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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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:News flash!

[jbeaupre]

Identity theft in all its forms is illegal.

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

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: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.

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.