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]

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

[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

[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

[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.)

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...

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.