Slashdot Mirror
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?'"
Of course its meant to keep the peasants in line. Like this bill was meant to protect me, psh.
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...
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
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.
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.
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
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy