DOJ: Violating a Site's ToS Is a Crime

ideonexus writes "CNET has obtained a statement to be released by the Department of Justice tomorrow defending its broad interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) that defines violations of 'authorized access' in information systems as including any act that violates a Web site's terms of service, while the White House is arguing for expanding the law even further. This would criminalize teenagers using Google for violating its ToS, which says you can't use its services if 'you are not of legal age to form a binding contract,' and turns multiple attempts to upload copyrighted videos to YouTube into 'a pattern of racketeering' according to a GWU professor and an attorney cited in the story."

Comments

Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[elrous0]

For a second there I thought the Obama Administration (and government in general, for that matter) had a sudden attack of conscience and decency. For that second I actually got to believe that it was even *remotely* possible that a government official might actually take the side of the vast majority of citizens and consumers in America, as opposed to functioning exclusively as the slavering lapdog of corporate America. In a brief instant I got to see what the U.S. might look like if we were an actual democracy instead of just a poorly-disguised corporatocracy.

Well, it was a nice second.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Quiet_Desperation]

For that second I actually got to believe that it was even *remotely* possible that a government official might actually take the side of the vast majority of citizens and consumers in America

So what were you high on? ;-)

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not once. Not even once. You, and you alone, are nothing but a pathetic sandwich that has never known bread. Not a single piece of bread is known to you! Your true power has been revealed!

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[elrous0]

Tire sealant.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this have to do with Obama ? This is the Judicial branch, not the Executive.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[justin12345]

I have a feeling this won't hold up in court, no matter what the DOJ wants. If nothing else, treating ToS as legal documents would be a jurisdictional nightmare. For instance: Would you have to abide by Facebook's ToS on every site with a "Like" button and a FB tracking cookie? If I write in my site's ToS that all spam is unauthorized access, can I get Jeff Bezos thrown in jail every time Amazon sends me another coupon I didn't ask for?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[bonch]

After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Attorney General is appointed by the administration, and I think operates very closely with the administration. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that the DOJ is responsible for the ATF, DEA, and FBI.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Nickodeimus]

Go back to Civics class. DOJ is executive branch. Its headed by the Attorney General of the United States. This position is appointed by the President.

Thus, Obama is Holder's boss and can [to my knowledge] fire him at will.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[elrous0]

The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, not Judicial.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[sexconker]

What does this have to do with Obama ? This is the Judicial branch, not the Executive.

"while the White House is arguing for expanding the law even further."

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is a constitutional republic. Iran is a democracy, as was Greece. Democracy means Mob Rule

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I gotta admit, sometimes these chains can be damn funny.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[ackthpt]

After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.

Yep, this means corporations are writing the laws. You can only be criminal for breaking laws. Breaking ToS is criminal, therefore they have written laws.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Tsingi]

After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise

True enough. Bush is an idiot. Bush is an asshole. Bush has spewed out some whoppers. OTOH, Obama is a lying turncoat with no balls.

Hard to say who was the better (or worse) president.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Rob the Bold]

After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.

Isn't it more an expansion of corporate power to give companies the right to make their own laws? If violating TOS is a crime, then a TOS is effectively law. The government's expansion is secondary to this. Theirs is the power to prosecute more "crimes" -- by broadening the definition of crime -- but it's the aggrieved party that has to report the crime in the first place, e.g. Microsoft, Arm & Hammer, Ford . . . whoever wrote the TOS in question.

And I'm pretty disappointed with the administration, too.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

Normally not a grammar nazi, but this is the second time I saw the difficult to pronounce and redundant neologism "corporatocracy" used on Slashdot, and yesterday was the first time. So before this gets out of hand, can we please stick to plutocracy, oligarchy, and plutarchy, like we have for the past few millenia?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[sconeu]

If I write in my site's ToS that all spam is unauthorized access, can I get Jeff Bezos thrown in jail every time Amazon sends me another coupon I didn't ask for?

Of course not. Laws are not intended to be used against the rich.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[interval1066]

A Terms of Service is a contract between private parties, not a statute or a penal code, and they are regularly thrown out of suites for a varity of reasons. Frankly I'm stunned this sailed through, aside from the fact that it was a closed door, back room deal. There's no way this can stand up to scrutiny. One thing's for sure, its obvious the WH is a corporate tool.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[alexo]

If I write in my site's ToS that all spam is unauthorized access, can I get Jeff Bezos thrown in jail every time Amazon sends me another coupon I didn't ask for?

That depends on the amount of legislators and executives you can afford to buy.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime, and carry penalties concomitant with the harm that could be caused.

I just don't think that the way they're frankensteining the legal precedents together is very skillful. So I'd agree it won't hold up in court, at least, not until someone drafts a law that spells out exactly what they're going for here, instead of overbroadly applying two different concepts.

Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement. When the facility gained by impropertly using that website is used to commit crime against someone, it's an aggravating circumstance in the proximate crime.

The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.

As for your questions: yes, if the agreement between Facebook and the website says so, it can export its TOS to whoever imports its API; and yes, but how are you going to get Jeff Bezos to visit your site? Email is not the World Wide Web. BTW, there's already a law against spam, and you can get Jeff Bezos to send you hundreds of dollars for every coupon you didn't somehow ask for (though just visiting Amazon.Com may be enough to constitute asking for them; see its TOS).

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is a parliamentarian government with a theocratic council overseeing all decisions, you fucking moron.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[AK Marc]

Well, as long as there is no "-1 factually wrong" mod, what are people supposed to do?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tire sealant.

That was pretty specific. Is this a reference I am not understanding?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[mcgrew]

disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.

Not at all, It's government granting the corporations more power, not granting itself more power. And rather than "corporatocracy", I'd simply use the older term "plutocracy". Govenment power IS corporate power; our federal government is run by and for the corporate interests, and no one else's..

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[AK Marc]

Because the old terms never conceived of "plutarchy of artificial non-citizen people", especially when it is the interests of the corporation that are looked after, even more than the real-people owning them (an insane result, but hey, that's what we get, right?).

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[elrous0]

plutocracy, oligarchy, and plutarchy

None of those accurately convey the concept. And when that's the case, we sometimes invent new terms. We've done that from the beginning of human language. Are you suggesting we stop?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[fortapocalypse]

Tire sealant.

That was pretty specific. Is this a reference I am not understanding?

Have you ever done tire sealant? No? That's why.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Nadaka]

I really really hate it when Obama and his administration do something so fundamentally stupid that it makes the delirious ravings of the crackpot conservatives correct.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[todrules]

Really??? So, if Slashdot adds a term in their TOS that you are not allowed to have a username that starts with a 'b' then you would be in violoation of their TOS and have just committed a crime... And you're OK with this?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Genda]

The Obama administration was doomed at the onset. EVERYBODY... look at who our Vice President is. Mr. Biden has been a hit man for Hollywood and the Recording industry for... let's just say a long time. This has made him a profound antagonist for Silicon Valley, Open Source, Net Neutrality and a free (as in liberty) national infrastructure for the transmission of ideas and human artistic expressions which are free (as in beer) goes dead against everything he's been paid to think.

These are polarizing times and laws like the ones mentioned in the article above effectively criminalize the internet for the very people for whom it is most urgently needed (i.e. the next generation.) As long as we see fit to eat our own young in name of corporate greed, and hold onto every bit of IP with a white knuckled death grip, we will continue to see the borderline sociopathic and megalomaniacal demand greater control on every word, thought, feeling or human hope. To these despots, the First Amendment is a blasphemy, and until every man, woman and child pays them for the privilege of having a thought(tm) there is more dirty work to be done in Washington.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

So what were you high on? ;-)

Medical Marijuana. Ah, the irony!

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

I suggest we stop if the new term is redundant. What's wrong with "corporate oligarchy"? And that if we do invent new terms, I'd prefer them to be pronounceable and not ugly.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

"plutarchy of artificial non-citizen people".

Corporate oligarchy.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Genda]

Its extremely difficult to felate the XXXXX-AA (pick your media organization here), and write a meaningful law that makes any sense at the same time. I think it has something to do with reduced oxygen transport to the brain and possible concussion.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

leave it along and not be bothered by it? most people read at threshold 3 anyway.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Hatta]

It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime

Why is that clear?

Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.

That sounds like a tort to me.

The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.

Not every contract violation is a crime, nor should it be.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Cutting_Crew]

looks like i picked the wrong day to quit sniffin glue.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

so if its a violation of contract it should be potential cause for a civil suit?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[squiggleslash]

Obama. No question.

With Bush, there was the perception something could be done about it. There was an opposing side, that didn't always do the right thing, but occasionally stood against the extremes.

Obama stood as that, stood as "Change", and then gave us a big "Fuck you". Essentially, what we know now is that it's going to take decades to actually get someone in power who's not a right wing (pro-war, pro-torture, pro-extrajudicial killings, pro-corporate, anti-worker) extremist. Decades. Because there's no good reason to believe that the next jackass the Democrats put up will be any less extreme than Obama.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Genda]

Oh I'm certain that George was by far the worst... While Obama may be struggling to find the brakes Georgy had the gas pedal to the floor on the "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" that Washington has become. That and I'm certain Obama has balls, I believed they live in a glass case on the desk of the CEO at Sony. Sadly however, I am forced to agree with you that his first time is a pitiful whimper in the face of an incredible onslaught by those in power to keep on doing what they've been doing all along. If the folks vying for Republican office weren't such a bunch of idiots and scumbags, I'd be tempted to dump the big "O". Perhaps as a lame duck, he'll get his balls back? Its not like he has anything to lose (I mean the Reps haven't exactly made his first term all warm and fuzzy.)

I can't see him losing any friends on the right (can't lose what you don't have) by going all "Gansta" on them in his second term... and for the love of all that's holy will someone please shoot the V.P. before he sells us all to the MPAA for a string of wampum!!!

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[justin12345]

It strikes me that they are trying to equate "unauthorized access" of a computer to trespassing. The hitch is that the two don't equate very well, as unauthorized access will vary from situation to situation whereas trespassing is strictly defined. For instance trespassing:

I invite someone over for dinner.
I tell them I have a no shoes in the house rule.
They refuse to take off their shoes.
I tell them to leave, but they refuse. They are trespassing because they refuse to leave, not taking off their shoes isn't relevant.

Unauthorized access:

I invite someone over for dinner.
I tell them I have a no shoes in the house rule.
They refuse to take off their shoes.
They would now be in criminal violation, just because they didn't follow my rules.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not going to jail everyone. They just want to make sure they have a catch-all law under which almost everyone is a criminal so that they can prosecute anyone who is otherwise clean.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Artraze]

The problem is that they never actually bothered to define "hacking". They decided that a vague definition of "unauthorized use of a computer" was sufficient. To a certain degree, I can understand that, but in reality the issue with it is that it requires so much interpretation that it ends of being 'I would rather see 10 innocent users got to jail than one hacker go free'.

I believe what they're saying is that, while Facebook's ToS _is_ a civil contract, it is that contract that authorizes you to access their servers. If you break the terms of that contract you are no longer explicitly authorized to access their servers and thus guilty of hacking. Legally (though IANAL), that seems to be a valid, if horrifying, interpretation of their broken law.

With the law as is, the only saving grace I can see here is that to be guilty of hacking, one first has to be determined to be in violation of the terms of service. Determining if the contract is broken requires certain action (e.g. court, arbitration). Facebook cannot merely claim so and have that be binding. One may be able to argue that one is not accessing the servers in an unauthorized manner until the dispute has been settled. However, as IANAL, I can't say for sure.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[EricWright]

So what were you high on?

Hope

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Grishnakh]

It's almost like Obama was really a plant, put there just to destroy the Democratic party by getting him elected on a populist platform and then screwing over everyone he voted for, so they'll never vote Democrat again.

Except that none of the other Democrats have come forward to publicly disown Obama from their party, and they've all been working hand-in-hand with him, so they're all complicit.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

For a second there I thought the Obama Administration had a sudden attack of conscience and decency.

That is the funniest comment in the history of /.

OK. I have a proposal to improve slashdot. Allow "Funny" comments to have a maximum score of +6 instead of the normal +5. Only of a "Funny" comment gets to +6, it gets karma.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I get those every once in awhile... They're as nice as they are short-lived, eh?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[similar_name]

It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime,

That's not clear at all. Do you think landlords should be able to charge their tenants with criminal acts for being late on rent? Typically speaking most contracts can be broken without committing a criminal act. It's a terrible idea to enforce contracts or TOS through criminal law.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not medical Cannabis because the DOJ just started shutting down all the co-ops in California.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[khallow]

Thus, Obama is Holder's boss and can [to my knowledge] fire him at will.

Why Obama hasn't yet done so is a mystery to me. There's some pretty crazy stuff coming up the pipeline from the "Fast and Furious" scandal.

It's off topic, but I'll explain a little. The program "walked" guns (via drug cartel smuggling networks) into Mexico without a) keeping track of the guns, b) informing Mexican authorities, or c) ending the program (the last two points differentiate it from a similar failure during the Bush administration). Then a federal law enforcement officer died in a shootout that included two guns from this program.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Genda]

Actually, I'm kind of partial to "Fascist State" as defined by Mussolini... and if you look up the "14 defining characteristics of a Fascist State." You'll see we're pretty much already there.

If you follow the relationship between Washington and the British Banking System from before our independence, and the creation and evolution of Corporations in this country and abroad, you'll find that Fascism, has its roots as a movement to control the wealth and power of the world for over 200 years. This is not precisely a Plutocracy or even an Oligarchy. Its something deeper, darker and places wealth and power above the well being of humanity or environmental sustainability. In short, it's something of a religion the promotes the very worst in primate behavior, let loose on the planet.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Curunir_wolf]

Obama stood as that, stood as "Change", and then gave us a big "Fuck you". Essentially, what we know now is that it's going to take decades to actually get someone in power who's not a right wing (pro-war, pro-torture, pro-extrajudicial killings, pro-corporate, anti-worker) extremist. Decades. Because there's no good reason to believe that the next jackass the Democrats put up will be any less extreme than Obama.

Quit getting so hung up on political parties. There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings, anti-multinational corporate privilege, AND that has a long record of backing up his stated position with consistent stance and voting record. But he's trying to get the Republican nomination. Check it out some time.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Our national government is actually a Democratic Republic. The public elect officials to make and pass the laws.

If we were a Democracy, the public would vote on each and every law and they would be passed by popular vote.

The founders made it a republic because the public at large are uneducated are fairly poor judges at picking what is good in terms of making a government run. It's also why an electoral college selects the president and use to select the senate.

Think of how bad it would be passing laws considering the amount spent advertising a candidate is one of the best indicators on who will win if we lived in a true democracy.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Nadaka]

The entire democratic party sucks. But they suck less than the republicans. You should note that the Republican party has also been weakened by the Tea Parties brinkmanship, just as much as the democratic party has been weakened by its own failures.

I think the disillusionment with Obama's false hope and change is part of what is feeding into the Occupy movement. Occupy has a higher approval rating than the Democratic party, and the Republican party and the Tea Party. Its going to take more than a year to organize, but I am not entirely pessimistic that a true populist liberal movement is taking shape and could threaten both parties as they exist now.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Terms of use: By using this website, you agree to quack like a duck (or be a criminal).

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[WorBlux]

Rhe primary recourse of a TOS violation is to terminate service. Some of the stuff may count as fraud, way using a fake name on facebook, but it's really a de minimis offense. The damage done is trivial, and the courts really should be bothered with trivia.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[WorBlux]

There is already such laws.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please for the love of logic purge your mind of this authoritarian idiocy.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Hatta]

There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings, anti-multinational corporate privilege

Ron Paul isn't any of those. He's just against federal funding for any of those.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[hairyfeet]

I'll get hate for saying this but I think Bush was better for one simple reason. Bush was an idiot but he was an HONEST idiot. he never hid what he wanted or covered it in bullshit, he was "the decider' dammit and he was gonna decide...err stuff or something.

Whereas Obama is a bold faced liar and will happily tell you anything you want to hear while cashing the check which he knows makes every word out of his mouth a lie. Just look at the completely bullshit responses he gave to the petitions, it was the most flowery "fuck you, you have no monies LOL!" I have ever seen written in my entire life. Obama takes the worst aspects of Jimmy Carter and Bush and rolls them together to make a truly slimy POTUS He is spineless like Jimmy, he is greedy like Bush, that folks is a BAD combination. At least Bush was clear and honest that he was a greedy asshole with cracks like his "My people" bit when addressing the elite 1%, or as he called them "the haves and have mores". Obama will pretend he gives a fuck while he quietly empties your bank account and offers any law the rich want passed as long as they sign the check.

As for TFA somebody cue up the Ayn Rand criminal quote because it soo fits. Here you have corps paying to basically make the ToS, which they can change at ANY time and for ANY reason, into an actual weapon they can use against those that piss them off, all with the blessings of a corrupt White House. Talk about giving the corps a blank check to fuck anyone that uses their services and pisses them off!

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[justin12345]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but there is another reason that unauthorized access and trespassing shouldn't be treated the same: physical presence and intent. In order to trespass I believe you have to know you are doing so and be physically present, hence the need for no trespassing signs. But it's completely possible to access a website by accident.

One of my old coworkers once got our office IP address banned by Google. He had decided to *ahem* automate his porn collection by writing a recursive spider to collect .jpg files from porn thumbnail sites based on certain keywords. Unfortunately one of the links lead back to Google, the spider was multithreaded and went nuts, and it started querying Google so fast that it violated Google's ToS. It was never his intention for his porn spider to pound Google, but thanks to a little stupidity it did, and under this he'd be a criminal (instead of just a moron).

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[dkleinsc]

I'm going to assume you're referring to Ron Paul. He and John Huntsman seem to be the only Republican candidates who have been showing signs of sense.

There are some big problems though:
1. Neither Paul nor Huntsman have a chance of winning the nomination, because those same corporations that they refuse to kowtow to are the ones who are providing campaign funding and media mouthpieces. For examples of this phenomenon, see the various campaigns of Dennis Kucinich (only truly notable question sent his way during primary debates: whether he'd seen a UFO), or the very intentional derailing of Howard Dean's 2004 campaign using some clever sound editing.
2. A lot of Paul's positions that don't have to do with war, torture, civil liberties, etc are likely to spark disagreement. For instance, the gold standard prevents the Federal Reserve from mitigating the effects of economic slumps and bubbles, and tends to benefit creditors (i.e. big banks) at the expense of debtors.
3. Even if they got into office, they'd still have to get their proposals through Congress. Right now, Congress and the Senate in particular will quite happily gut any major bill except those that enrich corporations at the expense of poor and middle-class people.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[vux984]

It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime

No. Not its not clear that this should be the case at all.

Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.

So what? Its a violation of an agreement. They can try and sue you for damages if they feel they've been harmed enough to be worth it.

But to make it a crime is absurd. Think about what it means for something to be a crime. The police are involved... you are arrested, you get a criminal record... because your a criminal if you commited a crime.

If I order a thousand widgets from your company, and we sign a contract that you'll deliver them May 1st. If your late... you've just violated our signed contract... that's way more forceful than a ToS fine-print on a website... and that's not a crime. Can you imagine a world where it was. You miss that May 1st deadline... and the police show up to arrest you for committing a crime

Next time your late on a cell phone bill payment... your arrested. You agreed to pay them $X by y date, even signed a contract.

Next time your late bringing in a library book; well you've already got a criminal record for the cell phone crime... I guess you get hauled of to PMIA prison, you repeat offender.

Violating a contract shouldn't be a crime. Violating a ToS even less so.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[siride]

It's more than just an oligarchy. It's the facade of democracy with the corporations pulling the strings, using the elected representatives in the government to do their bidding. Corporations don't technically run the country in the sense that the federal and state governments are still ostensible for the people, by the people, and the constitution says so as well. Corporatocracy, being a new term, can capture the way in which corporations sneakily run the show behind the facade of a supposed republic or democracy. Using "corporate oligarchy" would actually be incorrect because there is no legal or constitutional mandate for corporations to actually be in control of the country.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[siride]

People have been trying to control wealth and power of the world for a lot longer than 200 years.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Quila]

You don't need an invite to go to a regular web site.

Think of the park the OWS protesters were on, privately owned, but a public venue. The building next to it is also owned by that company. The company can lock down the building, deny public access, and any attempt to enter without abiding their strict terms can be tresspassing.

But you can just walk onto their park because it is a public place. So are public web sites. However, trying to do more than what is considered reasonable for a public space isn't allowed. You can't just bring in a backhoe and start digging up their park, you can't hack a public web site to change the server's configuration.

It's that latter bit that the CFAA was meant to cover, not merely visiting a public site and not following the rules, which can be rather strange.

I remember one, "You agree you won't challenge the validity of our copyright." Well, to challenge their copyright, you first have to view their materials to determine whether a challenge is warranted. But in viewing the materials, you forfeit your ability to challenge the copyright.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[alienzed]

and where can I get some? preferably some that last longer than a second.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Tsingi]

Well stated, thus my conundrum.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

On one hand, I'm Okay with this. I would love to see the bulk gmail signups to game access to other services that require valid emails come to an end and sued out of existance. I'm also okay with bullies being sued.

On the other hand this is ripe for misuse, where people who one-off upload copyrighted material that they thought they had the right to use (eg music), use aliases, use email while not legally able to (under 18) are all suddenly criminals.

I think we need to stop defining everything as criminal behavior and relegate it to civil law if someone has not been seriously harmed. Both Childporn and videos of people torturing animals need to be stopped, but throwing the people distributing the content in jail doesn't stop the behavior. The people who need the jailtime are the ones who physically harmed or killed someone else. So copyrighted material, and drug behavior is no different. The people consuming it and the people trafficking aren't causing harm to anyone but themselves, so throwing them in jail just takes up space and costs. People are addicted to their vices and while we look the other way for one, and get rail on the ones we don't personally like, realize that they are all the same. They are all addictions. If there was no demand, there would be no supply.

Why is there demand for pirated material? because it's too expensive, the costs of manufacturing and distribution do not fall in line with real costs. We're seeing this in how 1.99 iPhone games are outselling 80$ games and making more money. Do I seriously think 1.99 Youtube videos would outsell 35$ Blueray discs? hell no, one can only watch so many cat videos before you want to watch something else. But there are legitimate video series that are advertising supported on youtube and iTunes that you can download and watch for free. Fansubbers will tell you that the primary reason content is pirated is because it's not available simultaneously in English, but will take down their copies should they release English language versions (See Crunchyroll.) This is legitimate competition, but people still pirate because they don't want to pay for the low quality versions. Some of the fansubbers put more effort into their fansubs than the commercially released versions.

How can we get people to stop uploading pirated material to youtube? Make it available on iTunes, Make it available on the Xbox360, Make it available on Netflix. When people are presented the legal option first, uncensored, in their own language, at a good price point, they won't search for the pirated materials. The Anime companies need to get their content on Netflix if they want to get ahead of the fansubbers, don't bother dubbing it. The American companies need to do the same, and Netflix needs to be made available to Australia, Asia and Europe. Start with Japan.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

Point taken. Still ugly though, being cobbled together from a mix of latin and greek roots by someone with no feel for language. Somatocracy doesn't do it either, unfortunately. I give up :)

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Spad]

On the upside, if he did get elected president it would be a huge boon for small torture business owners.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[freman]

Ok, so now we change all our ToSes to include statements along the lines that "Accessing or viewing content on or from this site while in the employ any branch of the United States government is a violation of this ToS"

???

Profit?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[armanox]

ex post facto.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[squiggleslash]

There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings...

Sure there might be one perceived as being that, and likewise there are on the left too. However, NONE OF THEM WILL BE A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

The lesson from Obama is that even if someone CLAIMS to be against those things, if he actually gets nominated, he WILL not be that man.

Buddy Roemer? Ron Paul? None have a fighting chance, and frankly, the former probably doesn't mean it, and the latter certainly doesn't mean what you think he does.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[chrismcb]

It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime

It is pretty clear that it should NOT be a crime

Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.... you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property

I'm not sure I agree with that. That is sort of like say a billboard is private property, and you don't have a right to look at any particular billboard. The act of putting a website onto the internet gives everyone a certain amount of liberty to access that website. If you want to limit the users of the website, you need to put up a closed door. If you own a piece of land, and you don't fence it off nor post keep out/no trespassing signs, it may be legal for people to access your land.

There are already laws that make it illegal to "break" into a "closed door" site. But we don't need laws to make it illegal to break a contract. That is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Tsu-na-mi]

Step 1. build fake "terrorist", "child porn", or other website
Step 2. TOS disallowing access by members of government, police, any federal, state, or local agency
Step 3. log access and report offenders

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Mashiki]

Oh it's much, much worse than that once you start looking into. You know being a canuck, I really didn't believe the whole conspiracy thought that the F&F scandal was an attempt at restricting the 2nd amendment. Those gun nuts though? They were spot on call it as it was, especially when you see how much Holder had his hands in it.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[vtcodger]

Hey, what's all the grousing? I was saying just this morning that what this country needs is more idiotic, unenforceable, federal laws.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[AK Marc]

Corporate oligarchy.

Which gets shortened to "corporatocracy".

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[siride]

I never understood the dislike of mixing Greek and Latin roots. The Romans themselves did it. Every language does it. There's nothing wrong with it, at all.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

True, I just find the word ugly, it's a personal thing I guess.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

Yeah, I've conceded, see sibling thread. That's what I get for a foray into grammar nazism. I still find the word ugly, but what can I do.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up nerd.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is no excuse, and is it too much to ask you to read Facebook's ToS before clicking "Like"? The terms aren't exactly hidden. That's the way I expect the courts to take, and then they'll put a spin on it so that downloading a web bug also creates a binding contract.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[nurb432]

The Obama administration was doomed at the onset

I disagree. It was the American Public that was doomed.

privilege of having a thought(tm)

Only approved thoughts...

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[nurb432]

Why Obama hasn't yet done so is a mystery to me.

Umm, perhaps he approves of what happened as it further advances true agendas?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[hovelander]

"leave it along and not be bothered by it? most people read at threshold 3 anyway."

Which is EXACTLY what is wrong with Slashdot right now. That stupid slider means that most people never see a majority of comments that could and should be up-modded. Almost certainly ensures shallow discussions in an echo chamber.

Thanks Mr Slider, for ensuring the slow and ridiculous death spiral of /.!!!!

(Slash discussions have always been raucous and flamey, don't get me wrong, but just like the Music Industry all the good comments are underground and unseen now.)

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[ancientt]

Well that changed.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

It's their website. If they want to alienate their best customers, they can. MySpace did it just by choosing a fascist slestak as its new owner.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Larryish]

Man goes into a restaurant, asks for a menu.

Waiter brings menu.

Menu only has 2 entries: "Republican Shepherd Pie" and Democrat Shepherd Pie".

Man asks what is the difference between the two.

Waiter replies "There is really no difference, but we want you to feel like you have options."

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

It's clear because I have feelings and thoughts.

Breaking an agreement would be a tort if it actually caused some harm, otherwise, it's just breaking an agreement.

Given the current overly broad laws regarding "computer access", accessing a computer after violating a TOS could be a crime. It's an agreement, not a contract. It's not a contract because you haven't promised them anything of value in return for the access they provide. So most contract law is moot off the bat. But agreements still carry weight, and if you violate an agreement and that means you have to consider yourself banned and then you access the website afterward, whether you've been not to or not, then you fall under the law regarding unlawful acess of a computer.

Should that be a crime? I don't think it should in all cases, but if you're doing it to harass someone, then it's an aggravating circumstance in the harassment.

The laws regarding computer access are new and mostly untried, and things like this will set the precedents that courts will use when deciding whether to throw the book at you, let you go, or anything in between. They get a lot of leeway to refine the meaning of non-specific laws, and the constitutional power to apply leeway even when the laws are very specific but conflict with other laws or the Constitution.

So it's not automatic that if the courts apply the law this way to a case where someone harassed someone else into suicide it means that you can be jailed just for logging into a machine after violating some minor clause in the agreement.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

1. it's not a contract, since nothing of value is promised by you, and because there's no terms for completion of the exchange.

2. it is an agreement, and the website can sue you for violating it, or vice versa, but since there's nothing of value involved, and no harm caused other than violation of the agreement, you're going to have to make up a claim for damages. generally the agreement spells out in detail what you'll be liable for if you violate the agreement, and if there's nothing to collect the website locks you out and leaves it at that.

3. if the people you harm while using the website sue the website, the website has every reason to turn around and sue you, and use the TOS as further proof of your actions and character and culpability, and to use it as a defense against them. they didn't have to lock you out because you were supposed to stay out yourself.

4. getting charged with a crime and getting sued are different things but can come from the same causes. you can easily get both if you hurt someone. generally the criminal case goes first, because the prosecution's need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt provides high-quality evidence and a high probability of having a preponderance of the evidence for the civil case, even if you are acquitted in the criminal case (see OJ for a glaring example). the civil case sometimes doesn't follow the criminal case because the plaintiff realizes at that point the defendant doesn't have anything left to go after, but if the defendant still has earning power, being broke won't stop anyone.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

That's a good example.

If the law against unauthorized logging into a computer isn't similar to unauthorized walking through someone's open front door, then there's something wrong with the computer law.

I suspect after a few years of this sort of litigation, they'll be very similar.

They'll still be very different in other details based on the fact that you can do very different things once you're in there, but the just-being-there part should be the same.

BTW, in most cases, entering or being in someone's house when you don't have their permission isn't just a crime, it's a felony, and there's no rule for whether you do or don't know you have permission*. So you're making their point.

* - the thing about "posting" land is for open land and applies to particular intentions like entering the land to kill animals (i.e. hunting). There's no requirement to post anything when the case involves a building or fenced land (though climbing over someone's fence is a misdemeanor. ain't law fun?).

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

Oops. I didn't read ahead.

No, you're wrong, for reasons I stated above.

There's no requirement to post when there's a barrier there. That should be enough. And posting doesn't even invoke the law if someone's just walking past your "no trespassing" sign, across your unfenced yard, and off your property. They can do that. That sort of posting makes hunting on the land a crime. Ironically, the sign is usually redunantly hung on a fence, or worse, the door of a house. People are dumb.

Your buddy's case is more one of deciding between intent and accident, which could enter into this legal wrangling. But it's clear that what this case is really about is intentional access outside the bounds of the TOS for the purpose of hurting someone, so coming up with other scenarios doesn't really stick to the point.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Hatta]

It's clear because I have feelings and thoughts.

Funny. I have feelings and thoughts too, and it's clear to me that this shouldn't be a crime. Perhaps that we have feelings and thoughts on the issue is besides the point, and what actually matters is the content and validity of those thoughts and feelings.

Given the current overly broad laws regarding "computer access", accessing a computer after violating a TOS could be a crime

Yes, but we were talking "should", not "is" or "could be".

The rest of your post... yes, TOS is not a contract, it's even less binding than a contract. So breach of TOS should be less severe than breach of contract, which is not a crime.

The rest of it is a bunch of hand waving about letting the courts hash it out. Putting aside the fact that legislating from the bench is undemocratic, I still don't see any actual argument here for actually considering TOS breach a crime. If this is so clear to you, why do you have trouble articulating it?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[gknoy]

I suspect that even making a fake site of the kind you describe would be a recipe for more trouble than any of us want to reap.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

It's an open space, but not a public one. That will be interesting to see dealt with in court, because OWS is about to hand Mike Bloomberg his ass on a stick for a number of things that happened last night.

But, all the Brookfield people need to do to make you trespassers is to put a little picket fence around their park. Nothing more. They don't have to lock the gate, post a sign, or tell anyone any rules. The fence says that you're trespassing there if they haven't told you that you have permission to be there and do what you're doing there. They can let any number of people do exactly what you're doing, but still get you charged with a felony for doing the same thing at the same time, just because they decide you no longer have their permission, even if they never told you that you did or didn't.

But there's no fence there. Though I'm pretty sure that Brookfield early on set rules for how OWS should use it, and made them well known. Which would be enough to let them decide when enough is enough and invoke trespassing and make it stick.

So the real issues will be in how they got it enforced, and how the enforcers treated the rights of the people they were enforcing it against, and how many pieces the people of NYC can rip Bloomberg's re-election prospects into.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

Give this thread another read. You've got a lot of stuff wrong, and I've answered a lot of these things in posts to others asking the same things.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[AK Marc]

I still find the word ugly, but what can I do.

Deep breaths, and imagine yourself on a beach, surrounded by bikini models, all of them wanting suntan lotion, and you holding the last bottle on the island...

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[blair1q]

>It is pretty clear that it should NOT be a crime

Go vote.

>billboard

You don't have a right to climb on a billboard and change it.

You don't have a right to log into a website that you're not wanted in, whether they've taken the step of locking your account or not.

You might have a right to load the login page. But if they block your IP you can't get the courts to agree that you have a right to force them to unblock it so you can load the login page.

I take it back. You need to go read, a lot, before you go vote.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[siride]

Nothing wrong with personal aesthetics. I just have a problem with people who wrap up their aesthetic judgments in universal terms.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that Bing does not seem to have such a restriction.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[iiiears]

Slashdot's is a mobocracy. This cannot be done. Sir.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[DavidTC]

Indeed. Unauthorized access should be 'using the site when you are clearly forbidden to'. Aka, when you hack someone else's password or something.

It is exactly analogous to trespass, but with trespass law, we have very clear laws. And people can't put up signs that say 'You can only enter if you do eight thousand different things I will specific in this fine print here or you're trepassing'.

No. They can say 'No trespassing' or 'Authorized access only', and people must assume they need to get permission first. They can put up a gate or lock a door, and people must assume they need to get permission first.

They can't have a fricking path and post rules saying 'you can use this path only if you do X', and then have people arrested for trespass who break the rules. That is not possible under current law. And they certainly can't stand there and have a doorman let people in (You know, like automatically making an account.) and then have the person arrested for trespassing later.

Breaking rules is not trespassing. And it is not unauthorized computer access if someone breaks rules. The only rule is 'Was there some indication that people were barred in general? If not, were you somehow specifically barred from access?'

And, no, you're not required to do any math there...they can't say 'You are barred if you break the rules.' You have to actually be specifically barred. This isn't some goddamn logic problem.

Hell, in the real world, sometimes you can ban 'certain things' from your property, like 'solicitors'...and this requires a law defining what those are and that people can rightfully ban them. People aren't allowed to make up their own restrictions and sic the police on people who don't agree with what that restriction means. There are specific rules about how and what the few things you can put on a sign. (Hours of access are a common one.) And this sign must be publicly posted in a specific way.

Or, in another example, casinos can't post a sign saying 'No card counters allowed', and have card counters arrested for trespassing. They can have a rule against that, and throw them out, and have them arrested for trespassing if they come back...but not for breaking the 'access rule' in the first place.

But, apparently, we've decided that web sites should have near infinite power to have any visitor arrested. All they have to do is come up with some vague rule, or, hell, a rule that every visitor violates, like 'This site may only be accessed between using IE 5', and they can have people arrested at will.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[DavidTC]

I'm all for them being sued.

That's not the same thing as it being a crime.

Unauthorized computer access is supposed to be limited to accessing places that have been barred to you, usually with a password. (Although some of the 'using proxies to get around country IP bans' is probably enough to count.)

That's it. That's where it needs to end.

If a web site has a problem with a user who does have such access granted, they need to revoke the access.

It's pretty much exactly like trespassing laws. No, you cannot climb in the bathroom window to get into the club. (Aka, breaking in through a security vulnerability.) That is, in fact, trespassing.

It is also trespassing if you make a copy of someone else's key, and enter through a locked door that way. (Aka, using their login credentials.) That is also trespassing.

However, it's completely legal to lie and say you're with the band at the door, and walk right in. Or claim you were just in there and already paid. That is not trespassing.

It's also completely legal if, for example, they bar external food and drinks, and you to sneak them in anyway. That is also not trespassing.

We do not want such things to be trespassing. It is far too dangerous to give random people the ability to have people arrested for breaking private rules. Because such rules are often very vague, and, unlike the law, no one is required to know the rules of every place they visit.

Of course, it's also completely legal for them to demand you leave when they figure out you've broken a rule, and for them to have you arrested if you refuse. That is how it is supposed to work.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Child porn. Definitely child porn. Like peanut butter on a mousetrap, yes?
Instead of reporting offenders, publicize their visits. Like with a public reading on YouTube or, even better, a talk of shame on the Daily Show.
Now, this, has potential.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Thing 1]

Would you have to abide by Facebook's ToS on every site with a "Like" button and a FB tracking cookie?

Alternately: would you have to abide by a judge's ruling to share passwords with the spouse who you're divorcing, if this will violate Facebook's ToS and submit you to even more judicial scrutiny?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[vux984]

You told me to re-read the thread... so here i am, and this even more wrong, imo.

But agreements still carry weight, and if you violate an agreement and that means you have to consider yourself banned and then you access the website afterward, whether you've been not to or not, then you fall under the law regarding unlawful acess of a computer.

If I break an agreement, i should "consider my self banned"?

My local pool has a set of rules for using the facility. No running, no diving, no children unattended, no bubblebath or oils in the hottub...

So if I run for any reason, should I "consider myself banned", and by remaining at the facility I should be charged with criminal trespassing even though nobody asked me to leave? Seriously?

I don't think it should in all cases, but if you're doing it to harass someone, then it's an aggravating circumstance in the harassment.

Harrassment is a crime. Let them be charged with harassment. That ought to be enough.

So it's not automatic that if the courts apply the law this way to a case where someone harassed someone else into suicide it means that you can be jailed just for logging into a machine after violating some minor clause in the agreement.

Why? If I rob a bank and use my car as a getaway vehicle. They can come after me for robbing the bank. But it would be idiotic to have a law on the books that made letting the parking meter run out on your car a CRIME, just so that if someone ever robs a bank down the road, and then parks there car at an expired meter... that they can be arrested and tossed in jail for that.

And then rely on the courts and prosecutors to only enforce the whole "toss them in jail" part of the law only when the perpetrator is a bank robber.

That's absurd.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read through this entire thread, and it's quite clear to me that you are the one in the wrong. You seem to be suffering from an inability to distinguish civil matters from criminal matters. Feel free to disagree, but I have a feeling you won't be sitting on SCOTUS any time soon, and somehow I doubt they'd view things your way.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

For that second I actually got to believe that it was even *remotely* possible that a government official might actually take the side of the vast majority of citizens and consumers in America

So what were you high on? ;-)

Hope and Change

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it as-is. Or at least check the time-stamps. They were all posted within a couple minutes of one another. Unless someone constantly refreshes to see if someone else posted the same thing, a 10-15 minute time difference makes sense to skip a redundant moderation.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly a case of Bieber fever?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Evtim]

First rule of the world - stupid motherfucker with power is less dangerous than intelligent and cunning motherfucker with power.

I concur with you (but you still got negative modpoints, that's strange...)

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[rtb61]

Terms of Service are legally binding contracts under 'Contract Law' which is civil law. What the DOJ is now saying is that breaking a civil contract is a criminal act, this of course disrupts the whole distincting between civil law and criminal law.

Next up is the matter of evidence required for criminal prosecution versus evidence required for civil resolution. Now each and every copyright infringement case would need to be subject to a full investigation that provides hard evidence of the individual infringing copyright costing tens of thousands of dollars and taking up hundreds of hours of agents investigative time.

Some dickwad in the DOJ thinks they can re-interepret laws any way they way and they prosecute and convict based upon the flimsiest circumstantial evidence, basically the "WESAYSO" dinosaur system of prosecution. Next it'll ne enhanced interrogation tactics and water boarding US children because they might have the fingers on the 'delete' button.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I could believe that!

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Great point! I just put in my TOS for my next music or video linking site that access by members of the recording industry or music industry is strictly prohibited. Maybe I can add something in the TOS that I do not authorize anyone to view the content of my site. Then when I get the take down notice from DHS because I'm violating the DMCA I can file criminal charges against them for accessing the site when it violated the TOS. :D Imagine? Millions of criminal suits filed against the RIAA and MPAA!

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Builder]

He's also anti-women's rights which will kill any chance he has of ever making president.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dress warmly, the great US democracy experiment is over.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Serpents]

What makes you think that the government and corporations are going to have to comply with those regulations? Responsibilities and punishment are only for peons like us

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

But your attempt to get out of receiving the Amazon.com spam that you signed up for (you sign up for it when you create an account) is a violation of the ToS (which says that they get to send you spam unless you close your account AND specifically unsubscribe, and it's a violation to attempt to circumvent this). So it would be used to prosecute YOU.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

Having slept over it, I think my problem is not the mix of latin and greek roots, but a latin root that morphed into a contemporary english word, and the result mixed with a greek root. I know, still personal aesthetics, but corpocracy would be more in line with how the other "*cracy" terms are formed, and less cumbersome to pronounce and type. But I'll give it a rest now, thanks for your understanding ....

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

Funny thing is, I am at a very nice beach. Well not while I typed the posts yesterday evening, at the time I was at the apartment 100 meters from the beach. Bikini models are a bit lacking in numbers though. Oh well, I guess I will back my surfboard now, walk down to the water, and forget about all that. Note to self: shut off data roaming from now on. Cheers.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Knuckles]

*pack

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[thejynxed]

He didn't so much get paid to think it, he and some others in Congress bought into the line back in the mid 80's to early 90's that the future of the US economy was going to be "the information superhighway", the "paperless office", and "services and information".

Some of which is partially true, except nobody could have foreseen all of the consequences of what these things actually would lead to, or even meant.

On the downside, we end up with copyright laws pushed to the extreme, and corporate and financial entities that essentially get away with murder, literally and figuratively.

On the upside, even Chinese citizens have access to more information than Chairman Mao would have ever allowed, and the "Arab Spring (Cleaning)" speaks for itself.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it really doesn't matter.
You still have to be able to afford a long drawn out court battle.

For most of us, that means a huge loss no matter the outcome.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is you missed the small print in the DOJ's "announcement."

It reads: "This excludes the government and/or any state agency."

And the above mentioned are of course excluded in order to "protect the children."

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

This may have been a back room deal, but the flip side is that the government can definitively throw you in jail for "trespassing" on any one of it's websites or secure machines. Not that secure machines don't immediately get you a ride to a padded room where you're frisked (very roughly).

Heck, if read in this manner it would mean Obama's "tattletale/Nazis Fascism" site would bar anyone from poking fun at him. It would essentially make anyone putting inaccurate or "slamming" comments on it an instant criminal.

* The Nazis reference is due to the way that the Nazis used children or other family members to rat out their loved ones for being Jewish; pretty despicable. And very anti-human imo. Getting people to turn on each other (be it for profit or other gains) is one of the lowest things you can do; Yes I'm aware that corporate America is built that way and that is just one of the many reasons I don't work for a large organization.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[thej1nx]

Step 1. Build site with small print in ToS "It will be in violation of this site's policies for you to ever close this website, to stop looking at the website, to move away from the computer displaying this website, to perform any voluntary actions apart from looking at this site, or to allow the computer displaying the site to ever be powered off".
Step 2. Send mails with links saying "Urgent! Please take a look at this site. New wikileaks stuff here! Pure dynamite!", to Obama administration and DoJ officials.
Step 3. Do we really need a step 3 after step 2?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

In a fascist state, industry is subservient to a nationalist political party, and is used to deliver on government policy whose genesis started with government priorities. Industry is shaped by the will of the state, and treated as an appendage of the state. What we have is more the other way around.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

poorly-disguised corporatocracy.

Its Fascism NOT and made up word of corporatocracy. Call it what it really is.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Curunir_wolf]

Buddy Roemer? Ron Paul? None have a fighting chance, and frankly, the former probably doesn't mean it, and the latter certainly doesn't mean what you think he does.

Well you can say Ron Paul won't be the nominee - it seems to be a common claim. But Paul certainly does mean exactly what he says. He's got 20 years of voting history in the house that proves his actions match his rhetoric. I never trust what any politician says, but if there was ever a politician that was worthy of that trust, it's Ron Paul.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Curunir_wolf]

There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings, anti-multinational corporate privilege

Ron Paul isn't any of those. He's just against federal funding for any of those.

Well he truly is anti-war, non-interventionist policy and has spoken out against torture and against the droning of Anwar al-Awlaki without a trial, as well as the entire idea of any kind of "extrajudicial" killings. As a legislator, the only action he can take is to deny funding for those kinds of activities, but he is firmly against them and has made his position very clear. Try checking out some of his speeches instead of just listening to what the MSM say about him - they are compromised. There is a really good one on foreign policy you can find on youtude search for "ron paul what if".

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[tmosley]

I like how you continue to deride them even though they are correct. That is the sign of a truly open mind.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly rabbit. Laws don't apply to the government and its agents.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[cHiphead]

So when did Canada start getting Glenn Beck's radio show?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[luisdom]

Corporatocracy. In europe we call that fascism, I guess it's like the subway/metro/tube thing.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[twoHats]

This particular donkey probably does think you should be charged with a crime for being late on payment of rent, along with pretty much anything else. This stuff is such BS, and everyone has known this starting with the first TOS (pre web btw). I have been a programmer before and since then, and have *never* read one and don't intend to. I am not interested in computers so i can read long legal documents that are complete nonsense and give everything to "the company" and nothing to me. This is part of the revolution as far as i am concerned.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Nadaka]

Being occasionally correct in criticizing Obama in no way validates the rest of the shit they spew. Being open minded is different that graciously accepting any bullshit someone throws in your direction.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all, It's government granting the corporations more power, not granting itself more power.

Actually, it's both, as the former is predicated on the latter. Yes, the government effectively grants Facebook the power to have you thrown you in jail for using a fake name, but in order to do that they have to grant themselves the power to throw you in jail for breaking Facebook's rules.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[LihTox]

All file-sharing websites will now create ToS forbidding access by RIAA and MPAA representatives; copyright infringement lawsuits will be used as evidence of their violation.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[KingBenny]

mhm, man am i glad the obully isnt trying to push illegal american laws into european privacy law-space ... euhm , wait a minute ...?

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Mashiki]

When do you think Canadians could read about information outside of their own border? I know, it's a really difficult one. But to be fair, until you mentioned it. Beck wasn't the original source.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[tmarsh86]

There is more than one source for this information. That aside, if you don't care for a source, it doesn't make the message any less true.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[tmarsh86]

Good lord, you are one dumb SOB. I am glad you do not represent the majority of /.ers.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[tmarsh86]

After reading your whinging, I am hoping that corporatocracy sticks and gets used around here all the time.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[tmarsh86]

Oh, this should really make your day. lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#Corporate_Oligarchy_.28Corporatocracy.29

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[tmarsh86]

Actually, we are not there. Anyone who knows anything about the power structure in this country would know it is the corporations that have more power than the federal government in many key areas. That is not fascist.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[squiggleslash]

I said Buddy Roemer probably doesn't mean it.

What I said about Ron Paul is that he probably doesn't mean what you think he does. Ron's no civil libertarian enthusiast, he just believes that the jackboots should be worn by State government officials, not Feds. Yes, he has a record of voting against Federal expansion, but don't confuse that with civil libertarianism. And given his newsletter's comments on race, I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately he'd have come down on the Confederacy's side during the Civil War.

And yes I know a lot of people romanticize that group, but the Confederacy was the closest many states ever saw to fascism in modern American history - unsurprising, given the reason it was formed, and the attitudes of the states that formed it.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Curunir_wolf]

civil libertarian enthusiast

You obviously know nothing about his positions.

And given his newsletter's comments on race

Really? That tired old disinformation? You're perpetuating a lie - I have to think you are doing it on purpose. I'll just let Ron Paul respond to that bullcrap the same way he did to Chris Matthews.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[squiggleslash]

You obviously know nothing about his positions.

Actually I do, which is why I wrote what I did. Unfortunately Ron Paul's most ardent supporters tend to be those who think he's something he clearly isn't.

You're perpetuating a lie - I have to think you are doing it on purpose.

No, you are. You're simply mindlessly rejecting criticism of Ron Paul because it suits you. You know damn well Paul's "response" is inadequate and doesn't make any sense. We're supposed to believe that Paul doesn't care what's written under his name, and that over a period of years he ignored repeated racist content posted in his eponymous newsletter?

When the allegations first came out I came across apologists like you too, who pretended it was something that happened once, and that Ron Paul couldn't possibly have noticed because of that. They conveniently ignored the fact it wasn't one off, that it happened over and over again, that nothing had been posted to withdraw the articles, and that Ron Paul clearly did have the ability to distance himself from the newsletter, something he did not do.

I've dealt with too many people like Ron Paul in my life not to notice what he is, and the gulf between what his acolytes think he is and what he is. You know the arguments you're using make no sense. I suggest you take the next step and accept the reason for that.

Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris Matthews, is that you? Mitt Romney? Who are you shilling for, anyway?

Sometimes I'm a little surprised at the lengths the establishment elites and their supporters will go to vilify and spread dirt about anyone that challenges the status quo. Ron Paul's message is spreading, in spite of the detractors that try to smear his name.

I'm sure you are well aware of the history of the racist publications you refer to, and the total absence of any relationship Paul had with them or any of the views they espouse. Anyone that wants to know the truth can find it themselves, so the only ones you are fooling are fools

Your fear is justed: the truth will out, and the establishment will fall.

Woo hoo!

[Skidborg]

/goes off to create websites with demented ToS.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Aryden]

Be sure to include:

1. Souls of first born
2. Cancellation Fees
3. Cow bell

Re:Woo hoo!

[Quiet_Desperation]

By reading this site, you agree to pay the website owner $1 per word. The fact that this term is displayed with white text on a light beige background does not invalidate it in any way.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Isaac Remuant]

Thou shall not breathe. (hidden in the heart of an extremely long ToS)

Re:Woo hoo!

[Chowderbags]

I'd ask what your new website would be named, but Slashdot's own terms of service say:

Prohibited activity includes, but is not limited to: (...) using any information obtained from SourceForge.net in order to contact (...) any user without such user's prior explicit consent (including non-commercial contacts like chain letters);

Oops, I guess replying at all is already contacting.Shit, I think I hear FBI vans.

Re:Woo hoo!

[jgagnon]

It would be good enough to say "Thou shall not breed."

Re:Woo hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget "prima nocta"

Re:Woo hoo!

[brit74]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

The Devil: "I invented the TOS agreements. You ever say "yes" to those TOS agreements without reading it first? See you soon, buddy!"
http://www.hulu.com/watch/299647/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-the-devil-on-penn-state

Re:Woo hoo!

[joocemann]

Who is 'Thou'?

Is there any expectation that legal terms be written in a language that people use?

Re:Woo hoo!

[Isaac Remuant]

No. The point is to make you skim the rest after being dumbfounded by the first few paragraphs.

I also realize I made a typo. Should be "shalt" but mixing it up a bit doesn't seem so bad in context.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget "prima nocta"

Learn your latin. "primae noctis"

Re:Woo hoo!

[Idbar]

you are to pay a fine of up to $1million to the website owner in the case you download and/or cache its content without our explicit personal permission.

Re:Woo hoo!

[sconeu]

Southpark did it first, and better.

Re:Woo hoo!

[OakDragon]

It would be good enough to say "Thou shall not breed."

In many cases, redundant.

Re:Woo hoo!

[AK Marc]

It's an English term, not Latin, and like most adopted words, they changed when they entered the language.

Re:Woo hoo!

[joocemann]

My question was rhetorical, posing sarcasm at old-english in modern legalese, demonstrating a point that laws COULD be clear and common in language, but are not.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Requiem18th]

Now you are just getting silly. You must be joking, it's obvious a person can't make outrageous demands in their TOS and expect them to be fulfilled. A corporation on the other hand...

Re:Woo hoo!

[Genda]

Yeah Baby!!! I writing my ToS in Aramaic! As long as Mel Gibson avoids my site... I'm GOLDEN!!!

Re:Woo hoo!

[camperdave]

White on light beige? Why not white on white, or black on black, or any variation of $color on $color? Is there some law against that sort of thing?

Re:Woo hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's the very clarity that makes legal language sometimes impenetrable. Precision requires precise terms—i.e., jargon.

Re:Woo hoo!

[fahrbot-bot]

...using any information obtained from SourceForge.net in order to contact (...) any user without such user's prior explicit consent...

So, one must get prior explicit consent from someone - to contact them - them w/o contacting them?
Nice.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Tom]

No need to get fancy.

Simply include two rules that can not possibly be matched both, and you can be sure 100% of your users are in violation of the ToS.

Or, simply state that the site is not allowed to be accessed, directly or indirectly, by any human being. That should also have you covered.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also coitus interruptus

Re:Woo hoo!

[Aryden]

Why the hell would I want your woman on the first night of her marriage to you? Chances are, you've already deflowered her. But just in case you haven't, it would be more punishment for you if I don't teach her anything. Now, were I to invoke a rule like "communia amatrix" then that would be grand.

forgot to add: surprise sex, you agreed to it, but you don't know when it's coming!

Re:Woo hoo!

[Dr_Terminus]

That reminds me of this site: http://dozierinternetlaw.cybertriallawyer.com/

In their "Unauthorized Access" section, they say its unauthorized to view the HTML code on the site. Too funny!

Re:Woo hoo!

[tmosley]

Couldn't you just add "no law enforcement or government personnel allowed", then do whatever you want?

Re:Woo hoo!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Plausible deniability. The text is *technically* readable. :)

TOS, EULA

[Oswald McWeany]

This spells potentially problems for a lot of people because most people do not read the TOS or EULA documents.

They're often in some obscure link in tiny italic font because companies don't really care if you read them- they use them to kick you off when it is convenient for them.

How many people for example are aware of Slashdot's TOS that states you have to sacrifice a goat once a week if you disable ads.

Think I'm joking?

I am- but I bet the vast majority of slashdot users wouldn't know for sure because they havn't read the TOS.

I used to- but they're so long and full of legaleese I stopped.

If citizens are going to be held accountable for violating TOS as a criminal offense- we're either going to have a bunch more criminals OR in order for TOS to hold water they have to pass a dumb user test- be short, to the point and easily understandable by Joe the plumber.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Oswald McWeany]

Sorry- I really should proofread my carp!

I am- but I bet the vast majority of slashdot users wouldn't know for sure because they havn't read the TOS.

I used to- but they're so long and full of legaleese I stopped.

I'm not picking on /. TOS (which I haven't read) - I'm picking on TOS in general.

Re:TOS, EULA

[betterunixthanunix]

This spells potentially problems for a lot of people because most people do not read the TOS or EULA documents.

Hm...

"This spells potentially [sic] problems for a lot of people because most people do not read the laws that their government has passed"

Are you sure that you are not guilty of a felony?

Re:TOS, EULA

[TheSpoom]

To be fair, Slashdot specifically is very nice about that; some of us have a little checkbox that lets us disable ads legally in order to thank us for our contributions. I realize you were talking in hypotheticals though.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people for example are aware of Slashdot's TOS that states you have to sacrifice a goat once a week if you disable ads.

Think I'm joking?

I am

NOW you tell me? I've been sacrificing all those goats for nothing?

Re:TOS, EULA

[SJHillman]

I'm confused. Do I have to keep sacrificing goats or not?

Re:TOS, EULA

[Synerg1y]

Slashdot can also be buggy in regards to :) What if the checkbox accidently gets unchecked by a web admin script and I get my ad, wouldn't that violate the TOS stating that I can disable ads which I chose to do so with proper contributions? Can I sue? Whoever wrote this proposed law has their head so far up their ass they can see china.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Isaac Remuant]

Another point to add is that almost all of them look like job contracts. They basically save every and all rights because you're the one interested in using the service and not the other way around.

Sometimes they do this just to be on the safe side (legally speaking) but that
still feels wrong and forces very easily breakable ToS on users.

quote from Salon.com ToS.
(so full of lawyerly jargon that makes you want to shoot the writer/s)

By posting or otherwise providing a Submission, you grant Salon the
right to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, broadcast, license, perform, post,
sell, translate, incorporate, create derivative works from, exploit, distribute
and otherwise use the Submission in any and all media, now known or hereafter
devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity, without according you any compensation. Salon will generally attribute Submissions to their authors, but you understand and agree that it is not obligated to do so, and you release and waive any right to have Submissions attributed to you. You also understand and agree that Salon has no obligation to publish or use any Submission in any way, and that Salon may remove or revised any Submission that has been posted, published, or distributed on or through the Site in its sole discretion.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Twinbee]

On a related note, end-user software license agreements are also far too long and winded. This blog entry here shows a surprising and refreshing approach to how things should be done:

http://lawactually.blogspot.com/2011/10/thats-interesting-approach.html

That seems to cover most bases, and I would hope the legal system would cover that software's creator.

Re:TOS, EULA

[gknoy]

the vast majority of slashdot users wouldn't know for sure because they havn't read the TOS.

This is exacerbated by the fact that almost every TOS agreement or EULA says something like, "we can change this at any time, and don't have to notify you".

Re:TOS, EULA

[joocemann]

There is another option.... people will be forced to avoid sites that have a ToS that is more than a couple sentences long. Nobody has the time, or the lawyers, necessary to fully understand these crappy terms anyway... Everyone assumes that if they do right by any normal civil expectation, that they won't be in trouble.

Again, business wins. Thanks for nothing, Obama. I'm glad you didn't pretend to be pro-life and do nothing about it like a Republican, but you did pretend to be for the people, and have done almost nothing about it.

Re:TOS, EULA

[John Bresnahan]

How many people for example are aware of Slashdot's TOS that states you have to sacrifice a goat once a week if you disable ads.

Think I'm joking?

I am-

Man! I wish I had read your entire post before sacrificing this flock of goats!

Re:TOS, EULA

[travdaddy]

You had me really worried there. I was trying to count up how many weeks I've had ads disabled.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Oswald McWeany]

Besides traffic crimes, I am not aware of any crime I have committed.

However, that said, I am almost certain I must have committed a felony at some point in my life- there are so many laws- and so many I don't know- it is inconceivable to think I have not unwittingly committed one at some point in my life.

Fortunately outside the digital world- they would probably be hard to prove- and/or the police don't care to prosecute for obscure laws (or don't know them themselves).

It would be easy for a website to trip you up and prove it if they like.

There is also a difference between government passing rules- and corporations passing arbitrary complex TOS to getcha.

I vote for my congressman. I don't vote for the operator of goatsdoingcrazythingstosheep.com

Re:TOS, EULA

[Kjella]

If citizens are going to be held accountable for violating TOS as a criminal offense- we're either going to have a bunch more criminals OR in order for TOS to hold water they have to pass a dumb user test- be short, to the point and easily understandable by Joe the plumber.

The first one.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Pope]

CBC's old "Nightlines" radio program had an introduction for its Hour of Power segment that went something like: "From coast to coast on CBC Stereo, around the world on shortwave, and soon to edges of the known universe..."

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. You must visit goatse once a week.

Re:TOS, EULA

[frank_adrian314159]

Oddly enough, the phrase "throughout the universe" is not an uncommon one anymore, at least in publishing and entertainment. I first stumbled across it in articles about recording contracts. I've seen it adopted in more and more places, as it seems to be an easy way to characterize "If I try to list them all, I'll forget one, so, no, I don't want to specify particular regions into which I can dump your crapola". Yeah, the "universe" part does seem a bit of overkill but, on the other hand, it does add that bit of cosmic surreality to the licensing experience. By now it's probably standard in all content licensing contracts.

Re:TOS, EULA

[ffflala]

To be fair, most people haven't read most (or any) of the *actual* laws that they're bound by: the federal/state/municipal statutes, regulations, case law, and constitutions.

It's even quite rare to find a news article about particular law that actually bothers to link to, name, or cite the actual law being discussed.

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

No. But you do need to use more allspice in the gumbo.

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

That thing about the universe in perpetuity is actually very common in contracts. It seems inane, but it makes clear that the contract will always be in force no matter the situation or jurisdiction. Leaving it out can produce some fucked-up legal problems (see the international situation regarding intellectual property, for example).

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, without that clause you could post a comment and then claim copyright infringement when they show it to someone else.

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

You try doing anything with the Constitution working against you. If you assholes had just showed up at the fucking polls in 2010 and especially if you assholes in Massachusetts had kept Scott Brown out, there'd be no filibuster culture and Obama would have cured cancer by now.

You get another chance in just under a year. Do not fuck this up. If you do, just move to another fucking country, because you're not working out in this one.

Re:TOS, EULA

[MozeeToby]

Fortunately outside the digital world- they would probably be hard to prove- and/or the police don't care to prosecute for obscure laws (or don't know them themselves).

This is not fortunate. I mean, obviously it is fortunate that you haven't been thrown into prison, but it creates a situation where you could be tomorrow for little to no reason. Circumstantially connected to a major crime? Sleep with a police officer's wife? Fight that unfair traffic ticket? A few hours or days of work and they can almost certainly find something that will stick at least long enough to make your life miserable. Selective enforcement should be terrifying, it is very little different from saying "we can legally arrest and convict anyone, at anytime we feel like".

Re:TOS, EULA

[joocemann]

Who is the 'you' that you're saying I am? Please define so I can help clear up your perception.

I'm akin to the Gandhi and Dalai Lama, politically.

Re:TOS, EULA

[gutnor]

I guess soon they will also add "universe, alternate-universe, and other dimensions including virtual or imaginary, in perpetuity since the beginning of time, in all form possible for all future and past meanings of the current sentence."

Re:TOS, EULA

[cayenne8]

No. But you do need to use more allspice in the gumbo.

You don't put allspice in gumbo!!!

You put in file (I don't know how to put the accent mark over the 'e'). It comes from the sassafras tree.

But allspice is not a normal seasoning to put into gumbo. Trust me..I live in New Orleans.

Re:TOS, EULA

[pjt33]

As long as the ToS don't say that I have to buy the goats I'm going to argue that I was quite willing to do it and it's CmdrTaco's responsibility to ensure that the goats he ships me for sacrifice arrive.

Re:TOS, EULA

[TheRaven64]

And it's added for a good reason. A lot of publishing companies (including movie and record publishing companies) had geographically-limited distribution contracts, and this started to bite them hard in the last decade as Internet-based distribution became common, and even as Internet-ordering with worldwide shipping started to happen. They're now starting to realise that they don't want to accidentally limit themselves. For example, that new volcanic island that we read about last week? Maybe someone will move there and it won't be covered by existing contracts. Maybe in a couple of decades (well within current copyright terms) Virgin Galactic will set up an orbital hotel - you don't want to suddenly realise you don't have distribution rights to make films and music available in the rooms, not when you have a very rich captive audience...

Re:TOS, EULA

[howardd21]

Right, because he was so effective with a majority. Oh wait, he wasn't.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Grishnakh]

I vote for my congressman. I don't vote for the operator of goatsdoingcrazythingstosheep.com

Irrelevant. The Invisible Hand will ensure that everything is perfectly fair and just. In fact, we'd all be better off if we just eliminated our democratic government, and replaced it with a corporation, as The Invisible Hand will force it to behave much more responsibly than any government ever could.

Re:TOS, EULA

[lgw]

There are many states in which pushing your car down the road turns out to be a weapons-related felony, because of the way laws against Molotov coctails tend to get written (you're likely walking down the road with gasoline and a breakable container). Add a zero-tolerance policy and some minimum sentance rules, and you're in trouble.

There is, AFAIK, legal protection that covers "boilerplate contracts" in most states. If you agree to a contract in a situation where most people don't read the contract, unusual terms in the contract won't be binding unless the other party specifically alerts you to them. I'd hope that would come into play here.

Ultimately, though, this is total crap, and will put an end to white hats.

Re:TOS, EULA

[modecx]

Well, suppose one of these sites wants to broadcast something over a radio link. Now suppose that the transmission was also intercepted and decoded by those damned criminal Tau Cetians, who then pirate your uber-cute cat video to the little grey guys who hang out at HD 10307, where it becomes a instant sensation with eleventy-billion views. It's possible, I guess.

Re:TOS, EULA

[camperdave]

Besides traffic crimes, I am not aware of any crime I have committed.

Ever used a patented device without obtaining permission from the patent holder?

"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html Bolding mine.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. If you believe Obama is any better than Bush, you're a moron. Obama, for instance, has been far more vigorous in prosecuting medical marijuana clinics than Bush ever was. Cured cancer, my ass; Obama is just a corporate whore.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

the real reason for this ... they believe that one day we have people living on Mars, or the Moon or something. They think that their recording rights need to be protected there as well. That is the reason.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

I have altered the terms of the deal... Pray that I do not alter them further...

Re:TOS, EULA

[MenThal]

I hear The Pirate Bay and WikiLeaks have moved their servers to the old russian module on the ISS.

Re:TOS, EULA

[hairyfeet]

I remember reading once (sorry at work so I can't spend time Googling) that if one were to buy a brand new PC and simply install the most commonly used programs that going through the EULAs on JUST those programs and the most commonly installed would take around 3 weeks, more if one were to actually hire a lawyer to translate the terms into English, and that is if you did NOTHING but read EULAs 8 hours a day. Now add in the ToS for every website you visit (as failing to do so could land you in PMITA prison) and you are looking at probably a year of more, plus the expense of hiring a lawyer that can make heads or tails of the complex legalese.

Ya know, as much as i thought Ayn Rand was batshit her often used criminal quote is starting to look highly prophetic. I mean how in the hell is anybody that has a job other than reading ToS supposed to be able to pull this miracle off? remember if you use ANY software or ANY website without reading and understanding the EULA or ToS you could open yourself up to criminal charges if they have their way like in TFA. How could one reasonably obey the law under such a situation? hell I bet my last dollar that there isn't a single person here that isn't guilty of several state and federal laws RIGHT NOW simply because there are so damned many of them, now we are gonna add EULAs and ToS to that list? give me a fucking break!

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

"throughout the universe"

Those lawyers better get theoried-up on the latest cosmological thinking. It may not be a "universe" at all - according to some theorists, our universe might just be a small part of a larger "multiverse".

Boy, won't they be embarrassed when a multiverse translation device is invented and everybody starts using it to violate their terms of service! Talk about a hole you could drive a truck through.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is always looking for a way to exercise more control over the people. This is just another tool the government can use to prosecute someone who hasn't done anything wrong because they are doing something the government doesn't like.

Re:TOS, EULA

[fahrbot-bot]

This spells potentially problems for a lot of people because most people do not read the TOS or EULA documents.

Yes, as demonstrated on the South Park episode, HUMANCENTiPAD:

On the show, Steve Jobs' latest project is to surgically connect three people into a "HUMANCENTiPAD" (the episode's title), with their waste fueling the device. Kyle unknowingly agrees to be part of the experiment when he agrees to Apple's Terms of Service without reading it first.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope it's unconstitutional for Congress to delegate its legislative authority to anybody else, especially private individuals or corporations. Which is essentially what this interpretation of the CFAA is.

Then again, this makes EULA's even more of a gold mine for evil website operators. Formula:

1) Make a website that lots of people visit. Sell something and accept CC / Paypal so you can subpoena your users' real identities later. You can sell at a loss to attract as many customers as possible, don't worry, you'll make it all back later.

2) One day, change your ToS to state that by clicking on any part of your site, users agree to give you everything they own. But don't tell anybody; keep it buried in the fine print. (You're still covered if prior ToS'es contained, as most do, a clause like: "we reserve the right to change these ToS'es at any time without notice and if you continue using the site after a ToS change, you are agreeing to be bound by the new terms.")

3) Anyone who doesn't get the word before they click on anything on your site can now be sued for everything they own. If they refuse to pay, you can not only take everything they own, you can also get them thrown in jail for years for "hacking."

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god for theoretical physics and multiverse theory.I am safe:)

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a need for a Firefox add-on to have a Web-of-Trust style blacklist of sites with abusive ToS or EULA, effectively cutting off your internet access, since such crapola is almost universally steaming on a corporate websites. However, when they see their ad revenue plummet for lack of visitors, it might just be a cluestick upside their heads.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

It is ok, I only link to the RSS feed and am not bound by any laws.

Fucking AC bitches!!!!

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you didn't pretend to be pro-life and do nothing about it like a Republican

Um, what? Republicans all over the country are introducing an unprecedented number of laws that attempt to make abortion unfeasible if not outright illegal. It is fair to say that Obama is pretending to be pro-choice and doing nothing about THAT; his Republican opponents are certainly not so idle.

Re:TOS, EULA

[CrimsonAvenger]

Sorry- I really should proofread my carp!

Yes, you should always proofread your carp....

Re:TOS, EULA

[CrimsonAvenger]

we'd all be better off if we just eliminated our democratic government, and replaced it with a corporation

Since corporations are a creation of government, it would be difficult, at best, to have corporate overlords without a government.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

2247 - Mankind finally makes contact with an alien civilization. Our first act: Sue them for piracy.

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

Yeah, uh, about that. Do you know what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is?

STFU until you do.

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

Walking around in your underwear making people think they can passive their way into power? Good luck with that.

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

He had the healthcare thing in the bag until Brown showed up. The timing of that was such that they had to pass the un-reconciled version of the bill. They couldn't fix the mismatches between the House and the Senate, so it's got holes and parts sticking out. If Brown wasn't there to block a re-vote in the Senate, both houses would have passed the reconciled version and it would have solidified Obama's power over them, making everything else a bake-off. Instead the GOP went into hold-my-breath-until-i-turn-blue mode. The debt thing was just them discovering that it won't kill them literally, and being okay with never being re-elected, especially when they know with enough money they can make you forget they're the problem.

It's clearly working.

Re:TOS, EULA

[DavidTC]

Ya know, as much as i thought Ayn Rand was batshit her often used criminal quote is starting to look highly prophetic.

Actually, that just sorta proves she was even more batshit insane.

I mean, she saw this coming, and yet still has no problem with everyone having absolute power to make any sort of contracts they want and have the government enforce them. Which, of course, in the actual world means 'Human beings are forced to sign contracts, that corporations write, for everything'.

I will give her credit though, in her world, violating TOSs and other contracts would not be illegal. Instead, websites would simply put something like 'You owe us a billion dollars if you violate this TOS' and then seize everyone's property.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

The collective of goats is "trip", not "flock". You sacrificed a trip of goats.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

they're so long and full of legaleese I stopped.

So are the American criminal laws. It is basically unknown whether someone committed a crime until the case is taken to court. And even then virtually identical situations may yield radically different outcomes.

Re:TOS, EULA

[ElderKorean]

...
and otherwise use the Submission in any and all media, now known or hereafter
devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity, without according you any compensation. Salon will generally attribute Submissions to their authors, but you understand and agree that it is not obligated to do so, and you release and waive any right to have Submissions attributed to you. You also understand and agree that Salon has no obligation to publish or use any Submission in any way, and that Salon may remove or revised any Submission that has been posted, published, or distributed on or through the Site in its sole discretion.

What are they going to add when we finally get time travel working and can go back in time?

Re:TOS, EULA

[hairyfeet]

Actually what I got from reading Atlas Shrugged (more like skimming because her ass liked the hell out of REALLLLY long speeches) was that the goal would be more like Somalia or even Bioshock in that "he who has the gold makes the rules" and there really wouldn't BE any government to speak of. Basically in a perfect Randian world the only "laws" would be at the barrel of a gun and that gun would be wielded by thugs hired by the rich guy. The roads, the schools, everything would be for profit and private property.

Kinda sad though that the ultra right wing are doing their damnedest to make the crazy woman's batshit world come to be. it reminds me of a story i read, the director of Blue Thunder said in an interview "so I make this movie about how dangerous the power of super tech can be, how you would have this gunship that can see through walls and cut cars in half, so what happens? the movie is barely started running in theaters and my secretary is swamped by calls from SWAT units and militaries all asking the same thing...how much you want for Blue Thunder? they saw it as a damned tech demo!"

Sad that there are people in this world that look at 1984 or Atlas Shrugged or Blue Thunder not as warnings but how to manuals. kinda scary huh?

Re:TOS, EULA

[John Bresnahan]

The collective of goats is "trip", not "flock". You sacrificed a trip of goats.

Yes, I often get "flocked" up by that!"

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people for example are aware of Slashdot's TOS that states you have to sacrifice a goat once a week if you disable ads.

Oh great, now I have all of this blood on my hands.

Re:TOS, EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

I eat Goat once a week just for slashdot

Re:TOS, EULA

[blair1q]

How much goat do you put in yours?

Re:TOS, EULA

[joocemann]

If you know who I referred to, you can't logically claim their actions to be passive (and thus worthless as you imply).

I would rather be peaceful and lead by positive example, directing change in perspective and social memes, than to act by force and garner the faux-respect from people that despotism actually garners.

What is going on down there?

[iONiUM]

I live in Canada, and while we aren't without our problems as well, the headlines coming out of the US lately, including this one, are just ridiculous.

What is the problem? Since when did the government become so extremely pro-corporation, and anti-citizen? Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

For the people, by the people? What happened to that.

Re:What is going on down there?

[what2123]

They got pissed off about being a Pro-Communist administration...So they decided to go off the deep-end in the opposite direction.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Desler]

Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

There have been attempts to do so. They get struck down by the corporatist supreme court.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a movement afoot to try and return us to Constitutionally limited government (and they don't crap in the street when they get together), but for some reason everyone here dumps on it.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Desler]

Except that those same people are the ones telling us that we can't limit corporate involvement in politics because they are "people".

Re:What is going on down there?

[betterunixthanunix]

when did the government become so extremely pro-corporation

The 19th century called and wants its shock and outrage back.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Desler]

19th century? Corporations have had their hands in governments centuries before then.

Re:What is going on down there?

[gknoy]

Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

Because citizens like us can't fund the lobbying necessary to compete with the corporations.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we are wondering that ourselves. Despite some resistance to destroying our RIGHT to own firearms, our other RIGHTS enumerated in the Bill of Rights are under constant attack. It may take a violent overthrow to end this. I hope not, but even Obama is a tool for the bureaucracy. He's shown ZERO interest in standing up for individual rights. The list of federal crimes just increases.

Re:What is going on down there?

[orphiuchus]

You're thinking of both mainstream political parties.

Re:What is going on down there?

[orphiuchus]

Millenia even. Long before there was even a United States, the United States was controlled by the corporations!

Re:What is going on down there?

[SuricouRaven]

That's because the people from each side of the political divide arguing about constitutionally limited government have very different ideas of what those constitutional limits are. The bit about establishment of religion vs freedom thereof alone has fueled so many very heated debates. The type of debate that tends to end with someone getting compared to Hitler.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Yvan256]

Lobbying used to be called bribery. Just because you have laws doesn't make those laws right. As an random example, see: slavery.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Desler]

Wrong. Ron Paul was against the corporate campaign contribution limits and he's the libertard hero.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 19th century called and wants its shock and outrage back.

The 21st century called and wants all sheep to return to the paddocks immediately to consume mandatory television. That means YOU.

This is what will happen if we don't say "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more!". So, ya, bring on the shock and outrage.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Baloroth]

Corporate involvement in politics wouldn't be (much of) a problem* if the government was actually restricted like it should be. Seriously, why would corporations bother with lobbying if the government couldn't help them? You could solve quite a lot by limiting the government.

*As someone will inevitably point out, the government does need certain powers to regulate corporations (FDA, EPA, etc.) and corporations would still lobby to control those. The solution to this is not readily apparent. Making the positions uninfluenced by elections could be abused far to easily.

Re:What is going on down there?

[alexo]

I live in Canada, and while we aren't without our problems as well, the headlines coming out of the US lately, including this one, are just ridiculous.

More ridiculous than bill C-11?
Because criminalizing the ripping of a legally purchased DVD to play it on your optical-less netbook (since you have to "break" CSS to do that) is the epitome of Canadian values?

Re:What is going on down there?

[NouberNou]

And you think the Right is any better? They want to throw out EVERYTHING and let the corporations walk around with total impunity. Private police, private firefighters, private military, everything. That is their ideal, including Ron Paul who is the most insane of them all, his policies equate to a conservative version of total anarchy!

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you are wrong. Corporate personhood was never a tea party plank. Elvis is really dead, too.

Re:What is going on down there?

[compro01]

Seriously, why would corporations bother with lobbying if the government couldn't help them? You could solve quite a lot by limiting the government.

You're right, they wouldn't bother with lobbying. They'd just do whatever themselves, and thus nothing is solved.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

The type of debate that tends to end with someone getting compared to Hitler.

End? They're just getting warmed up at that point.

Re:What is going on down there?

[TheRaven64]

Largely because it wants a constitutionally limited government in the same way that the confederate states wanted states rights...

Re:What is going on down there?

[whovian]

Obama prides himself on his bipartisanship and shouldn't be expected to appear to outright disregard the interests of Big Business.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what we get when you elect a Progressive like Obama and company. You thought the republicans were bad? Ha!

Obama is pushing the envelope of liberty to its extreme (i.e. health care mandate), and it's got to stop... quickly

Re:What is going on down there?

[TheRaven64]

Why not? In 2008, Obama spent $7.39 per vote. McCain spent $5.78. As with every recent US Presidental election, the winner was the one who spent the most. $7.39 per voter really isn't that much. If you can convince voters to spend $10 on getting a president who works for the people, then you can outspend both parties. If you can persuade 5% of the electorate to give $100, then that's enough (based on past performance) to buy 50% of the popular vote...

Your politicians are bought and sold, but for far smaller sums than you seem to imagine.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

That's a demand of the occupy movement that most of us have dismissed as a bunch of aimless, disorganized, smelly losers. We ARE pissed off enough to rise up and take to the streets, but it seems its too late, our government has already been bought out.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that money = speech and corporations = people and therefore it is unconstitutional to cap the amount of campaign spending by corporations.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not a matter of being pro-corporation. Its more a matter of pro-state intervention. The assumption is that the state gets to have a say in EVERY possible interaction. This allows corporations who have a prolonged influence to push that intervention in ways that they benefit from.

Restrict what governments can do and you restrict what corporations can convince governments can do.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fund it. You just might have to use team work. I know that marketing has convinced you that you're an individual, but you're still part of a community. Hang together, or you will surely hang separately.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Hatta]

If you can convince voters to spend $10 on getting a president who works for the people, then you can outspend both parties.

Great idea. First it will take some money in order to reach every voter. I'd say about $10/voter should do it.

The real money that's fixing the system isn't the campaign contributions that fund political ads. It's the corporate news networks framing the debate. How much does it cost to get the MSM to call the rich "fat cats" and not "job creators" anymore?

Re:What is going on down there?

[lgw]

Ronulus Prime is the opposite of "mainstream", so I don't see how that makes the statement wrong.

Re:What is going on down there?

[lgw]

It would still solve a lot - regulatory capture can end up worse than minimal or no regulation, because it locks out smaller companies who might take a saner approach to whatever.

I think the problem could be make better for a while by simply limiting the total volume of regulations covering any given industry in some way, so that new regs could still be made, but only at the expense of older ones. But I'm sure that would be just as gamed, soon enough.

Re:What is going on down there?

[dkleinsc]

Two mistakes there:
1. Only some portions of the pre-United States United States were controlled by the corporations. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, for instance, was controlled by a theocracy, while other colonies were under the direct control of the British monarchy.

2. Corporations didn't exist a millenia ago. The first documented corporation was created in 1347.

Re:What is going on down there?

[xaoslaad]

What happened is we keep electing millionaire asshats who are completely out of touch with reality. We won't vote for Bob from Arkansas because he has an accent and a tiny juvenile record, even though he's grown up to be an outstanding American, probably served his country with honor, and wants what's best for his country. He's not perfect though. Probably isn't the greatest speach giver, he's likely not a lawyer, and doesn't have millions. Even now with the Occupy Wall Street bullshit we will either elect Obama or one of the millionaire competitor Republicans again.

Because while we're all clamoring that the 1% need to go to hell, we're the dumbasses who will elect one of those 1% right back into office. If we actually wanted to send a message we would elect the people to office to serve the people. We would not elect out of touch millionaires to office to serve their own interests along with those of their fellow corporation owners who back them with campaign contributions and whatever other favors.

Welcome to America. We are morons without common sense and we deserve what we get.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

Corporate contributions to political parties are already capped...at zero. It is illegal for coporations to contribute money to candidates or political parties.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful if you ever cross the border to the States. They might arrest and jail you because you violated some ToS you didn't read.

But your question is easily answered by another one: how much do the people pay the guys in the government and how much do the companies pay them?

Re:What is going on down there?

[NorthWarden]

Touché, but you guys still have the DMCA... Disclaimer: I am Canadian, I do not usually keep up on current legislation, I know we're just about as bad as you, but still...

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the problem? Since when did the government become so extremely pro-corporation, and anti-citizen? Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

Because the corporate whores like their money, and they know the people no longer have it?

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?

When my younger brothers would attempt to join forces to usurp my power, I would defuse the situation by telling both of them a lie about the other one, causing them to forget about me and beat each other up. Meanwhile, I had unfettered access to the Nintendo. It was a bonus if Mom would find them fighting and ground them both. They never did figure out how I was playing them off each other.

Re:What is going on down there?

[alexo]

Touché, but you guys still have the DMCA...
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, I do not usually keep up on current legislation, I know we're just about as bad as you, but still...

You're in *exactly* the same situation as I am (hint, I'm Canadian too). Can we ship Harper south of the border?
 

Re:What is going on down there?

[cbope]

You just identified the problem with the current system, it's driven by money. Specifically, campaign contributions. Campaigns should not be determined by how much money they can whip up and this seems to be the only way of winning.

It would be interesting to plot the amount of money raised vs. election outcome. I would be extremely surprised if in more than 90% of the cases the one with the most money didn't win.

Greed, money... that's all that seems to matter in the US any more, even when it comes to politics.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the problem? Since when did the government become so extremely pro-corporation, and anti-citizen?

Some short time before Marxism appeared on scene (19th century).

Re:What is going on down there?

[Paul Fernhout]

From this is looks like about US$4 billion is spent on lobbying per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbying_expenditure_by_sector

The consumer part of the US economy is about ten trillion dollar a year. So clearly consumers have access to enough money to outlobby all other groups combined. They just choose not to do so for some reason.

Why is that? Lack of consensus due to "divide and conquer" strategies by others? Other suggestions?

Re:What is going on down there?

[ahabswhale]

What happened is that corporations are people now.

Re:What is going on down there?

[Piranhaa]

How about ripping HDDVD movies for format shifting? .. Yep, the format that discs and players aren't made anymore.

But hey! You can go out and buy the BLU-RAY version.. It's ONLY $20, don't be cheap........

I can't believe Viacom is starving from piracy so much too! Giving their head executive a $50M raise (from $~35M) and all. He must be needing to put food on his table.

The corps aren't worried about the pirates... They're worried about the normal Joe Schmoes who want to take that DVD and put it on their iPhone. Why sell 1 copy when you can force the same person (who doesn't want to break ANY laws) to buy 5 copies?

Enough

[oldhack]

Impeach Obama.

Re:Enough

[GameboyRMH]

Surely the next guy will be different!

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Impeach Obama.

Damn Straight! And "Occupy the Internet!"

Oh, wait ...

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

This country needs change!

Re:Enough

[GungaDan]

Dear crispy jeezus, really? You might want to take a remedial civics class yourself. DOJ is an Executive Branch office, run by an Obama-appointed cunt by the name of Eric Holder.

Re:Enough

[ClioCJS]

Yes, He can fire anybody at the DOJ whenever he wants. There may be political repercussions, but he has that power. It was established by SCOTUS the first time a president fired a postmataster general. And you can bet that if you have the ability to fire someone, you certainly have the ability to control the direction of their efforts, either directly or indirectly.

Re:Enough

[slimjim8094]

Well, considering the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, he does. Indirectly, through the Attorney General, but he's still part of the Cabinet.

This is evidenced by the few high-profile times where the President has instructed the DOJ to stop prosecuting things (making them de facto legal)

Re:Enough

[KGIII]

I certainly HOPE so.

Re:Enough

[orphiuchus]

Come on guys, this fellow clearly wasn't talking about civics as in government, he was talking about a Honda specific automotive engineering course that his friend "oldhack" attends with him!

Otherwise he would look like a total moron.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite think Obama peaches, whatever they might be, will sell.

Re:Enough

[Divide By Zero]

For the record, I've had my current signature since before the last presidential election.

Re:Enough

[Insightfill]

Surely the next guy will be different!

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Re:Enough

[mcgrew]

Find an impeachable offense first.

Re:Enough

[dkleinsc]

Well, if the next guy is named "Shirley", he might well be "different".

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry that would be in violation of Obama's TOS.

It's all about power

[TheSpoom]

If everything is illegal, it means the government gets to pick and choose who to prosecute, meaning you'd better be on their good side.

Re:It's all about power

[gknoy]

I know many might jump on you for paraphrasing Ayn Rand, but I think you're correct. We've already seen that such rules ARE abused, and that almost any potential lawbreaking has been used as a foothold for surveillance or other actions which impact us as citizens.

Re:It's all about power

[BigSlowTarget]

And even if you can defend yourself you'll probably go broke doing so. We've left behind the rule of law and moved to the rule of simple power.

Re:It's all about power

[TheSpoom]

I'm not even a fan of Ayn Rand (in fact in most things I strongly disagree with her) but she is right that legislation is often used as a cudgel to add to the legislators' power base.

Re:It's all about power

[Anonymous Coward]

If everything is illegal, it means the government gets to pick and choose who to prosecute, meaning you'd better be on their good side.

Same as it ever was.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.

After Attorney General and eventual Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, put it ca. 1940:

"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."

The only thing that's changed in the intervening 70 years is that in 1940, this sort of thing was regarded by the Judicial and the Executive branches as a bad thing.

Re:It's all about power

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly right. There's no way they could prosecute everyone who violates any law; all they can do is cast a wide enough net that everybody is a lawbreaker, and if anyone steps out of line too far they can be dealt with through the justice system.

Re:It's all about power

[hoggoth]

My father was a cop, and he would tell us this exact thing. There are enough laws that they (the cops) could find some laws anyone has broken and basically arrest anybody they wanted at any time.

Re:It's all about power

[TheRaven64]

It's not really an idea unique to Ayn Rand. The Catholic Church, Nazi and Communist parties all used it before she did. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the party knew you were guilty and so did you, the question was only what you were guilty of and how serious it was.

Re:It's all about power

[Grishnakh]

Ayn Rand had a few very good ideas. So did Karl Marx. Doesn't mean you want to take everything they wrote as gospel.

Re:It's all about power

[lgw]

I recently read Atlas Shrugged. As I recall these were the major themes:

1. Winners focus on results, and believe success should be rewarded; losers focus on intentions, and believe effort should be rewarded.
2. Winners try to prevent problems; losers try to prevent blame.
3. An organization dominated by losers will often fail to deliver on whatever it was organized to do.
4. Winners tend to exit organizations dominated by losers.
5. The work of the mind is more valuable than the work of the body (the least valuable work is doing only and exactly what you're told).

There was some more stuff that only appeared in Galt's 100-page rant, but I suspect few readers slogged all the way through that.

What things do you "strongly disagree with"? Or are those things in some other book?

Re:It's all about power

[Anonymous Coward]

An arrest does not require a law to be broken. An indictment requires a law to be broken to the satisfaction of a judge. It does not stipulate that the accused is guilty however.

Re:It's all about power

[hoggoth]

1) Judges would get pretty annoyed with cops who continually arrested people without some basis, however thin.
2) The harassment factor is much higher if the cop arrests you with something that can stick, that you can't disprove, or that you are actually guilt of.

Re:It's all about power

[Anonymous Coward]

^This.

This idea is so old that it's an insult to the collective accumulated wisdom of humanity over MILLENNIA to associate it with Ayn Rand.

Re:It's all about power

[Anonymous Coward]

Me, I don't think things are ever quite that black-and-white. But then again, I'm a loser. So why don't you kill me?

PS - The OP said Ayn Rand, not Atlas Shrugged - try arguing with The Virtue of Selfishness, it's a more interesting exercise.

Re:It's all about power

[lgw]

Oh, it's just that most people complain about that book in particular, and of course have never read it. I've never been interested enough in her non-fiction to read it, so at least I don't express opinions about it.

Re:It's all about power

[gknoy]

Of course many others knew it and acted on that viewpoint, she has the sound byte version. Machiavelli probably wrote about it, but Rand is the one that baldly said that a government's goal is to create criminals in order to wield power over the citizens:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Conventional wisdom is that government should be about helping the populace -- few have been so cynical as to explicitly say that the goal is the opposite. (I'm not saying that I believe her, mind you, but I'm sure we can all point to examples of people applying the Letter of a law/rule in ways which people originally claimed it "would never" be used for.)

Re:It's all about power

[DavidTC]

I'll step forward and say I strongly disagree with pretty much all of that as a political philosophy.

It's pretty pretentious as a business leadership philosophy, but could be mangled into some actual shape.

The problem is the government is not a fucking business. It does not exist to 'reward effort'. And it is not a fucking 'organization' in that sense of the word.

Here's, let's just dissect this single line: Winners focus on results, and believe success should be rewarded; losers focus on intentions, and believe effort should be rewarded.

What, exactly, is success for the government? Not having people die in the streets? So the government...reward themselves for that? Or the voters reward them by reelecting them? But that's other people rewarding them, not them rewarding people.

It's complete and utter gibberish as a political position.

As a business philosophy, it's a half-assed version of what is usually called 'result-oriented leadership'. Except that it's decided that magically everyone is either competent or incompetent and the way to solve the problem is to...um...quit your job if you're in charge of incompetents, which is not really a functional leadership style.

And it's utter FAIL in the last line...every job is exactly as important as that specific job is, no more, no less. Everything that is done should be considered as an independent entity. Assuming that certain types of work are more important than others in general is a very good way to make a huge management mistake when you discover that the menial mail-delivery job you just cut back introduced delays throughout the entire company.

Re:It's all about power

[lgw]

But the government only really comes into the book as a tool for the "losers" to attack the "winners" with. Given her youth in an oppressive totalitarian state, I think we can forgive Rand her distrust of government power. I've worked with many people who escaped from various communist regimes and they all seem to share that hatred of the government (the guy from Bulgaria especially, but then he was essentially forced into slave labor in a factory at around 14).

As a business philosophy I find in narrow but apt: I've only ever really worked in companies that had somehting to do with software, but from that narrow view, places where the culture was blame-avoidance-oriented were hellholes I was happy to leave, while places that were process-improvement oriented were OK, though not always successful by any means.

And one look at the job market will show that manual labor pays much less than software, or other design/invention/creation oriented jobs. Do you really think that's somehow unfair and inapproapriate? These days, of course, mindless labor (even the white collar sort) is being very rapidly replaced by automation, so I expect in my lifetime that such jobs will be quite marginal in th overall economy.

Technology moves on - I'm sure Marx would be astounded that the majority of Americans now own some (perhaps tiny) share of the means of production, while only a small minority still works as farmers, manufacturing workers, or soldiers (the traditional prole trifecta).

Re:It's all about power

[DavidTC]

But the government only really comes into the book as a tool for the "losers" to attack the "winners" with. Given her youth in an oppressive totalitarian state, I think we can forgive Rand her distrust of government power.

It is not my job to forgive or condemn anyone for any of their beliefs. I don't really care what Ayn Rand is up to in her books.

It is, however, my job (as a citizen who is partially in charge of how his government operates) to point out that such beliefs are a fucking stupid philosophical foundation for a government.

As a business philosophy I find in narrow but apt: I've only ever really worked in companies that had somehting to do with software, but from that narrow view, places where the culture was blame-avoidance-oriented were hellholes I was happy to leave, while places that were process-improvement oriented were OK, though not always successful by any means.

Those are not really the only options, and plenty of organizations are a mixture of the various kinds. Im fact, blame-avoidance is not really a management style, but probably more a symptom of other problems. (Like poorly defined job responsibilities.)

And one look at the job market will show that manual labor pays much less than software, or other design/invention/creation oriented jobs. Do you really think that's somehow unfair and inapproapriate? These days, of course, mindless labor (even the white collar sort) is being very rapidly replaced by automation, so I expect in my lifetime that such jobs will be quite marginal in th overall economy.

The cost of labor is entirely due to worldwide supply and worldwide demand, and is unrelated to the value of any specific job in a specific organization.

Without the air condition repair guy working on the server room AC, the servers, and hence entire company, will seize up and die...but that's not what dictates his pay. What dictates his pay is how replaceable he is.

Problems arise when leaders think the fact someone is more replaceable than others means their job is also less important for the success of the company. Those two things are almost completely unrelated, and making that mistake is a good way to blow up an entire well-functioning company fail, because the leader wants to save 0.02% and decides to cut back on some 'unimportant' job.

And it's the same at a societal level. For example, without people keeping infrastructure functional, a good 80% of the population would starve to death. That is, objectively, 'more valuable' than some guy who designs a new skyscraper. The workers are less important, as they are easily replaceable, but the work is more important.

And that above was me talking in an objective sense as if I didn't know who Ayn Rand was. With her, this is an utterly idiotic.

Ayn Rand is a believer in the ubermench, in the idea that a tiny fraction of society are much much better and smarter than everyone else, who is essentially a parasite. In her world, there are a few thousand important people (And by 'people' I mean 'men', but getting into Rand's weird gender dysphoria and self-loathing is beyond this post.) that deserve everything, that invent everything, and create everything, which is this magical unique process that only they can do.

This is sheer idiotic nonsense. That isn't slightly how anything work in the actual world at all.

Re:It's all about power

[lgw]

I a free-ish market, the cost of labor is precisely the value of one new person doing that job. How could it be otherwise? Obviously that's the result of supply or demand, but what people bid on is that one marginal worker.

But then, if you wish to define the value of a good/service as somehting different than what you can sell it for, go right ahead, I won't argue with how you use your new word.

without people keeping infrastructure functional, a good 80% of the population would starve to death. That is, objectively, 'more valuable' than some guy who designs a new skyscraper. The workers are less important, as they are easily replaceable, but the work is more important.

Go the guys who design the infrastructure and organize the effort and provide the capital for it to happen are important then? That was pretty much the central premise of Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand is a believer in the ubermench, in the idea that a tiny fraction of society are much much better and smarter than everyone else, who is essentially a parasite. In her world,

Well, I never read her non-fiction, but that would seem like an odd thing to write, and a likely thing to make up about someone you dislike, but I'll take your word on it for now. It doesn't come through in her fiction, though, where people who work for her heros are presented as valuable and distinct from the people who want to be paid for not working, who are the "leeches."

I centainly think tha people who make new technology happen deserve much, as they've done more to make our lives better than every redistribution scheme ever imaged does. I have so many nice things today that no king or ruler could possibly buy even 200 years ago.

Re:It's all about power

[DavidTC]

I a free-ish market, the cost of labor is precisely the value of one new person doing that job. How could it be otherwise? Obviously that's the result of supply or demand, but what people bid on is that one marginal worker.

I remind you exactly what I was objecting to: The work of the mind is more valuable than the work of the body

I have at no point talked about the 'cost of labor'. I have talked about the value that any specific work gives a specific company, which is utterly unrelated to what a person does, or how much that person gets paid. You remove the cashier from a store, it doesn't matter how much they got paid or where on the totem poll they were...without a fucking cashier the store makes no money at all.

Go the guys who design the infrastructure and organize the effort and provide the capital for it to happen are important then? That was pretty much the central premise of Atlas Shrugged.

Ah, yes. Collect all of society's money, so you can 'provide the capital' and be the hero. Or not provide the capital and let everyone die.

Well, I never read her non-fiction, but that would seem like an odd thing to write, and a likely thing to make up about someone you dislike, but I'll take your word on it for now. It doesn't come through in her fiction, though, where people who work for her heros are presented as valuable and distinct from the people who want to be paid for not working, who are the "leeches."

Wow, you really do have blinders on, don't you? 'There's no bigotry against the French in this book. There are some good French in addition to the vast majority that run around eating and raping each other.'

Here's a hint: She made up those leeches. She invented a universe where a very tiny fraction of people are the important people. Yes, some of the unimportant people are willing to serve the important people, and they're good people too.

The rest are all parasites attempting to steal all their stuff, so those important people, and people loyal to them, run away, and this somehow works.

You realize this is imaginary, right? An outright lie about how the world actually functions, right?

I centainly think tha people who make new technology happen deserve much, as they've done more to make our lives better than every redistribution scheme ever imaged does. I have so many nice things today that no king or ruler could possibly buy even 200 years ago.

...aaaand it's at this point that I exit this conversation as the crazy has taken over.

Re:It's all about power

[lgw]

I centainly think tha people who make new technology happen deserve much, as they've done more to make our lives better than every redistribution scheme ever imaged does. I have so many nice things today that no king or ruler could possibly buy even 200 years ago.

...aaaand it's at this point that I exit this conversation as the crazy has taken over.

Wait, what? Are you one of those strange /. Luddites who think technology is a bad thing (those guys being here confuses me)?

Modern medicine (especially antibiotics) is something no one could buy at any price 200 years ago. Viagra ... rulers historically spent a fortune on crap that failed to serve that need. Climate control. Recorded entertainment, easily transmitted between cities. Easy movement around the world.

It's just amazing the cool stuff we have that could not be bought at any price 200 years ago, let alone the vast increase in the standard of living of the average schmuck that the industrial revolution caused - I have furniture! Shoes for the whole family! Mulitple rooms in my apartment! Enough food to sate my hunger! Birth control and protection form STDs easily obtained! Man, it's unimaginably great here by the standards of not-all-that-long ago (and of the trailing edge of industrialization around the world today).

No possible redistribution of wealth in 1750 could have come anywhere close to out standard of living. Technology rules.

New ToS clause

[tdelaney]

The following acts are considered violations of these Terms of Service. Additional acts may be considered violations at the owner's discretion.

1. Being a member/employee of the United States Department of Justice.

2. Being a member/employee of the RIAA and/or associated organisations.

3. Being a member/employee of the MPAA and/or associated organisations.

Re:New ToS clause

[tdelaney]

Ooh - bittorrent trackers can have TOS, can't they?

Re:New ToS clause

[gmuslera]

Why all that trouble? Just put in your ToS "you must give me all your money", and start spamming with the URL of your site all around, specially in DOJ/RIAA/MPAA mails. Lets see for how much time they follow their own rules.

Re:New ToS clause

[lennier1]

If it's a "private" one which requires an account.

Re:New ToS clause

[amoeba1911]

Unofficial libraries had that ToS listed for ages, and the RIAA/MPAA etc have been breaking the ToS since day one! I think it's about time we fine them.
Yeah, I call them unofficial libraries, because pirates live on the sea. The library is the place you go to read books, listen to music and watch movies etc.

Re:New ToS clause

[Anonymous Coward]

HAH! That implies that the laws apply to them.

Everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Re:New ToS clause

[tdelaney]

No - I'd rather that the criminals who have caused this situation be prosecuted.

Re:New ToS clause

[Anonymous Coward]

> The library is the place you go to read books, listen to music and watch movies etc.

The library is a place to which you go to learn. Music and movies have nothing to do with learning.

Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[cos(0)]

That's Mr. Rearden to you.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[orphiuchus]

Enough of this corporate propaganda. That damn Rearden metal has NOT BEEN CERTIFIED SAFE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Mr. Rearden doesn't care about you or your safety, all he cares about is making money with his UNTESTED and UNSAFE product.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Of course, Ayn Rand makes heroes of CEOs of giant corporations -- the same people who, in real life, buy these laws and regulations. There's a lesson here, but I doubt you or any other of the legion of Randroids will get it.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

the DOJ is making me agree with Ayn Rand?! these are scary times indeed!

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[orphiuchus]

If you'd actually read Atlas Shrugged you would know that the corporate heads who buy these laws and regulations are portrayed as villains.

Remember the anti dog-eat-dog law? No?

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[MobyDisk]

Ayn Rand makes heroes of CEOs of giant corporations -- the same people who, in real life, buy these laws and regulations

Actually, the book makes both heroes and villains out of those CEOs. In her world, there are 2 types of CEOs. Some are the ones that build the company up from nothing, who value the product and the quality of the creation. The others are the financial analyst/legal types who do it for the power. While Ayn Rand oversimplified everyone to being either black or white, don't accuse the her of glorifying corporations - for every "good" CEO in the Atlas Shrugged there are 100 "bad" CEOs.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If you'd actually read Atlas Shrugged you would know that the corporate heads who buy these laws and regulations are portrayed as villains.

I've read it. And yes, I remember her cartoon-villain evil CEOs, and her cartoon-hero good CEOs. And I know which type exists in the real world.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[larkost]

Many people who have once ready Rand's books often feel so, but if you actually read her books (I have ready most of them a couple of times each) then you realize that most all of the bad guys in her books are CEOs. She is not arguing for businessmen, she is arguing for creator-owners, largely in direct opposition to traditional businessmen. It is an appealing argument, but adults should realize that it is an idealized vision and misses most of the complexity of real life.

That annoys me almost as much as people who mis-use the phrase "ugly American" to label semi-colonalist behaviors, when the "ugly American" from the book was a wonderful and selfless person dedicated to the self-sufficiency in the local people he helped, one who happened to be physically ugly. In both cases people who don't understand the book wind up talking about it to people who have not and distorting the public idea of it.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Daniel Dvorkin]

While Ayn Rand oversimplified everyone to being either black or white, don't accuse the her of glorifying corporations - for every "good" CEO in the Atlas Shrugged there are 100 "bad" CEOs.

Which is great, in a work of fantasy. Unfortunately, in the real world, that 1 good CEO doesn't exist. So the Randroids, because there are no real-life Hank Reardens or Francisco d'Anconias to idolize, have to pretend that those 100's are actually a bunch of 1's.

The 100's aren't the kind of mustache-twirling villains Rand portrayed either, of course. Mostly they're just people getting through their days, doing what they see as right. But the world they live in warps normal human values so completely that what seems right to them is indistinguishable from deliberate villainy in its effects.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[atticus9]

The book made villains out of CEO's that used laws to get money, and it makes heroes out of CEO's who worked like crazy to achieve their goals and make money off it. In real life you have shades of grey, but buying regulations is not something a "randroid" would ever support.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

The bad are only 'bad' because they don't create what she valued.

With her rules a CEO who loves wadgers, and builds a company to create and sell those wadgers. But does so by beating and starving 10,000 lowly workers is still a 'good' CEO if the company succeeds.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[MobyDisk]

If you can't think of a single good CEO in the real world, then I can see why a book where the entire world topples and burns and everyone in New York starves to death is too positive for you.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[lgw]

I've read it recently. All those cartoon villains are frightenly believeable now. This was not the case 30 years ago (or I was to young to be this cynical, one of those).

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Oh Ayn Rand.

You can tell when people don't know the meaning of the phrase, "Dunning Kruger effect" when they quote Ayn Rand.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

That annoys me almost as much as people who mis-use the phrase "ugly American" to label semi-colonalist behaviors, when the "ugly American" from the book was a wonderful and selfless person dedicated to the self-sufficiency in the local people he helped, one who happened to be physically ugly. In both cases people who don't understand the book wind up talking about it to people who have not and distorting the public idea of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_American_%28epithet%29#Origin

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you've actually read Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead.

The books made heroes of John Galt, Hank Rearden, Howard Roark, and Dagny Taggart. Of those, Hank and Taggart were CEOs or close enough. Roark and Galt (I'm less sure about Galt, because I've forgotten some of it) were employees - Roark was an architect and Galt was a railway engineer (or something of the sort). But the villains were also CEOs - the equivalent of Rupert Murdoch was the villainiest villain in the books. CEOs, politicians, laywers, and generally the corrupt and controlling were the villains in those works. I can't, and won't, speak for Anthem or We the Living since I haven't read those.

Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart generally worked hard and intelligently, and thus earned their worth. The villains of the story bought laws, rewired public opinion through control of the news, and all the other evils you're trying to ascribe to the heroes.

I don't think she was claiming CEOs are inherently good nor evil. If you have a group of people (a corporation), you'll generally have a leader (a CEO for example). Whether that leader is good or evil is up to that leader. It isn't her assertion that ALL leaders are evil nor good.

Please read before you assert. And using terms like "Randroids" pretty much removes any good faith from your argument.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you trying to decide if corporations are in the wrong for buying votes, or if the officials we vote into office were the wrong choices because they're putting their votes for sale? Because the heroes in Atlas Shrugged aren't the guys buying and corrupting their way to the top, they're the ones doing everything the "right way" and fighting against aberrations that plague that ideal scenario. But kudos for mustering the rage to type all this on your iPhone even while you're getting tear gassed by the greedy, corrupt pigs at your OWS rally.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

What legion? Don't mistake a hand full of idiots for a legion, just because they are extra-loud.
They *have* to be loud, to compensade their stupidity. (Go out and try to argue with a dumb person. He will get loud very soon. Now try with a wise (not "smart". wise) one. He does not need to get loud, as he knows he's right.)

The problem is people who *call* them a legion. As that step, and only that step, validates their own ego in the first place.
Like you just accidentially did.
But luckily, there are also pretty few of those. ^^

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

you know we commonly believe that our american ancestors rose up against british tyranny BECAUSE of 'taxation without representation'. this rand quote makes me see it differently. the crown was taxing the hell out of everything in the colonies. i'm sure this was hard to enforce and observe all the way over here. i think they were more motivated by being considered criminals and ruffians by the crown. 'taxation without representation' was just the best legal sounding excuse they came up with to justify their cause.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

Best summary of Ayn Rand's work:

adults should realize that it is an idealized vision and misses most of the complexity of real life.

Thanks.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[randyleepublic]

But her point, which appears reasonable on the surface, was that if the government stays out of the picture then only the creative heroes would prosper. If the government stays out of the picture. Hmmm. Well, what are the chances of that? Let's see. If my grandmother had balls... Yep, about the same chance. So, back here in the real world, how about a system of government that would largely neutralize corporate power? Such a system has been conceived. It's called Social Credit. The best part is that it would actually, in the real world, do a better job of rewarding the creative heroes than Rand's Laissez-faire fantasy ever would. My sig. is a place to start learning about Social Credit.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, in the real world, that 1 good CEO doesn't exist.

It must very sad living in your "real world". Maybe mom will let you out of the basement, and allow you to take off the tin-foil hat some day. Then, maybe you'll have an opportunity to meet some real CEOs some day...I have, and it's funny that they weren't all the blood sucking vampires you think they are.

Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

A much better demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect can be witnessed when you observe someone assuming that toquote a person on a specific topic implies complete agreement with all of that person's political and economic views.

small print - send me $1M or goto jail

[RichMan]

Yeah that really make sense.

"If you view this web page then you must send me $1M within 3 days as a viewing fee."

Eric Holder is a cunt.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news: Generalissimo Franco is still dead.

I've heard this one before

[slimjim8094]

Wasn't this the charge against the woman in the Megan Meier suicide? As I recall, it didn't work. The judge essentially said that the law was too vague to mean that ToS violations counted as unauthorized access

The DoJ can say whatever want, but they'll have a hard time of it. A federal court set precedent saying the opposite.

Re:I've heard this one before

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Which is why I'm facepalming at everyone here decrying what's going on. What's going on isn't happening in a vacuum. TOS violation = CFAA violation makes sense when you look at the practical applications of TOS violations that they're trying to prosecute now with regards to cyber bullying and other abusive use of social networking. It's incredibly tone deaf in light of what's happened..

Despite that, what I'm really double facepalming on is that there's a huge unintended consequence and that everyone's right to be worried.

There needs to be a sane path to being able to prosecute the abuse of FB/Twitter/etc. in such a way it's leading to suicide, etc.

Re:I've heard this one before

[Hatta]

That doesn't really make it any better. The DOJ knows this interpretation is invalid, and will still prosecute you under it, costing you god knows how much in your own defense.

Which bar association do we have to complain to to get these attorneys properly rebuked?

Re:I've heard this one before

[TheCarp]

Why?

No seriously/....why? What percentage of suicides are made up by these? How prevalent of a problem is it? How many would you expect to be prevented for every person prosecuted for something utterly stupid?

Also.... wasn't it her right to die if she wanted to?

I swear, one unstable person is harassed by one single group of individuals with a single fantastic outcome, and now we have to change the rules for everyone? Exactly how far up your ass is your cranium lodged?

Re:I've heard this one before

[andymadigan]

It's illegal to commit fraud over the internet, so why can't it be illegal to 'bully' over the internet? Why, why would we want Facebook and Twitter to define bullying in their TOS?

The federal government has a clear power to pass a law barring cyberbullying, but in no way should a web master be able to specify "here's a list of rules I made up, if you don't follow them I'll press felony charges against you".

This isn't tone deaf, this is an incredible overreach on the part of the administration. It may very well be that there's no law on the books for cyberbullying, and if that's the case then those who have been charged will get to go free. If you want a law against it, write your congressman.

Re:I've heard this one before

[MobyDisk]

There needs to be a sane path to being able to prosecute the abuse of FB/Twitter/etc. in such a way it's leading to suicide, etc.

Okay, I see where you are going. You want to make sure that someone who is cyber bullying, like in the case of Megan Meier, they are held accountable. Or any other crime for that matter. But successful prosecution of a crime should have nothing to do with the TOS. The TOS does not need to say "You are forbidden to convince people on this site to commit suicide." The TOS is irrelevant. It doesn't need to list all the things that are crimes in order for them to be prosecuted.

I don't have a sign on my front door that says "By entering this house you agree not to commit the following crimes...." because it isn't needed. The law applies inside my house, and I don't have to spell it out. Same with a TOS. If someone enters my house and harms me, the DA doesn't bring charges for violating the TOS of my house. They bring charges for violating the law.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

Hell yeah. The charge should have been "manslaughter" not "hacking." She took an action designed and calculated to cause harm. In the commission of this harm, the person receiving the harm died. That is manslaughter (and sometimes even full-blown murder), depending on jurisdiction.

Re:I've heard this one before

[david_thornley]

Megan Meier was a fair-skinned girl, not obviously unattractive. If she had blonde hair and blue eyes, there'd already be a bad law named after her. It's the tradition here in the US.

There arguably should be laws about relations between adults and children; on the Internet, it's not possible for a child to tell if she's dealing with a peer or a manipulative and hostile adult. However, criminalizing breaking ToS isn't the right way.

Re:I've heard this one before

[DavidTC]

The real problem appears to be that even if I put up a sign saying 'It is against the rules to commit murder in this house', and someone comes in and murders me...

...they will now be arrested and charged with...trespassing? Uh, what? Hey, dumbasses, how about charging them with murder, instead?

People who break rules in real life are not trespassing. People who break rules on web sites are not committing unauthorized computer access. Those specific crimes are when you jump a gate or pick a lock or guess a password. When you are clearly not allowed to be there, and have bypassed some sort of indication of that.

They are not when you walk in the open door and start acting like an ass, as long as you leave when asked to leave.

It doesn't matter if the property is real or virtual, or if they are trespassing or legally there...if we want to outlaw things, we need to, you know, actually outlaw the thing, not hope it happens on some website where such a thing is against the rules. (And not via, for example, email.)

As other have pointed out, harassing others is a misdemeanor already, and causing a death while committing a misdemeanor is often illegal, called 'misdemeanor manslaughter' or 'constructive manslaughter' which is like a weaker version of the felony murder rule. (I.e., if you jaywalk and cause a car accident where someone dies, you're getting locked up for some form of involuntary manslaughter.)

If this happened in a state without such a law, or without a law making harassing someone (online or otherwise) a misdemeanor, then they need to make that law and stop trying to make horrific caselaw about TOSs to get someone locked up.

Re:I've heard this one before

[JesseMcDonald]

She took an action designed and calculated to cause harm. In the commission of this harm, the person receiving the harm died.

First, that's based on a very sloppy definition of "to cause harm". Hurt feelings do not justify taking legal action. Second, if you don't want to die, don't commit suicide. The only action she is morally responsible for is deliberately hurting someone's feelings. The death was not a consequence of that action, that choice, but rather the choice and action, and thus responsibility, of the one committing suicide. If you want to hurt her feelings in return, on behalf of the victim, there is no rational way she could object to that. Anything more, however, would be out of proportion to the offense.

Re:I've heard this one before

[DavidTC]

It's not 'harm' per se that makes it manslaughter.

For a farcical example, if we have an agreement that requires me paying you X dollars today, and I do not, I have committed a tort against you and harmed you, and you could certainly sue, but I can't be charged with manslaughter even if that harm results in your inability to pay your loan shark, who then kills you. (However, you might be able to collect both any interest you had to pay, and medical bills or even funeral expenses as 'damages' my lack of payment caused.)

However, it's different if I commit a misdemeanor and that misdemeanor results in your death, and there was some possibility I could have foreseen that as a result. It is called 'constructive manslaughter', a form of involuntary manslaughter. It's like a misdemeanor version of the felony murder rule. (As I pointed out above in a post above, this is what they charge idiots with who jaywalk and cause lethal car accidents.)

And, of course, there are laws against harassment. Stuff like 'repeated communications which are anonymous, made at extremely inconvenient times, or in offensively coarse language'. It varies state-by-state, but often explicitly includes things like deliberately lying about a person to harm their reputation and misleading people about your relationship with them.

She was committing a misdemeanor, and got someone killed directly as a result of that lawbreaking, in a foreseeable manner. (Suicide is, in fact, the third leading cause of death among teens, so it's hard to argue it's a surprise.) It's involuntary manslaughter. Throw her in jail for a few months.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

First, that's based on a very sloppy definition of "to cause harm".

So you think that emotionally abusing your children should be legal? Yeah, there isn't an agreement on the definition of "harm." In which case, taking the intent is the best determination, and the adult lied for personal gain to harm a minor, with full knowledge that the death would result from the intentional harm. And you are defending them. That's why the USA sucks and will burn. The evil asses like you who encourage bullies and hate.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

For a farcical example, if we have an agreement that requires me paying you X dollars today, and I do not, I have committed a tort against you and harmed you, and you could certainly sue, but I can't be charged with manslaughter even if that harm results in your inability to pay your loan shark, who then kills you. (However, you might be able to collect both any interest you had to pay, and medical bills or even funeral expenses as 'damages' my lack of payment caused.)

You are standing on a bridge. You have bad balance. Someone pushes you, and you stumble until you fall off the bridge and die. Is that a crime, and if so, what one? If they knew you were clumsy and intended to kill you with the push, would it matter?

Re:I've heard this one before

[DavidTC]

Someone pushes you, and you stumble until you fall off the bridge and die.

Pushing someone isn't just a tort....it's also assault.

Although that's not really relevant as the pushing actually caused a death, and hence it's manslaughter to start with.

The stuff I was talking about was when a death was the side effect of a misdemeanor, not the actual result. When your misdemeanor causes a situation that you should know to be dangerous, that you should know could cause harm, like driving without headlights at night, or making a building that isn't up to code that then collapses and kills someone.

But actual criminal assault, which accidentally results in death, is just straight up voluntary manslaughter at least. Which is worse than involuntary manslaughter.

If they knew you were clumsy and intended to kill you with the push, would it matter?

Participating in any chain of events with the intent of someone dying is murder, full stop. It doesn't matter if some part of the situation already existed to help it along. If someone builds a lethal deathtrap in park you know about and you make a vague suggestion to them that they, who do not know the deathtrap, visit that park with the hope they'll get killed, even that's murder, if anyone can prove it.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

Participating in any chain of events with the intent of someone dying is murder, full stop.

The in this case, why are you not noticing that the adult doing the harassing knew of the "imbalance" in the minor, and targeted that and her words with the intention of causing death (even saying something like "you should kill yourself" to demonstrate her final goal). If the intent to kill is sufficient for "any chain that leads to death" to be murder, then you are saying that harassing a mentally unstable person with the intent of causing suicide is murder.

Re:I've heard this one before

[DavidTC]

I don't know why you think I'm defending the harasser here.

I had not heard the theory that she was intending to cause the girl to commit suicide. If that can actually be demonstrated, yes, of course it's murder. (And it's premeditated, at that.)

However, saying 'you should kill yourself' doesn't really prove that. That is clearly intended to cause pain, but generally asking someone to commit suicide is not literally intended as a request that they do so, and hence isn't actually murder. (Which requires intent to result in death, as opposed to manslaughter.)

But, hey, if you think that can be proven, I've got no problem with it.

Of course, none of this is what my comments were actually about, which was that harassment is unlawful, and hence harassing someone until they kill themselves is at minimum manslaughter already, so we don't need any stupid 'violating TOS is illegal' nonsense even in the specific instance it's been proposed for.

I have no objection if we can get her for something worse, this was a pretty horrific act and there needs to be a clear deterrence sent out: Messing with people to the extent they kill themselves will result in you serving at least some time in prison. (And, hell, we should make some specific rules about adults messing with teenagers, who are exceptionally vulnerable to that.)

Re:I've heard this one before

[JesseMcDonald]

So you think that emotionally abusing your children should be legal?

Legal, yes. The law doesn't really allow them to respond anyway, as minors, even if the abuse is declared illegal, and so far as I'm concerned they would be the only ones with the necessary standing if the abuse is considered illegal.

Note that "legal" is not the same thing as "socially acceptable", and that I also support the right of children of any age to leave their parents and either take care of themselves, if possible, or place themselves for adoption with a new, willing family. Parents do not "own" their children; they have a unique relationship and role, but no special rights. As such, subjecting your children to abuse of any sort would remain a good way to lose them, not to mention your standing in the community. You just couldn't be sued for it in the case of emotional abuse.

In which case, taking the intent is the best determination, and the adult lied for personal gain to harm a minor, with full knowledge that the death would result from the intentional harm.

Two problems here. First, "taking the intent" is just one more debatable definition of "harm", and not a very good one. Intent is relevant in determining whether retribution is justified in addition to reparations, but it doesn't affect whether or not there was harm. It's a separate issue.

Second, and more importantly, "with full knowledge that the death would result" is hyperbole on your part. There is no way that anyone could have such knowledge, since the death, as I already stated, was the result of someone else's choice. The other person could easily have chosen not to commit suicide. That choice may have been expected, but "full knowledge" before the fact is impossible. Even if it was expected, there remains the fact that no one should be held responsible for the result of someone else's choice.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

The intention of causing death will never be proved. She did state informally to others she wished specific ills on the girl. She did make statements that indicated a desire to encourage death.

The issue I have is that they twisted an unrelated law to get her for something because she's evil and tried to and did cause actual harm to a minor. They should have gone for murder and killed the "hacking" charges. She deliberately harmed someone with the intent of causing harm, and resulted in death.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

The law doesn't really allow them to respond anyway, as minors,

Then I will dismiss your statements and opinion and massively biased and factually wrong. I know more than one person under 18 declared "adult" by the court so they could do things like rent an apartment so they could move out. There are legal remedies for minors. That you are ignorant of them and so firm in your incorrect belief that there aren't indicates that there's nothing I can do to educate you, just declare you wrong so no one else believes your lies, and then ignore you, as there's nothing worth listening to that you could ever say, given how ignorant you are of the matter and how firm and proud you are of your ignorance.

Re:I've heard this one before

[JesseMcDonald]

I know more than one person under 18 declared "adult" by the court so they could do things like rent an apartment so they could move out.

In that case they are no longer legally "minors", and in any event that sort of thing is rare. In extreme cases you may be able to get the age of legal adulthood lowered by a couple of years, at best. Normally children are required to submit to the custody of their parents, and are brought back if they run away. If there is abuse, the state pursues the case in place of their parents, whether they want it pursued or not; unless they are lucky enough to be emancipated, they don't have the option of pursuing the case on their own, or dropping the charges. It's wrong to force them to stay, even in a "good" home, but it's also wrong to force them to leave, or to punish the parents on their behalf, but against their wishes, even if they are suffering abuse. Either way, it should be their choice.

You assumed I was ignorant, when in fact I am perfectly well aware of the possibility of emancipation. It simply doesn't occur often enough to be relevant here. There are many cases of abuse where a request for emancipation wouldn't even be considered.

You can't win an argument simply by declaring your opponent to be wrong, particularly when that declaration is based, as usual, on a false assumption. I would appreciate it if you would limit yourself to serious responses and drop the unwarranted ad hominems.

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

In that case they are no longer legally "minors",

Lie all you want to justify your factually incorrect statements. They are not minors at the time they exercise their "response", which makes you wrong.

You can't win an argument simply by declaring your opponent to be wrong,

No. But I find that leading with "you are wrong" then listing the reasons works well for grabbing attention and doesn't confuse readers as to my intentions.

I would appreciate it if you would limit yourself to serious responses and drop the unwarranted ad hominems.

Quit posting things that make you a target for ridicule, and I'll stop ridiculing you.

Re:I've heard this one before

[DavidTC]

She deliberately harmed someone with the intent of causing harm, and resulted in death.

Yes, that is voluntary manslaughter.

However, I think the 'harm' required there is actual physical harm. I don't think the connection works if you intend to cause emotional harm and that results in death. (Because emotional harm is not, per se, illegal to cause.)

But, if they can't get that, they have involuntary manslaughter, because a misdemeanor resulted in someone's death. That doesn't require any intent to cause harm at all.

And the hacking charges are just utterly idiotic, and are very very risky. It's possible to think of a scenario where lying online could result in someone's death, but it shouldn't be illegal.

For example, let's say that I lies on an online dating forum, thus a woman decides to go on a date with me, and the date ends in the woman gets hit by a meteor and killed. I think we can agree that, despite the lie that originally resulted in the date, no criminal charges are due against me.

If lying online is 'hacking', I'm failing to see any meaningful differences between my 'hacking' and this woman's 'hacking'. Both were for the purpose of misleading someone, both were against the TOS, both resulted in a death.

The only differences is that one intended harm and the other didn't, and there was misdemeanor harassment in one and the other didn't have that. But neither of those were related to the 'hacking'. Hacking's not only illegal if you intend to hurt someone else, or if you later go on to harass someone!

So, what? We're going to only press these charges if someone 'deserves' them?

Re:I've heard this one before

[AK Marc]

(Because emotional harm is not, per se, illegal to cause.)

I've never seen a definition of "harm" that two people can agree with, so I object to your statement on the grounds that with "harm" undefined, it is meaningless. Deliberately greasing stairs so someone falls is not a crime, though when someone falls and hurts themselves, charges may be filed, or torts instigated.

I've never seen a reason given why emotional harm is not "harm" other than "sticks and stones..." or "they are just words, ignore them" (which would be good arguments against against noise regulations, yet those are ubiquitous, indicating that they are false arguments).

We're going to only press these charges if someone 'deserves' them?

Yup. That's how it works now. It may not be perfect, but that's how it works. Using "I don't like reality" as an argument against any chance seems silly. An old man in Austin TX fell asleep at the wheel and killed 6 (maybe more, I didn't follow the case that well to see if the many sent to the hospital all pulled through or died). He was let go without even receiving an official warning because he was old and didn't mean to harm anyone, yet youths doing the same have gotten jail time. That may no be fair, but it is "justice."

thats fine

[Anonymous Coward]

but the website agreed to MY terms & Conditions, its right there in my headers on every single request

X-USERTOS: you agree to exempt this user from all TOS agreements this site carries, you must deny all access to this user if you do not agree.

Re:thats fine

[james_van]

i like that, ill have to add that to all my headers

Love it.....gov = .stupid

[PortHaven]

So I create a website. I put a huge lengthy terms of service agreement. Several hundred pages long. All seems pretty good and to the viewer's benefit.

In the terms of service, I include a statement that the individual agrees in exchange for the use of this site that they will email naked photos of themselves to the account specified.

I then contact all of Congressmen commenting on how this article is degrading them. And how I just wanted to make them aware of it.

Then after they click the terms of service. I sue to have them all charged as criminals for breaking my terms of service. That will prove how stupid this interpretation is...

Crap!!!!! This isn't going to work...

Just found a flaw in my logic. Half these politicians are already looking for any opportunity to send people illicit photos of themselves.

The flaw in no way diminishes the stupidity of this interpretation.

Trap

[Rinisari]

If I create a simple, one page site the terms of service of which simply say "you are not permitted to use this web site unless you are Rinisari", I could turn them over to the authorities because they've committed a crime?

Re:Trap

[betterunixthanunix]

If I create a simple, one page site the terms of service of which simply say "you are not permitted to use this web site unless you are Rinisari", I could turn them over to the authorities because they've committed a crime?

Why go to the trouble of creating a website? Since there are so many laws on the books and nobody really knows when or if they are breaking one, you could probably turn anyone over to the authorities.

Re:Trap

[Rob the Bold]

If I create a simple, one page site the terms of service of which simply say "you are not permitted to use this web site unless you are Rinisari", I could turn them over to the authorities because they've committed a crime?

Why go to the trouble of creating a website? Since there are so many laws on the books and nobody really knows when or if they are breaking one, you could probably turn anyone over to the authorities.

Except that the "authorities" aren't just going to go persecute (and prosecute) anybody you point to and yell "J'accuse!" They're not your personal brute squad, or mine, and this power is certainly not meant for us.

If we were sufficiently important, and by important I mean net worth or -- better yet -- market cap, then they'd care and take action.

Great Business Opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great time to start a ToS law firm and troll around.

Vote third party

[betterunixthanunix]

Stop voting for Republicrats. Neither party gives a damn about your rights, they are both working hard to establish tyranny and have been largely successful over the past few decades.

Re:Vote third party

[P-niiice]

Problem is, Democrats are just as guilty in this sort of thing. Neither party is any good for caring about the spirit of the constitution. And the next person mentioning Ron Paul is oing to get shot.

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. People need to stop voting for the same people/parties. If you think your vote doesn't matter than what's the harm in voting for a third party candidate?

Re:Vote third party

[phreest]

We have to get a critical mass to vote third party, and not for the tea party corporate whores. That will be hard in a country of followers who are woefully under-educated and largely ignorant. Most Americans can't even understand that 68% of corporations pay no income tax whatsoever whilst everyone else is in the 28 - 35% bracket except those who are already rich and live off dividends at 15%. Making people aware of DOJ crimes is going to be substantially harder than getting them to understand the tax code. My feeling is we are doomed due to our own ignorance.

Re:Vote third party

[TheSpoom]

Whoosh. (A very sad whoosh.)

Re:Vote third party

[AK Marc]

Yes, they are, hence why he said "Republicrats", one of the more common lumpings of the two together. There is no difference, other than the preferences in how they screw us first.

Re:Vote third party

[TheRaven64]

See, this is what is wrong with American politics. The grandparent said don't vote for the Democrats or Republicans, vote for a third party. To which you reply 'the Democrats are just as bad'. It's as if the idea of doing anything other than voting for the Red or Blue team is so alien to American voters that it won't penetrate their brains.

Re:Vote third party

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. "Republicrats" rolls off the tongue better than something like "Demopublicans".

Re:Vote third party

[Dripdry]

I like "Demublicans"

Re:Vote third party

[TwistedOne151]

If you think your vote doesn't matter, then why vote at all? As I understand, that's one of the main reasons voter turn-out is so low.

Re:Vote third party

[TwistedOne151]

I'd recommend you read up on Duverger's Law, so as to understand why third parties have never, and will never, succeed electorially in America. (A new party has come in only following the disintegration of one of the major two, most recently being when the Republicans emerged following the disintegration of the Whigs before the Civil War.) Your only choice is between whichever is the (slightly) lesser of two evils.

Re:Vote third party

[TwistedOne151]

And more here: Two-party system#Third parties. Third parties serve only as "spoilers" or ways to move the "Overton window."

Re:Vote third party

[betterunixthanunix]

Your only choice is between whichever is the (slightly) lesser of two evils.

...and so the cycle continues. This sort of mentality makes people complicit in the current system.

Frankly, if liberals and conservatives were to start voting for the parties that represented their political views rather than the current set, we would probably see the rise of a new two party system. It is hard to say if we even have a two party system right now, given how both parties seem to support the same goals with only very minor differences between them. Ralph Nader took a lot of heat for saying there was not a dime for the difference between the parties, but he was right.

Re:Vote third party

[P-niiice]

No, you're right. I was wishing for a real alternative.

Interesting tidbit

[himurabattousai]

From the article:

Stewart Baker, an attorney at Steptoe and Johnson who was previously a Homeland Security assistant secretary and general counsel at the National Security Agency, has suggested that the administration's proposals to expand CFAA are Draconian.

Before you dismiss this as a "no shit" statement, keep in mind that the Mr. Baker was previously employed by Homeland Security and the NSA -- two organizations not known for their even-handedness and promotion of actual freedom and justice. For someone who may have been employed by the very same Presidential Administration seeking to expand the reach of the CFAA to be this blunt is amazing. I sincerely hope that our "leaders" keep that in mind.

This just in...

[AdamWill]

...America has officially jumped the shark. It was a nice ride, folks, we'll catch you on the flip side.

Re:This just in...

[AHuxley]

Cash will flow to more profit friendly places. Bring all your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty dreams with you and enjoy your stay.

Good

[artor3]

Take it out of the legal gray area where no one's entirely sure what's enforceable. The SCOTUS will have to rule on it eventually, might as well get the ball rolling. A teenager brought to trial for using Google would make a perfect test case. Although, for all our sakes, I hope one of the conservative judges drops dead soon, or else we can expect another 5-4 ruling that corporations are all-powerful.

Re:Good

[SuricouRaven]

They'll prime the precidents first with a test case sure to go their way. An easy way to do that would be to just charge someone who downloaded child porn with computer fraud as well for violating ToS. Pedophiles are so powerfully loathed by judges and juries alike, they'll just go with 'guilty' without a second thought just to add to the punishment. Then the precident can be used in other cases.

Reminder!

[joocemann]

Laws should work FOR the people whose government represents them.

This whole fiasco reminds me, clearly, that business has priority over citizens in the US. Getting sick of this place more and more as the constitution and the purpose of our government has faded into the corrupt benefit of greed and exploit.

Re:Reminder!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have several friends who have immigrated out of the US already. Some to the UK (which has some laws that protect citizens/consumers better, but also some laws which are far more intrusive than our own) and Germany (similar, but without the sense of humor). However, the friends that have moved to Taiwan couldn't be happier. It has a very small government (with bigger things to worry about, ie China), very low crime rate, extremely low cost of living with increasing quality of life and pay for experienced and educated professionals.

Re:Reminder!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you find somewhere better to go, let me know. Thank you in advance.

In the mean time, I'll be working on the TOS for a new site I would like for you to visit soon where there will be a clause buried in there stating you must for my travel to where we will be moving to and to financially support me in the manner which I've become accustomed, which is much better than the manner I'm currently living.

Re:Reminder!

[sconeu]

They do! The Corporations are the "people" who government is representing.

Re:Reminder!

[alexo]

Laws should work FOR the people whose government represents them.

They do. You're just not one of the "people" that the government represents.

Re:Reminder!

[Grishnakh]

The only problem with Taiwan is China, as you noted. I'd worry that it might become a war zone before long, whenever China decide it wants it back and that America isn't going to come to its defense.

How about Thailand? I've heard good things about that place.

Another place I've thought of is Ireland.

What's up with the DOJ?

[travdaddy]

The DOJ sure is responsible for a lot of recent crazy stories lately:

They're the department that bought the $16 muffins. link

They claim that Willie Nelson's song The Gambler is proof that online poker is illegal (yes, you read that right).link

And now a ToS violation is a crime.

Maybe the DOJ needs to be brought to justice.

Re:What's up with the DOJ?

[surgen]

They're the department that bought the $16 muffins. link

It turned out what happened was a $16 breakfast, that among other things included muffins, got recorded as muffins.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/132803818.html

Good thing the public threw a shitfit over that.

Re:What's up with the DOJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget their trying to get permission to lie about Freedom of Information Act information, even whether it exists or not.

Re:What's up with the DOJ?

[dkleinsc]

They claim that Willie Nelson's song The Gambler is proof that online poker is illegal (yes, you read that right).

And of course, there are 2 lies in that:
1. Willie Nelson didn't write The Gambler, Kenny Rodgers did.
2. Obviously it's no more an accurate authority to consult than, say, citing Spinal Tap when discussing Stonehenge.

Re:What's up with the DOJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOJ sure is responsible for a lot of recent crazy stories lately:

They're the department that bought the $16 muffins. link

They claim that Willie Nelson's song The Gambler is proof that online poker is illegal (yes, you read that right).link

And now a ToS violation is a crime.

Maybe the DOJ needs to be brought to justice.

They can be - It is actually quite simple.

1. Build a site that the DOJ is likely to hit
2. Include appropriate TOS statements that ensure that the simple act of downloading a file from the site (including index.html) by the DOJ requires a payment of 1 TRILLION DOLLARS - or something else like that....

See .. Simple

Re:What's up with the DOJ?

[skine]

To be fair, the $16 Muffins headline turned out to be that the DoJ spent $16 per person on food, drink and facilities, but the hotel didn't feel like itemizing.

Re:What's up with the DOJ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The $16 muffins story is nonsense.

It's just politics, so it's all OK, right?

[mounthood]

There was a time when I would have seen this as simple politics: appease the wealthy donors and corporations, but in the end the politicians don't follow through, or if they do it's struck down in court. Both sides know the game, both sides get something out of it [1], and in the end it doesn't matter too much. No harm, no foul. It's just politics.

But this isn't just politics: corporations creating law by TOS? That's the definition of corporatism. In the future we should expect this precedent to be used by auto manufacturers, home builders, coffee baristas, etc...

[1] The benefits to wealthy donors and corporations are: control of the conversation (setting the boundaries of 'reasonable' discussion), some laws passed in their favor (even if it takes them a long time), their interests are always addressed first during uncertain times (like with new technology).

wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

How often am I supposed to read a sites TOS ?
Most contain a clause essentially meaning something like "we can change this TOS at any time we like, in any we way want without letting you know."

This interpretation of this Act makes it impossible for any law abiding citizen to use the internet while being sure that he does nothing that makes him a criminal. The TOS can change any second.

good luck getting a jury to under stand the TOS at

[Anonymous Coward]

good luck getting a jury to under stand the TOS at trial criminal law = right to trail by jury.

Chilling effect

[Anonymous Coward]

You read stuff like this, and you start to re-evaluate your use of web sites. You come to the realization that "I don't really need this". You could be outside, helping to reduce the obesity factor in the US ever so slightly. You could be doing a lot of other things.

For YouTube, something like this ToS business wasn't even necessary. When Google wanted my phone number, I quit trying to log in. The only lock-in was my favorites. I downloaded the list, and if I really cared about it I could probably host it as a simple list of links someplace else. I don't care that much though.

With Flickr I have a bit more "lock-in"; but even that could be moved with a combination of automated tools and some grunt-work patching gaps in the automated tools.

People will start cocooning like that. The "big web" will become like McDonalds--ubiquitous, inferior, and sufficiently appealing to the masses who don't care.

The "small web" will perhaps work on an entirely different protocols and I suspect it already does (IRC?). I'd move there, but I haven't reached that tipping point yet. Also, the "small web" has the risk of there being "illegal content" on it and being labeled as a crime itself by TPTB.

Well, we've done it. We've gotten to the point where we need samizdat. Is it totalitarianism yet?

Ah the possibilities

[Phrogman]

1) Create a website that purports to contain links to all sorts of music, tv shows, movies etc. To gain access you have to register and agree to the TOS
2) Have a reasonable TOS, but buried somewhere in it is a line that says in effect "If you agree to the terms of this TOS, you hereby assign the legal rights to any and all copyrighted material you or your employer owns to the owner of this website". Put a convenient "I agree to the TOS" checkbox on the registration page. Log who registers and who they works for...
3) Start sending out DMCA takedown notices to Warner, Sony, Universal...
4) Profit :P

Re:Ah the possibilities

[Rob the Bold]

3) Start sending out DMCA takedown notices to Warner, Sony, Universal...

Unfortunately, I think we all understand that this is for Warner, Sony, Universal and every other company to use against us, not for us to use against them.

Re:Ah the possibilities

[Phrogman]

Yeah, I kinda got that part, my post was more intended as a sort of joke. Evidently it failed.... :P

Re:Ah the possibilities

[Rob the Bold]

Yeah, I kinda got that part, my post was more intended as a sort of joke. Evidently it failed.... :P

I thought it was, but I also have a penchant for stating the obvious. Especially if it's depressing.

Ummm.

[Steauengeglase]

Must be nice for somebody. I'd be totally cool with this if you couldn't creep something like "The Terms of this agreement may change at any time without prior notice to you." in.

just like the Lacey Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the Lacey Act, it's illegal to violate other countries' laws in some cases.

Gibson Guitar has been raided twice (but not charged) for using illegal wood from India that "wasn't finished enough." India will tell you that Gibson follows their laws, but that's not enough for the federal government.

This is the next logical step.

"Facebook says I didn't violate their ToS!?" "Too bad, go to jail."

Re:just like the Lacey Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good, another Gibson apologist.

Sorry dude, your beloved guitar company fucked up.

Re:just like the Lacey Act

[Anonymous Coward]

By doing what, precisely? No charges have been filed.

Oh, you mean they screwed up by not being unionized and not giving enough money to Democrats.

This isn't an environmental issue. Guitar making has never been a cause of deforestation.

Criminals, Felons, all

[Anonymous Coward]

I am now convinced that the only purpose for Government is to pass enough laws to make felons out of the entire population.

Re:Criminals, Felons, all

[Merk42]

It makes perfect sense, think like a politician.
The only problem with those pesky poor people is that they can vote!
I know! We'll just make a law that will make all of them criminals (rich people like us will have enough money for a lawyer to get us out of a conviction). After a while, only rich people will be able to vote!

Re:Criminals, Felons, all

[dkleinsc]

That's not true at all. There are at least 2 other purposes:
1. Increasing the wealth of the most politically powerful people at the expense of everybody else.
2. Sending the sons and daughters of non-wealthy people overseas to risk life and limb in order to protect the business interests of the most politically powerful corporations.

Re:Criminals, Felons, all

[Anonymous Coward]

It took you this long to realize this? they've been trying criminalizing society for years, and since no one complained, they stepped up their game. Still no one complained, so they stepped it up some more. It's the whole frog in boiling water, and we, the people, the citizens, of this once great nation, are the frogs :(

Re:Criminals, Felons, all

[Anonymous Coward]

Most criminals are dumb. I on the other hand have IQ over 160 and first time I get in trouble with the law will turn me into a criminal mastermind. There are some people they really don't want to make criminals out of. Trust me, I know myself. :)

Re:Criminals, Felons, all

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 2: Put whoever disagrees into the newly-built Gulags (that Cheney's company built in the last years).

Stalin did it first. He was the original inspiration for "1984".

Re:Criminals, Felons, all

[Anonymous Coward]

I am now convinced that the only purpose for Government is to pass enough laws to make felons out of the entire population.

not entire... just enough to insure that all the opponents can be incarcerated..

then (unless a citizen of Vermont and Maine), they are ineligible to vote... so... it is easier to insure victory at the polls......

This is a BRILLIANT way to take over the country in a legal fashion......

Gaming TOS/EULA

[DroolTwist]

World of Warcraft alone will fill up juvenile detention facilities around the country with all the TOS violations from teenagers.

Orin Kerr's testimony opposing the CFAA...

[Freddybear]

http://volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/

http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Testimony-of-Orin-S-Kerr.pdf

" The current version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) poses a threat to the civil liberties of the millions of Americans who use computers and the Internet. As interpreted by the Justice Department, many if not most computer users violate the CFAA on a regular basis. Any of them could face arrest and criminal prosecution.

        In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook or lying about your weight in an online dating profile. That situation is intolerable. Routine computer use should not be a crime. Any cybersecurity legislation that this Congress passes should reject the extraordinarily broad interpretations endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.

        In my testimony, I want to explain why the CFAA presents a significant threat to civil liberties. I want to then offer two narrow and simple ways to amend the CFAA to respond to these problems. I will conclude by responding to arguments I anticipate the Justice Department officials might make in defense of the current statute."

Re:Orin Kerr's testimony opposing the CFAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Side note.

Your /. username is what my girlfriend calls her cat.

That is all.

Protest with fake profiles

[Anonymous Coward]

As a token of protest, please create a(nother) fake profile on your favourite website today! I just did it on FB.

Minors can use google without issue

[thechemic]

Quote from google TOS, "2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services." So what is a binding contract? Quote from lawyers.com, "A minor (usually, a person under 18 years of age) who makes a contract can rescind or void it, with one general exception. A minor contracting for "necessities" is bound to pay for their reasonable value. A "necessity" can be food or shelter but, depending upon the law of the particular state, it may also include cars or other items." So let's put it to the test. Can google sell a minor "necessities"? YES Therefore can a minor enter into a binding contract with google? YES. The google TOS does not specify what services and products it is refering to when it discusses binding contracts. Therefore, because google could feasibly sell a minor "necessitous" services or products, then a minor can therefore feasibly enter into a binding contract with google: thus satisfying the terms of service. By the means of this test, any minor can use google's products and services (including google+)

Re:Minors can use google without issue

[JStyle]

Can google sell a minor "necessities"? YES Therefore can a minor enter into a binding contract with google? YES.

Could you please provide links for Google Food, Google Shelter, and Google Cars? I'm interested.

Re:Minors can use google without issue

[thechemic]

Could you please provide links for Google Food, Google Shelter, and Google Cars? I'm interested.

The test does not ask the question, "Does google sell food, shelter, cars, or other necessitous products?" The test asks the question "are you of legal age to form a binding contract with google?" If google were to sell a car, phone, product, or other necessitous service, then the answer to that test is YES; a minor can be of age to enter into a binding contract with google.

Google cars soon to be offered here - http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/12/when-can-consumers-buy-a-google-driverless-car-and-why-would-they/
Google phones offered here - www.google.com/nexus
Google phone service offered here - www.google.com/phone/

All three of these products and services are considered necessitous and therefore result in binding contracts with minors.

Re:Minors can use google without issue

[Skidborg]

Google maps can help you find a hotel or a grocery store. Done.

Committing a crime and doin time

[Anonymous Coward]

I say keep it. Let all the illogical nonsense pile up until there is structural change demanded of the government addressing the core issue of wholesale purchase of laws by those with sufficient funding.

Fighting each battle separatly is whackamole.

Void for vagueness

[BigSlowTarget]

Sounds like all those computer laws - which now by proxy include all TOS - are begging to get thrown out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness

Re:Void for vagueness

[_KiTA_]

Sounds like all those computer laws - which now by proxy include all TOS - are begging to get thrown out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness

Unfortunately that no longer applies due to the legal concept of "Rich Corporations really, really want it this way." Which trumps all legal concepts, including say, fair use, prior art, legal precedent, etc etc.

sooo

[rrossman2]

What impacts does this have on yesterdays article about the judge requiring ex husband and wife or whatever with swapping passwords for facebook in violation of facebooks ToS?

Re:sooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean they can refuse to comply on the basis that the judge has ordered them to violate Federal Law ?

Oh Noes

[pntkl]

Does this mean all my fake profiles are going to put me in the The House of Numbers?

LOL ...

[gstoddart]

So, my Facebook account with fake information is a criminal act now? Better fire up that crack team of lawyers and start extraditing me now.

Yet another example of lawmakers not even coming close to understanding technology.

Idiots.

Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like a side of a back-stab today with your hope and change?

Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems less crazy now right?

government on my internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

as if they can stop me, I am behind 7 proxies configured through tor ran through a vpn on a public network while being located on a public network. ddos the government

Re:government on my internet?

[Oswald McWeany]

Hi Steve!

Re:government on my internet?

[Skidborg]

Does the government what? Sorry, I think something just happened to your connection.

By reading this

[Oswald McWeany]

TOS for this comment:

Agreeing to this TOS is signified by reading this comment. By reading this TOS you agree that you grant to Oswald McWeany (or the real person behind that alias) all future rights to any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property you produce in the future. You also agree that you must always agree with him and never mod him down. You also agree that any material possesions you own now belong to him.

You also agree never to produce a TOS that forces Oswald McWeany (or the real person behind that alias) to revoke this TOS or to give up any rights or possesions of his own. You agree that he may never be held responsible to any TOS that you may write.

Now for my comment: This is interesting news.

Re:By reading this

[Latr0_]

lol, so tempting... given that a good portion of us slashdot users have websites.... this is quite scary...

So..

[TFAFalcon]

So can The pirate bay now include the words:'If you access this site, you may not sue us or provide any information to anyone that would enable them to sue or prosecute us, and if you do provide this information you are liable for any damages we might incur as a result', and all of their legal problems would go away?

It's all about change.

[Any Web Loco]

Chay chay change... change of fools! (pace Don Covay & Aretha)

Re:It's all about change.

[Anonymous Coward]

The song is "Chain of Fools"

TOS says you sold your soul

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems apt:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/15/online-shoppers-unknowingly-sold-souls/

The Government has just invalidated iteself

[l0ungeb0y]

By stating that a Corporation's ToS carries full force of the law the Government have declared the entire legislative branch redundant and therefor, should be shut down and replaced with electronic contracts to be shoved down consumers throat at any corporation's whim and to be enforced by the FBI and DoJ.

Frankly, this stance by the Obama administration is a complete violation of our Constitution and should be exposed and dealt with as such.

Hm...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Wasn't it the government that came out and said it was A-OK to jailbreak your iphone, despite the fact that this goes against the TOS?
Typical double standanrd government.

Re:Hm...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

standard*

The Government wants to shut down the net

[Anonymous Coward]

Our government is trying just as hard as the Chinese to create a Great Firewall, only they're using the boogeyman of copyright infringement instead of outright censorship. If they had their way, the internet would be just like enhanced television, a read-only format where no exchange of ideas is possible.

As I see it

[wzzzzrd]

Yea, it's absurd, but I think many of you got it wrong. The TOS does not BECOME law, it's a crime to violate it. I guess it's proposed for the following scenario: Some guy posts a link on a forum that points to Noodie Boobie Fun (TM). Just in case it is some sort of Noodie Boobie Fun that's still legal, he sure violated the TOS. Gotcha!

As an example to what this can lead: In Germany there is a law the other way round: If you're a business with a website, and your Website is missing some texts (like VAT number, or a phone number), it's a violation of some law. If a lawyer (and only a lawyer) spots this, they can make money from you: "I see what u did there (harhar). Gimme 1000euro or I will prosecute you". It's a fucking million euro industry, just milking mom and pop sites that try to sell pot holders. All automated (crawlers looking for websites, sending mass mails).

Well, obviously milking the consumer is far more efficient than only milking the producer. And this is what this new law is about, from my POV anyway.
Post scriptum: I hereby invoke Rule #34: Nothing real, so far...

Sore Losers

[carrier lost]

They're still stinging over the Lori Drew slapdown.

Re:good luck getting a jury to under stand the TOS

[AK Marc]

good luck getting a jury to under stand the TOS at trial criminal law = right to trail by jury.

You do realize that you can waive your right to "trail" by jury, right?

If you don't want a jury trial, ask to waive that right, and you'll likely have your request granted. Aside from cases where an appeal was expected before the trial began, I've never heard of the request being denied.

Recent facebook password swapping

[witherstaff]

If a judge orders you to break the law, what happens? The recent case with the judge requiring the divorcing people to swap facebook passwords - if you don't, you're in contempt. If you do, you're breaking the law. So who should one follow?

Re:Recent facebook password swapping

[gknoy]

Obey the judge, unless it's something whose punishment is worse than indefinite incarceration for contempt. (So clearly, don't kill anyone.)

Creative TOS income possibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because we all want to be bound by this kind of TOS when we read a web site, lest we be breaking the law.

I Can't Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to be awesome. The Terms of Service for use of my mail server is that the sender agrees to pay me $10,000 processing fee for every winmail.dat, .docx, or .xlsx attachment that it receives.

Public space

[Quila]

Any unprotected protion of a web site can be considered a public space, since by the very act of putting it up you are inviting the public to visit.

Re:Public space

[blair1q]

I'm inviting you to visit, and, oh, by the way, the rules are posted right there for you to read as soon as you come in to look around. And they were proffered to you right there on the page where you created your account so you could be a member and access deeper parts of the website and alter things there. Break my rules and you don't have the right to log in any more, even if I don't delete or lock your account. That's true whether you bother to read the rules or not. Capiche?

Re:Public space

[Tim C]

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK that's definitely not true for businesses that are open to the public, e.g. shops. The shop most certainly is not a public space, and the proprietor can exclude people for (almost) any reason they choose (with the obvious proviso that some laws trump that - e.g. you can't exclude someone solely on the basis of race).

I'd be very surprised if the law were any different for websites.

outlaws

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, you just made the majority of Americans criminals. Now if only someone can make a big profit off our incarceration in Texas.

So...

[night_flyer]

how's all that hope and change working out for you?

Re:So...

[frank_adrian314159]

Ya know, that line started to get old about fifteen months ago and after the first hundred or so times I heard it. I guess I was right about conservatives... not one original thought in their head.

Re:So...

[night_flyer]

it only gets old to those who were stupid enough to vote for the current president and all that crap that came with him. You don't like being reminded just how gullible you were...

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if a left-wing-voting UK royalist asks you it? Would you try and answer it then or would you continue with ad hominem attacks?

So, how is "hope and change" working out for you?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't vote for Obama in '08, won't be voting for him in '12, and I agree that it has been stale for at least two years.

So would you care to revise your statement now that it has been exposed for the lie you already knew it to be?

Easy Fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all citizens and corporations can change the law, just by updating any website's Terms of Service!
The first TOS law I'll envoke is to deny the DOJ the authority to make these laws.

Forget Demented

[javakah]

"By using this website, you agree that if you are currently holding an elected position, work directly for someone holding an elected position, work as a lobbyist, or are a Supreme Court Justice of the United States, you will immediately resign your position. Furthermore, you agree to never hold an elected position or work as a lobbyist. You also agree to waive any class action lawsuits against this site, and agree that any disagreements over these terms of service will not be argued in a court of law, but will be subject to binding arbitration by an arbitrator selected by the owners of this website."

Term of service

[Tharsman]

Even gazing at this post is an agreement with it's terms of service.

If you looked at it, you agree to contact me directly and setup a payment fee of 20 per character read*. As now dictated by law, should you not comply you will be labeled a criminal an go to jail!!!!

*For the context of this post, "character read" is defined as an alphanumeric character within the post, regardless of it actually being read or not. :P

And the Inverse?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What if the website operator violates the terms?

I have a bunch of spam sitting here in my 'abuse' folder with the unique e-mail I gave to Asics in 2004 when I bought some shoes. Their privacy policy clearly says they won't sell my address but they surely did.

I tried complaining to the e-mail address in the privacy policy (it bounces) and via Twitter (it was ignored).

Anybody ever try to enforce the CAN-SPAM Act against a website operator for violation of a privacy policy? I read something about $16,000 per infraction.

Enough of this silly Chess Game...

[Genda]

Guys, let's stop with all the foreplay... I'm getting sore! Let's just declare anyone below the age of 40 illegal. Put them all in labor camps, and state from birth until your fortieth birthday, the combined recording industries own you to use as they see fit. I mean that is what you're slowing working towards, right? So just cut to the chase. We're tired of the lawyers and the law suits and the silly blather from you and your Washington sock puppets. You have the representatives. You have the lobbyists. Just pass a law saying you own Americans and be done with it. There... was that so hard!???

Does it work both ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if a business violates its own stated privacy policies?

You cannot visit this website

[phoenix0783]

I am going to create a website with a ToS that states "You cannot visit this website"

So, if my TOS says no government agencies?

[Agent0013]

So if I put into my site's TOS that no government agencies or people are allowed to view my site, does that make it illegal for them to do it? And what about if the TOS says the site will never give data to the government even with a warrent? Will that have to be followed also so as to not break the law?

These are really just useless thought though, as the goverment does not worry about itself following any laws. It has gone so far past any legitamacy that I can't wait for it to collapse like the old Roman empire so we can start over with something new and hopefully better.

Occupy Wallstreet and everything else

[Anonymous Coward]

It is abundantly clear that violence is the only way forward .
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a fool or a coward
or both.

Digitial Helmet Law?

[Eugriped3z]

Qui Bono, Brutus?

This could easily be used as a sort of blanket hold-harmless statute, absolving online commerce providers from liability in the event their users violate ToS. That way Facebook et al can't be held liable for libel committed by a user of someone else's nom de plum, pseudonym or legitimately acquired moniker.

In that context it would cut off nuisance lawsuits and cut down on digital second-life ambulance chasers.

Why is it ....

[OldHawk777]

Question: Why is it easier to criminalize citizens, than protect citizens from crimes?
Answer: Criminalizing citizens supports corporate welfare, protecting citizens cost tax-dollars that can be better used as welfare for failing corporations .

Question: Why is it easier to start a profiteer war, than draft wealth entitled children?
Answer: War and citizens soldiers increase profit and decrease the social burden of aged citizens in the Corporate States of America (CSA).

Question: Why is it easier to fund a local school board payroll, than fund the education of children?
Answer: ....

Question: Why is it easier to delay, prevent, and deny healthcare, than provide the public health care?
Answer: ....

Question: What is the problem?
Answer: Observing the obvious does not fit the personal dogma view, problems have multiple parts, but are always defined as large, complex, and unsolvable.

Problems must be troubleshot to be resolved, and innovative solutions require reasoning (not dogma/lies).

Problems and solutions ain't fycking magic! Nothing poofs in-&-out of existence (except dogma/lies).

Re:Why is it ....

[tchdab1]

..that more people are not declaring themselves corporations?

RICO ACT or a Scarlet Letter

[glorybe]

What would count Dracula think of these mild punishments. Perhaps a scarlet letter branded on the cheek or forehead or maybe death by perpetual incarceration would satisfy the lust of the law. What kind of wimp nation are we if we can't kill our young for copying music?

So much for change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime I think the US can't go further down the gutter I'm wrong.

Maybe its time for the americans to be acqainted with the french national anthem

Aux armes, citoyens, To arms, citizens,
Formez vos bataillons, Form your battalions,
Marchons, marchons ! Let's march, let's march!
Qu'un sang impur That an impure blood
Abreuve nos sillons ! Waters our furrows!

Sooner or later it will come to that.

Re:So much for change...

[TwistedOne151]

This is, frankly, a stupid suggestion. You forget that the government has tanks, bombs, fighter jets, UAVs, machine guns, etc., and vastly outgund and outpowers the public; a successful armed rebellion is totally impossible , and has been for some time now. Further, an attempt would be counter-productive, as it would only provide the excuse needed to crack down further on the people.

Biden just continues Al Gore's pioneering work ...

[drnb]

Biden is just continuing Al Gore's pioneering work in restricting music.

Judge Makes Divorcing Couple Swap Facebook Passwor

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this make what this judge did illegal now?

this *has* to be FUD

[ffflala]

In a statement obtained by CNET that's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues...

This interpretation is so obviously wrong, both in terms of common sense and as a textbook example that I suspect it's simply author Declan McCullagh trolling for outrage and click-throughs, perhaps unintentionally. Arguing that a violation of a private contract between two parties should be criminalized is simply not something a person who has passed any state bar --or a 1L criminal law course-- could make.

I'd like to see the "statement obtained by CNET", but of course it's nowhere to be found. All we have is McCaullagh's interpretation of it. I think... I hope... he's simply misreading the statement. It's convenient that they do not provide the source for which this article is entirely based upon.

my sig is on fire this week

[ganjadude]

what? people dont read the what??

this is already settled case law

[NynexNinja]

It has already been proven in many court cases that a "Terms of Service" page on a web site is not a contract, as are click-through agreements are also not legally binding contracts. Also, when web sites like Craigslist have in their Terms of Service that you must pay thousands of dollars per posting if you violate their terms of use, this too is also illegal and unenforceable.

Lets face it, public_html is PUBLIC H-T-M-L. If it is reachable from any computer without supplying a password to gain entry, then therefore it remains a public resource. Terms of Service does not apply.

The missing variable

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Setup website with one page.
2. Clearly display the Terms of Service and only the TOS on the site.
3. Edit TOS to read: By accessing this website, you agree to pay me $1,000,000.
4. Retire

Lol, that's a Freudian typo for you. ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

But luckily, you know what I meant anyway. :)

All I've got to say to that is...

[Anonymous Coward]

FuCk ThE FuCkInG FeDeRaL GoVeRnMeNt

We did not elect the lawyers who wrote the TOS

[mykos]

If they're going to be writing de facto law from their offices, someone better be voting on them. It's not the DOJ's job to enforce nonbinding pieces of paper with the threat of violence.

Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of law is limiting liability of the rich, not enforcing punishment of them. Examples: George W Bush (that law doesn't apply to me) and the banks, (Sell toxic debts to the taxpayer, get a performance bonus).

How to Stop This

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true, perhaps what we need now is a written clause that every webmaster can copy and paste into their Terms of Service. Have some lawyers draft it, then make it available at a website that protests this interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. (ie. ViolatingTosIsNotACrime.org).

The clause would explicitly prevent any for-profit corporation from accessing, storing, or using the website's content in any manner. Then every web search engine would be guilty of a 'crime' for violating these terms the next time they crawl the site (it's the law!). Next, get some lawyers involved and file criminal complaints and class-action lawsuits against every major search engine. I'm sure many other companies besides search engines could also be targeted with lawsuits, so find them and sue them as well.

If our government officials will listen to corporate America, but not to the people, then perhaps the people should be more creative about motivating corporate America to oppose unfavorable legislation.

So, botting on WoW

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

will get you behind bars.... wow.

So that's his jobs plan...

[ctrl-c_ctrl-x]

The incarcerated aren't counted as part of the workforce. Immediate improvement on the unemployment numbers! Also, explains how NYC becomes a penal colony that Snake has to escape from.

Most technologically-advanced Presidency?

[Anonymous Coward]

any act that violates a Web site's terms of service, while the White House is arguing for expanding the law even further

Didn't it feel good to vote for the guy with such a good understanding of modern technologies and related issues?

wrong approach to this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great--hold it up!

I think you're all taking the wrong approach here. You should pray this ruling is upheld. Take the XKCD comic about the wrong approach with crypto...

treat it as a munition and apply the second amendment. Turn this shit on its head.

If the government wants violation of the eula to be a criminal act...

Then...make a website.

Make a *GRAND* fucking EULA. Make the contract as legal as you possibly can...

In my contract I intend to add...

- I get to fuck your firstborn daughter
- in return for reading the website, you agree to grant me 10% of your gross annual income. In perpetuity.
- You waive all previous legal remedies you may have had against me
- You grant me a worldwide non-exclusive, unlimited license to all patents and copyrights you may own
- You agree that partial or total severance of any or all claims constitutes irreconcilable damages for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
- You agree that fighting any or all claims constitutes separate damages, each of which may only be remediated through your death by cyanide.
- In the event you are an individual acting as a an authorized representative of a corporation in breach, you agree that breach of terms may only be reconciled by immediately issuing a grant of options at the price of USD $0.01 / share for a quantity equal to 51% of the company
- In the event you are an individual fraudulently representingan authorized representative of a corporation in a breach, you agree to travel to Mexico for prompt harvest and auction of your kidneys, liver, lung and eyes.
- All use of this website without the user agent string in an encrypted partition in my safe deposit box is unauthorized.
- I may post-authorize access
- No post-authorized access shall be legitimate if offered for fiscal remuneration or required by court order.

I dunno, I'm sure an actual lawyer can work out a way to take this shit and royally fuck it up such that it destroys the entire damned system...

Hell... just make authorized access require a grant of power of attorney or something...

Twisted Logic?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This would criminalize teenagers using Google for violating its ToS, which says you can't use its services if 'you are not of legal age to form a binding contract,'"
So now it would be illegal for them to break a contract which they can not legally bind?

Punish the crime, not the tools

[mangu]

it would be idiotic to have a law on the books that made letting the parking meter run out on your car a CRIME, just so that if someone ever robs a bank down the road, and then parks there car at an expired meter... that they can be arrested and tossed in jail for that.

This is spot on. Unfortunately, both sides of the debate commit the same mistake. One often sees people in civil liberties organizations worried about surveillance cameras, for instance.

The problem should be illegal surveillance, not the cameras. The difference between a plainclothes police officer standing at a corner and a surveillance camera is how effective the watcher can be. If it's legal for the officer to watch a street no one should complain about a camera doing the same. A camera increases the effectiveness, but the same is true of binoculars or hand held cameras.

I think any such allegations about creating a special situation for automated surveillance weakens the arguments for civil liberties in computer use. A crime is a crime, no matter which tools are used. This should be true no matter who is accused of the crime, law enforcement or common citizen.

Re:Punish the crime, not the tools

[vux984]

The problem should be illegal surveillance, not the cameras. The difference between a plainclothes police officer standing at a corner and a surveillance camera is how effective the watcher can be. If it's legal for the officer to watch a street no one should complain about a camera doing the same. A camera increases the effectiveness, but the same is true of binoculars or hand held cameras.

Yes and no. Mostly no.

Saying, "Its the same thing, the camera is just more effective" is a red herring.

The public's tolerance for various activities is implicitly at various levels of effectiveness.

I tolerate the police wandering about, doing their job, and if they happen to see me going about my business, I'm perfectly fine with that.

A network of cameras at every intersection recording every movement I and everyone else makes is a FUNDAMENTALLY thing.

It is so much more effective that its an entirely new thing.

I disagree that those are the themes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least that those themes apply outside that book (substitute "the successful" or "Winners" for CEOs).

CEOs focus on the quaterly results, not the results of the actions taken.
CEOs avoid any and all blame (See CRIA assuming no blame for their piracy)
CEOs regularly fail to deliver on their promises (WinFS)
CEOs exit organisations that they drove into the tar pits (Nortel CEO leaving with a 6mil bonus after steering it to the dot com crash)
CEOs don't work their body except at golf and secretarial sex, so maybe this one does apply.

don't white house staffers update obama's FB page?

[inzy]

which is against the TOS of the great panopticon

i read it a while back on /. Iâ(TM)m sure

so, dear leader has already apparently already broken a law he's enacted

damn hypocrite

http://27bslash6.com

[wye43]

This website contains material for my amusement only. You are not granted permission to access the information on this site and if you choose to do so by viewing any of the articles either through this page or from an external link, you agree to waive all rights. This site may contain personal misinformation. Activities and vehicle modifications appearing or described on this site may be potentially dangerous. Unless the word sheep has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this disclaimer, it does not have any purpose and may be ignored.

The constitution is void, corporation now officially and directly write laws in US. Let's all laugh, and cry. And leave this joke of a country.

DIY laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Really??? So, if Slashdot adds a term in their TOS that you are not allowed to have a username that starts with a 'b' then you would be in violoation of their TOS and have just committed a crime... And you're OK with this?

In other words, privilege of law making is thus granted to just anyone.

Nope, it will apply on your first login

[Anonymous Coward]

It applies on your first login with an account name that begins with "b". That is when the crime took place.

And anyway, given that the US Government are taking McKitrick to court on breaking a law created AFTER the event, what makes you think that this will be any impediment even if you never logged in again?

Great possibilities for legislating from the web

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of all the stuff you could add to your own web site's terms of service and the feds would enforce for you:

-You must follow this specific sequences clicks on banner ads or the FBI will be automatically notified that you committed a crime of not clicking on the adds.
-If you view this website you need to adopt a pet cat for every 10 page views.
-To use this website you must provide your home and cell phone numbers which will be verified by a robot dialer and the FBI will be notified of your crime if the phones are not answered by you on the third ring.

If TOS is law, then I can invalidate gov't law

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like all the taxes I have to pay. I'll set up a web site that says "Anyone viewing this web site is required to not pay their taxes". So, they will have to obey, or go to jail. I'll even visit my own web site so that I also don't have to pay taxes anymore.

I think this could work... or at least be a lot of fun.

It's time...

[tchdab1]

...for me to declare myself a corporation and write up my Terms of Service. Perhaps someone with a law background can lead an open source project on this? Then we can have Justice Department representation for what might otherwise be civil torts against us.