Cyberspace a Separate Place?

Sierran writes: "According to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals (and reported by The New York Times) cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location. This has some interesting legal ramifications; does this mean we'll see Internet 'virtual estate' zoning as in Stephenson's Snow Crash?" Most courts have held the opposite - that internet activities are firmly rooted in the real world, located wherever the computers and people are.

Comments

Good and Bad

[Craig Maloney]

This could be either good or bad... Good because governments may not have the jurisdiction over the internet, and bad, because freedoms we take for granted like free speech and such may be unenforceable.

Not sure what I think of this... It's of course too soon to tell what the ramifications of this case are.

Re:Good and Bad

[plaisted]

Free speach exists by default, so to speak. If there are no laws otherwise and no one enforcing censorship etc., then there is free speech.

Think about it: Curtailment to free speech happens when a government threatens to do something (fine, jailtime, gestapo knocking at your door) if you say something they don't approve of. If the government does nothing like that, then anyone can say whatever they want.

Applied to the internet, you have to assume that anyone can get a web page, which is a reasonable assumption, I think.

Re:Good and Bad

[ichimunki]

Eh? According to the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment they should be treated the same. So what's your point? Or are you insinuating that things like web pages do not fall under either the rubric of "speech" or "the press"? Or that e-mails don't have the same protections as analog mail (i.e. accorded as speech)? Or that an internet chat isn't as protected as a face to face chat? Quit playing semantic games, it will make for a much cleaner debate.

Re:Good and Bad

[GigsVT]

Free speach exists by default, so to speak. If there are no laws otherwise and no one enforcing censorship etc., then there is free speech.

The opposite is also true. If you have no laws PROTECTING speech, then there is no free speech.

Your speech would only be as free as the speed with which you can draw your sidearm.

Re:Good and Bad

[invenustus]

What keeps Cisco from updating IOS to disallow any traffic to ./?

Uh, the money they'd lose by doing that? That's probably within their rights now. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to do everything I can to help you speak, it just means the federal government can't forcibly stop you from speaking.

Location

[Red Aardvark House]

I thought the Napster case, if not setting precedence, gave insight into the idea that your jurisdiction is where the servers are. After all, if not for the servers, then the infringement could not take place.

In this case, the house is in Tampa, not only serving up webcam feeds, but where "the action" is taking place. It almost seems trivial that the images are distributed over the internet, since the place of manufacture is clearly in Tampa.

Re:Location

[well_jung]

In this case, the house is in Tampa, not only serving up webcam feeds, but where "the action" is taking place. It almost seems trivial that the images are distributed over the internet, since the place of manufacture is clearly in Tampa.

That is true. However, this case was about wether the zoning laws should apply. What they (Virtual Dorm) were doing was NOT illegal, per se. It's firmly covered by the First Amendment.

At issue here was if the city could use it's zoning laws to kick them out of that neighborhood (probably to save the children). The court ruled they can't, since the zoning laws are meant to allow cities the ability to keep casinos, strip clubs, and car factories away from the neihborhoods where the people that actually vote live. The reasoning for this is to avoid negative imapacts on property value, crime, and genreal peacefulness. Since the Internet was the forum for the service that Virtual Dorm provides, nobody was physically going to the house to watch the girls. Since nobody was going to watch them @ the house, the house isn't really where the infringing behavior is going on, and none of the traditional issues with strip clubs wrt zoning were applicable.

It's quite different to run an Adult website than to run an "Adult" bookstore or a strip club. Not many bachelor parties hanging around outside your Co-Lo breaking beer bottles and pissing on flowers. ;)

Re:Location

[well_jung]

I don't follow your reasoning. I don't think I said anything that you've contradicted. The reason they dont have to follow a zoning law designed to keep "Adult" establishments away from residences is that they are NOT a "normal" or conventional "Adult" business. They don't have crime, noise, drugs, violence, disorderly conduct, etc.. because nothing happens but some chicks getting video taped. There are no customers @ that site. The traditional periphial crime associated with gambling/strip clubs just does not happen.

I can't speak to the tax evasion, but that's generally beyond the scope of municipal zoning laws.

Four words:

[sllort]

Where is this comment?

Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

setting up an end run on the Constitution

[LorenzoV]

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a state cannot charge sales tax on goods ordered from another state; this is a direct violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. Now, suppose that the internet is declared to be present in all states simultaneously. This would now open the door to states charging sales tax on internet purchases, regardless of the nexus of the merchant.

Re:setting up an end run on the Constitution

[kenthorvath]

Yes, however because the company is located in another state it is them that you are ordering from, using the internet is just a means of communication, much like mail ordering, only high tech. If the internet exists in all states simultaneously, it also exists in all countries simultaneously, and so only international law should apply.

Re:setting up an end run on the Constitution

[Artagel]

A small clarification. States cannot tax goods without an in-state nexus without congressional permission. That is because the Supreme Court ruled that nexus was a requirement it is a dormant commerce clause violation. A dormant commerce clause violation is one where the courts are going to presume that Congress wants things a certain way if it has not spoken, and Congress has not spoken yet.

That is why we need to worry about internet transactions being taxed by states -- one little law, and boom it will be happening, and it would be constitutional.

I donn't know about everyone else but ....

[vtechpilot]

When I am online its is a special magical place completely different from my living room. I loose all contact with the physical world. I know this because I can't hear the telephone ring.

Re:I donn't know about everyone else but ....

[vslashg]

You need to up your connection to some form of broadband. Or at least install a second phone line.

it is out there

[VEGETA_GT]

"cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location"

Think about it, I sit here at my compute, but what I do/say is out on servers everywhere. Do I know where, no. And can we consider the info being passed around to be something you can hold onto. No, its in a electronic form. Once something is on the net, its everywhere. What physical object can be everywhere at one. None.

The net is its own universe onto its on. You can't really apply one countries law onto it since it extends to all places in this world. cyberspace has physical entry points in this world (pc's, servers) but after that, its just out there

my 2 cents plus 2 more

This is a *zoning* law issue

[bill_mcgonigle]

But you wouldn't get that from the summary, would you?

The court is interpreting the zoning laws properly:

...the Supreme Court has held that a city has authority to zone or displace an adult business, because it has an important interest in preventing so-called "secondary effects" on adjacent properties -- such as a decline in property values or an increase in crime.

Yet "those concerns are not implicated in this case," Weinberg said. Voyeur Dorm's business does not encourage "guys with bloodshot eyes to tromp around the suburbs of Tampa, looking for naked ladies," he said.

This is clearly a case of prudish interests trying to use a zoning law against its originl spirit, and not getting away with it. That's good. But it's not a major change in cyberspace law.

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[jd]

Ok, then let's address this from a zoning perspective. A residential property has no business acting as a commercial property, no matter what form that commerce takes place in.

Then, there's the issue that it's trivial to take an internet address and turn it into a physical address. (Well, so long as you have the right software tools.) At which point, I would have to disagree. Since it's cheaper for some crazy freak to download a few bits of software, establish where this house is, and simply go there, instead of paying whatever fees this cam charges (whether openly or not), it =DOES= affect the local area.

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[jd]

Let's say you were selling those million baseball cards on eBay. You've openly informed anyone with, ummm, less honest intentions, that you've somewhere between a million to ten million dollars worth of goods, in a difficult to impossible to trace form. What's more, most people who would sell on eBay are unlikely to be rich (since they'd then sell in a major International auction house), and therefore are likely to have minimal to zero security.

Since most US houses are wooden, a simple ram-raid would be sufficient. In many US States, police response times to basic alarms is 30 minutes, plus. Ram-raids are not subtle, but from what I know, they ARE quick, cheap, and very difficult to prevent.

In short, you'd be attracting people to your house, alright. Maybe not the sort of people you'd like, but that's just too bad. You don't get to pick and choose.

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[cpt kangarooski]

Exactly. It is in no way a jurisdictional action, and that is what many, many more networking cases tend to revolve around. Here it is just how zoning law is applied.

The court has merely interpreted the zoning law to be intended to prevent the activities of some defendant from upsetting the activities of some plaintiff. If I opened a piledriver testing facility next to a hospital, that would be in violation of the zoning laws regarding sounds.

If I could _mute_ the piledrivers so that there was absolutely no alteration in the condition of the people at the hospital whether they were on or off, I would not be in violation of that particular law.

That it involves the internet really has nothing significant to do with it

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[Sloppy]

Ok, then let's address this from a zoning perspective. A residential property has no business acting as a commercial property, no matter what form that commerce takes place in.

What a crock!

I know that bullshit like the D^H[censored to avoid controversy, but still pretty damned easy to guess] has gotten most people used to the idea that laws simply exist to force foreign values and artificial contraints upon others. But don't ever forget that there used to be actual reasons for laws. Anytime someone is accused of breaking the letter of some law without any consideration given to that law's purpose and spirit, we are all getting fucked.

In the case of zoning laws, their purpose isn't to tell people they're not allowed to make (or lose, if you're a dot-com ;-) money at home. It's because commercial entities typically have customers, employees, etc coming and going all day. Most people don't want to live next to a McDonalds or a Bank of America -- I already get all the carbon monoxide that I need, thankyouverymuch.

If the purpose of commercial zoning was to somehow control whether or not the activities that people perform, are allowed to lead to money, then the whole concept of "home office" wouldn't be tolerated.

"Oh no, you were thinking of an invention while laying in bed one night? If that invention might be profitable, then please get outta this part of town while you do your daydreaming. We don't want your kind around here."

"Building Apples in your garage? Hey, I'm calling the cops!"

"Wait a minute, that porn you shot -- you're going to sell it? Whoa, whoa, that's a zoning violation."

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[ReelOddeeo]

Should it be illegal for me to post on Slashdot and say that I have ten million dollars worth of palm pilots located at:
123 Silly Street
Nowhere Nebreska, 69999

Should it be illegal for me to auction off the above mentioned items on e-bay?

I would point out that the zoning laws predate the internet, and the ability to tell 1 million people that I would like for them to please break into my house. I need the insurance claim.

So leaving out your e-bay example, is there anything else wrong with the zoning laws as written? Aren't they reasonable, as is?

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[ReelOddeeo]

Would a steady stream of fedex trucks be in violation of zoning laws?

Maybe I'm selling something. Maybe those trucks are making deliveries?

Do the zoning laws actually try to distinguish as to whether I'm receiving or shipping 1 million miniature anatomically correct Cmdr. Taco dolls? Or do the laws limit the number of fedex trucks?

Re:This is a *zoning* law issue

[Artagel]

Although the case does not state this, it is generally preferred to interpret statutes to avoid constitutional issues if reasonable. Here, by interpreting the zoning law as not addressing the internet context, the constitutional First Amendment issues are avoided.

This ruling does not prevent the town from amending its zoning law to specifically cover the issue. At that point, the constitutional issue would be unavoidable.

Not really another place

[Rupert]

This is not really about the location. If the company running the Voyeur Dorm was showing the live video feeds on a TV in its offices in (say) Miami, then that would be subject to Miami's zoning laws, not Tampa's (where the house is). Presumably a city could come up with a zoning law that restricted the areas in which adult web-hosting businesses could operate.

This ruling would strike down such zoning laws. The judge ruled that because there are no secondary effects of operating the business (late night visitors, disturbances, unsavory characters roaming the streets) then the city does not have the right to restrict constitutionally protected behavior.

And quite right, too.

Re:Not really another place

[jd]

America is in the hands of the Religious Right extremists (so much so, that the President is capable of making openly religious remarks, with barely a whisper of a complaint about the seperation of Church & State, and even fewer complaints about our Beloved Leader ranking himself as having greater morality than the very God he preaches about.)

Given that, anything which offends the Religious Right (anyone of the wrong color, sexual orientation, gender, occupation, etc) is open to being targetted by State-sanctioned terrorism. Don't think it can't happen in the US - it does, far too much already.

What does this mean? Should these girls not sell what they want to sell, because of some potential threat?

I don't give a damn what these girls do, but I DO object to the claim that what they do cannot affect the local neighborhood. Should anyone decide to destroy immorality, in that area, they are likely to destroy most of the surrounding landscape, too. Including other people, who have nothing to do with this.

In short, what they do affects EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING that they are near. Whether they should have to pay attention to that is another issue, though them being selfish a-holes certainly doesn't inspire confidence that they would voluntarily consider the wellbeing of those around them.

Terrorists, whether State-sancioned or not, Religious or athiest, are not discriminate. They want results, they want them quickly, and they want them dramatically. I'd say anyone living within a block of the cam, especially in times as troubled and dangerous as these, is living in a much higher risk bracket than almost anyone else in America.

Re:Not really another place

[unitron]

Isn't that rather like saying that you believe abortion should be legal, but that no one should actually perform any because if some lunatic bombs them the people in the building next door might get hurt?

Don't look at it backwards

[Dooferlad]

Most comments posted so far are looking at this from the point of view of people creating different laws for Cyberspace. This isn't really in the spirit of the ruling. The point is that Voyeur Dorm wasn't selling sexually explicit material in a particular area where it was banned. This doesn't mean that I, in the UK, can import pr0n on the net, and say it is OK because it is in cyberspace. The point is that cyberspace sales don't affect the people in the area directly by changing the atmosphere of the area (the law that was being challenged was to do with keeping sales of a sexually explicit nature away from residential areas, because it changes the mood of the area for the worse). You can't just use this ruling to say "DECSS doesn't break the law, because the law doesn't apply to cyberspace", the law does (in all the places I know of at any rate).

-- Dooferlad

Re:Don't look at it backwards

[jd]

I can see your point, I just don't agree with the conclusion the courts came to. Anybody can figure out the geographic location of a server, with just a few simple tools and a map.

Since this is possible, it follows that the area cannot be assumed to be unaffected, merely because the commerce is over the Internet.

(This does not mean that I think any given activity should be legal, banned, or purple; just that courts - and even technically-aware people - have a tendancy to jump to conclusions, rather than think things through.)

Ok, so far I've established that I disagree with the conclusion, but what, exactly, are these tools that enable you to figure out the geographic location?

First, there are the "obvious" ones: ping, bping, traceroute, tracepath, prtraceroute, prpath and xtraceroute. Yes, you do need all seven, as they all supply different information. As not all routers supply their geographic location, the key is to use the closest known router. From there, you can use the names, IP numbers and AS number to figure out what block of addressed belongs to who, over what geographic area.

This gives you a radius you can plot on that map. By using prpath, you can determine the number of paths from any given AS number to any given destination. This allows you to eliminate a certain percentage of that circle you just drew. (More paths and higher intermediate timings, the further away. More paths and lower intermediate timings, the closer & better-connected.)

Then, you simply use a bit of detective-work. Servers need power to run, so you can ignore anything marked as thick forest, swamp, ocean, etc. The better the connectivity, the more money these people have. (Not many slums have T3 or T4 lines running to them.) Likewise, poor connectivity suggests an area without much cash. Otherwise, they wouldn't be running a server on some cans & string.

By this time, you're probably in the region of a few blocks. But you can narrow it down still further. The lag is a function of routers, but it is also a function of distance. (Partly because signals don't travel instantaneously, but much more because long lines will generate more errors, requiring more retransmits.)

What you need to do is calculate the approximate length of the line, by calculating the effort required to induce errors on that line. ping and bping are good for this. Just load up the line, and see how the delays vary with load.

Ok, now you've got the length of the line. This gives you an arc inside of those few blocks I mentioned. The server is located in that arc.

Once you know that, then it's a question of going down there and figuring out which of the remaining houses on your list are likely candidates. (If the cam shows a dozen people, houses with a dozen cars are more likely than a house with one scooter.)

There. A simple recipe for tracking down any server on the Internet. Simple? Sure! All the tools are free & commonplace, and it requires the user to be able to add, subtract, and draw circles and lines. Hardly rocket-science! There is nothing in this list that an 8-yr-old couldn't do, with zero training in computing, but with a basic understanding of geometry.

It's also legal, unlike the REALLY quick method of finding out. (Phoning the ISP, pretending to be someone in authority, and bluffing the information out of them.) Bluffing is the single-fastest way to locate anything, anywhere, but as Kevin Mitnick found out, it's often the fastest way to make some SERIOUS enemies. (He was a "computer cracker" only in the technical sense. In the professional sense, he was a bloody good psychologist and a phenominal manipulator to boot.)

Re:Don't look at it backwards

[NMerriam]

By your line of argument, zoning should also be able to prohibit strippers from living in a neighborhood. After all, it takes far less work than you detailed for customers of a strip club to find out where a stripper lives and start hanging around her neighborhood.

All you've shown is a lack of security for the girls, not any violation of zoning...

Re:Don't look at it backwards

[unitron]

"it's-all-about-the-base" music

All your bass are belong to us.

What about gambling?

[Rand Race]

With this ruling, which makes perfect sense with regards to zoning laws (sorry P2P people, this doesn't cover you), it seems that online gambling should recieve the same protection. For adult businesses and gambling establishments the reasoning in controlling them via legislation is their 'secondary effects' on the immediate community. There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries and since online-only businesses do not have any significant detrimental effect on the surrounding communities they can not be contrilled via zoning restrictions. Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous.

Now, what about online prostitution?

Re:What about gambling?

[graybeard]

There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries

I can think of a couple off the top of my head: the state has an interest in enforcing the contract between you and the casino, viz., that the game is fair. Also, states hate to have untaxed economic activity within their borders.

Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous

By this reasoning, laws against murder are also contrary to the 1st amendment. (Thou shalt not...) The Constitution does not prohibit an ethics, even one based on a religion, from influencing the law. Indeed, Christianity *does* influence Western law, Islam *does* influence law in the Middle east, etc.

Now, what about online prostitution?

It's run by companies like Covad: you give them your money, you get fucked.

Re:What about gambling?

[mindstrm]

Regarding the 'state enforced contract'. Sorry.. bullshit. Yes, that may be true in many places... but an online casino loses it's business FAST if it's not honest. That goes DOUBLY for online casinos.. as it would be even easier for them to cheat their customers. Most are audited by very reputable firms every year to ensure the house take on the games is *precisely* as they stated it would be.

We all know the reason the government regulates gambling is because they want the taxes.. nothing more. Everything else is just PR nonsense to get people riled up about it.

Also... with regards to online casinos, forcing them to run from jursidictions outside the US simply moves the business & associated jobs, etc, outside the country.. it does not change the customer base AT ALL. that's the point. I can assure you that Americans gamble like mad online, all the time.. at casinos that are all run outside the country, by other americans, pefectly (despite the odd test case) legally.

Re:What about gambling?

[mindstrm]

Well.. actually....
Despite the ill effects of gambling.. gambling is largely illegal for a) religios and b) greed reasons.

All other reasoning about how the government is 'protecting you' from the casinos is simply the government finding an excuse to collect more tax.

The fact of the matter is.. online gambling is a huge business, and the US is simply missing out. (on the economic benefits of having the online casinos run domestically, I mean). As for the gamblers.. they gamble anyway, at online casinos, run by americans, run from other jurisdictions where they have perfectly legal gambling licenses, pay gambling taxes, etc, and simply spend twice as much on infrastructure costs to run their businesses.

Re:What about gambling?

[mindstrm]

Again.. I suspect that the real reason behind such regulation is either Religious, or Greed...

The state want's it's taxes.

Gambling is regulated so the government can make money.. period. Every other 'excuse' for regulation is just that.. an excuse. 'Let us take care of that.. we're the government... that's our job'.

Re:What about gambling?

[unitron]

USB

Universal Sexual Bus ?

But it would be irelevent

[maddogsparky]

If it is a seperate place, does a terestrial government have authority over it? A law passed in the US has no force in Great Britain. Is this the beginning of a "virtual country" with a virtual government and laws? This would be established by netizens for the same reasons real-world governments exist--security, infrasturcture, and (for some people) power over others.

This is a Fourth Amendment workaround.

[Poodleboy]

Anyone worried about trivial things like taxes is missing the point here. This is clearly a Fourth Amendment workaround--an attempt to evade the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The last time the government tried to pull this with wiretapping even Louis Brandeis couldn't save us and the precident stood until 1967! Here's a good link about Olmstead vs. the United States.

Might just be the first step...

[mystery_bowler]

in making cyberspace fall under the jurisdiction of federal law alone. It kind of makes sense in a way, if the "location" spans states and the state governments themselves can't agree who should be enforcing what laws, perhaps it's up to the federal government. Of course, then you get into international issues, like off-shore gambling, participating in illegal activities via the 'net overseas. Will the 'net then fall under U.N. jurisdiction? What about countries not in the U.N.?

Back to the subject at hand: I would think states would want it both ways here. Make it so that they can legitimately tax sales online (ignoring current interstate sales laws), without having to go to the trouble of enforcing criminal laws of the Internet themselves.

Feh...I could be wrong. :)

Finally a Reasonable position

[haplo21112]

Finally some legal sense and recognition of what we have all always known. Hopefully the will be the beginning of more legal precedents getting set. CyberSpace is different, and should be considered differernt from a physical location. Almost to the point that its considered a different state/province/or even country all together. To this end even the laws governing CyberSpace should be made by those involved in and using cyberspace, and not by those for the most part "disconnected".

The municipality

[truthsearch]

I can't believe this case even went to court. Anyone could videotape a porn movie in a private house in that municipality and later sell it in a store. But it's not ok to transmit the video over the internet?

The government really needs to stay out of people's homes.

oh dear god...

[turbine216]

...the new york times just inadvertently gave 10,000 geeks the address of the Voyeur Dorm.

I can't imagine what we'll be seeing tomorrow...

CmdrTaco Arrested with Pants Around Ankles, Stalking Frightened Co-Eds

You heard it here first...

Re:Law

[haplo21112]

Go Further, any machine connected to Cyberspace, is therefore part of Cyberspace, and therefore any content contianed within it is IN cyberspace.

Re:Tax?

[shibut]

Based on previous rulings (e.g., sales tax) the physical location of the business does matter for tax purposes. In fact, in the sales tax case residents of any state in which the company has an office must pay sales tax. I don't think the IRS would give up their share w/o a fight...

Separate nation?

[Pogue Mahone]

Does that mean we can make a declaration of independence?

Nothing to see here, move along...

[Kjella]

Basicly it's a ruling stating that this company isn't causing problems in its neighbourhood, and therefore doesn't violate zoning regulations. If they were producing something that's illegal in the state in general (say if making such video recordings at all were illegal), it'd be different, then the laws will apply as normal. It's simply a case of a company not violating the *intentions* of zoning regulations, and therefore got off the hook. And I'd say it's a good thing, that sometimes the legal system looks at laws and make sure they are enforced as intended, not only by the letter.

Cyber Jails?

[squaretorus]

Show me a cyberspace jail and I'll start taking this seriously. We cannot proclaim cyberspace to be a 'place' without throwing out all hope of redress when someone commits a crime there.

The only arguement against this is that it is nigh on impossible to kill someone online, or even do them physical harm (anyone challenge this??) and as such the worst crimes cannot be commited entirely online, and so will come under a physical locations jurisdiction.

Crime against property, stealing the contents of someones bank account, wiping their hard drive, any act committed online are relatively minor and so it doesn't matter that we can't 'get justice'. This is the brave new world we just chose to live with that.

As I said - that would be the only arguement I could think of to support the 'other place' concept - and personally I think its so full of holes to be a joke.

Re:Cyber Jails?

[InsaneGeek]

You can kill someone from online, how about the guys who were breaking into the power grid? That could do some really interesting things, think home respirator getting immense electrical surge or cutting power. Also where does "online" stop, is it just the "Internet", Internet2, BBS, connection over a phoneline to another system. There's probably a nuclear power plant somewhere in the world that has a modem, etc. connection, there could be some massive deaths there (course that's very improbable of ever occuring).

I don't know about you, but if I had all my money wiped from my bank accounts it would *not* be a minor thing, it's not like people keep cash in a hole dug out back. Think about people who are retired and living off of their savings from the past 50-60 years, and ALL their money is now gone, what are they going to live off of?

I don't think anybody could support these types of arguments, and as you said are way full of holes.

Re:Cyber Jails?

[InsaneGeek]

I don't know about you, but there are some countries that I would not put surprised had access to certain controls on their nuclear power plants. Chernobyl had a failure some years before it's melt down due to shoddy workmanship. There are many countries around the world using nuclear power who aren't as closely regulated as others.

I wasn't talking just deleteing money, how about mucking with a person's Quicken file to send all their money to bankaccount X in South America, the next time they login to bank online. The money went somewhere... you can't just restore the database and magically have the money back. You can obviously fight this, but again what are you going to live off of, while you fight for a year that the transaction that came from your computer, when you logged onto your accout at the back, actually didn't come from you.

Rediculous zoning rule

[truthsearch]

Tampa officials sought to close down the house because it allegedly violated the city's zoning rule, Section 27-523, which largely prohibits in residential areas "any premises . . . on which is offered to members of the public . . . for consideration, entertainment featuring . . . specified sexual activities."

Guess that means in Tampa you're not allowed to bring home a date.

nothing happening here

[Alien54]

as the Voyeur Dorm lawyer said:

"Nothing takes place in the house, everything takes place in a virtual place,"

Which sort of goes beyond logic. Nothing is going on there? Hardly.

It is sort of like if they were selling video tapes. If they were selling video tapes, they would be subject to postal laws, etc.

There is the actual activity that happens in the house. and then there is the commercial activity that takes palce their.

Of course, by giving out the street address, they are sure to encourage flocks of cars to try to drive on by, people harrassing the girls, and making life uncomfortable in general. In other words, trying to shame them into leaving.

Re:nothing happening here

[Tassach]

I think it would depend if the server is in the house or elsewhere, and where the financial transaction is processed. Filming adult video and selling that video are distinct and seperate activities. Whether the process is synchronous or aynnchronous should be irrelevent. Of course, IANAL.

Of course, if you arouse the ire of Town Hall, you are in for trouble. Adult businesses are always on uncertian ground, even when they conform with every applicable law. An adult business can effectivly shut down by tying him up in court on bogus charges until the owner gives up or goes bankrupt. The legal system is far too easy to abuse in this regard

Politicians get good "clean up this town" press by persecuting adult businesses. Due to our society's schitzophrenic attitude regarding anything sexual, getting rid of "smut" almost always gets a favorable response. Not many people are willing to speak out against these unfair actions for fear of being stigmitized as "perverts".

Re:nothing happening here

[unitron]

Filming and selling aren't necessarily all that separate. Harry Rheems got paid like $100 for a day's work asan actor on Deep Throat filmed out in California or somewhere, never got any royalties or per centage of the box office anywhere or a cut of the video tape sales, in other words he was basically a day laborer.

About 10 years later he's hauled into court (federal, I think) in Memphis or around there, even though he'd never been anywhere near there in his life, to stand trial for violating community standards.

Never heard how it turned out or if he ever recovered from the crushing legal bills, but wherever there's an ambitious prosecutor don't assume the existance of very many legal protections. Remember the old saying about a DA being able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Doesn't make sense

[Uttles]

I don't agree with the ruling. It sounds to me like another uneducated, or miseducated judge has ruled on something they don't understand.

This is what I mean: saying the internet is a seperate "place" out there is like saying that a phone line is a "place" also. When business is done over the phone, it's between two parties who are firmly based somewhere in the real world. My point is that the internet is just a communications medium and not a location. If you want to frame business transaction laws do so in regards to where the company is registered, not where it's servers exist.

Another way of thinking about things is a 3 piece model, for example: When you call 1-800-ABCDEFG, you might be talking to a telemarketer based out of a strictly telemarketing company somewhere like Charleston, SC, but Hooked on Phonics as a company resides elsewhere (I don't know where, but let's say Portland, Oregon.) So the actual transaction taking place is between you and the company in Portland, and as a secondary transaction the company in Portland pays the company in Charleston for it's telemarketing service. This is basically the same setup as the internet. You have a company, a web hosting company, and a customer. If they establish the internet as a "place" then this web hosting company will be responsible for taxes on all of its transactions, as well as other legal ramifications. I personally don't beleive that this is the right way to go about things, we need to have laws based on entity to entity transactions rather than the actual path taken.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Catbeller]

Should they start getting hoards of strange visitors harassing locals and pearing through curtains, then Tampa will have a case and would almost certainly get to throw them out of the neighbourhood.

If they start getting hoards of strange visitors, Tampa should expect a major lawsuit for publicizing the location of the house for all the world's psychos to visit. One could make a case that Tampa's prosecutors did let the address out for that purpose, to ensure the business' removal by enabling harrassment.

The fact that a house has naked college girls in it is not cause for a prosecutor to publish its address.

(assuming, of course, that the site did not advertise the girls' location -- a good bet)

Thank You for not being an idiot

[nanojath]

Once again we see that the majority of people (including the people that come up with and approve the articles) are too busy sounding brilliant about the "implications" to read the articles and try to figure out what actually happened. The judiciary in this point made what I agree to be a valid estimation: That the activities that DID occur in the house (basically young ladies getting paid to walk around naked indoors) were legal under the spirit of zoning statutes (preventing visible business/activities likely to have a negative impact on the neighborhood) and that the "sexual commerce" aspect of the business occurred at locations remote to the actual house in question. In fact, this can be seen as affirming the notion that cyberspace activities occur at the "point of sale" so to speak - the judge's point is that the nasty men everyone objects to are jogging it in the privacy of their homes or offices, not in this uptight little Florida community that's so horrified that there are naked girls in a house in their pristine little suburb.

The "cyberspace is a whole other world" interpretation is just being slapped on this narrow decision. It won't hold up as a precedent in a case with broader implications.

Re:Separate world?

[jgerman]

What makes anyone think cyberspace is a different world? With this argument one can say they can set up an online heroin business that should be immune to any legal ramifications

Bad analogy, they should be able to set up an online heroin business with no legal ramifications, but unless you are going to use the drug in cyberspace and not have it delivered to you physically they'll get busted when they try to ship it. It is a separate place with separate rules. It's the interaction with the real world that cause the gray area.

MMOGs as cybernations?

[supabeast!]

Does this mean that the areas in online games (EverQuest, Ultima Online.) are now considered to be separate space? If so, do they count as part of the nation that they are hosted within, or are they separate nations? Does this mean that because Norrath (EverQuest) is a land unto itself within cyberspace, I can give lectures on cracking SDMI within Norrath and not fear prosecution by the US government?

Read the actual case

[nanojath]

If you read the actual case (there's a link in the NY Times article you'd find that this is really a reasonable interpretation. What's going on here is that some people want to shut down this house because they don't like the fact that someone is filming naked girls there, so they tried to use the letter of some zoning laws (specifying that a premise cannot make a public commerce offering of a sexual nature) to get the business thrown out. The business objected that the house is just a "filming/staging area" and that the actual commerce occurs remotely. The judge (rightly, I think) agreed: The spirit of the zoning law in question is about the public in the physical sense coming to do commerce at a specific local location. The judge is saying this zoning law cannot impact non-public activities, even if they are sexual in nature and carried out for the purpose of commerce. This is actually a precedent saying the internet IS like any other form of communication. Just because a transmission of data occurs in real time over telecommunications lines, the judge is saying it is no different than if they taped some naked girls and then mailed that tape to a customer. By the way those protesting the business were interpreting the law, that would be illegal too - as would making an adult film, or running an adult chat line from one's home, or writing a dirty story for Penthouse, for that matter.

I can only thank my lucky stars that "ignorant" judges like these ones are deciding legal precedents instead of people like you who don't bother to synthesize the facts.

Re:Read the actual case

[markmoss]

That's right. The key points don't concern cyberspace, but rather that the zoning ordinance used was not really applicable to this sort of operation. The ordinance specifically and only prohibited sexual entertainment in certain zones. The "entertainment" wasn't occurring there, but wherever the video is downloaded. The ostensible reason for the ordinance was that strip joints and adult bookstores attract undesirable traffic -- and if the security at Voyeur Dorm is good, there aren't going to be any such problems, nor did the city present any evidence that there were problems. And if there is some other motivation for the ordinance that the zoning commission did not want to publicly admit to, that isn't something the court needs to take into account...

If the ordinance forbade all businesses, then it would stand up. Of course, that also means no home offices...

I hate that word (OT)

[demon]

"Cyberspace" - kill me. I hate that word. It's so... so... stupid. I can't think of a word to sufficiently describe my distaste for that word. I don't even remember who came up with that word, but please, please, let them be appropriately beaten for it...

Re:I hate that word (OT)

[hether]

Beceause everybody uses it so damn much, to describe all sorts of things, especially if they know nothing about the Internet. At least that's why I don't like it. I went to dictionary.com to look it up and was surprised to find these definitions:

cyberspace (sbr-sps)
n. The electronic medium of computer networks, in which online communication takes place.

cyberspace /si:'br-spays`/ n. 1. Notional `information-space' loaded with visual cues and navigable with brain-computer interfaces called `cyberspace decks'; a characteristic prop of cyberpunk SF. Serious efforts to construct virtual reality interfaces modeled explicitly on Gibsonian cyberspace are under way, using more conventional devices such as glove sensors and binocular TV headsets. Few hackers are prepared to deny outright the possibility of a cyberspace someday evolving out of the network (see the network). 2. The Internet or Matrix (sense #2) as a whole, considered as a crude cyberspace (sense 1). Although this usage became widely popular in the mainstream press during 1994 when the Internet exploded into public awareness, it is strongly deprecated among hackers because the Internet does not meet the high, SF-inspired standards they have for true cyberspace technology. Thus, this use of the term usually tags a wannabee or outsider. Oppose meatspace. 3. Occasionally, the metaphoric location of the mind of a person in hack mode. Some hackers report experiencing strong eidetic imagery when in hack mode; interestingly, independent reports from multiple sources suggest that there are common features to the experience. In particular, the dominant colors of this subjective `cyberspace' are often gray and silver, and the imagery often involves constellations of marching dots, elaborate shifting patterns of lines and angles, or moire patterns.

Re:I hate that word (OT)

[jgerman]

Actually I kinda of agree with you now that I think about it, I don't like the term as it's used now, it would be better saved for when we have real Cyberspace ala Gibson, or Stevenson, and others.

Re:I hate that word (OT)

[Catbeller]

William Gibson coined it in his cyberpunk stories in the seventies and eighties.

Re:where is the transaction occuring?

[jgerman]

If you had read the article you would see that it is a completely logical ruling, that held up the spirit of the zoning laws that were the focus of this case.

It's also importnat to point out that these transactions do not take place at the server only.
They take place at every hop along the way and on every machine that carries a packet to it's final destination. It is not a direct connection from one machine to another. Are all the imtermidiate carriers accessories to the crime? Cyberspace is a different place, the normal rules of space and time are dramatically different than what we're used to in the Real World, localization of a global network just does not work.

Speak for yourself...

[Robber Baron]

Voyeur Dorm's business does not encourage "guys with bloodshot eyes to tromp around the suburbs of Tampa, looking for naked ladies," he said.

Speak for yourself...

Re:Speak for yourself...

[Watts Martin]

Congratulations, you've shown people how to get to the intersection of Kennedy and Tampa Street, which happens to be smack in the middle of downtown Tampa's business district. (I used to work a block away from there, at an office building at the intersection of Jackson and Franklin St.)

I'd like to give you credit for the joke, but you'll have to try a little harder. Pick a suburb near the university (it's called "dorm" for a reason, and my suspicion is the suburb in question is Temple Terrace, renowned across the county for being tremendously uptight).

Re:Speak for yourself...

[unitron]

But if you enter the address (2312 West Farwell Drive) given in the NYT article into MapQuest's search box, it returns a map showing a location about 1500 ft. east of St Joseph's Hospital (no doubt the place where they invented baby aspirin).

Say good-bye to "rights"

[sphealey]

Personally, I think the concept of "rights" as something that individuals hold in relation to governments (including their own) is just about over in the United States.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting today the the U.S. Government is currently holding at least 300 people in connection with the 9/11 incident. These 300 are being held in secret, without being allowed to communicate with attorneys, without their attorneys being informed when court proceedings are being held, without family members being informed where the prisoners are being held or even that they _are_ being held, and with all records of the proceedings being kept under "seal" (a concept that I don't believe appears in the Constitution of the United States).

Any objections to that? You will probably be next.

sPh

Re:Say good-bye to "rights"

[L-Train8]

I couldn't find the article you are citing, although I found this, which indicates that 150 people are being held, some in Europe and some in some in the US. It makes no mention of whether or not these suspects are being denied an attorney or other rights.

However, I have heard of many people, suspected of involvment in the 9/11 attacks, being held in the US on immigration violations. Currently, there are some pretty messed up US immigration laws that allow people to be caught in a legal limbo, in jail, but with no trial, sometimes for years. It is a messed up situation, but it is not new since 9/11. Also, it only affects non-US citizens who have not dotted the i's and crossed the t's with regard to their immigration status.

While I certainly am not supportive of this situation, it is very different than the broad, sinister powers you are ascribing to the government. The government is not locking up US citizens, but it is taking advantage of poorly written immigration laws to hold suspects indefinitely.

Re:Shouldn't this be Congress' job?

[sphealey]

There seem to be two ways of establishing legal traditions. One is to plan things out ahead of time, being aware of the mistakes of the past, and the other is to muddle one's way through, sort of making it up as you go along. Our system, based on English common law (but much changed from it), is definitely in category two.

A little of both, I would say, since those who crafted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights had the benefit of 150 years of intense experimentation into the structure of government (particularly in England and France) available to them as they drafted their documents. That was also a time of deep philosophical discussion of those questions at all levels of society (can you imagine Gary Condit at the Constituational Convention? Gag).

sPh

Re:Shouldn't this be Congress' job?

[Zathrus]

You seem to have forgotten the way the US legal sytem works. There are three branches - the legislative (Congress) which passes the laws, the Executive (President, Cabinets) which enforces the laws, and the Judicial (courts) which decides the legality of the laws.

Very often the courts will wind up with an issue for which there is no clear cut law. Then it's up to the judge(s) to make a rational decision based not only on case law, but also on what makes sense in modern society and to themselves. Sometimes these rulings wind up with the legislature passing a new law to either reaffirm the ruling or to invalidate it (whether or not the new law is legal is another question).

That's all that's really happened here.

And as for the flames of "the Internet has no boundaries!" - yeah. That's nice. When you want to get back to the Real World, let us know because the Real World still has boundaries and so legal precedent of what laws apply to cyberspace make a huge difference. How would you like to get deported to China for breaking a law there on the Internet because the industrialized countries had agreed to respect each others legal systems when it came to viewers inside their country? Or get deported to the US because the NSA decided you were a threat?

As it happens, this ruling could make such a thing impossible, since Cyberspace is in a different legal jurisdiction... the question becomes, who's jurisdiction is it? And no, anarchy is not a viable solution. Go read some Niven if you think otherwise.

deeper issue

[f00zbll]

I think the deeper issue at hand is current laws do not address internet businesses and whole new models of commerce. Most of the laws reguarding zoning were created to address public works, transportation, realestate, development, property value and other physical issues. Those zoning laws were created to prevent a person from opening a store at home, since there wouldn't be sufficient parking or facilities to accomodate a large number of people. A lot of zoning laws are there for good reasons, but it doesn't stop people from using them incorrectly. Law suits like the one mentioned have been creeping up as neighborhoods become aware of what is happening. The definition of space/cyberspace is actually not relevant. No matter how much people love/hate the word. Laws surrounding commerce, and how businesses operate define what is permitted.
In the next few years, this case may become very important. If there are no visible external signs of business transaction at a location, it is hard for law enforcement to monitor/enforce. The only way a person would know a neighbor was operating an adult business from home is if they went to the website. Conservatives will always have a problem with the sale/purchase of adult services, but that doesn't give them the right to misinterpret a law and use it to their own gains. It is obvious the legal system and law enforcement doesn't know how to handle these new situations. As internet businesses continue to grow world wide, enforcing laws will becoming increasingly difficult. With great freedom comes great burden. This case has a lot more at stake than just adult entertainment. At it's core, it about culture and commerce.

Re:I see...

[BlowCat]

I don't have access to NY Times.

To get access add this line to /etc/hosts:

208.48.26.212 www.nytimes.com

Point of production or point of consumption

[hillct]

The question answered by the ruling does not directly address digital content as such. It simply highlights a weakness in local zoning law.

The position that no offer of adult entertainment for public consumption at the dorm where video is being shot, suggests that anyone may situate video production facilities for pornographic movies within this area without penalty.

The next logical question is: Are the videos transfered to digital media for distribution at that loction (aparently not) or another location and would that other location (for the purposes of zoning) be considered to be offering entertainment of an adult nature - becaue it's vary likely the location of the hosting facility is zoned for light industry. Perhaps, alternatively the court is suggesting that the service is being offered at the point of consumption, since it is cinsidering 'cyberspace' to be a distinct location. It's disappointing that this clarification wasn't made in the ruling.

--CTH

Re:Separate world?

[Tackhead]

> And if you could upload heroin I would agree with you. Thing is though that you must actually deliver it in some other more tangible rhelm for it to be something more offensive than "/me passes Alex a bag of heroin.".

/me passes everyone a bag of MP3z.

Now what?

Re:The line between...

[Glytch]

Perhaps your name should be Agent Carl instead.

Both must be true.

[mindstrm]

I mean, we always have to remember that these servers, at the moment, are run by real people, from real physical locations, in real jurisdictions, where the law applies to them.
One should not be able to avoid local law by simply going 'online'.

It is important, however, when it comes to more purely informational crimes.. for the courts and lawmakers to realize that if they make running a certain type of site illegal online from their country, it will not preven those who want such information from obtaining it; the site will just run from somewhere else where it IS legal, and the exact same audience will be there to see it (Audience being the whole internet).

Re:Both must be true.

[mindstrm]

The thing is.. with gambling transactions...

The person placing the bet is an entirely different matter than the bookie.

Placing a bet is, in many jurisdcitions, illegal.
Running a book isn't.

Just like... the laws governing a few friends playing a game of poker is veyr different than someone running a poker room, taking a cut of the action.

If stereo providers move out of the country, you tax the goods as they come into the country.. that's already done, tha'ts what 'import duty' is for.

Perhaps we need to question the necessity of taxes in the first place... why should the government be able to take a piece every time money is exchanged? that's rediculous.

You are right that it's a problem.. but the problem is the thought that 'we should be able to tax this but we can't'. That's wrong... they SHOULD NOT be able to tax everything.

I'm not saying taxes are bad.. but there has to be a limit.

You talk about compensating, via a tax on electricity or something.. but compensating for what? How much money does the government need? how do you put a limit on it? Cause these days.. you don't.. they just tax whatever they can get away with taxing.

That's simply not true.

[mindstrm]

Any zoning law I've ever seen allows for business to take place from the home, as long as said business operates within certain bounds... like, you can't have a showroom open to the public all day.. but you can certainly invite a potential customer over to talk business.

Many accountants operate out of their home.. perfectly legally.
Many home-based businesses are out there. What about contract programmers working from home? That's operating a business from your home.. are you saying that is illegal?

Just a thought...

[srvivn21]

Now that the address (the real physical one) has been published, (2312 West Farwell Drive, Tampa Florida) what's the likelyhood that the mentioned "unsavory" types might come around looking for a free live show? Might this not just be the result that the municipal officials were hoping for? Unsavory types show up, the case is re-opened in court, the house is forced to move...

What the hell do I know? ;o)

Re:Just a thought...

[Catbeller]

If I were running that company, I'd figure a way to sue the local government for exposing the address to the public. It's like publishing the address of exotic dancers, a practice frowned-upon by dancers themselves.
By making the address public (and this is assuming, btw, that the address isn't listed on the site) the government there could be encouraging harrassment not only from the neighbors but from roving psychos around the country.

Re:where is the transaction occuring?

[Catbeller]

this is a totally illogical ruling. the internet is not some ether that just floats around and doesn't exist in any physical location. the judge should have realized that these porn transactions happened at the location of the server.

For over a hundred years, courts have held that corporations, a non-physical entity with no address, no social security number, and no personal liability, are persons under the law.

Lawyers have counted angels on the heads of pins for generations. 'Bout time something good came out of their heads for something other than a corporation -- for us.

How does this affect a search warrant ???

[Archfeld]

They are specifically tied to a physical location and specific items. So do the cops need a warrant to search my house and ALSO one to search my "cyber-space" even though the machine holding said cyber space sits in the same location ? I more confused than ever...

"Virtual Space" here just means "different space"

[werdna]

The Eleventh Circuit did not hold that the cyberspace conduct wasn't *in* Tampa, they merely held that a particular Tampa zoning ordinance prohibiting offering of adult entertainment to members of the public presumes that the customers physically attend the premises so zoned and wherein the entertainment is performed.

It isn't a very deep or fundamental observation about technology to suggest that a person at the other end of a communications line from a source location isn't physically located at the source. Saying that it is "in virtual space," wasn't really more meaningful than that, except in the case where the other guy is also in Tampa, albeit at a different place.

Because the statute itself didn't expressly address regulation of sources of publication, the Court didn't address the First Amendment issues.

Agreed

[werdna]

The American Family Association has significant representation on the City Counsel through one Bob Buckhorn, which is what gave rise to this matter. Representatives for the defendants, an able First Amendment attorney, raised the First Amendment issues, but the Court didn't reach them because the zoning ordinance itself was held to require that the entertainment not merely originate in, but also be received in, the alleged adult entertainment facility (hence the social impact).

Ultimately AFA Bob will probably rework the ordinance, the case will once again be tried and the defendants lose below, and the Eleventh Circuit will once again have the issue, but will ultimately have to face the (very interesting) First Amendment questions.