Slashdot Mirror
User Charged With Felony For Using Fake Name On MySpace
Recently a user, Lori Drew, was charged with a felony for the heinous crime of pretending to be someone else on the Internet. Using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Lori was charged for signing up for MySpace using a fake name. "The access to MySpace was unauthorized because using a fake name violated the terms of service. The information from a "protected computer" was the profiles of other MySpace users. If this is found to be a valid interpretation of the law, it's really quite frightening. If you violate the Terms of Service of a website, you can be charged with hacking. That's an astounding concept. Does this mean that everyone who uses Bugmenot could be prosecuted? Also, this isn't a minor crime, it's a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment per count. In Drew's case she was charged with three counts for accessing MySpace on three different occasions."
FUCK?! Do the people that make laws have absolutely ANY idea how the internet works and is used? Are they even living on the same planet as the rest of us? Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Drive a girl to commit suicide, and get prosecuted for loggin in under a fake name...
I don't know whats worse, the ACTUAL crime that isn't criminal, or the prosecution under criminal statutes for something which shouldn't be considered a crime?
Test your net with Netalyzr
Bad laws often use a scapegoat to justify their existence. Another example would be the recent laws that violate the privacy of Americans to fight against "Pedophiles and Terrorists". A bad law is a bad law is a bad law.
This is, of course, the Lori Drew who worked hard online to bully and demoralize a teenage girl to the point where she committed suicide.
The question is, since no laws exist which would allow her successful prosecution for her actual offense, why prosecute her for a violation of a site's TOS, which would establish a dangerous precedent for many users who simply don't want a site to have their private information?
This case belongs in civil court, not criminal. Let the dead girl's parents sue Lori Drew, prove their case, if possible, and collect monetary damages.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
And just how many people have a) the time to read 20 pages of small print and b) the education to understand all the legalese ?
Simply put, NO one but lawyers or lawyer wannabes reads the terms of service because the average man on the street can't understand it
Yes, her actions were despicable, but that doesn't mean we should be misinterpreting laws in order to find some way to punish her.
You make it seem as though they are being deceptive. How is what she did important to if this law is valid or not?
"You can't wiretap phones without a warrent!"
"Well, this person is a terrorist"
The ends never justify the means. The ends is bullshit, the means is what you have to live with.
I got you an Andes mint, but it melted in my pocket
Sorry, but most of the liberal judges will set aside a jury nullification
Correction please: Why some of /. love her so much.
Personally: If this law is the only one they can find to get her under then so be it. Personally I'd rather it was something like manslaughter but this is better than nowt.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Slashdot needs to change it's slogan from "News for nerds" to "Editorials for nerds."
This type of legal action is nothing new and has been happening for decades and there's nothing wrong with it. If you commit a heinous crime, they will charge you with every single criminal act they can find no matter how small.
Slashdot would love for you to believe that this is something new that's never been done before that will have incredibly powerful effects in the future when the opposite is true. It's been happening for a very long time.
I should keep count of how many "articles" here aren't actually news but heavily biased editorials designed to feed the paranoid.
I'd rather not chisel away the foundations of internet freedom just to punish a pathetic woman. While what she did was pretty morally reprehensible, this "solution" would have a far greater impact on society than anything she did.
And you don't trust a judge and jury to appreciate the difference?
I should post this as AC...
Lori Drew is reprehensible. But we HAVE laws for harassment and disorderly conduct and libel. These can all be applied. There are even laws regarding prank phone calls (which might be best used as reference here). We DO NOT need new precedents that reduce the ability of the individual to access information anonymously.
See...we have the first amendment that guarantees the freedom of speech, press, and religion. What we don't have is a guarantee of unfettered access to information. Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught fucking someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam).
Damn...imagine the implications for 10minutemail.com
There are SEVERAL things they could get her on: criminal child abuse, coercion of a minor, etc. But no, that would be too much work. Instead, they want to give her felony charges for violating the TOS of a website. I'm all for making sure she's punished, but this is not the way. Have the DA actually DO HIS JOB and not hoist her on something that can set a precedent which can be later used to fuck all of us at will...
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Yes she should. But the charge should be "lethal harassment" or something, not "using a fake ID on a website" or "not following the terms of service".
It's always such bullshit cases that set extremely dangerous precedents.
Let me enlighten you... "Ethanol-fueled" is a screen name, alias, or nick name. When you sign-up for Myspace you are asked to complete a form with your name and identifying information, however you can choose to have a separate and unrelated screen name, alias or nick name. My Yahoo e-mail address, for example, has no relation to my personal name, but I provided my personal name to Yahoo to sign-up for the service.
Since everyone is going haywire about this, let's look at an offline example. If I complete a loan/job/cell phone application and indicate that my name is George Bush (it's not) and provide other false information, I could face legal consequences for providing such false information. Should we get all up in arms about that? Most companies are going to take additional steps to verify my identification before they give me a loan/job/cell phone. Even though they will verify my identity that doesn't make me less liable for providing false information. Either the user is responsible for providing accurate information or the company is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information provided. Do you want MySpace/Newegg/TigerDirect to call references, run a credit report, or take additional measures to verify your identity or do you want them to accept your promise that you are accurately representing who you are?
I was under the impression that legal punishment was in place in order to keep people from getting hurt, not a sadistic need to see more people hurt. (Maybe I'm just naive.) Pushing someone does not cure or revive the victim. If she gets away with what should be a crime but isn't - let her, just change the laws to punish what you believe should be the crime, not just anything to satisfying your (understandable) sadism in this one instance. It is not worth setting a precedent which will only cause more people to be harmed.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Riiiight. Your exactly the reason why this law is being abused.
Your emotional reaction to this young girls death has clouded your judgment. You even admit that the "American Legal system" is "messed up" with regards to technology, but have no problems allowing the law to "malfunction" as long as it hurts Lori Drew. That's hypocritical and a desire for nothing less than mob justice.
What you don't understand is that this would create precedent. This is bigger than Lori Drew and it is bigger than that poor little girl who committed suicide. I am not an "unfeeling monster" either. That little girls death was a horrible tragedy, Lori Drew's actions were unconscionable, and it is a sad commentary on just how degraded society has become.
Terms of Service is a legal contract, a CIVIL agreement, between two parties. To say that the deliberate obsfucation of information while signing that agreement is a felony is outright lunacy. It is at most fraudulent and MySpace would have to prove what damages it incurred as a result of said fraud IN A CIVIL COURT.
Lori Drew's actions with respect to MySpace (and only MySpace) were not remotely "hacking" and not remotely criminal in any sense whatsoever. The only action she committed that should be investigated by the DA is contributing to that little girl's death. I don't know what criminal laws apply to that, but hacking is not one of them.
So although I can understand why you are angry and upset at Lori Drew for her actions, and I empathize with the parents and family of the little girl, it DOES NOT JUSTIFY anyones desire to apply criminal law incorrectly to a civil dispute.
If this precedent were to be created it allow ALL websites the ability to verify your information and forward any disputes about its veracity to the local DA. Having the DA prosecute people for "lying" to MySpace, Google, Yahoo, HotMail, Slashdot, etc. is not in the best interests of our society.
Quite simply put, the fact that Slashdot has NO accurate information regarding me and my account is NOT hacking and it is NOT a crime. If you believe it is, be careful. All somebody has to do is hack your connection at home, create a fake profile at MySpace, notify the authorities and you will be playing the "Mammas and the Pappas" in some prison.
P.S - For those that might not get "Mammas and the Pappas" its a joke and use your imagination.
It is not a bad law. It is a unique and inventive use of a law intended to punish people who crack into systems.
And, they have a point as the terms of service for MySpace state that, in order to use the service, one must provide correct information.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Loans, jobs, cell phone service, Newegg, and TigerDirect have a legitimate need to confirm your identity, for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, does MySpace really have a need to verify your identity? Fake names have not really been regarded as a big deal where a verified identity is not absolutely essential, and I'd like to see things stay that way.
"ou don't throw someone to the wolves for just using a pseudonym."
They do not throw people to wolves for just using a pseudonym.
"If MySpace even thinks of dragging my kids into criminal (or even civil) court just because they used a pseudonym? I will make it my business to do everything in my power to bring MySpace down."
They won't. Let's take a step back, look at the facts of the case, and avoid slippery-sloping this.
MySpace isn't going after Lori Drew just because she used a pseudonym. They are going after her because she used said pseudonymous account to harass a young girl to the point that she killed herself. The pseudonym aspect is the best legal angle they can come up with.
Likewise, the government didn't put Al Capone in prison just because he cheated on his taxes. They put him in prison because he cheated on his taxes and because he robbed and killed. The tax evasion aspect was the best legal angle they came up with.
To be fair, if this case were about MySpace going after somebody for just using a pseudonym, then the level of outrage here on Slashdot would be appropriate. But Lori Drew went far, far beyond that.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
You may use any name you wish unless you intend to commit fraud. From wikipedia:
* One may be employed, do business, and enter into other contracts, and sue and be sued under any name they choose at will (Lindon v. First National Bank 10 F. 894, Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1, In re McUlta 189 F. 250).
* Such a change carries the exact same legal weight as a court decreed name change as long as it is not done with fraudulent intent (In re McUlta 189 F. 250, Christianson v. King County 196 F. 791, United States v. McKay 2 F.2d 257).
* This at will right is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment (Jech v. Burch 466 F.Supp. 714).
-1 Offtopic?
Read the subject, not the content... I'd bet that it isn't his real name.
By your logic, it would be okay to go after someone for driving a car, as long as they drove the car over a few living bodies (whereas the crime is not in driving the car, but in driving the car over the bodies).
If you prosecute one person for the use of a pseudonym, you really need to prosecute everybody for the use of a pseudonym.
(see, I'm comfortable with prosecuting all tax evasion, I'm not comfortable with prosecuting all use of a pseudonym)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Do the people that make laws have absolutely ANY idea how the internet works and is used?
First of all, nobody's making a law here. This is a grand jury (12 ordinary people) getting persuaded to indict Drew based on a weird legal theory that probably won't stand up in court.
So if this indictment isn't going anywhere, why issue it? Because millions of people are pissed off about the suicide of Megan Meier, which occurred after she was humiliated via that bogus MySpace account. Of course, using an online account to humiliate somebody isn't illegal (if it were, we'd all be accessing Slashdot from jail!), so all this outrage had nowhere to go — until a creative Federal prosecutor came up with this ToS theory. Which, as I said, will probably go nowhere. Lawyers come up with strange legal theories. Judges shoot them down. Happens every day. That's why we have judges.
People need to dial back the outrage. Drew was allegedly pissed at Meier over some stupid teenage thing that happened between Meier and Drew's daughter. Then millions of people got pissed at Drew and demand that she be thrown in jail, never mind what the law says. Now you're pissed at some half-assed legal maneuver whose only really purpose is to appease all the people who are pissed at Drew. Too much pissedness, not enough thinking. Chill out, America!
This is basic game theory, folks. As long as most people conceal their behavior it is viable for many people, if not most, to decry things that they do themselves in private. This rewards dishonesty.
The more of you hide behind anonymity, the more denial will take place.
The more denial there is, the fewer decisions will be made rationally.
The less rational decisionmaking is, the worse our laws will be.
The more of you hide behind anonymity, the easier it is for the things you value to stay illegal or otherwise subject to sanction.
Speaking as somebody who is here under his real name, I think that there's an awful lot of bullshit out there traceable precisely back to the anonymity of the internet. An anonymity that was never more than an artifact of the system in the first place. I agree that in certain places there is a valid need for anonymity. If I still had a corporate job maybe I would be more reluctant to do things as openly as I do. But otoh, I think that people have used the internet in particular and turning a blind eye in general as a way to keep being dishonest with themselves and each other about their lives.
I read porn. I like it. I've got a nice little trove of pictures of naked women on my computer. So do most of you, correcting for gender where appropriate. I don't believe in any sort of sky god or attend any sort of church. I eat meat, support full legal abortion, and do quite a few other things that are considered offensive to many folks out there, some of whom won't buy my products or otherwise deal with me if and when they find this stuff out. And I get a little tired of how few of you are willing to stand out here in public as I have chosen to do.
Grow a pair, people. Stand up and start admitting under your own names what you do and why. Until you do, the right wing slimebags will always not only have you by the short hairs, they'll keep punishing the people like me who stand up and try to help your sorry lazy selves.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
And that is why we have so many bad laws. You're essentially saying "I want blood and I don't care what the wider effect on society is."
Sometimes the first person to commit a particular type of crime will simply need to be left unpunished. The proper thing to do is to pass a new law that specifically targets the bad behavior without catching normal behavior in a dragnet.
Allowing prosecutors to stretch an existing law so that it can target largely harmless behavior is not a good idea.
If you like that sort of behavior then why not just pass a law that says "prosecutors are allowed to punish anyone with 5 years imprisonment for any reason" and then allow them to selectively punish people whenever they do something nasty that isn't illegal. What could possibly go wrong?
Cow Cube
If I complete a loan/job/cell phone application and indicate that my name is George Bush (it's not) and provide other false information, I could face legal consequences for providing such false information.
I'm sorry, but signing up for MySpace is not in the same category as applying to any of those things. The closest real-world equivalent I can think of is signing up for a hobby/book club.
If you tried reporting someone to the police for signing up for the chess club with a pseudonym, the police would rightfully tell you it wasn't their problem, and they should have the same disdain if someone complains about a fake name submitted to MySpace.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Are you telling me that if she verbally abused that girl in person to the point where she killed herself that it would be A-OK by the law simply because she wasn't violating a TOS?
Parent is exactly right on the money. I'd just like to add a corollary case: if, instead of hanging herself, the kid had sought help by signing up for a throwaway account on myspace and joining a support group (ie the kind of thing you wouldn't want publicly associated with your real account), would that make the victim into the fellon?
Any law that is "intended to punish" is a bad law. The purpose of a law is to set absolute standards of behavior; the punishment is merely a necessary component of the law to deal with noncompliance. If a law is drafted such that you don't feel like punishing some people who have violated the absolute standards of the law, that law has failed and is a bad law. So tell me: Do you really feel that the government should punish everyone who falsifies their identity in violation of the law?
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Let me enlighten you... "Ethanol-fueled" is a screen name, alias, or nick name. When you sign-up for Myspace you are asked to complete a form with your name and identifying information, however you can choose to have a separate and unrelated screen name, alias or nick name.
So if she used accurate information, she'd walk. You don't see a problem with that?
This potentially sets a broader precedent than just using a fake name. What it does is imbues a website's Terms of Service with the power of law. This is a very bad idea on a number of levels.
Let's start with a far-out example, simply because I feel like it. If a website for sushi lovers demands that all its users enjoy sushi, and some troll joins up and says they hate sushi, that person under this reasoning would be a criminal who would potentially face 5 years in prison.
Terms of Service do NOT have the rule of law. There are very few bodies with the power to make laws in this country, and the lawyers and idiots that craft EULA's and Terms of Service are NOT among them. This does not mean you can always violate them at will - there are laws regarding contracts that apply, and if you agree to them you may be liable there - but these are not felonies.
To state that breaking a Terms of Service, which is NOT even reviewed by congress or any other legislative body, can subject a person to 5 years in prison is simply wrong. Even if it is to cause emotional harm. Say I discover a remarkably stupid post on a blog, register to post comments, and flame the author for its blatant stupidity. I could go to jail for 5 years.
What this woman did was wrong, there is no debating that, but the fact is that this a precedent-setting charge and, if it goes forward, stands to impact all of us. Find a real charge, something that is actually illegal, and charge her with that. If you can't find a law, let her go and pass one to make sure you catch the next person. Don't allow non-legislators to legislate law. Otherwise the ToS of my website is going to say that you all have to become my personal slaves and serve my every whim in order to access my website.
It is not a bad law. It is a unique and inventive use of a law intended to punish people who crack into systems.
It doesn't matter if it can or is intended to be used against genuine criminals. If it is so broadly written that it can be used to turn a minor breach of contract into a federal felony it is a bad law, period.
Breaking a contract is a matter of civil law not criminal, and is punishable only by restitution of actual and punitive damages, not prison time. The actual damages caused to MySpace by her actions are at most harm to their reputation, but even that they would have a hard time showing. The proper punishment for false registration in this case is no more than terminating the account.
And, they have a point as the terms of service for MySpace state that, in order to use the service, one must provide correct information.
People can put just about anything into their Terms of Service. Can you honestly say that you have even read every TOS for every site you have membership on? Do you honestly believe that it is reasonable to charge someone with a felony for not following any random thing that is put into the TOS? Do you honestly think that providing a false name is the same level of crime as hacking a system? Because that is exactly what the prosecution is arguing in this case, and from reading the law, that seems to be what it says.
But murder isn't what she's being charged with. This isn't about what she did, this is about whether this law is a reasonable law. If it isn't a reasonable law for everybody than it doesn't matter whether we like her or not, she should still be held to the same standard.
So, it's one thing to make fun of an irrational person and a different thing to make fun of an irrational person? I certainly would classify as "irrational" a person who commits suicide based on something someone wrote in a website.
I remember the case of a guy I knew many years ago. He was a drunk who could never hold a job, but people bought him drinks because he told funny stories in the bar. One night he was walking home and took a shortcut across a garden when it was raining. He fell face down in a pool of rainwater and drowned. Would you say the people who bought him drinks were guilty of manslaughter?
Both cases are more or less the same, people who are basically unfit for life causing their own death. Normal people would need much more than reading an abusive webpage or walking through a garden in the rain to die. The teenage girl could have suicided because her favorite pop star got married, the drunk could have electrocuted himself in the bathtub.
It may seem callous, but people with such a distorted personality are living on borrowed time, no one can predict which act will cause their death. Of course, it's wrong to make fun of a neurotic teen or giving drinks to an alcoholic, but I don't think these should be classified as homicidal acts, because death couldn't be predicted, it wasn't even the most likely probability, it just happened.
The problem with the Al Capone argument is that it means you have to make everything illegal so that when people step out of line you always have something to charge them with, no matter how unrelated (eg. arresting murderers for tax evasion).
I'm not sure it's a path we should tread.
No sig today...
As has been pointed out previously, the language about "furtherance of some tortious act" is in the "punishment" section of the law. It's a factor to be considered in how severely the crime is punished, but it's not listed as an element of the crime itself.
No, it's not, it's a required element. Observe the numbering scheme; each arabic numeral enumerates a it's an element of the crime. Following the actual grammar the relevant violation would be "(a) Whoever...(5)(a)(ii)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; (iii)...and...by [that conduct] caused...(iii) physical injury to any person...shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Subsection (c) is the punishment section.
Sorry, but I think that is total bullshit.
People are having an overly emotional reaction to this case because it involves a 13 year old child who killed herself; but as horrible and disgusting as what Lori Drew did was, it does not make her responsible for Megan Meier's suicide. Megan Meier is the only responsible for that, and if it wouldn't have been this situation it could have been any other that occurs to teenagers every day; she suffered from acute depression. She didn't "hound her to suicide." People are responsible for their own actions.
We cannot allow laws to be created based on these sort of emotionally charged "one of a kind" situations. Violating Myspace's TOS is not a fucking felony, and it is NOT okay for DAs to decide to come up with some dubious legal strategy just to make someone pay.
That is wrong...In America it isn't supposed to work that way. you don't decide that someone needs to be punished more than what the law allows for based on what they did and decide that you are going to create some bullshit trumped up crap to do it.
IMO this particular charge should be thrown out, and if the court has any legal sense and a competent judge it will be.
I'm more concerned however with the bad precedents this could set in the legal system. In my opinion, it is more important to safeguard our liberty than it is to punish someone for their wrongdoing.
So then the people at "Catch A Pedophile" are committing a felony too. Damn, now how will we be entertained.
Careful with that double-edged blade.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
I can't even tell you how many websites I've given with my name as "My Balls" or "Your Mama" with a corresponding email address of myballs@myballs.com because I really don't need any more spam, nor did I have any desire to give away my real information. In fact, I don't have a myspace page, but had to get some images from a friends, so I had so sign up, which I think I used the name "Joe Mama." I didn't realize that doing so made me a hacking terrorist!
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"