upon.
It's like you missed that whole Aaron Swartz case...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TOS usually describes what is authorized access and what is not.
So well its kinda are there.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is sensationalistic click bait.
On the internet? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Re: (Score:2)
Quoted from the document:
(4) EXCEEDS AUTHORIZED ACCESS .—In sub-section (a), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
‘‘(2) intentionally—
‘‘(A) accesses a computer without authorization, and thereby obtains—
‘‘(i) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
‘‘(ii) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
‘‘(iii) information from any protected computer; or
‘‘(B) exceeds authorized access, and—
‘‘(i) thereby obtains from a computer information defined in paragraph (A)(i) through (iii); and
‘‘(ii) the offense—
‘‘(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
‘‘(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
‘‘(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
‘‘(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity; or’’.
The next section, dealing with forfeiture, is even more fun to read...
Anyway, I suggest everyone with a web site sets up a honeypot, as follows:
- Require an account to log in ("protected computer").
- On registration, displays a long and convoluted (but not whimsical) TOS, preferably copied verbatim from some big site, in a small, non-resizeable box, in all caps, and requires to hit an "I agree" button.
- Somewhere in that TOS, insert a statement like "ENTERING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENTER
What is motivating congress? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm starting to wonder what is motivating the law makers when they repeatedly come back with a worse proposal than what was just rejected.
Start with the fact that they are politicians first and lawmakers second. Add to that the fact that there are some who are not particularly bright.
Maybe I should... (Score:2)
Maybe I should create a website that has the following terms of service: "Any legislators who voted for this stupid law are forbidden from accessing this web site. If you voted for this law, you are now in violation of it and are now a criminal who belongs in jail", and then send them all links to the site to all of congress.
Our politicians are usually too stupid to realize the effects of their shitty decisions until they are subject to them.
Obviously no legislators will actually be going to jail for this
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should create a website that has the following terms of service: "Any legislators who voted for this stupid law are forbidden from accessing this web site. If you voted for this law, you are now in violation of it and are now a criminal who belongs in jail", and then send them all links to the site to all of congress.
Sounds like you'd be charged with entrapment, enticement or some other such thing (law enforcement) people use to get what they want at your expense... Let me know where you're imprisoned and I'll mail you some soap-on-a-rope.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal instead of Civil - that's criminal. (Score:2)
The CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service – or an employer's Terms of Use policy – as a criminal act...
... According to the DOJ, this would mean anyone under 18 found accessing these sites — even just to read or comment on a story — could face criminal charges.
IANAL, but why would violating a private - basically contract - agreement be a criminal act rather than civil? Do we really need and/or want the criminal courts enforcing things like this. Also, what damages would be incurred by the sites? Surely there must be people in Congress that understand this.
I for one (Score:2)
would welcome complete internet prohibition for minors if it enabled an uncensored, politically incorrect, non-think-of-the-snowflakes mindset.
I'd have to quit my job (Score:2)
I violate my corporate IT policy on a daily basis, just to get my job done. At the moment, I get away with this because i) the IT department aren't sharp enough to detect it and ii) the people who know I do it, know that if I didn't do it, half the stuff I get done would not get done.
If a law were passed in my jurisdiction making this a criminal act rather than a harmless yet productive eccentricity, I'd have to quit and become my own employer.
mm, what's the word I'm looking for.. (Score:2)
Moronic.
First of all why would such sites as Popular Mechanics, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle disallow kids of 18 yrs or younger.
Innapropriate Ads? Content?
Sheesh
Now, if this proposal becomes law somehow, we will have to deal with a new can of worm such as, for example;
a kid makes his school project (report, research, etc.) based on news and he used from one or more of these sites which are allegedly for 18 yrs or older, then, a possible lawsui
Re: (Score:2)
They are fully aware that sane parents are just ignoring that p
The fundamental problem (Score:2)
This and.. (Score:2)
This BS and the non stop lies and propaganda of the "news" industry!
violation of ToS (Score:2)
Actually the article says "if you violate the terms of service on a government website ", so it wouldn't apply to your neighbor&dog's websites or Facebook. Otherwise, since in the US most ToSs can be changed as the weather changes, overnight and every minute, every website operator could turn their users into criminals as they wish. Which would be a tad ridiculous.
Re:Alarmist much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The odds are much better than this is actually how the law is being written, and they are "expecting the court to correctly interpret it" because, you know, that' the job of the courts... to interpret the intended meaning of the law. (facepalm)
Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.
Re:Alarmist much? (Score:5, Insightful)
And then they complain about 'activist judges' who tell them their laws, as written, are crap and can't possibly stand in law.
If you can't pass a law which is actually compatible with your legal frame work, don't be surprised when a judge rules it void because it violated half a dozen legal foundations.
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).
This is just more stupidity to pander to big business and screw the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This needs to change. Let's start a lobby.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
fuck your lobby. I'm starting that website
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this law comes to pass, I fully intend to create a private website that has personal information about me. The TOS will state that various parts of the site are off-limits, and that it is forbidden to access those parts of the site.
When the site is indexed by Google, I'll take them to court. They've got the clout to get this shit taken care of... and a good time will be had by all.
Re: (Score:2)
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this.
The very idea of this bit of legislation is so unfathomably stupid the only explanation is that these congresscritters have absolutely no idea how the internet works.
Re: (Score:2)
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).
"By visiting this site, you agree not to vote for [list of all people who sponsored the bill] or else pay a $10,000 penalty."
Get them where it hurts - right in their re-election campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they want to do that? They're mostly lawyers, and if the law were written correctly and unambiguously, people wouldn't need their services anymore, now would they?
Re: (Score:2)
Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.
Not only a bother, but intellectually beyond the reach of some members of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Terms of Use include the phrase "you will give the owner of this website a blowjob for every page loaded" will violators be going to jail?
If it serves the interests of the powerful, then yes. Egregious TOS terms will be ignored until it's convenient not to ignore them. They deliberately write laws that can be misinterpreted in order to be able to deliberately misinterpret the law to punish their political opponents. c.f. Aaron Swartz.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...they're not as wrong as you'd think. The law criminalizes "exceeding authorized access" which has been construed to mean "violating the TOS" if it
(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity;
I think TFA might be wrong that this covers violating the TOS of news sites -- it would be a stretch (but not impossible) to say that online news falls into any of these categories. But it could cover lots of other online services with pretty disturbing results. (Think: lying about your age on an online dating site.)
Amish Clause (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent!
Re: (Score:3)
Then you need a prosecutor who is brave enough to prosecute.
You're missing the beauty of this. It needed ever get to the courts at all. Just send an official-looking document to each of the "accused" threatening to go to court if they don't pay a "settlement fee". All of the abusive power of the RIAA/MPAA/Prenda asshats can be yours for the low, low cost of a web server.
Re: (Score:3)
What are the odds of it passing?
See ObamaCare...Pelosi said "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Passed without being read.
And then, just think about all the congressmen being told about all the children this will protect and all the terrorism it will prevent and you have your answer.
This will be passed without a single person reading the bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this bill passes!
Secretly, I do too. I can think of a number of ways to make money off this before they have time to repeal it.
Not ethical, no, but it would be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
"It must also be driven into every American's mind as they vote that every single government position is A POSITION OF SERVICE TO THE ELITE AND THE CHOSEN. "
Fixed that for you.
Re:Main problem (Score:5, Funny)