Recently Lori Drew was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for signing the up for a MySpace account under a fake name. While the larger circumstances were quite shocking (and have been covered enough I don’t think I need to go into them), she was charged for nothing more than pretending to be someone else on the Internet. The indictment calls this a felony, under title 130 section (a) (2) (c) of the US Code, which criminalizes anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication.” 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.Huh. I wonder if this could affect the ability to blog or comment under an alias?
[Via Carl S]
13 comments:
No actual damage done, just a violation of "terms of service"? And it's a felony?
What would "Publius" and "Poor Richard" say? I think we know.
"Aaaaalmost there."
On another freedom Website, a columnist is quoted re: Olofson, saying that Olofson wouldn't have been imprisoned for a mere malfunction, that GOA lied, and that the government doesn't persecute people.
I asked "Where's HE been since April 19, 1993, and before?", to include the Weaver tragedy.
The MySpace case: The evening newscomment magazine shows are always talking about Internet predators who can glean more information that one realizes from even short chats. Is abduction, rape and murder preferable to discretion and caution? Apparently so.
They'd have to get by me to get my granddaughter for something like this. It would be ... expensive.
We may all have to start signing-on like Mike V. complete with address.
or we could just lock and load.
Did you read the other case? Guy getting persistent spam did a "zone transfer" to check up on the source. Fined $50,000.
The law means what they say it means. Today.
Which means freedom of speech is for the prosecutor.
In Parade Magazine, the Sunday newspaper insert, Barack Obama talks about "faith in one another as Americans," his mother telling him how the Constitution "protected us from brutal injustice we witnessed other people suffering... abroad" and how we can tuck our children in ... safe from harm" and say and write what we think without hearing a sudden knock at the door."
Where has HE been?
Today's paper has a letter to the editor about a candidate for "change" and what happened when he was chosen. His name was Fidel Castro.
People I know assure me that no one can access MySpace information beyond the individual's public "front page" without e-mailed permission from the originator of the page. Is Ms. Drew being prosecuted for viewing public documents anyone -- MySpace member or not -- can view, provided voluntarily? Wow. That would be a whole new level of "misuse."
Why they are charging her with this BS "crime" and not for the harm she actually did to that young girl is bewildering. It is as if it is more wrong to violate some policy than it is to cause a disturbed young girl to become so upset she hangs herself, at least in the eyes of the state.
Pretending to be someone else and writing objectionable content under that name doesn't seem all that different from libel to me. That is making a mountain out of molehill; MySpace.com can simply delete the account, and let visitors know through disclaimer that the content of their site may not necessarily be authoritative. If the name is a trade mark, then the owner has both the power and the responsibility to defend it.
If it is a felony to use a pseudonym in all cases, then anyone who uses a pen name or a stage name is a felon. It is likewise absurd to think that all six billion people on the earth have unique names; opening up a bank account if your name was "John Smith" would be a punishable act if another John Smith already had an account.
I don't see how this is access without authorization. She created the account, therefore she was "authorized" to access it.
I note, however, that "unauthorized computer access" is yet another felony crime that would have you permanently disarmed.
For those of you who are unaware of the actual case, please google Lori Drew's name, and that of her target, Megan Meier. Lori did a horrible thing, but having a fake name on the internet wasn't it.
Ah, THAT case. Harassment -- one might even say sadistic terrorism.
Since any Internet service provider can and probably WILL provide private details of one's account to law enforcement ON REQUEST now, this false identity on MySpace thing is overkill and the ever-popular making an example. It'll do as much good as tacking on misuse of a firearm to a mass murder, abduction and rape spree.
Kent McManigal wrote:
"Why they are charging her with this BS "crime" and not for the harm she actually did to that young girl is bewildering".
I know that was a rhetorical question, but it may deserve an answer - or my opinion, anyway.
The bottom line is that the state really doesn't care about people being murdered. The crime is removing a "human resource" replete with the taxes that they will pay to the state over a lifetime.
There was likely some statute that the government could have used to prosecute her.
But the issue is similar to Waco and other government-caused atrocities. In my view, the government thought that they would have the support of the people because of the "child abuse" and "drug dealing" that they claimed were reasons for the assault.
In this case, since a young woman died, the premise is that it's better to prosecute her with SOMETHING rather than let her walk.
Since they want to literally make everything a crime, this is a way to prosecute her and actually have the support of the sheeple while establishing a case law precedent.
The Congress only passes statutes, i.e., the Statutes at Large and the U.S. Code. Yet there are 200 or so volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, the Congress has permitted the Executive Branch through its alphabet soup agencies to make positive law - something that is not permitted in the Constitution but which has been upheld by the Supremes.
So this prosecution is simply a way to assert more power over everyone who uses the internet, with the blessing of the sheeple.
Since I can't use an internet nom de plume, I remain,
Anonymous.
yeah, that law is big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.
Brilliant assessment, anonymous. Nailed it.
Post a Comment