Slashdot Mirror
Crank Blogging, Like Phone Calling, Now Illegal
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a must-pass
DoJ appropriations bill
which contained a
little gotcha for the internet.
For decades, making anonymous abusive phone calls has been a federal crime, good for up to two years behind bars -- and the term "abusive" has included threats, harassment, and the much weaker "intent to annoy." Now, that telecommunications law has been extended to include the Internet, so when you post an anonymous troll to wind up your least-favorite blogger, you may break the law. This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts. A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
Actually, I think the entire law against crank calling is pretty worthless now, anyway.
We have Caller ID -- we can refuse to answer the phone. If crank calls were a major concern, you'd see market solutions to the problem. Companies would come up with "quiet time" phone features that would prevent any ring after a certain hour unless you coded it with numbers that were acceptable.
As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity.
The Department of Justice is completely out of control -- nearly 99% of the Department is unconstitutional and unnecessary at the federal level. In this end, this is an abridgement on the freedom of speech. Every time government wants to penalize "edgy" speech, they are just finding another way to control normal speech.
I think we know who the real cranks are in this case -- read the entire law/budget, you'll find more bad things than usual. In fact, I can't see anything in the budget that seems worthwhile anymore.
Laws like this will, in the long run, make the freedom of speech stronger, not weaker.
The first time this is challenged in court it will be struck down, thus setting another precedent for online freedom of speech.
I'm not concerned with this particular bill as I am with one of the tactics that was used.
Namely, I'm talking about the embedding of other mostly unrelated things into a bill. It's especially bad, since with a bill such as this one, the existance of the DoJ relies on this bill getting passed to get its funding. Because of this, members of congress feeled pressed that the bill must be passed (as was noted in the first sentence of jamie's summary).
A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
Yes, you're right. What sane person would need such a law?
But on the other hand, I can see how politicians and people in power might need such a law. It would make it illegal to criticize them anonymously.
This law is just part of a continuing effort to erode and limit the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Continuing attacks on fundamental rights in the United States will continue as long as fear replaces philosophy as the primary tool used to win elections and retain/attain power in elections. It is imperative for citizens of democracies to fight laws which restrict rights -- even if that means protecting the rights of those they find offensive. The test of any action should be whether that action restricts of limits the freedome of others. If it does, then the act is bad., If it does not, then it should be tolerated even if it is ugly and indecent.
If software can't do something useful in 10 minutes, it won't
I wonder how this plays out in the context of l'affaire Seigenthaler?
"Brian Chase, a 38 year old operations manager at Rush Delivery in Nashville, admitted he had placed the allegations there to play a joke on a colleague..." I suppose Chase's intent was to tweak his (unnamed) colleague, not to annoy Seigenthaler...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The point of all this bullshit is simply to create a web of laws which can be used to ensnare anybody.
The next time some wingnut retard says 'so long as you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear', point this out (and tell them how annoying they are).
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
Who are they kidding?
Themselves.
Just how enforceable is this going to be?
Not at all.
Are the federal courts (which are already overburdened with real criminal cases) now to be swamped with case of "he called me a fsck-head on Slashdot?"
No. There will be one case, in which the defense attorney will simply point to the First Amendment to the Constitution, and then this law will no longer exist.
It should be a crime to prosecute someone unconstitutionally.
This law sweeps across with a broad stroke and that's bad legislation.
One problem is a matter of 'annoying' people. What is annoying varies from person to person.
On the one hand, this means that spammers face yet another law against them. So, spamming while in the U.S. is a really bad idea. I'm sorry, if your name is really Ivan Charles Wiener, then, ok, I guess you can continue to send me erectile dysfunction ads as I.C. Wiener. But Heywood Jablowmie had better look out!
My question then is a matter of whether or not posting anonymously on a blog is a problem. If you allow real anonymity and you aren't prepared to handle the system, well, you're a fool. But most blogging software takes care of that. And if you force people to register, problem solved.
The big problem is that 'recipient of communication' is undefined. So, if I have a blog, and I allow people to post anonymously and they don't annoy me, is it a problem if some politician visits my blog and sees that? The original author is anonymous. Granted, as the owner and effective publisher who is not anonymous, well, I would argue that it's now my problem, and too bad, and so on. But sites, like Slashdot, that allow anonymous and disavow ownership of any kind of the post, well, that could be a big problem, as then Slashdot is not committing a crime directly, but can be considered an accessory.
Hopefully, this thing will be given a reasonable smackdown, but I doubt it.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Line. Item. Veto.
So you can shake your tiny fist at their house?
Get over it. People have been dicks for all time. A stupid law is not going to change anything. Don't like comments like that, or this? Don't be on the internet, or grow a thicker skin.
Like anything posted on the web matters. Including this comment.
Besides, I think you need to put things in perspective. A random 'haha' on your LJ is nothing compared to what some kids get on their blogs from shitty little cliques.
That said, this law is dumb, for I guess I can now press charges against any idiot, including myself.
Talk to Congress already. This was a bill passed by legislators, not the President. That he signed it should come as no surprise, or does anyone think it's actually plausible to veto every bill that has unrelated amendments attached? I think it's a great idea, but no president of any party makes a habit of vetoing most of the bills Congress passes.
Why do individual governments think they can regulate the internet in this manner? When you make spamming illegal in the US the spammers just move to Belize or China. Want to post a flame, just log into a remote server in another country and do it from there.
What a waste of time creating an illusion of a solution in this manner. The only people these laws would stop are those who are too clueless to circumvent them.
If we are going to try to regulate the net the only practical way would to use international treaties. Of course there will always be non-treaty countries where the rules would not apply.
What about messages of protest? The power to annoy is one of the foundations of activism. What does this say for free speech and civil liberties? Would such a law stick? I doubt it anyway.
I have to wonder if this law can be used (or is intended to be used) as part of a SLAPP strategy, also known as "strategic lawsuit against public participation." If a blogger posts a comment that's uncomplimentary about a company — and therefore annoying — then that unflattering remark now becomes a criminal matter. By stripping away anomynity, the law will definitely chill whistleblowing, compaints, and other comments that aggressive companies attempt to supress.
You miss the same thing that Bush supporters and detractors alike miss, repeatedly.
We are not at war.
Every time Bush or a supporter says "so-and-so must be done because of the war on terror" or "this right must be suspended because of the war on terror", remind them that the United States has not declared a war in over half a century.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
And yet here we are, posting here and in all those articles MarkusQ referenced... free speech is alive and well, believe it or not, and people bitching about it not being free while they freely post their rants here are too oblivious to see the irony.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And yet here we are, posting here and in all those articles MarkusQ referenced... free speech is alive and well, believe it or not, and people bitching about it not being free while they freely post their rants here are too oblivious to see the irony.
The fact that some people in some cases are able to express their views does not mean that "free speech is alive and well." The point of free speech is that everybody can do it, without recrimination.
-- MarkusQ
We are not at war.
Good catch. I keep forgetting that. I guess that's a good demonstration of how "the Big Lie" works; they keep repeating it and after awhile you start going along with it even though you know it's false.
--MarkusQ
Of course. The President doesn't have line-item veto authority, and he isn't going to let one little evil overshadow a lot of good in any particular bill that is sent to him from Congress, not just this one. If he did veto everything that had a little pork of some flavor in it, he wouldn't get anything signed, and then you people (yes, I said it) would piss and moan about how he is obstructing your hard-working legislators from getting any real work done.
For those who dislike W, there is always a reason to bolster that dislike, logic notwithstanding. Sad...
Would be fun if Slashcode gave you the option of commenting on your moderation with 3 words or so... Though I suppose that would remove some of the brilliance of that simple insightful.
Technically, you are correct. In fact, you are wrong. If my memory serves me, World War II was the last war in which Congress directly declared the United States at war. The Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Afganistan, and Gulf 2 wars were all fought without this declaration. The Korean war, was offically a "police" action, and in various instances, Congress has given the President the authority to wage war at his discression. If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year. More, Osama has been living in a cave, and I'm pretty sure he believes this is war, even if you don't.
I read
Completely off topic. How do any of the links you posted relate to the story of "crank blogging?" They don't at all. Your entire aim here is to insight a flame war between those that support President Bush and those who don't. Call me a realist, but Slashdot is for tech news and happenings. It is not for you to air your distaste for the President. If you wish to slam the President, get your own blog and do it there. When here, keep on topic. Is that too much to ask?
As for the moderation of your comment, those who moderated need to take a second glance at the topic and rate as applies. Off topic.
From TFA:
Please note that,once again, it was a conservative justice who championed freedom of speech. A true conservative is a friend of liberty; please don't oppose a supreme court nomination just because you disagree with the nominee on a single issue--on which he may have expressed an opinion decades ago. Once you're in the Supreme Court, you're untouchable and beholden to no one--and more often than not, that has brought out the best in the Justices, and they have grown to fill the office.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
"If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year."
Well I think we are not at war and I haven't been living in a cave. There is nothing technical about it-we have been fighting terrorists for a long time. We are engaged in multiple conflicts and troops are suffering casualties. Nothing unususal there-it happens regularly.
Frankly the "war on terror" is roughly akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on x". They all are poorly defined and generally impossible to win. Because they fail to address the underlying problems. Invading a country is easy. Changing a society is hard.
Frankly I am not concerned about Osama. Neither is the US government based on its actions. I am concerned about a government that wants to reduce my rights and priviledges for a false sense of security and so they can be seen as "doing something". Of course, I am more afraid of the clueless people like you who support those measures. That is the real threat.
Remember that terrorism is insignificant when compared to other preventable deaths. More people are killed driving in a month than died in 9/11. But you don't see a "war on road deaths".
"there will have to be a trial to determine if you are actually guilty"
You mean a trial to determine that you are actually guilty...
Most of you are looking at this from an individual perspective and you are grossly mistaken. How foolish you all are to think this law is to protect you! You the people! Hah! This administration doesn't do things for the people, they do them for big businesses with lots of funding to contribute to campaigns and with lobbyists who have big entertainment budgets. In other words corporations who are tired of trying to use ineffective civil law suits to stifle free speech about them. So this law is _not_ to give you power--it is to give corporations the power to criminalize product and corporate criticism on the internet. After all, civil suits are so darned expensive, but if a corporation can send a few people to jail, then that will have an immediate and severe chillng effect and squelch bad product reviews and negative comments about customer service and corporations. Don't believe me? Wait an see.
If you remember back to your days in, well, any level of public education in the US short of graduate-school-not-in-history-or-poli-sci, there was a discussion of 'checks and balances'. One of these 'checks and balances' is that the President does not have to sign a bill that he disagrees with. If Bush knew or cared about the amendment, he could veto the bill and make speech explaining to the American people that Congressional politicking is preventing the passage of this important spending bill. Think back to how Clinton handled Gingrich during their budget conflicts - if a wimpy liberal like Clinton could make a congress controlled by the GOP back down, certainly Bush could get a Congress controlled by his own party back in line.
Bush either likes the amendment, doesn't care about it, or doesn't know about it. None of these options means that Bush doesn't get some of the blame if you think the bill "sux".
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
While that does seem to be the standard that constitutional law has evolved to, what troubles me more about the wartime assertion is that this war is so vague and open ended.
If we accept the premise that wartime is different than peacetime and different rules apply, then the first thing I want to know is how do we know when the war is over? We've gone 4 years since 9/11 with no additional attacks on US soil. Is the war over now? Will it be over if we catch bin Laden and Mullah Omar?
In a conventional war against a country or polity of some sort, it is pretty clear when hostilities have ended. A war against individuals in hiding is not nearly so cut and dried.
My biggest issue with the wartime argument is that there is no clear end to this war, so we had better assume that these "wartime powers" are in fact permanent. That thought scares the crap out of me.
The Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Afganistan, and Gulf 2 wars were all fought without this declaration.
None of which makes it okay. There is a reason you have to declare war, and there is a reason that Congress has to do it. It has to do with the separation of powers, and so that the presidency doesn't become imperial. The excutive and the legislative have to come together and both declare a state of war, and it means a very specific thing regarding war powers. Presidential actions as the commander in chief are very purposefully limited to the standing army. However, in our historically recent military expansion, this has put the balance out of wack now that the president has a huge armed forces to command. The only barrier left in Congress control of the purse strings, which is a necessary control and the only thing standing in the way of one party getting into power and then deciding never to leave.
If you think we are not at war now, you must have been living in a cave for the last few year.
Oh, and I am also supporting the terrorists by knowing we're not at war? Double-plus good. If it so obvious that we're at war, get Congress to declare it.
We're not at war, and apologists like yourself are dangerous to the republic.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
And don't ask again, or we'll fine you.
First of all, everybody in the U.S. does have the right to freedom of speech. If someone's right has been infringed, please take it to the supreme court and I'm sure they'll agree. As I've said, it's usually the people that have cried the most about having their free speech denied that are talking the most about it. Ironic, isn't it?
But why without recrimination? Now you are adding words to right that the constitution guarantees you! You have no right to say anything you want about someone else without consequence? That's why you CAN'T yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater!
Let's take the example of the spoiled movie star or singer, for example; the one who has always been given a soapbox in the form of news programs desperate for viewers. So some guy thinks that because he's famous he can go on one of these shows and spout off whatever he wants. Then when people don't go see his next movie, or buy his next CD, or someone doesn't want to cast him in their next film, he claims his freedom of speech is being infringed! Wrong!
You also don't have the "right" to be heard. If I choose not to listen to you, or give you a forum, I'm not denying your right to speak freely. So again, if you're some movie star that's been making the rounds on talk shows and spouting off about some politician or another, and I don't agree with you, I don't have to have you on my show! Has your freedom of speech been infringed? No!
No one is saying you can't say whatever it is you want to say, I'm just saying that a) I don't have to give you a forum to say it, b) I don't have to listen, and c) there may be consequences.
Good example of someone who knows what free speech is about and stands up for his beliefs: Bono. Good example of when someone doesn't actually understand the concept of freedom of speech and cries because they may have suffered consequences: Dixie Chicks.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
We can handle our own lawsuits, thank you.
There's no money in simple criminal prosecution! Civil suits are where the dough is!
The Kingdom of Retarsia
Total open internet doesn't work. That is clear from slashdot alone else why would we have moderation and bans?
No, Slashdot is not an example why open internet doesn't work. It's the opposite, it's one of many working models which facilitate a community despite and because of the near-to anonymity. Moderation in particular is a great way to deal with a lot of crap that people post when they don't need to fear real world retribution.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I can't find the article, but some magazine recently (w/in the last year) called up the IRS help line a bunch of times and found that the amount of misinformation getting doled out by the IRS hadn't gotten much better.
The difference between the someone on the IRS's 1-800 number and a tax attorney, is that the attorney puts his ass on the line by giving you advice. He (is supposed to) affirms that the legal opinion you are getting is within the law.
That's why law firms that help corporations set up sketchy tax dodges for rich people & companies can get burnt when the IRS decides to make an issue out of it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I haven't read the actual warrant, so I have no idea who I'd side with.
My friend, you don't have to read the warrant; you just need to read Alito's dissent a bit more attentively.
The important line is the last one (emphasis added): Second, even if the warrant did not contain such authorization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Now understand that: Alito's saying that it's OK if a cop misreads a warrant and does something it doesn't authorize, the cop can't be sued.
Now let's think about that. If your doctor misreads a drug formulary and gives you Topamax (an epilepsy drug) when he meant to give you Toprol-XL (a drug for heart failure), and as a result you have a heart attack, would you say that you shouldn't be allowed to sue?
Now as to the facts of the case Alito dissented from: the warrant only described, and authorized, the search of one adult male. When the cops went to the man's home to arrest him, that adult male's wife and daughter were with him. Even though the warrant only authorized a search of the man, the cops also strip searched his wife and the ten-year-old daughter.
The warrant names one adult man, and the police "misread" it to include a ten-year-old girl, and they make her take off all her clothes and bend over and be searched by a stranger.
That's a pretty substantial misreading, you'd agree? Well, maybe you wouldn't agree, but consider this: Alito's opinion was a dissent; that means two other judges disagreed with Alito and thought the police went too far.
And one of those other judges was none other than Bush's current head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff -- no "liberal" he.
So, friend, does my explication help you decide that police strip-searching a ten-year-old girl is wrong?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Like any other internet legislation
You mean like any other US legislation.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Of course nobody wants to see little girls strip-searched. Stop avoiding my point by bringing emotional rhetoric into it.
Alito did not say that any mistakes a cop might make are ok. Let me change the emphasis on the same quote and see if it sounds different:
The suggestion appears that if a reasonable were to think he had permission under the warrant to search the family, then it's appropriate to grant him immunity. Now, I'm no lawyer, but I think that's the same sort of reasonableness standard that's applied elsewhere in the law.
What the text of the warrant specified and why the cops thought they were allowed to search the family is exactly what we should be discussing, but you haven't brought that up because you keep trying to make an emotional appeal that's unrelated.
So if you'd like to discuss whether the cops were reasonable, why they thought they had the right to the search, and whether they did or not, then by all means, let's discuss it. I'm not predisposed toward agreeing with either side until I look at the warrant and the circumstances. But please stop headlining with inflammatory text like "ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES"
"The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine."
We can debate all day about whether the police are allowed to strip-search children (they are) or whether meth should be illegal (it is), but the language in here is crystal clear. The only people who can't see it are those who don't like Alito and want to smear him, and make it appear as though he condones of strip searches (he doesn't, at least not from any reading of his written opinion on the matter).
Politics in this country would be so much easier if the press would just give web links to the full text of whatever they blather about. Then we could all read it and ignore 95% of what the windbags say.