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

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: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: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

[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: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: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.

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: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?