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."
If you abuse this law (meant to deter actual computer crime) to criminally enforce the TOS of any random website, it sets such a bad precedent that we can basically jail anyone that uses the web, a phone, or any device with a computer in it such as a car or a washing machine.
The biggest problem, besides the overreaching law, is that any idiot can -- and does -- write his own TOS.
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.
What monetary damages? Millions from a woman who probably has more debt than assets? While I agree the setting of precedent is kinda scary, I think the woman should be punished as a criminal in every way possible to punish her for directly driving a girl to suicide. Then again, I think what she did should be criminal - psychological harassment - but, I don't write the laws...
In Morocco, a 26 years old was kidnapped, tortured and sentenced to three years in prison for creating a Facebook profile with the name of a prince (the king's brother). The case showed that there have been little change in the country (and its institutions) since the end of Hassan II's tyrannical regime.
Res publica non dominetur
>_ Yet another thing where someone did something heinous, and can't be charged for it, because there was no law against it.
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
At the very least, I'm sure there are laws protecting people against other people sending harassing and intimidating emails. I know it happened at college (almost every other year, there was a story about someone who faked an email address in order to harass someone.)
Unfortunately, if nothing else sticks, then TOO BAD. The protection of "everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" is that laws shouldn't be jury-rigged to punish someone for something that was otherwise something not illegal.
I recall there was a problem in Enumclaw with a man who would film himself having intercourse with a horse, and eventually ended up puncturing his intestines and died from it. As a result, prosecutors tried to get his friend who was filming for something, anything, but there were no real laws against bestiality at the time. So, they had to go with a misdemeanor or something of "animal abuse". Either way, they changed the law to ensure that someone couldn't do it again, or anymore.
So, the state they're in needs to pass a new law, saying that creating a false identity for the express purpose of harassing someone else is illegal. BOOM, problem solved for the future. Does it suck that she gets off? Yeah, it does, but that's how law is supposed to work.
But then, the only way we got Capone in jail was with tax-evasion... so...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
All these posts denigrating the law and the justice system, based on something as inherently unreliable as a slashdot article summary. First of all, if anyone here thinks that under this law you could be indicted for just creating a pseudonym on an online forum, you really need to learn critical thinking skills. Hell, anonymity is constitutionally protected in many circumstances.
I've read the indictment, and that's not what it says. The relevant federal law requires that the unauthorized access to be done in furtherance of some tortious or criminal act. To extort money, to cause physical injury, to get government secrets, to damage the computer, etc. In this case, the defendant gained unauthorized access to myspace to intentionally inflict emotional harm on this girl. Now whether that qualifies as "physical injury," I don't know; they might have to show that the defendant intended the girl to physically hurt herself or sustain injury as a result of the abuse. But even if it gets thrown out, it is still close enough to justify bringing the charge in the first place. No, it is not a symbol of the horrible legal oppression everyone suffers here. I am not especially pro-prosecutory; in fact, I almost joined the public defender's office after law school, and I am very skeptical of prosecutors in general. But I'm also sick of the ridiculous overreaction everyone here has everytime anyone anywhere is charged with a crime.
Unfortunately, it sets a precedent, and every precedent shows up somewhere else, always more stringently enforced.
US law used to say that using any name one chooses was not illegal as long as it was not for the purposes of fraud.
E.g, if I called myself Tom Cruise and never made any attempt at connecting myself with THE Tom Cruise of acting semi-fame, I'm fine. "Are you THE..." "No I am not." End of problem.
If I went online as "Tom Cruise" and tried selling "Katie's used panties" for $100 each, well, that's fraud, and that makes the use of the name illegal.
The question here is if MySpace would have provided their service to this woman under her "real" name, or did they only do so because of the name she used. If they would have provided the service under any name she used, then there is no fraud. She got nothing she would not have gotten otherwise.
This charge is chilling. I have no doubt nobody expects my birth certificate to contain the words "Obfuscant", and "oahazmatt" doesn't contain that as his legal name, either, I expect.
It actually sets two bad precedents. One is that using a fake name is a felony. The other is that websites can determine when someone is committing a felony, instead of the legislature.
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
We have a woman in the office who gets offended if she sees two people talking quietly - because she just assumes that they're talking about her.
So, if she gets depressed about this and kills herself, you'd want everyone in the office to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
You have to base laws on the act and not on the effect the act has on someone.
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
They're just doing what any good prosecutor does -- throwing everything they can at the wall to see what sticks.
That said, I think this is a real loser for the prosecution. There's no way the Supreme Court is going to let people be criminally liable for failing to obey a contract of adhesion. That's just madness. I doubt that this'll survive even at the trial level if her defense attorney hasn't forget everything about unconscionability since graduating law school years ago.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
How it usually works is that they'll charge you with everything possible in the hopes that you'd rather plead guilty and get 10 years instead of taking a chance with a trial and getting 30 years. Whether you're innocent or not doesn't matter. What this really amounts to is punishing you for exercising your constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial. Plea bargaining is damned abusive, and should not be allowed.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's the key. The lady signed up to Myspace with the intent to torture the girl. I'm willing to bet quite a few parents pulled their kids off Myspace because of this, resulting in less ad views, resulting in financial harm.