Online Impersonations Now Illegal In California

theodp writes "TechCrunch's Michael Arrington reports that a California bill criminalizing online impersonations went into effect on January 1st. 'There has to be intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person — not necessarily the person you are impersonating,' explains Arrington. 'Free speech issues, including satire and parody, aren't addressed in the text of the bill. The courts will likely sort it out.' So, Fake Steve Jobs, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?'"

Comments

Rich protecting themselves

[cloakedpegasus]

Of course its meant to keep the peasants in line. Like this bill was meant to protect me, psh.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

California had to pass this law. It is the land of empty hollywood personas. They have to protect their stars or people might realize that a 2D flash animation is usually more entertaining than the real thing.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, of course! Why would they want to protect someone who doesn't have massive amounts of money?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[RsG]

I'm pretty sure fraud and impersonation were illegal before this. This new law, like most laws with the word "online" attached to them, is just a redundant addition to already existing regulations. So the "peasants" have less to do with it than idle legislatures trying to justify their existence, or the failure to realize that the magic box with the TV and typewriter attached doesn't require a whole new set of laws to govern it.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Z00L00K]

No, but it may be used to protect politicians.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Most new laws are redundant additions to existing laws. The overlap is entirely deliberate.

This law is not about money regardless of the 'defraud' part. This law will be used to stop criticism and documentaries that show the rich and powerful in a bad light.

Its like using a shotgun instead of a pistol. You have half a dozen ways to stop someone doing something instead of just one.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

*If* the summary is correct, then the law is about "impersonations" *not* fraud, as in stealing your money and assets.

There are many good reasons for this law and why I should not state that I am Bill Gates or Joe Shmoe. This law address loophole of cyber-bullying where someone will maliciously impersonate another and there is no law against it. See the case where a kid commited suicide because of the cunt, Lori Drew.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/30/0448217/Lori-Drew-Cyberbullying-Case-Dismissed?from=rss

So if you want to remain anonymous, write anonymous. If you want to have your real name on posts, put your real name or even your pseudonym. But you have no right to take someone else's name for any purpose. That is what this law addresses and it's about time.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

Exactly...

It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.

Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to people beating up others because they belong to some minority group, but I'm opposed to anyone beating anyone up for any reason. Unless it's a fair fight and no one is forced into it (i.e. duels). But that's another subject.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

I scanned all the links and it doesn't require it to be an actual person you're impersonating. It seems just as illegal to 'impersonate' a random housewife in a dishwasher tablet advert.

This is NOT about cyber-bullying in any way except as a means to push the law through 'for the children'. Its about rich people stopping things that shows them in a bad light. The Tiger Woods sex scandal tv movie will now be illegal.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[JWSmythe]

You've pointed out what wrong with most of the "new" laws. I know your example is well dated, but...

    Consider the new slew of laws regarding texting while driving.

    It's illegal to drive while distracted. It has been for an awful long time. If that distraction involved in injury or death, it's even more so.

    Then quite a while ago, they had to spell out that you could drive while watching TV. Any vehicle mounted TV couldn't be in view of the driver. Recently, they started with cell phones. You can't text while driving. You can't read your mail while driving. You can't hold your phone to your ear. Oddly enough, you can still hold in depth conversations if you go buy a earpiece. I don't quite get that one. I've seen plenty of folks in other real-world situations where you can't make them see the reality of their physical situation because they are on the phone. It wasn't necessary to add any of those laws to the books, other than it made government officials look productive.

    So when will they make the laws saying it's illegal to eat, shave your legs, put on makeup, and scream at the kids in the back seat while driving? Ok, I've never seen them all at once, but I've seen various combination of those with cars driving erratically.

    Great, so now it's illegal to impersonate someone else online. I expect they'll have to extend that to say you can't talk on a forum with a name that someone else uses. I guess I'm SOL, my online name matches dozens of other people. Worse, my real name matches thousands of other people in the US, and who knows how many world wide. If we just look in the scope of the Entertainment industry, my name matches about a dozen actors, directors, producers, and other production crew members. Hell, IMDB finds JW Smythe possibly matching 19 people, none of which are me. I swear, they're not me. "Smythe" even shows results in iafd.com. Again, not me.

    No fucking wonder the law books are so bloated. In the quest for lawmakers to feel self important, they will keep adding laws to the books to continually restate other laws. It doesn't just bloat lawbooks, but these laws frequently carry different punishments for the same crime. Hmm, you had a phone, and you were driving carelessly, and screaming at the kids in the back seat, but your bumper sticker that says "Meet.Me.For.Cheap.Sex.com" has the name "Slut Monkey" on it. That's the stage name of someone else.

    (oddly enough, I couldn't find a reference to "Slut Monkey" being either a stage name nor movie title. Production will start tomorrow. All female applicants should send their resume with measurements, nude photos, acts their willing to perform, and current STD test results.)

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[icebike]

This law will be used to stop criticism and documentaries that show the rich and powerful in a bad light.

Impersonation is not a key element found in criticism or documentaries, so your assertion is baseless.

The bill also requires that a violator "credibly impersonates another actual person", so simply standing up and criticizingly another person is CLEARLY not covered.

Making a documentary (and even posting it on the web) with actors portraying another person is not covered because the it is not "credible impersonation", simply an Actor doing his job, which always comes with disclaimers.

Going on the web and posting attacks pretending to BE another "ACTUAL" person is not permitted

The law contains a significant mention of school districts, which leads me to believe it was not aimed at celebrities but rather at various forms of cyber bullying.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[sumdumass]

I just want to know what this means for all the celebrity porn sites?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[hairyfeet]

What you are describing is "protected classes" which makes some of your fellow citizens more worthy of protection than you are. Ever hear of someone being charged with a hate crime for hitting a white person? I know I haven't but you can't tell me that crime has never happened. What about for hitting a Christian? Or someone who is heterosexual?

For a nice example of "protected class" please enjoy this video. Now does anyone here think that if you would have replaced the two in the video with skinheads they wouldn't have been convicted of a hate crime? All this hate crime bullshit is nothing but racism, pure and simple. You hit or kill someone, you go to jail. It shouldn't matter what color or sex they are. If a prosecutor thought that played into the crime he was perfectly free before to present that evidence to the jury who could then pass down a harsher sentence. By creating "protected classes" you simply breed lovely logic like this quote: "Black people can't be racists because their ancestors suffered".

So while you may see hate crime as some sort of "equalizer" others see it for what it is: payback.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

I 100% disagree. Anyone belonging to any of the minority groups called Terrorists, Neo-Cons or Bilderberg or Scientologist should be beaten up.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[javalizard]

The politicians need to look like they are doing something for us, however ineffective or redundant. What a waste of tax money. There are more important things to do than reiterate laws.

And what about impersonating a character that doesn't exist?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Zumbs]

Ever hear of someone being charged with a hate crime for hitting a white person? I know I haven't but you can't tell me that crime has never happened. What about for hitting a Christian? Or someone who is heterosexual?

Let me hazard a guess: You live in a country dominated by white Christian heterosexuals?

The harsher punishments are to some extent there to discourage attacks on others because of their skin color, religion, sexuality and/or political opinions. In a free and open society it is reasonable to punish these attacks harsher, as attacks on people due to these features is also in effect an attack on their freedom of expression and speech.

The second argument for the harsher punishments for hate crimes is to protect minorities from oppression from the dominant majority. Yes, this means that white Chrisitan heterosexuals will not get the full protection in a white Christian country, as they already belong to the majority. However in a country where they are the minority, such as India, similar laws could be instituted to protect Christians from haressment.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[farnsworth]

So while you may see hate crime as some sort of "equalizer" others see it for what it is: payback.

The logic and value of having "hate crimes" on the books may not be immediately obvious, but it does exist. When someone is brutally assaulted because of some inherent property of their being, it has a chilling effect on others. It is traumatizing to people who were unrelated to the event. It is similar to terrorism.

Compare: 1) a bar brawl that results in a patron getting brutally stabbed to death and 2) a group of KKK members chaining a black man to their truck and dragging him through town.

Both are brutal, needless murders, but can you really not see that one is far more deplorable and damaging than the other?

The intent is not to "equalize" anything or to "payback" anything. The intent to categorize crimes that impact a larger number of people as larger crimes.

You can debate that point if you want, because that is the actual point of having "hate crimes."

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.

And I think anyone who says that is a racist homophobe. Why? Because we've had crimes with different punishments based on intent for a very long time. Manslaughter, involuntary homicide, reckless endangerment, careless driving, murder, capital murder, assault etc. have all been applied to the act of one person causing the death of another. They choose which based on "intent." But no one complains about that. Nope, they wait until the law uses "intent" to protect persecuted minorities, then suddenly spring from the woodwork to claim "thoughtcrime."

Since I've never seen anyone claim that the levels of homicide charges are thoughtcrime, I have to assume that anyone complaining specifically about those that protect minorities are doing so because they are bigots.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I was thinking that it was more a reaction to the crazy bitch that drove a girl to suicide last year. It was on the east coast, but it got national headlines.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[NiceGeek]

"The Tiger Woods sex scandal tv movie will now be illegal." - hysterical nonsense. No one in a movie about a celeb would be "credibly impersonating" a celebrity.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's not a hate crime unless the class is a motivating factor - if I beat some black guy for cheating at pool, that's assault. If I shout racial epithets, it's probably going to be prosecuted as a hate crime. Switch the roles so he's beating me and it's the same. It matters because when you go after someone for being part of a group, it's a threat to other members of the group and often tied to more organized assaults. Best to punish accordingly.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely agree with this. It's an idea which may sound good on paper to some, but policing thoughts is entirely impossible and is prone to massive errors when it is attempted. I know someone who got into a bar fight a few years back with a random guy who was there. It ended up spilling outside, and the guy I knew ended up beating the victim badly enough that he needed some stitches, but not so badly that he had any serious injuries like broken bones or damaged internals (i.e. nothing too out of the ordinary for a typical fight). That said, he got the book thrown at him by an activist lesbian judge (wish I was making this stuff up) since the victim happened to be gay, despite the fact that the victim's sexuality hadn't come up before or during the fight. The guy I knew spent a few years in jail for his "hate crime", and ended up having to cancel his own wedding since he was locked up when it would've happened. Now, granted, he did something that was both stupid and wrong, and jail time was certainly in order for what he did, but a judge thought that she knew what he was thinking when he beat up someone else, despite a lack of any evidence even indicating that he was aware of the minority to which the victim belonged, and as a result, his punishment was extended far beyond what it should have been.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Khyber]

I can tell you've never seen Nailin' Palin.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anachragnome]

"It's already illegal to beat someone up."

Yes, but if you make a "new" law and insert universally ambiguous legalese that can be endlessly argued in a courtroom the lawyers will make more money.

The odd thing is who is sponsoring this law. Joe Simitian has been a lifelong politician and has little political blood on his hands. A good deal of his work is common-sense safety and environmental issues, so I think this is more then likely a simple case of over-zealotry--existing laws should have just been updated to reflect the tech changes (internet, phones, etc.).

Silly.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[NiceGeek]

and how many people actually thought that was really Palin? I'm guessing somewhere in the neighborhood of zero.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Mr. Slippery]

Ever hear of someone being charged with a hate crime for hitting a white person?

Yes, actually. May I suggest that next time you have a question about crime statistics, you head over to the FBI's website and scope out the Uniform Crime Reports? There, you could learn that for 2009, there were 668 victims of racially motivated hate crimes against whites, including 3 murders, 2 rapes, 113 aggravated assaults, and 191 simple assaults. I don't know how many of these were solved, charged, or convicted, but appearance in the UCR means the cops labeled it a hate crime.

Or you could use a little Google-fu before you spout off about how "I've never heard about XYZ happening!" You would have quickly found out, for example, about Ronald Taylor, a black man who in 2000 was charged with hate crimes after a murder spree targeting white people. He was convicted and sentenced to death; one of the prosecution's arguments against the insanity defense was that he was "competent" enough to only target whites.

All this hate crime bullshit is nothing but racism, pure and simple. You hit or kill someone, you go to jail. It shouldn't matter what color or sex they are.

The problem is that that wasn't happening. People have been known to get away with beating and killing gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., because of indifference in broader society. There's also the fact that such crimes are often intended not just as assaults against individuals but as threats against other members of that group: "This'll teach those (gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc.) what happens if they try to (move here, vote, get a job, fall in love with the wrong type of person, etc.)!"

Now, I don't think laws that just increase penalties for crimes against gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., are the right solution. Assaulting people is a crime; threatening people is a crime; the law ought to be crafted such that assaulting people in a manner that is intended as a threat to a group is prosecuted as both an assault and a threat.

But we have to acknowledge that there is a problem that these laws are trying to solve. And not all hate crime laws are about stiffer penalties based on "protected classes"; some are about enforcement. A law that makes cops arrest assaulters, even if the assaultee was gay, black, Jewish, Mexican, a women, etc., is a good hate crime law. A law that gather statistics on hate crimes is a good hate crime law. A law that calls for different types of rehabilitation efforts for a hate crime perpetrator versus someone needing anger management therapy might, depending on details, be a good hate crime law. (That's pretending, of course, that our prison-industrial complex gave a damn about rehabilitation.)

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Mr. Slippery]

Ever hear of someone being charged with a hate crime for hitting a white person?

Yes, actually. May I suggest that next time you have a question about crime statistics, you head over to the FBI's website and scope out the Uniform Crime Reports? There, you could learn that for 2009, there were 668 victims of racially motivated hate crimes against whites, including 3 murders, 2 rapes, 113 aggravated assaults, and 191 simple assaults. I don't know how many of these were solved, charged, or convicted, but appearance in the UCR means the cops labeled it a hate crime.

Or you could use a little Google-fu before you spout off about how "I've never heard about XYZ happening!" You would have quickly found out, for example, about Ronald Taylor, a black man who in 2000 was charged with hate crimes after a murder spree targeting white people. He was convicted and sentenced to death; one of the prosecution's arguments against the insanity defense was that he was "competent" enough to only target whites.

All this hate crime bullshit is nothing but racism, pure and simple. You hit or kill someone, you go to jail. It shouldn't matter what color or sex they are.

The problem is that that wasn't happening. People have been known to get away with beating and killing gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., because of indifference in broader society. There's also the fact that such crimes are often intended not just as assaults against individuals but as threats against other members of that group: "This'll teach those (gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc.) what happens if they try to (move here, vote, get a job, fall in love with the wrong type of person, etc.)!"

Now, I don't think laws that just increase penalties for crimes against gays, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, etc., are the right solution. Assaulting people is a crime; threatening people is a crime; the law ought to be crafted such that assaulting people in a manner that is intended as a threat to a group is prosecuted as both an assault and a threat.

But we have to acknowledge that there is a problem that these laws are trying to solve. And not all hate crime laws are about stiffer penalties based on "protected classes"; some are about enforcement. A law that makes cops arrest assaulters, even if the assaultee was gay, black, Jewish, Mexican, a women, etc., is a good hate crime law. A law that gather statistics on hate crimes is a good hate crime law. A law that calls for different types of rehabilitation efforts for a hate crime perpetrator versus someone needing anger management therapy might, depending on details, be a good hate crime law. (That's pretending, of course, that our prison-industrial complex gave a damn about rehabilitation.)

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[adisakp]

Exactly...

It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.

No, this is a bad example, because INTENT is important in deciding the punishment. For example, it's illegal to kill someone under most circumstances (except in certain cases of self-defence and capital punishment). However, if you kill someone accidentally, you may be charged with manslaughter. If you plan and premeditate a killing, you will be charged with "murder". Murder is *EXACTLY* a case where the THOUGHT process differentiates the CRIME from Manslaughter.

For the same reason, hate crimes are an "extra bad" category. They require some sort of prejudice and targetting and are often premeditated.... i.e. "let's go beat up a faggot" or "let's go lynch a black guy" is much worse than getting in an a random argument at a bar and starting a fight with him and beating him up.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[shutdown -p now]

If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.

I'm pretty sure that it's not a "hate crime" simply because a victim is from the minority group. It's only a "hate crime" if that was the primary motivation for the assault.

It doesn't seem fundamentally different from me to how we distinguish first and second degree murder, for example.

If you think about it, it makes sense if you view punishment as deterrent for future anti-social behavior, rather than the revenge. If the goal is to keep the perpetrator away for long enough to ensure that he won't re-offend, then the motivation is very important in determining the punishment.

That said, the fact that it's much harder to go for the "hate crime" angle when the victim is not a minority is what's wrong with those laws. If you assault someone because of the color of their skin or their religion, it should be dealt with just as harshly if they're a white Christian as when they're a black Muslim.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[shutdown -p now]

The second argument for the harsher punishments for hate crimes is to protect minorities from oppression from the dominant majority. Yes, this means that white Chrisitan heterosexuals will not get the full protection in a white Christian country, as they already belong to the majority.

That's the BS part. What you're basically saying is that members of the majority shouldn't get as much protection from oppression on the ground of their ethnicity/religion/etc simply because they're already better off in other areas, and so it all "evens out". That's the most disgusting perversion of the rule of law that can happen - the law is either one and the same, treating everyone equally, and then it is just; or there are different laws for different people, and then it's segregation in disguise.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[shutdown -p now]

A law that makes cops arrest assaulters, even if the assaultee was gay, black, Jewish, Mexican, a women, etc., is a good hate crime law.

It's not. It's redundant, because there is already law that makes cops arrest assaulters regardless of other factors. If they ignore that law in practice, they'll ignore your hate crime law as well.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Khyber]

The term we're after here is 'credible impersonation.'

Many porns have some damned good look and sound-alikes.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[NiceGeek]

But are they advertising them as actually being the celeb? Also, isn't the simple fact of it being porn kinda (no pun intended) blowing the "credible impersonation" claim out of the water?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[marcansoft]

Sad but true. No matter what the law says, getting protected as mere users is near impossible. Unless you're willing to go through a costly legal battle, no one cares.

A few days ago we presented ourselves as a hacker group at the 27th Chaos Communication Congress, presenting PS3 hacks, and now we have a YouTube account squater/scammer asking for donations in our name. I've tried YouTube impersonation reports, but apparently I'm "providing insufficient information" (duh, you get 300 characters to explain everything). I've tried YouTube Legal, received no response so far. I've tried getting people to flag the videos as a scam, but that doesn't work. I'm not even going to try PayPal; I've dealt with them before and they don't care.

This whole thing reminds me of my run-ins with scammers back when I was actively developing Wii homebrew stuff. The payment processors (ClickBank, Plimus, PayPal, and co.) don't care. They'll happily take people's money and hand it over to scammers, keeping a percentage, of course, even if what is being sold is a scam or illegal.

If you're a small consumer or producer, companies don't give a rat's ass about you. They'll only listen if they know you have the power and lawyers to actually file a lawsuit and win.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[drsmithy]

No fucking wonder the law books are so bloated. In the quest for lawmakers to feel self important, they will keep adding laws to the books to continually restate other laws.

Most of the reason this is happening is because a non-trivial proportion of people are either a) too stupid to correlate the existing law to their behaviour (driving distracted ? No, I'm just talking on the phone - I wasn't distracted at all), or b) too selfish to take their punishment when they're caught by using the lack of specificity in the law (driving distracted ? No, I was just talking on the phone - I wasn't distracted at all - there's no law against driving and being on the phone).

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[drsmithy]

It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts.

No, we're taking into account the perpetrator's intent. This is a perfectly valid thing to do, and is why there is a difference between, say, manslaughter and premeditated murder.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Khyber]

In some cases? Absolutely, in countries where that person being impersonated would be unlikely to win a lawsuit.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[JWSmythe]

How's the saying go? Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

I'd be willing to bet most drivers don't know the majority of laws that they have to follow right now. Without looking them up, try these. They apply in most states.

How many forward facing white lights on a passenger are allowed in your state?

What is the acceptable range, in inches, for the front bumper of a vehicle to be?

What vehicle is suppose to have a downward facing blue light in the rear? Hint: It's not any governmental vehicle.

How many passengers may travel in the front seat? How many occupant seats may a vehicle have, and still be driven without a CDL. I actually almost ran into trouble with this one. First order of business, remove 46 seats.

My state has some other interesting laws. Front side windows may be tinted to a percentage of opacity. The windshield may also be tinted, but for not more than X inches or X percent of the vertical height, whichever is less.

I've known people who were given tickets for doing 55mph on a 55mph road, because on one stretch of road the speed limit was changed for 40mph, and the change was unannounced. The speed limit was then changed back a few months later, and people were cited for driving too slow.

I've had the luxury of reading both the abridged book, which law enforcement uses to write tickets, and the unabridged state laws. As I've been told, all an officer has to do is follow you long enough to find you breaking some law. Ignorance of the law you broke does not constitute a defense. "I didn't know my phone was a distraction" or "I didn't know watching porn on my in-car TV while I was driving was illegal" (BTW, two criminal infractions there, assuming nothing else happened).

Even the state plays the same game. Try looking on YouTube for red light camera traps. You'll see my own video there, along with plenty of others. There is a federal guideline (but not law), with precise formulas for determining how long a light should be yellow, which includes indicated speed, the width of the intersection, and the G's that would be required to stop. When I was ticketed, the yellow light should have been for at least 4.5 seconds. The video evidence showed the light was yellow for 3 seconds. I took the luxury of pulling the video into Adobe Premier, and overlaying timestamps. At 4.5 seconds, I was clear of the intersection. Unfortunately, a $150 ticket is cheaper than a $500 lawyer, and since the state law doesn't say it should follow federal guidelines, they win. They get to play the "we didn't know" game, and since the city or county is profiting from it, it's doubtful you'll win.

The majority of traffic laws, including the new texting laws, are for the profit of the jurisdiction. They may save a few lives, but they could save more by stricter guidelines to allow people to drive. I got my drivers license in or around 1987. I haven't been retested by the state to prove proficiency. Well, I wasn't tested initially either. I took drivers ed in school, and the slip of paper saying I passed was all the proof required that I could drive. I take driving seriously, since it's my life in the car, so I keep myself up to date on laws and improving my driving through various methods. Someone, like my own mother, has been driving for decades without any sort of retesting, nor other methods of improving or reinforcing her driving ability. Unfortunately, she is the norm, and I am the exception. I still go over on occasion just to spot check her car to make sure it's performing properly. Last time, the tires were under-inflated. Most state guidelines require checking your vehicle including lights and tires, every time you intend to operate it, to make sure everything is within normal operating parameters. I swear, I see people with burned out headlights and marker lights daily

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[NiceGeek]

Well then a California law would be kind of irrelevant wouldn't it?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[hairyfeet]

Ooooooooo really? Then how do you explain the dismissal of voter intimidation and hate crime charges against the Black Panthers? I repeat if it had been skinheads they WOULD have been charged and convicted of a hate crime, period. even the whsitleblower quit because he said it was so obviously one sided against whites.

You know there is a reason why our symbol of justice is blind and carries scales. It is because for the law to have any respect or meaning it has to apply equally to all regardless of race, sex, religion, nationality, etc. Hate crimes are nothing but a complete perversion of that notion by making non whites and non heteros the "victim class" and making the white the "oppressor class" which as I linked to is the very notion espoused by the leader of those allowed to intimidate voters away from the polls.

We have seen time and time again the whole "victim class" mentality doesn't work, and frankly it wasn't needed in this case. We have had civil rights laws on the books for damned near 40 years now that allowed the feds to take over if the locals condoned racism, but frankly I haven't seen that happen since the early 70s. No what this is is more politically correct bullshit, such as arresting and manhandling the Christians that dared to show up at a Muslim rally holding signs that said "mistreatment of women on grounds of religion is wrong" while treating anyone who pointed out that while they were allowing a Mosque in sight of 9/11 they still refuse to allow the Catholic church to rebuild even after a decade as a bigot and racist.

Hell I'm an agnostic atheist and even I can see how lopsided these new laws and rules are being applied. Hell in many places in the USA whites aren't even the majority anymore but I don't see them getting any special treatment as a "minority" do you? To me this bullshit smacks too damned much of the "white devil" bullshit the late Elijah Muhammad used to spew. it didn't matter what a black person did because it was ALWAYS the fault of the white devil that was keeping the good man down. But our laws and courts are supposed to be above that polarizing hate filled bullshit, and while we have stumbled in the past up until recently I thought we were making damned good strides on the front. But changing the law to give someone special status based on the color of their skin is just as wrong when EITHER side does it and I don't see how any well educated person here can justify two wrongs supposed making a right. Racism is wrong, victim classes are bullshit, we are all equal, period.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Xaositecte]

Ever have a moment where someone explains something, and you think, "huh, I should have realized that ages ago, it just makes so much sense."

You just did that for me. I've always been on the fence in regards to the whole hate crime laws issue, figuring both sides had pretty good points and not really convinced wholeheartedly for either one. That's not the case anymore.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Saint Fnordius]

I read the article and the statute quote contained in it, and the summary does mislead: Fake Steve Jobs would have been safe even under this law because he is not impersonating Steve Jobs. Calling himself "Fake" up front puts enough distance so that you don't get fooled into thinking he's the real Steve Jobs.

A greyer area might be the parody article claiming Justin Bieber was in favor of the "Ground Zero Mosque" (which isn't really anywhere near the former WTC site, but that's drifting off topic). Even though it was clearly a intended as satire, just enough people thought it was real to call for boycotts (though to be honest, the people calling for boycotts weren't the sort to buy Justin Bieber merchandise in the first place). But I think even that is safe because it didn't actually make any imitations of Justin Bieber; it only lampooned the current level of reporting.

It's a fine line, and I am not disagreeing with the anonymous parent. Only clarifying a little more what the law really tries to solve: how easy it is to imitate a classmate or an authority figure so that you can bully others. Whether for good or bad, it does leave a grey area for how much parody is allowed, but I personally feel that grey area is unavoidable and better than a codified definition of parody.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Saint Fnordius]

Look, it can be summed up pretty succinctly: the premise behind US laws is that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, then it is allowed. Thus the laws like this one, which expand protections provided elsewhere into the online world.

Oh, so there isn't an offline protection against impersonation? But of course there is. Most states make it a crime to, say, call someone's current employer and pretend to be that person's former boss. It's not mere impersonators that is forbidden, but impostors. A small difference, but an important one. It's the difference between actors impersonating a real person in a play or movie, and an actor impersonating a real person outside of that setting, not providing clues that it is just an impersonation.

Or another example: if your name is Dan Brown, as long as you don't try to convince people that you're the famous author of The Da Vinci Code (assuming you aren't him, of course), then it isn't impersonation. As long as you don't try to convince people you're one of the other JW Smythes out there, you aren't an impersonator. Just a homonym.

Oh, and as to why some things are forbidden (like texting while driving) and others aren't (doing X while driving), it goes back to the old adage of "what isn't explicitly forbidden". Until enough incidents occur where, say, leg shaving played a role in an accident, it won't be explicitly forbidden. It will be assumed enough people know better to actually make it illegal.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[farnsworth]

The articles that you linked to are incomprehensible.

If you have a problem with the notion that a bigoted murder is a bigger problem than a plain murder, that's fine. But maybe you should make that point.

Ranting about unrelated and alleged 1st amendment violations and specious injustices in the building permit process is not helping your case.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's remove the race part of your example and see what happens.

Compare: 1) a bar brawl that results in a patron getting brutally stabbed to death and 2) a group of people chaining a man to their truck and dragging him through town.

I would argue that dragging a man through town is worse even without the race part. So adding "hate crime" doesn't seem to have any benefit.

Now let's say a KKK member stabs to death a black man in a bar fight. The dragging through town murder still seems worse to me, but your argument is that because the first crime was committed by a KKK member against a black man it should be punished more harshly? I respectfully disagree with this. IMO it's the crime that matters, not so much the person committing it.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[gambino21]

The problem is that hate crimes laws are not really about "intent" by itself. Hate crimes are based, at least partly, on who is committing the crime regardless of their intent. As you describe the distinction between various intents are already contained in existing law. But a hate crime does not take effect unless the criminal and the victim belong to specific groups.

Consider two premeditated murders, one by a white man against a black man, and another by a white KKK member against a black man. The intent of each of these criminals may have been exactly the same, i.e. to kill the other man, however under hate crime laws these two individuals would receive different punishments based on who they are, not based on their intent.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Scenario 1 describes a crime that would typically be considered manslaughter... An emotionally charged, heat of the moment action. This is more-or-less the 'come home early and shoot the guy while he's in bed with your wife (and maybe her too) offense' and is considered by the law to be significantly less severe that murder (premeditated) as you described in the second case.

Also, bonus points for the KKK.

A more apt comparison would be the KKK dragging a former member down the street because he was seen catting amicably with a black person. How do those compare? This one isn't a hate crime though.

Or, let's go back to manslaughter... Suppose the the stabber is white and the stabee is black (sticking with that theme), and the stabber had some ties to a skin head group. That's more of a crime now?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

Consider two premeditated murders, one by a white man against a black man, and another by a white KKK member against a black man. The intent of each of these criminals may have been exactly the same, i.e. to kill the other man, however under hate crime laws these two individuals would receive different punishments based on who they are, not based on their intent.

You assert the intent is the same, in which case you would be correct if that were to ever happen in reality. However, reality proves you wrong, and you conveniently ignored all details. You can kill your wife in a premeditated manner and get a lesser sentence because in one case, the motive for the premediated murder is profit (kill her for the insurance money) in which case you'll get a a more harsh sentence than if you premeditated it because she was cheating on you. Sure, both could be charged the same, but the reality is they aren't.

And the KKK member wouldn't be charged with a hate crime because they are in the KKK. If they robbed a bank and in the course of robbing that bank they killed the security guard, the race of the guard would be irrelevant. Hate crimes are about terrorism. When you target a race to punish and then pick a member of that race to torture and kill in a public and horrific manner, it is a worse crime (as asserted by nearly everyone on the planet but you) than some bored drunk kids who commit the same actions on the first random person they cross without regards to who that person is. And if you don't understand why, there are plenty of books and classes in history that could enlighten you.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[wickedskaman]

Cool story, bro.

P.S. Cool ironic sig, too, bro.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[QuantumBeep]

You're greatly overestimating idiots. I guarantee at least one hundred people in the world brough friends over and said HOLY SHIT IT'S SARAH PALIN

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

You are one of four people to say, essentially, the same thing. I am a lawyer and I think you are confusing "intent" and "motivation", so allow me to elucidate:

Intent address the planned outcome of a person's action (I "intend" to get milk at the store), whereas "motivation" addresses the reason behind the intent (I want to eat some cereal tomorrow morning... or I want cookies tonight).

Motivation can explain intent, but they are not the same thing.

For instance: You steal my girlfriend and so I decide that I really don't like you. Based on my dislike of you, I intend to inflict severe bodily harm upon you.

The "intent" (to inflict severe bodily harm) is no different here than in a case where someone hates a person because of their group status.

In both scenarios (stolen GF/group status) the intent was the same, but the motivation was different. When the law starts to look at the motivation, we are treading on very dangerous ground.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

You are one of four people who have said essentially the same thing. Please read this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

You are one of four people who have said essentially the same thing. You are confusing "intent" with "motivation". Please read this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

That is not intent. I explained this in another comment on this thread... here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

Before you make a final decision on that, please read my response, here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

I am a lawyer and I think you are confusing "intent" and "motivation",

Let me be clear. For one, you are using the words wrong. Why? Because everyone has disagreed with your interpretation and no one agreed with it. You used a technical term in a non-technical instance. It's just like when the users call the computer case (regardless of what, if any, is inside it) the CPU. Everyone knows what they mean and it's actually rude to correct them. Language is what passes information and, even if not a strictly correct usage, is "correct" in that everyone understood.

The technical legal terms, even when discussing laws, are not appropriate unless specified to be the technical terms when the technical terms and vernacular are in disagreement. So, when everyone else thinks you are wrong and you are the only one that thinks you are right and the topic is language, then you are actually wrong. That's the way language works.

Further, the "intent" is not the same even when the two outcomes are intended to be the same. Someone who intends to kill someone to rob them and someone that intends to kill them because they are black has the same outcome, but different intentions. Even if we accept your definitions of intent and motivation without alteration. How is that? Simple. One the intent is the death and robbery of the other (a compound crime where the death is treated differently than an intended death without robbery) and the other the intent is death and fear. Instilling fear is not necessarily a crime, but when backed by actual violence can be taken to be a credible threat against other people. However, a threat against "people" isn't illegal, while a threat against a person is. So when a credible threat is made (or implied) and the people aren't specified (or are specified in a broad sense, such as by race or sexual preference), this, along with a violent crime, is taken to be a credible threat against a specific person (even if that person can't be individually identified).

And you are wrong on every count with homicide as well. There are at least 5 versions of homicide I can think of where you didn't intend to harm anyone and caused a death, and another 4 or so I can think of for when you did, and those are just the common explicit ones, not the indirect ones where someone is charged with "reckless driving" or such for killing someone else. The intent of killing someone is killing them. The motivation (crime of passion, vs premeditated, vs killing a potential witness) changes the degree.

When the law starts to look at the motivation, we are treading on very dangerous ground.

Motivation has been taken in homicide charges for hundreds of years (at least). I'm not asserting it's not very dangerous ground, I'm asserting it's not new ground, so objecting on it being dangerous and not having objected to homicide indicates the person is a hypocrite.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

I know I mentioned that I am a lawyer... what I forgot to mention is that I am a criminal defense attorney, so I know whereof I speak. Arguing "intent" is what I do. You are most definitely out of your depth.

So allow me to first disabuse you of a threshold misunderstanding. This discussion was never about "language", it was about "law". Indeed, TFA was about the law, the PP was about the law, and my post was about the law. I simply chose to inform you about what the law of "intent" actually is. When you got in over your head and your pride prevented you from simply walking away, you tried to change the topic to be about "language". I am sure that is a topic you are far more comfortable with, but as they taught us in law school, you argue the case you have, not the case you want to have.

Of course, I should have guessed from the searing insight into my "racist homophobe" nature that you are no ordinary internet blowhard. You are a man with an exquisite grasp of hyperbole and a world-class knee-jerk reactionary. Anyone who would dare to argue against the golden calf of hate crimes clearly has no other motivation than the subjugation and eradication of minorities and homosexuals.

Because no one ever makes a stand based on principle... every stand is based on politics, bias, and greed. You have uncovered my sinister plot.

But what you lack in knowledge and understanding, you make up for with imagination. Like when you dreamed up a scenario in which a colloquial definition of "intent" trumps the legal definition of "intent". All well and good for winning an argument against the drunks at the local pool hall, but not so effective when going toe-to-toe with a real life attorney.

I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars going to law school to understand the real history and origins of such things. It's not something I can explain in a single online post, especially to someone who's mind is already filled with things that just aren't so.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

You are most definitely out of your depth.

If I start quoting dictionaries, I'd be proving you wrong. But, being a lawyer, you'd just assert you are correct because you know more than everyone else. Would you like me to start quoting the definitions of the words we are talking about?

I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars going to law school to understand the real history and origins of such things. It's not something I can explain in a single online post, especially to someone who's mind is already filled with things that just aren't so.

Ah yes. "I'm right, you are wrong. And I can't tell you why, but trust me, I know better than you, even if I can't name one thing you've incorrectly stated." I used the vernacular version of intent. You objected. I used your definition of intend. You objected. You can't actually indicate where the errors are and correct them, but you don't like the general feeling of what I say so you know I must be wrong. I hope I'm never in need of a lawyer and end up getting you. You are not only wrong on every point, but you did a good job of persuading me that you were wrong by your complete avoidance of the points. I'd mention some quote that ends with "pound on the table" but you have obviously heard that one and use the table almost exclusively.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

You have never used the legal definition of "intent". You have conflated intent and motivation from the beginning and when I quite nicely pointed out how you were mistaken (ignoring your unfounded ad hominem attack... brilliant debating skills there), you couldn't leave well enough alone.

You think that bringing out a dictionary will prove me wrong, huh? Well, it took a grand total of about 30 seconds to search my copy of Black's Law Dictionary (the only relevant dictionary for this discussion) to make sure my recollection of the real definition of intent, as it applies to criminal law, was correct. (If you're not sure what Black's is, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black's_Law_Dictionary)

Black's reads:

"A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts."

As I said earlier, intent goes to the act taken.

Furthermore, Black's gives almost word for word the same explanation of the difference between intent and motive that I gave earlier:

"Intent and motive should not be confused. Motive is what prompts a person to act, or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted."

Hate crimes criminalize motive, which is a huge deviation from centuries of criminal law jurisprudence.

I'm not going to be upset with you for not understanding the fine nuances of the law. But when you become belligerent with someone who does understand those nuances, you lose all ground. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant.

I had already explained how your understanding was wrong, but instead of doing a bit of research before opening your mouth to argue against an authority you simply entrenched further in your ignorance.

Now, will you remain willfully ignorant or will you concede that you are indeed, as I said, out of your depth?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[gambino21]

You assert the intent is the same, in which case you would be correct if that were to ever happen in reality. However, reality proves you wrong, and you conveniently ignored all details. You can kill your wife in a premeditated manner and get a lesser sentence because in one case, the motive for the premediated murder is profit (kill her for the insurance money) in which case you'll get a a more harsh sentence than if you premeditated it because she was cheating on you. Sure, both could be charged the same, but the reality is they aren't.

I'm not sure if I explained well in my previous post, but I agreed with you that intent is important when deciding appropriate punishment. In my hypothetical example the intent was the same. In your example the intent was not the same, so of course I agree that in the example of killing for money vs. revenge it may be appropriate to provide different punishment.

And the KKK member wouldn't be charged with a hate crime because they are in the KKK. If they robbed a bank and in the course of robbing that bank they killed the security guard, the race of the guard would be irrelevant. Hate crimes are about terrorism. When you target a race to punish and then pick a member of that race to torture and kill in a public and horrific manner, it is a worse crime (as asserted by nearly everyone on the planet but you) than some bored drunk kids who commit the same actions on the first random person they cross without regards to who that person is.

I understand you argument, but I'm still not sure I completely agree. I would have to study some specific hate crime laws and cases and think about whether the outcome would be a different if the defendant was a different race or sexual orientation. Looking at wikipedia for hate crimes brings up the 1964 Federal civil rights law

The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

I would argue that this law would be better if you removed the part referring specifically to "race, color, religion". The law should permit federal prosecution of anyone who engages in these activities not just "because of race, color, etc". As the law is written it seems to exclude what might be important cases. What if I restrict the person from attending school because I just don't like them? Is that ok?

I guess you could make the argument that there are times when it's necessary to restrict a person from attending a school, maybe because they are dangerous, so we can't make laws that allow people to attend school in all cases, but I think these exceptions could pretty easily be added to the law.

Anyway, I think it's a hard question. You're probably right that in some cases hate crime laws are beneficial overall, but I think they can also be couter-productive and are often enacted more for political reasons than any real benefit to the public.

And if you don't understand why, there are plenty of books and classes in history that could enlighten you.

Was this attack on me really necessary? I don't think it adds anything to your argument.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

What if I restrict the person from attending school because I just don't like them? Is that ok?

The idea is that you can't not like someone you have never met, unless you have some filter process on some attribute which can be easily expressed on paper. If you have such a filter process, it (in a practical sense) includes one of the protected classes. That's why those are enumerated. If people discriminated against short people, or tall people, they would be added to the list as well. So don't focus on the list and complain it isn't exhaustive. The real problem is that the majority of the US has a "preference."

So what do you do when everyone is prejudiced? Our current plan of pretending we aren't racist because we don't like to think of ourselves as racist isn't working.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

Now, will you remain willfully ignorant or will you concede that you are indeed, as I said, out of your depth?

You can't read for context. I was discussing the vernacular and how you are 100% wrong in regards to how the word is used in common use (such as on a web site of general interest). I offered to consult a dictionary to show you that your usage was inappropriate here.

However, you have chosen to remain willfully ignorant. But that's a requirement for being a lawyer (especially one who makes the majority of his money defending guilty people).

You have no idea what my depth is and haven't addressed the points I have made, other than launch into an irrelevant discussion of semantics, rather than taking the words as you understand I'm meaning them and discussing the points I made.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[adisakp]

That post was written a DAY AFTER my post. Perhaps you are the one being repetitive here since you wrote the same thing 24 hours after I already said it ?

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really illegal to impersonate a person who doesn't exist? That would be an interesting twist.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

I think you need to re-read my post... I am saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that the intent element of a crime changes the degree based on the "thought process".

My point is that intent is different than motive and motive has never been an element of a crime, only intent. It is a fine legal distinction, but one that I believe makes hate crimes cross the line over to being thought crimes and are a significant deviation from centuries of criminal jurisprudence.

Hope that clarifies.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[decoy256]

Justibate away, my friend.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[AK Marc]

Such the lawyer. Pound the table like a madman, ignore the points made, make irrelevant comments, then claim victory. I take it back. You have mastered the Chewbacca defense. If I were charged, you'd make a great defense lawyer.

Re:Rich protecting themselves

[Zumbs]

And yet most of us accept that not all are given equal protection by the law. Punishments for crimes committed against children, retarded people or the elderly are often more severe that punishments for the same crimes committed against the rest of us. Why? Because they are more vulnerable, less able to fend for themselves. Similarly, some crimes are considered worse if the criminal is in a position of authority w.r.t. the victim. To some extend the same applies to minorities: They are more vulnerable, particularly to scapegoating.

And, thus, the argument links back to the first argument in my previous post: That attacking a member of a minority because that person is a member of that minority is also an attack on the basic freedoms of that minority.

I'm Michael Jordan!

[Anonymous Coward]

First Post!

Re:I'm Michael Jordan!

[dimeglio]

No I am Michael Jordan and this isn't a first post.

Re:I'm Michael Jordan!

[Anonymous Coward]

No I am Michael Jordan and this isn't a first post.

Yet

Only a fool

[Low Ranked Craig]

Would publish their full name, real address, data of birth, etc on a social media site, but on some sites that info is mandatory. I wonder how much the law was influenced by companies that collect user info as part of their business? Accurate info is, I would assume, more valuable than the crap I put in my profiles...

Re:Only a fool

[Z00L00K]

As long as you impersonate a fictional figure of unclear origin I suspect that courts will not care about trying to make a case.

And I have a feeling that as long as your actions aren't for otherwise criminal intent then you are clear.

But laws like this can be drawn all the way to the letter which means that parents may be responsible for their kids using their imagination and impersonating other figures. It's all in how laws are interpreted. Many of the laws we have can be used for totalitarian purposes but the courts don't use them that way so we do have some freedom to act.

Re:Only a fool

[ArsenneLupin]

I'd think (hope), that the law would only apply if you impersonated a real existing person. Not for making up a fantasy profile. Just be careful to not call your fantasy profiles James Smith...

Free speech issues aren't addressed in the bill?

[intellitech]

"The courts will likely sort it out."

You're kidding, right? In a country plagued with a broken patent system, a congress with an infant's knowledge of technology, and a government run by two-faced politicians, it would be a miracle if this doesn't add to the current issues regarding free speech online.

Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[neonprimetime]

fyi - There were actually 725 new laws in California on 01/01/2011 ... and this one posted above is just 1 of them.

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Want a cookie?

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[TheGratefulNet]

want an oz of pot?

anyything less than 28g (1oz) of MJ will now be reduced from misdem. to an infraction (like traffic ticket). no bad entry on your record, no court needed, no arrest, no jail.

THAT is the story to report on, not this BS.

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[Mashiki]

Excessive law, is no law.

10 points if you can figure out who said it. Hint: He's been dead and in the ground for ~2000 years.

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I want a cookie...

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[TheGratefulNet]

if it has the wrong kind of fats, sorry, no dice.

another 2011 calif law.

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[Khyber]

There's only ONE fat type banned - Trans-fats.

And that ban has been around before 2011 so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

~SoCal resident

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[yendis]

And remember that "ignorance of the law is no excuse..." So you need a good memory! Just like those judges.

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[hrvatska]

A lot of those aren't so much new laws as modifications to existing laws or regulations. How many truly new laws were there?

Re:Many more laws in California 01/01/2011 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is two laws per day on average. The total contents of these laws may well exceed LOC count of all commits into Linux Kernel in a year. This is utter madness, if this is true, then there needs to be a law regulating the passage of laws henceforward.

The law regulating the passage of new is this (please contribute your):

1) No law, by it self, shall exceed 4KB of pure ASCII

2) When a law references other law(s) the byte count of those other laws shall be added to the law in question

3) No law shall exceed 64

4) A law is enforced only on the signatories, their family, friends, relatives, associates, collaborators, all lobbyists (this group shall be referred to as "the chosen ones") in favor of it for a year. If this law is found to be useful in preventing and/or indicting one or more persons, then it shall be applicable to general public

5) A failure of clause (4) invalidates the law automatically

6) In the second year of the life of the law, there shall be random tests on "the chosen ones" by random public at random times. These tests include, but not limited to, "the chosen ones" ability to remember any and all contents of the law and interpretation thereof.

7) Any failure in (7) ("the chosen ones" can't remember it or don't the meaning of it or can't tell who else voted for it or can't list all those who voted for it etc). The law itself gets downgraded by 1 and "the chosen one" gets downgraded by 10

8) When the downgrades of a law reach 32, its abolished automatically

9) When the downgrades of "the chosen one" reaches 64, he/she/it is relieved of further involvement in all public affairs forever

10) A "chosen one" shall not write/endorse/vote for or against more laws that he/she/it can read/write/explain to a middle schooler in a day or 8 in a calendar year, whichever is less

11) failure of (10) automatically disqualifies further involvement in all public affairs forever of "the chosen ones"

12) If during the first four years of the life of the law, a competent court decides that the law had hidden agenda, all "the chosen ones" go to jail forever, the law it self gets abolished automatically

13) If a law is incomprehensible to any mentally sound person of voting age and below 70 years of age, it is NULL and void from the start

14) ignorance of law is a solid excuse, expect with respect to what is generally considered to be a serious crime in more than half the countries that are members of the UN.

15) Any law shall be posted to at least theoninon, slashdot, the register, facebook for no less than a month before any voting in either congress or senate takes place

I have more to say but this should be a good start.

Meh.

[goodmanj]

"There has to be intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person"

I'm betting most posters in this thread are going to skip over this phrase completely, and raise the "free speech no matter what" flag.

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

Re:Meh.

[hedwards]

The problem is that the phrase is vague. Sure intimidate and threaten have specific definitions under the law which should be solid enough that people don't accidentally violate that. But defraud and harm are pretty wishy washy meaning all sorts of things which they apparently didn't feel like defining for the purposes of the bill.

Unfortunately, pretending to be somebody else for the purposes of parody could be seen as a form of either fraud or harm, without the person doing the impersonation intending to do so.

Re:Meh.

[frdmfghtr]

"There has to be intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person"

I'm betting most posters in this thread are going to skip over this phrase completely, and raise the "free speech no matter what" flag.

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

You can't use the existing laws for the same reason existing patents don't apply to activities done with a computer. Computers are high-tech and innovative, so anything done with them is innovative and new and completely different.

Re:Meh.

[hvm2hvm]

Thank you, finally someone who actually thinks and has a real opinion and doesn't just follow the slashdot trend of bashing the government for whatever it is doing even if it's actually doing something good.

Re:Meh.

[gnasher719]

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

I don't get it. All the time these slashdotters moan and moan about how the law and how judges don't understand the Internet. And here we have a law that comes from understanding the Internet, and that that the Internet has opened new ways that didn't exist before to harm others, and people complain again. Is it because it threatens some slash=dotters favorite phantasies about getting others into trouble by doing illegal things while pretending to be them?

When we have laws that threaten people with punishment for certain actions, there are multiple reasons for these laws: The most important are punishment, and deterrent by inducing fear of punishment. But another reason is to state clearly what is acceptable and what is not. In this case, the law makes clear that such impersonation is not some harmless bit of fun, or a harmless prank, but a crime.

And you didn't read this properly, obviously. What is punishable is impersonation with _intent_ to harm. In other words, the impersonation is punishable even when the intent to harm failed. Say you impersonate a husband sending e-mails to a non-existing lover to split up his marriage. This can now be punished, even if you didn't succeed in your goal. The impersonation is also punishable if the intend to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud succeeded, but only to a degree where the harm, intimidation, threatening or defrauding itself wouldn't lead to punishment.

Re:Meh.

[gnasher719]

Unfortunately, pretending to be somebody else for the purposes of parody could be seen as a form of either fraud or harm, without the person doing the impersonation intending to do so.

Well, the law says "impersonation with the _intent_ to harm, defraud etc.". I think this is quite clear: Parody that is seen as harmful but wasn't intended to harm doesn't fall under the law because the law asks for _intent_. Actually harm that wasn't intended doesn't fall under "impersonation with the intent to harm". Intending to harm but failing to do so falls squarely under the law, because that is clearly "impersonation with _intent_ to harm". On the other hand, if you impersonate somone with the intent of splitting him up with his girlfriend, and you were too retarded to think that would harm both persons involved, that won't protect you.

Re:Meh.

[kenshin33]

are you a judge? a lawyer ? or anything related??
The problem with fuzzy definitions is abuse. And illegal != criminal prosecution. So unless you have a very deep pocket, and you're on the receiving and of the suite intent or not means squat.

Re:Meh.

[noidentity]

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

Duh, because it involves a computer!

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Harm? You are harming corporations by providing false information in order to protect yourself. Their information databases are of lesser quality for every false entry, i.e. you are harming them.

Fraud? Accurate personal information is worth money. Inaccurate information is not. You are defrauding the company by providing inaccurate information.

Yea, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Meh.

[joebagodonuts]

Maybe it comes from a desire to have legislators leave the internet alone.

No, really. Look legislators, I know you mean well. But often when you get involved trying to help, you make matters worse.

Take school bullies. When I was growing up, you let the bully get away with it till you got fed up, you confronted it and the bully went looking for a less painful target. If I got in trouble, so be it. I was fed up. It was a critical event in my development. Today, with our "zero-tolerance" policies and the stupid mantra of "let the authorities handle it", we get things like this. All the while ignoring the possibility that we are at this point because we refuse to let kids learn how to deal with bullying. Unintended consequence

If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; legislation is the only thing they have in their toolbox. Hysterical "news" reporting convinces them something must be done! So, because of a small number of jackasses, we now have a "law of the land" that affects many.

The reason I'm opposed is I don't believe it has much to do with trying to address a real problem. It has more to do with addressing a perceived problem, and it does so in a most ham-handed, inefficient, likely-to-fail manner. All so the legislators can be seen to be "doing something" - and get re-elected.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't say it is a crime to provide FALSE information, it says specifically 'impersonate another ACTUAL PERSON'. If you are providing information to a corporation while pretending to be ME, you sure as hell are harming me, and it sure as hell should be illegal.

Re:Meh.

[Rockoon]

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

Because we rarely prosecute for that, and thus there is an epidemic, and epidemics need legislation (..or enforcement... but legislators arent enforcers, so they legislate)

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

By posting as Anonymous Coward, you, too, are providing false information. Why would you not provide your real name? Omission of information is just the same as providing inaccurate information.

Re:Meh.

[easterberry]

IANAL but I have taken 3 semesters of law courses. Intent means you knew you were doing it, you did it willfully (ie if someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do it you're usually ok for crimes below assault) and you weren't acting recklessly or negligently to the point that a rational individual would be expected to take the time or have the common sense not to do the same thing.

The last two are where parody can get into a sticky situation. If the parody does cause harm and the prosecution can prove that whoever made it should have realized this then they're in trouble.

Re:Meh.

[PotatoFiend]

I don't get it. All the time these slashdotters moan and moan about how the law and how judges don't understand the Internet. And here we have a law that comes from understanding the Internet, and that that the Internet has opened new ways that didn't exist before to harm others, and people complain again. Is it because it threatens some slash=dotters favorite phantasies about getting others into trouble by doing illegal things while pretending to be them?

For the umpteenth time, Slashdot is not a single person with a single opinion. If you're referring to individual Slashdotters being hypocritical or otherwise self-contradictory, respond to them directly or call them out by name.

(Yes, I'm aware of http://xkcd.com/386/)

Re:Meh.

[Smauler]

The point being made was that this law does not seem to make anything new illegal, except borderline cases. It was already illegal to harm, intimidate, threaten or defraud people. Technically, loads and loads of stuff that goes on online could be classed as illegal prior this law anyway. If I recieved through the post some of the threats I've recieved online, I'd be worried.

The intent to harm is almost impossible to prove. If from your example, the sender of the e-mails believes (or claims to believe) that the marriage is bad for both parties, and that they are doing good by sending the e-mails, it doesn't fall under the remit of the law.

--
Barack Obama

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, because of a small number of jackasses, we now have a "law of the land" that affects many.

Most criminal laws are "because of a small number of jackasses".

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Joe Jobs? What if I were to impersonate someone online with the intent of pissing off the /b/ tards and letting THEM harm, intimidate, threaten and defraud the target?

Re:Meh.

[jonbryce]

A Senator might feel threatened by someone exposing some malpractive he's been up to - if people get to know about it, they might vote him out of office - similar to the person who anonymously published details of MP's expenses claims in the UK which led to a lot of them being de-selected by their local party members as the candidate for the next election.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

what happens when I wish to use my right of free speech etc to lampoon satairise , ridicule or heavens forbid mock - some famous person or pompous politican.

Can they claim deliberate harm as it hurt their feelings and I should have known it would?

Re:Meh.

[Low Ranked Craig]

Is Facebook harmed or defrauded if I put bogus info in my profile to avoid having my personal info sucked into a vast online repository? Since corporations are basically people under current law, if I violate a site's TOS to protect my privacy one can logically draw a line to the ultimate absurd extreme of the corporation claiming harm. Of course I haven't read the law but this is California we're talking about where good intentions rarely interface with logic.

Re:Meh.

[celle]

"Take school bullies. When I was growing up, you let the bully get away with it till you got fed up, you confronted it and the bully went looking for a less painful target. If I got in trouble, so be it. I was fed up. It was a critical event in my development. Today, with our "zero-tolerance" policies and the stupid mantra of "let the authorities handle it", we get things like this. All the while ignoring the possibility that we are at this point because we refuse to let kids learn how to deal with bullying. Unintended consequence"

Bad example, standing up may have worked for you but I spent several days in the hospital on numerous occasions due to groups of bullies. Only the threat of a lawsuit got the school and their parents to crack down on this shit. Standing up only works when things a fairly evenly matched, otherwise it's a crapshoot. I stood up to these guys every day. It didn't stop the harassment and no one else came to my aid, believing the same shit you do. When you are in a closed system you don't have to luxury of the problem going away when it's looking for you and you're so outmatched you can't defend against it. The legal avenue is for those who lost more than they should ever have. Equality isn't just for the winners.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, um, no.

If my intent is to defraud you of accurate information, where does that lie exactly? Guessing the bill doesn't cover that, or require that accurate information be required for all online profiles.

Not sure how they plan to enforce such a thing with distributed services setup across the nation, or International boundaries for that matter.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take school bullies. When I was growing up, you let the bully get away with it till you got fed up, you confronted it and the bully went looking for a less painful target. If I got in trouble, so be it. I was fed up. It was a critical event in my development.

Okay, it's great that you were able to put up with bullying when you were younger and became a better person because of it. However, don't think that everyone else will have the same result, or that the bullies won't grow up to be a bigger problem.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

yes leave the internet alone - after all - think of those poor Nigerian princes!

Fuck Slashdot.

Re:Meh.

[Required Snark]

Clearly you have never been the target of bullying or any form of discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity or religion. You don't have a clue. When people are harmed for not what they did, but because of who they are, the first response, just like yours, is to deny that anything out of the ordinary has happened. Nothing needs to change, right? That goes with the reality that often times no one is prosecuted for these kinds of crimes because nothing really extraordinary happened. Because there is no linkage between the motivation for the violence, and the criminal charge, nothing changes.

Let's apply your argument to some other crimes. Why make it special when someone kills a police officer? We already have laws for murder, so why do we need to make that a more serious crime? Same goes for judges and any elected official. Why make assassination a crime at all, it's just a murder like any other.

Same goes for terrorism and using weapons of mass destruction. If you use a bomb and kill dozens of people, there is no reason to have a special law making that a specific crime, right? It just means you did a lot of murder at one time, so why go though any extra legal effort. So hijacking airplanes and slamming them into the World Trade Center is a case of theft and murder and trespassing, nothing more. This isn't my logic, it's your logic (or ill-logic, to be more specific).

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Let's apply your argument to some other crimes. Why make it special when someone kills a police officer? We already have laws for murder, so why do we need to make that a more serious crime? Same goes for judges and any elected official. Why make assassination a crime at all, it's just a murder like any other.

I read that thinking "finally, some sanity", until I realised that you were trying to be sarcastic. Killing a Police Officer should not be a seperate or more serious crime. To do so means that killing anyone else is a less serious crime, and results in the law essentially de-valuing the lives of everyone else.

Re:Meh.

[joebagodonuts]

Bad-example. If they believed as I do, other people would've had come to your aid - especially if you were out-numbered.

Re:Meh.

[joebagodonuts]

All of those things you mentioned (discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity or religion) are already addressed by current legislation. Do we need another law because a computer is involved? I don't think so.

Re:Meh.

[budgenator]

Today, with our "zero-tolerance" policies and the stupid mantra of "let the authorities handle it", we get things like this. All the while ignoring the possibility that we are at this point because we refuse to let kids learn how to deal with bullying.

You might get some traction from that point of view, if it weren't for the fact that,
1. The authorities not only don't handle it, but actually punish the victims,
2. the victims that get fed up enough to take matters into their own hands all to frequently are seriously out numbered and use weapons,
3. the victims that don't will either quit going to school or commit suicide.
The days when a schoolyard altercation ended with a bloody nose and a bruised ego are long gone.

Re:Meh.

[joebagodonuts]

The days when a schoolyard altercation ended with a bloody nose and a bruised ego are long gone

No they aren't. Just because (sensationalised?) media reports make it seem like the world is hopelessly overwhelming without Government protection doesn't mean that is.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

goodmanj said:

I'm betting most posters in this thread are going to skip over this phrase completely, and raise the "free speech no matter what" flag.

Hi there. This is John Goodman, and I'm all, like, WTF? Is this guy parodying me?

Re:Meh.

[im_thatoneguy]

Yeah I'm with the parent. I think we should all take turns beating him up. I bet he can't physically defend himself anyway (he's a slashdotter!). Don't worry, I'm sure he won't press charges if you stop him in the street and beat the shit out of him--because he's old fashioned and in his day, you didn't go crying to the police about crime, you just suffered through it.

Re:Meh.

[EuclideanSilence]

"There has to be intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person"

I'm betting most posters in this thread are going to skip over this phrase completely, and raise the "free speech no matter what" flag.

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

Harming, intimidating, threatening, and defrauding are all already illegal. Consequently, a law which makes a certain type of speech illegal, but qualifies that it should have existing illegal intent, should raise serious free speech concerns.

Re:Meh.

[rastoboy29]

Dude, if we have to have a law to tell us if we are doing wrong or not, then the law is fucking insane.  Either it is obvious that it is wrong (which this would be), or it is not, in which case we really need to ask the question of whether or not we need this law.

Doing what this law makes illegal was already fraud.

Re:Meh.

[darthwader]

So? If flying ninja monkies had appeared out of thin air, they could also have defeated the bullies and saved celle.

The other people around didn't believe as you do, didn't want to get involved, or didn't want to get beaten up themselves. Celle lives in the real world, not the one in your imagination.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is another case of not understanding the internet.

People aren't complaining about punishing impersonation with intent to harm. They are complaining about punishing impersonation with intent to harm ON THE INTERNET.

Just like those "shopping basket on the internet" patents.

Re:Meh.

[thesandtiger]

This isn't about a weaker kid getting beat up by a bigger kid.

This is about sociopathic "adults" who get their kicks trying to drive kids they took a dislike to to suicide because they can, and who impersonate someone the kid wants to earn the approval of in order to do it and avoid being held personally responsible.

I don't know if you ever got picked on by adults when you were a kid - even when they're doing it openly (rather than hiding behind a false persona, or maybe especially so) it can be a complete mind-fuck. I don't know if this law is the best way to go about it, but I would say that yes, there definitely should be some laws in place to cover sick fucks going after kids like that, and clearly the existing ones didn't work, given that a woman who drove a girl to suicide got off scott free (other than being permanently known as damaged goods) because there wasn't anything in place to hold her accountable.

I'm not saying "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" but more "things have changed since you were a kid." When I was young, if an adult tried to abuse a kid they had to do it themselves; I actually remember my father beating the shit out of a guy down my block because the guy called my brother a "retard" and then spit at him. My brother came home crying (he is, in fact, somewhat developmentally delayed), and dad went ballistic. But what if the guy could have pretended to be a kid at my brother's school, someone who wanted to be friends? What if he spent time cultivating that friendship with a vulnerable kid who *desperately* wanted to have a friend and then yanked the rug out, and said "You suck, why don't you kill yourself, you retard?"

No law against that. And I can tell you that there damn well should be.

Re:Meh.

[goodmanj]

If you are John Goodman, hi, fantastic to meet you, I'm Jason Goodman, and I'm holding you responsible for all the Roseanne jokes made at my expense in middle school.

If you're just an Internet troll, I'm probably about to deeply regret linking my work website. Oh well!

message to theodp

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty fucking sure that calling yourself "Fake Steve Jobs" does not fucking count as an impersonation, you fucking idiot ;-)

Re:message to theodp

[91degrees]

No. Not under this fucking law. It should fall under the fucking exceptions. I also think that the fucking law should contain some more fucking swearwords to make people know it's fucking serious.

Re:message to theodp

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a well known fact that Fake is his first name and Steve is his middle. No one likes being called Fake, even if it is their name. Apparently you haven't heard the jokes about him being a Real Doll yet.

Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[will_die]

If you read the article and text of the law 'There has to be intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person — not necessarily the person you are impersonating,'
Fake Steve Jobs is known to be fake. Articles on The Onion are known to be satire, and sometimes even funny. Comedy videos on youtube are known that they don't come from the impersonated person.
The only way fake steve Jobs would get in problem is if the fake was removed and person doing it started to do things to make people thing he was the actual Steve Jobs.
All this means is that California has upgraded their laws so that stuff you couldn't previously do in physical print you can now not do online.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. What more, people don't realize that it's not a fake Steve Jobs. It's Fake Steve (middle name) Jobs. Granted that it is a bit confusing but surely Fake has nothing to fear.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[hedwards]

Just because it's known to be satire doesn't mean that you're not going to be found to be harming somebody. Which is the whole reason this is such a serious violation of the 1st amendment. Fraud and harm aren't always obvious or in the power of the individual doing whatever to control. Sure this could be used in cases where the person has really defrauded somebody or caused obvious harm, but without addressing parody and legitimate reasons for impersonation, I see no reason to be so optimistic. CA government is pretty fucked up.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[drinkypoo]

Just because it's known to be satire doesn't mean that you're not going to be found to be harming somebody.

It's not whether you do harm, but whether you had intent to harm when you pretended to be something you aren't. This is already illegal, and it's called fraud. This is just making what is already illegal clearly illegal, perhaps even more illegal. It's just so that they can add more counts when they drag someone into court, basically.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[timeOday]

In what context would this law be bad? It reads "...any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person...." The key word here is "credibly." Thus, "Impersonation" in this bill doesn't mean a Saturday Night Live skit. It doesn't mean Fake Steve Jobs. Those aren't credible. It means me taking out a mortgage in your name, or trying to make people actually believe you just said something asinine when it was really me.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[ScentCone]

Its one more stab to the heart of free speech.

How so? In what way is it protected free speech to fraudulently impersonate someone with the intention of causing harm?

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up already. Your rights end where my nose begins. You do NOT have to right to impersonate me in order to harm myself or others. These actions have been crimes for centuries (criminal impersonation, fraud, etc). This law just clarifies that just because you happened to do the crime online does not mean it is not a crime (just like wire fraud, mail fraud, etc).

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[Rockoon]

Define that key word of yours, 'credibly', and then struggle with the ramification of that definition in the context of this law.

For instance, even if you are very very bad at your comic impersonations, someone may still believe that you are the person you are impersonating for any number of reasons.

Isn't their belief, possibly based on the fact that they have never even heard of the person you are so poorly impersonating prior to the event, evidence that your terribly bad impersonation was still credible none-the-less?

Sure, the law apparently also talks about Intent.. but combining Credibility with Intent doesnt actually seem to add anything of value for the above reason.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. What more, people don't realize that it's not a fake Steve Jobs. It's Fake Steve (middle name) Jobs. Granted that it is a bit confusing but surely Fake has nothing to fear.

Now I'm really confused - I thought Fake Steve Jobs was Steve Jobs just pretending to be Fake Steve Jobs so he could poke fun everyone who pokes fun at Steve Jobs.

And I bought an iPhone, an iPod, and an iPad because I thought he was cool and clever... :-(

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[canajin56]

Isn't their belief, possibly based on the fact that they have never even heard of the person you are so poorly impersonating prior to the event, evidence that your terribly bad impersonation was still credible none-the-less?

No.

Sure, the law apparently also talks about Intent..

Intent is one of the most well defined terms in law. Almost all criminal law is based around intent.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The judge would probably use the reasonable person standard (IANAL), so it's only credible of a reasonable person would buy it.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[LocalH]

You mean like how when you have over an ounce of weed in most jurisdictions, it's automatically considered "intent" to resell, even if it's all in one container? Or if you have one or more plants?

Yeah, intent is well defined. The trouble is, the legal definition of "intent" doesn't match the dictionary definition.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[gv250]

Just because it's known to be satire doesn't mean that you're not going to be found to be harming somebody.

Yes, it does mean precisely that. RTFA.

[Section 528.5(a)]: ... any person who knowinglly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense ...

[Section 528.5(b)]: For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated.

So, no, if it is known to be satire, then you cannot be guilty of this particular offense.

Re:Why would Fake Steve Jobs worry?

[budgenator]

Please feel free to exercise your right to free speech, so that rather than simply suspecting that your an idiot, we'll be sure.

Re:Free speech issues aren't addressed in the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the person being impersonated have to sue or is it just illegal?

If its just illegal... I got an email from Kofi Annan recently asking me to help him move some funds through my bank account.

What about TV shows and movies (being california and all) that show real people? This will allow rich people to sue anyone depicting them in a bad light.

I'm going to sue because their 'impersonation' of a particular character defrauded me out of the cost of a DVD box set.

News flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Identity theft in all its forms is illegal.

Now if only someone had the time and money to sue the spammers for ID theft when they use someone else's email address in the send field.

Re:News flash!

[jbeaupre]

Identity theft in all its forms is illegal.

So that must mean you're the real Anonymous Coward?

Re:News flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Identity theft in all its forms is illegal.

So that must mean you're the real Anonymous Coward?

Of course he isn't -- I am.

Re:News flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

No I'm spartacus

Re:News flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he's the real Anonymous Coward.

Isn't this already covered by laws against fraud?

[Damon Tog]

Isn't this already covered by existing laws against fraud? Do we need a separate law for each possible variation of fraud? Are they sure they don't need a law that prohibits impersonation over telegram cables or by using smoke signals?

Regards,
Abe Vigoda

What about

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI agents impersonating 13 yr old girls looking for sex, or for that matter NBC's To Catch a predator crew. It would be nice to see them punished...

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

Wha? You're on the pedophiles side?

Re:What about

[gnasher719]

The FBI agents impersonating 13 yr old girls looking for sex

1. It is only "impersonating" if the person exists, not if it is a non-existent person.
2. It is not "impersonating" if you write on behalf of another person, which the FBI does if this is a real person.
3. Going to jail for a crime that you committed does not count as "harm".

The FBI would obviously be in trouble if they used the identity of a real 13 year old girl without the parents' consent.

Re:What about

[PsychoSlashDot]

Devil's advocate and I'm going to not post AC because I think there's another way of looking at this and I'm willing to stand behind my views.

Let's go with "yes".

If you create an artificial supply of something that may or may not exist and you advertise its availability and a sick person takes advantage of that offer, I think there's a bigger problem than the person being sick. To Catch a Predator creates an artificially enticing "kid" then trolls for someone willing to take advantage of that "kid". My problem is that the show really should be called "To Create a Predator". What they're revealing is willingness, not inclination. Given the opportunity presented by the show's fake "kid", yes the sick guys shown are evidently willing to become pedophiles. That doesn't necessarily mean that given other opportunities presented differently they would.

When the majority of sexual abuses are conducted by relatives and other known-people, this show is missing the point by a huge factor, for ratings. That disgusts me more than the willing men involved.

Don't create new predators. Instead, focus a show on somehow exposing and stopping those that already exist.

Re:What about

[Smauler]

The law is about impersonating actual individuals. You're still allowed to impersonate fictional 13 year old girls looking for sex.

Re:What about

[Lord Kano]

3. Going to jail for a crime that you committed does not count as "harm".

Doesn't sound like much fun to me.

LK

Re:What about

[DDLKermit007]

Let's go with yes. You do know what they do on that show is actually illegal right? Yeah they out them in public, but they didn't get a single conviction. The judges just threw the cases out on their asses because of the thing we have called due course and laws about collecting evidence & entrapment. There's a reason this guy who was a bit mentaly handicapped ended up on the show a few times. I just wish the show had been stopped before someone commited suicide because of their less than upstanding methods. They were all about as low as the pedo's they were looking to catch imo. It's great to catch these people, but not at the expense of "our" standards.

But won't someone think of the children!?!?!?

Oh yeah, and great choice of going AC. A show that outs AC's, and an AC defending them...

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when the girl on the other end of the line sounds and looks like she's 20 to 25?

I've only watched that show a few times (at the request of someone else) but man... some of those victims (yes, the paedos) were really damn dumb.

Re:What about

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

If you are a foreign citizen you can actually make contact with your embassy and claim "political persecution".

China has help secure freedom of their citizens involved in the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident from the persecution of the Japanese this year due to their strong economic muscle.

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

But if its the only way to get some for an agent..

Calironia's Default Deny Penal Code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't California just do the firewall thing and outlaw everything then explicitly allow only those activities deemed to be legal in their state?

Posting as an impersonated anonymous coward...

Re:die!!!

[windcask]

I refudiate you for your attempt to impersonate Ms. Palin, who does not live within 3500 miles of California.

myspace.com/barackobama

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of a cool place to start rolling this law out, put the POTUS in jail for a year for taking the website. harm check, intimidate check, threaten check, or defraud check

Retarded laws burn in hell

Re:die!!!

[reboot246]

You go, girl!

There goes Dana Carvey's youtube career

[Anonymous Coward]

eom

Re:Free speech issues aren't addressed in the bill

[wagnerrp]

If its just illegal... I got an email from Kofi Annan recently asking me to help him move some funds through my bank account.

Funny thing. That is called fraud, and it is already illegal.

Uh-oh, CREEPERS JEEPERS PEEPERS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey everybody won't you lend me your ear
There's something to fear - it's here and that's clear
Men gettin richer rapin the land
I can't understand why we don't take them in hand

Woa oh - Lord I don't want to be their fool no more
I don't want to be their fool no more
Open eyes but you're sleepin
You best wake up 'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in
'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in

Feel that our lives are in the hands of fools
Loosin their cool - it's us that they rule
Too many people sittin dead on their ass
They aint got no class people this time must pass

Woa oh - Lord I don't want to be their fool no more
Heeeeey, I don't want to be their fool no more
Open eyes but you're sleepin
You best wake up 'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in
'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in

Woah ooooooohh - yeah tomorrow comes CREEPIN'

Ooooooh hear me cryin 'cause the people like me
That long to be free are not actually
Please everybody won't you hear this song
Help a country that's wrong to someday be strong

Woa oh - Lord, I don't want to be their fool no more
No! Lord, I don't want to be their fool no more
Open eyes but you're sleepin
You best wake up 'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN
CREEPIN'...
(tomorrow comes CREEPIN' on...)

[tick!]

Woooooooowie!

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Anonymous!

Re:Isn't this already covered by laws against frau

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you could compare this with the laws against unauthorised access to other people's computers. Before specific laws were passed there were several prosecutions for 'hacking', but they were all complicated by the need to express the charges as "Theft of $0.001 of electricity" or "Trespass-by-analogy".

Possibly it was felt that the existing laws and the existing case-laws for these laws were not a good match to the modern problems, and the legislature wanted to give clear guidance as to how fraud and impersonation should be treated? Maybe this is not as stupid as many on /. seem to think?

Interesting wording

[NicknamesAreStupid]

What if "the other person" you intend to harm is yourself? Civil laws -- slander, libel -- cover this paradox. Criminal law usually does not.

Re:Isn't this already covered by laws against frau

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this already covered by existing laws against fraud? Do we need a separate law for each possible variation of fraud?

But this is fraud ... On the Internet!

HP PreTexting(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

a California bill criminalizing online impersonations went into effect on January 1st

What about offline impersonations?

Re:HP PreTexting(tm)

[erroneus]

That was exactly my first thought on the matter. Pretexting may or may not be covered (I haven't read the california law as to what it covers) but as nearly all telecom is becoming VoIP, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to attempt to twist the interpretation to suit this angle if needed or desired. And of course, that would suit my angle/desire.

Re:HP PreTexting(tm)

[budgenator]

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 528.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
528.5.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another
actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other
electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening,
or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable
pursuant to subdivision (d). ...
(c) For purposes of this section, “electronic means” shall include
opening an e-mail account or an account or profile on a social
networking Internet Web site in another person’s name.
(d) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine not
exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.

The way I read it is if you use other electronic means , such as SMS, VoIP, Cellular telephony, or landline telephony to commit your impersonation your probably in deep shit too.

Re:Free speech issues aren't addressed in the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to keep all the money but now you're telling me its illegal. Damn!

Oh come on.

[Arancaytar]

Calling yourself "Fake Steve Jobs" impersonates Steve Jobs about as much as saying "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV" impersonates a medical professional. It's right there in the name, ferchrissakes.

Move over Fake Steve

[kimvette]

Move over Fake Steve Jobs, and check out Roger Waters' secret diaries:

http://www.ingsoc.com/waters/humour/rwdiary.html

Litigation = shooting gallery for the wealthy

[fyngyrz]

The problem is that the really dangerous intent is the intent to take someone to court. Because that's where the harm begins in serious measure. Money, time, even reputation.

Government "doing good"

[fyngyrz]

I will stipulate that in the case of some national parks (Tock's Island 100% excepted, what a complete foul-up that is), the government is doing good. Glacier park, for instance, is a pleasure to visit, and I am truly grateful the region is being conserved.

I would like to invite you to add to that notion - parks are general an example of doing good - by listing a few areas where you are under the impression the government is doing good.

Not trying to do good, mind you, but actually succeeding.

I find it all too easy to list areas of abject failure and areas where intent is probably good but the implementation and the results... terrible, but I'd like to see a list that would encourage me to think positively about the feds. I'm having real trouble thinking of appropriate areas. Perhaps it's just me.

Re:Government "doing good"

[decoy256]

The Federal Government has only been around for just over 200 years, you can't expect it to get things right in the first two centuries of its existence. And the Federal Reserve Notes have only existed for just under 100 years... they're still trying to figure out what to do with the unfettered power to print money out of thin air. Have some patience.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much... to forget it."

–James Madison

Re:Government "doing good"

[ColdWetDog]

... but I'd like to see a list that would encourage me to think positively about the feds. I'm having real trouble thinking of appropriate areas. Perhaps it's just me.

1. (Relatively) Clean water.
2. (Relatively) Clean air.
3. (Mostly) Society based on rule of law.
4. (Generally) Secure borders.
5. (Mostly) Significant protections for individuals from the Government.
6. Roads
7. A functioning Civil Aviation system
8. A truly excellent Coast Guard.
9. GPS.
10. The National Science Foundation / National Institutes of Health.

And I could go on. Yes, in each and every case I mention there are significant problems, even horrifying problems, but placed against the metric of the rest of the world and the rest of history, we're doing pretty good. Now, as a card carrying (as in Social Security card, you have one, right?) American you can and should complain about each and every thing you see as working less well as possible. And hopefully you will do something other than complain, like hop over to the rest of the world to see how Not To Do Things.

For the record, I think the US is in deep doo doo on a number of fronts and it's partly our fault and partly the way complex civilizations deal (or fail to) with the challenges of organizing a couple of billion people on a small planet. But all in all, the Federal Government does a credible job of a lot of things.

Re:Government "doing good"

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to invite you to add to that notion - parks are general an example of doing good

• Sanitation
• Roads
• The Aqueduct
• Irrigation
• Medicine
• Education
• Health
• Wine
• Public Baths

You did say the Romans, right? Or am I in the wrong scene?

Re:Government "doing good"

[fyngyrz]

Well, all right, but besides that...

Re:Government "doing good"

[Mr. Slippery]

I would like to invite you to add to that notion - parks are general an example of doing good - by listing a few areas where you are under the impression the government is doing good.

I heard about this thing that government-funded researchers were working on called the ARPANET. Sounded kind of neat. Might end up having an impact on the world.

I certainly have my disputes with the federal government (as I discuss, for example, here: "the government that gave us the Dredd Scott decision, Prohibition, McCarthyism, MK-ULTRA mind-control experiments with LSD, the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam police action, Watergate, Iran-Contra, the House banking and Post Office scandals, the Waco [assault], and 20-page MILSPECS for brownies"). But anyone who puts forth the proposition "the federal government has never done anything worthwhile!" on an Internet forum, as I have often seen, demonstrates ignorance that is so ironic that it's entertaining.

Re:Government "doing good"

[fyngyrz]

I heard about this thing that government-funded researchers were working on called the ARPANET. Sounded kind of neat.

Here, by "government funded researchers", you actually mean academics, mind you commercial interests did the vast majority of the work turning the network into... a network. Yes, our colleges often produce very useful things, which the government turns right around and screws up with (using your example) warrant-free surveillance (they don't even get to the level of probable cause), over-regulation, legislation, and general interference. Yes, the government has become involved, and it's fairly easy to tell by examining the things they've done to their "series of tubes", not to mention the things they are about to do.

Definitely keeping the net on the list of major government screw-ups.

But anyone who puts forth the proposition "the federal government has never done anything worthwhile!" on an Internet forum, as I have often seen, demonstrates ignorance that is so ironic that it's entertaining.

I would not put forth such a proposition. In fact, if you read my response to the first reply, you'll see I agreed with three of their points, and added another of my own.

My observation isn't that they're all bad; just that they're very, very bad.

The end of an era.

[o_ferguson]

So does this mean there will never be another Reznor's Edge? http://www.reznorsedge.com/saga.html

So how does the court determine intent, exactly?

[mark-t]

[NT]

I am not really Demonoid-Penguin

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Would publish their full name, real address, data of birth, etc on a social media site, but on some sites that info is mandatory.

Holy crap! I have to ask - where is this "social media" site? And how can they determine you are being truthful?

Re:I am not really Demonoid-Penguin

[jonbryce]

Slashdot is an example of a social media site. In fact one of the original ones.

Re:I am not really Demonoid-Penguin

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Would publish their full name, real address, data of birth, etc on a social media site, but on some sites that info is mandatory.

Holy crap! I have to ask - where is this "social media" site where giving that "info" is "mandatory"? And how can they determine you are being truthful?

Slashdot is an example of a social media site. In fact one of the original ones.

Are you from planet obtuse?

Ahl be bach

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as the law is repealed.

Minority Report

[scotts13]

Oh, for heaven's sake. We already have more than enough laws to cover any conceivable actual harm, and punish those responsible. What this does is help criminalize behaviour that has the POTENTIAL for harm, something we've been working on for quite a number of years. We're trying to stop crime before it occurs, and that's a really slippery slope - ask Phillip K. Dick.

Re:Isn't this already covered by laws against frau

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet that in the application of the US criminal law, the interpretation of the law is not allowed wonder off the textual form of the the written law. Also, a legal analogs are probably frowned upon, but allowed in special circumstances and with strict limitations. This would lead to a more case-by-case style of legislation (sorry, I don't know the proper translation to the concept in question) for criminal law in particularly. The behaviors outside of the written law are then simply not crimes. This is one of the principles included the concept of rule-of-law.

Enforcement Will be a B*tch

[Nom du Keyboard]

Who can you enforce this against? A California resident using a California server? A California resident using an out of state server. A non-California resident using a California server? A non-California resident using a California server to defraud a California resident? The same with a non-California server? A non-everything? Will California become the East Texas of Internet Defrauding Tourism (well, hey, they need to do something to improve their economy)?

Clearly this is why politicians shouldn't be making laws regarding technology.

Re:Isn't this already covered by laws against frau

[syousef]

Isn't this already covered by existing laws against fraud? Do we need a separate law for each possible variation of fraud? Are they sure they don't need a law that prohibits impersonation over telegram cables or by using smoke signals?

Regards,
Abe Vigoda

Much ceasing and desisting you must do. Confused with my name be yours. Yes.

Sincerely,
Yoda.

too bad for chris hansen

[Anonymous Coward]

does this include cops impersonating underage girls in chat rooms?

California is getting desperate.

[Beer Drunk]

It's probably just to generate more cash from fines since they can't seem to get anyone to bail them out after running the state into bankruptcy by trying to give everyone everything without anyone having to pay for it. Appears the state didn't have a viable business model just like all the Silly-con Valley operations that gave us the dot-bomb disaster a decade ago.

"pwufessuh haiwypheet" of ITT Tech BLOWN AWAY 6x?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially in the 1st URL below:

---

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34734160

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930330&cid=34737526

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930330&cid=34737308

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

---

(ROTFLMAO!)

I seriously wouldn't listen to "pwufessuh haiwypheet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.

Robert Zimmerman

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a certain Robert Zimmerman who's impersonating several people named "Bob Dylan" online for years! They even buy his records with the impersonated name.

Can you hear me now?

[westlake]

I'm betting most posters in this thread are going to skip over this phrase completely, and raise the "free speech no matter what" flag.

But on the other hand, if the impersonation is done with intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud, why can't we just prosecute people for fraud, criminal intimidation, or whatnot?

I think you have answered your own question.

The geek won't believe laws against impersonation, threats or fraud can be used to punish his behavior online unless and until it is made explicit.
 

Fake Steve Jobs

[juan2074]

So, Fake Steve Jobs, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?'"

If Fake Steve Jobs lives outside of California, who cares?

Thank you

[fyngyrz]

1. (Relatively) Clean water.

A noble goal, but success... no. I own property on a major river and a mountain creek in Pennsylvania, and neither are nearly as clean as they were when I was a kid (the 1950's.) Here in Montana where I reside, to the extent that the water is decent, it is a result of state and local efforts. And that's not to say that the water is good, mind you, just that there are times when it doesn't kill the fish outright. You're still not well advised to the eat the darned things. If it isn't runoff from cow pastures or poisons leaching into the water supplies from the gold mining operations, it's just plain old crappy water. We've got a huge water plant here, and the water from my tap tastes like the metal men pissed into it.

2. (Relatively) Clean air.

Again, a noble goal, but no. The skies are filled with particulates, even as rural as I am, I see them (though granted they make for fine sunsets here in Montana), and when I fly into NYC or LA, there are days it is difficult to see the ground -- and not because of clouds. And the federal government has done nothing about light pollution as well. There are few places - like Flagstaff that have done the right thing on their own, but overall, it's a clusterfrappe.

3. (Mostly) Society based on rule of law.

That would be a good thing if federal law was a good thing. But it isn't. Federal law (ok, and state too) is often blatantly unconstitutional and almost always wrongheaded. From drug law to to interfering in internal state affairs (but I repeat myself) to torture to 4th amendment abuse to letting war criminals like Bush walk away unscathed, to bailing out those "too big to fail" at the expense of us "too small to prevent it", the feds have little to actually show that they use the law to benefit society at large, rather than as a cynical exercise in cronyism.

4. (Generally) Secure borders.

Ah. You mean the demotion of the promise "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" back into no more than meaningless poetry. And you are also no doubt referring to the illegal warrantless searches conducted by the feds inside our borders. Yes, the feds are trying to "secure" our borders, more's the pity. No, can't give you this one, either. We are neither actually additionally secure by virtue of the ridiculous theater of border security, nor do we reside anywhere near the high ground we used to when we considered a person worthy by what they could do in our society rather than what paperwork they had. Thank goodness my ancestors got here before the "papers, please" insanity took hold.

5. (Mostly) Significant protections for individuals from the Government.

To the very limited extent that these protections still exist, they are the result of authority not given to the government, rather than by any action taken by them. Though lately, power violating those protections has commonly been exerted without authority anyway, so I'm not inclined to give you this one under any circumstances. I would, however, not want to miss this opportunity to point to the absolute failure of all three branches of the federal government to honor their oaths. And I'd bring up the FCC's deep and explicit role in repressing the citizen's ability to speak to each other in favor of the corporation's ability to dictate downstream, but it makes me crazy, so I won't do that. [wipes spittle from chin]

6. Roads

Roads. Yes, defi

Re:So how does the court determine intent, exactly

[blueg3]

The side that says there was intent and the side that says there wasn't intent make arguments to support their views, then the courts ask a group of 12 somewhat arbitrarily selected people who have heard the arguments to decide if there was intent.

As Governor of the State of California

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish to say that this is an excellent law that will do much to improve the business climate in California, by, for example, making web sites like Fark.Com and Slashdot.Org illegal. Also, I'm not wearing any pants.

-A.S.

Re:Free speech issues aren't addressed in the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense, the suggested transaction was totaly legitimate.

Signed,

Koffi Annan

Trans Fats

[Joe U]

if it has the wrong kind of fats, sorry, no dice.

another 2011 calif law.

If I find out next week that arsenic is a great way to make cheap cakes that last for 6 months, can I go putting it in the food I sell? It's not fatal in small quantities, but over time you'll eventually die from it.

I can use regular ingredients, but they don't have a longer shelf life and that means I won't earn as much money.

That's the argument for the banning of trans fats. They have NO and I mean absolutely NO beneficial effect on food outside of saving money via longer shelf life, oh and you'll eventually die from it.

So, guess what, fuck you, you don't get to put it in food. The same way you can't go loading arsenic in food, you can't load trans fats in food.

Corporations exist to benefit me, not them, that's why my government lets them exist. The more people that remember this, the better off we'll be.

It's me, honestly

[Mindcontrolled]

I am Spartacus!

Re:Isn't this already covered by laws against frau

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we need a separate law for each possible variation of fraud?

Of course you do. It looks more impressive when you can quote 20 counts against the individual from 20 different laws that all say and refer to the same action - each with different penalties which can likely be added together.

Re:Isn't this already covered by laws against frau

[Dhalka226]

They're not quite the same thing, but you won't like the major distinction.

Fraud needs to have actual harm. This doesn't.

Sock Puppets

[mdsolar]

No problem for those who use sock puppets to conduct fake dialogs then.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will have you know that -I- am the real Anonymous Coward. If you don't cease your infringing activities right now, I'll sue!

Word

[Nabbler]

Here's a bit many of you missed since you didn't follow the link: "credibly impersonates another actual person" That's a notable word there, 'credibly'

Why do we need this?

[Mathinker]

We need this like the bad moderation I'm trying to undo with this post...

Fake Austrian Accent

[Geminii]

...in 3, 2, 1...