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."
first post
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
Well as I doubt that 'Ethanol-fueled' is really your real name you have just commited a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
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
...but the subject fails to mention, for whatever it's worth, that this is the same Lori Drew that's been all over the news for helping her daughter create a fake Myspace to lead a neighborhood 13 year old girl into thinking a boy liked her. Drew and her same-aged daughter (and apparently one other teen) perpetrated this farce and then pulled the rug out, making this teen girl think the boy no longer liked her. The girl subsequently committed suicide.
It seems that because of that, IMO, the feds are out to nail her on whatever they can, not because of a site's terms of use policy. Though this would set a terrifying precedent.
Yes, her actions were despicable, but that doesn't mean we should be misinterpreting laws in order to find some way to punish her.
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.
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.
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
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..."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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").
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.
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...
I have no problem with you thinking that way, and what you say has a certain logic to it.
However, I am entitled to be anonymous. Yes, that's right. ENTITLED.
This country was founded upon belief that one person should not have the right to "screw" with another person. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. Well that includes absolute privacy and anonymity. You DO NOT have the right to come on my property, or stop me while traversing public property, and demand my identification. I am entitled, as an American, to say, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on".
Police officers are violating my constitutional rights when they demand my identification without adequate proof of suspicion that I have committed a crime. I have refused several times to the point of almost being put in handcuffs.
Let me qualify that a little. If I was driving a vehicle, the police officer DOES NOT have a right to demand my identification. However, he does have a DUTY to make sure that I am authorized by the state to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. In the course of fulfilling his duties, he would verify my identity. I don't have a problem with that. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. I DO have a problem when I am a passenger in the back seat and the officer asks me for my "drivers license".
So although you may see anonymity as a challenge, I see it as an absolute that must be protected at all costs. The country would be far less free with anonymity being outlawed.
That being said, I also believe that I have a right to demand the identity of any entity that wishes to deal with me. "Private Number" on the Caller ID? Leave a message. Don't want to give me your real name when I am doing business with you? Fine, we won't do business.
MySpace can demand the identity of a person wishing to use their services, but it is still not a crime to obfuscate that information.
Since there are plenty of people, and you certainly seem to be one of them (no disrespect intended), that are demanding that everybody "grow a pair" and reveal their identities there SHOULD be JUST AS MANY PEOPLE DEMANDING THAT THE INFORMATION BE PROTECTED.
However, that is not true is it? There is so much abuse, so my identity fraud and theft, so much distrust on the behalf of citizens in regard to their own government and private dealings with other corporations.
"Lying" about your information on applications for websites is just the tip of the iceberg. I not ONLY lie to ./ and other websites, but I lie to the GOVERNMENT. It is a defense mechanism. It only costs a little money and some time for somebody to obtain information about me from the government that is supposed to be protected.
There is a conflict of interest when the government makes money from the sale of your information while at the same time being charged with protecting it. That goes for private corporations as well. There is real danger to my person, my family, and my property by "growing a pair" and "standing up in public".
The decent thing to do is to be honest about who you are when you deal with people personally. However, while I am writing this post to you, millions or hundreds of millions of other people could also read it. I just can't simply say, "Yeah Rustin, that new $15,000 speaker system is AWESOME. I got one for myself in my home theater room" while at the same time having accurate first, last, address, phone, etc. information available in my profile.
There are too many predators out there and anonymity, either forcefully obtained or through "artifacts" of the Internet, is a required survival tool.
So if you really want to put your money where your mouth is, then post ALL of your contact information in your Journal. I want:
First, Middle, Last Name
Home Address
Work Address
All Phone Numbers
SOS#
Emergency Contact Information
Height, Weight, Eye Color, Hair Color, etc.
Children's information, information on your spouse, etc.
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.