Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ: Violating a Site's ToS Is a Crime

Posted by samzenpus on from the who'd-click-without-reading? dept.

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."

24 of 536 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by Nickodeimus · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by todrules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. What is going on down there? by iONiUM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What is going on down there? by gknoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Woo hoo! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Enough by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surely the next guy will be different!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. It's all about power by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:It's all about power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  6. New ToS clause by tdelaney · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    dont forget "prima nocta"

  8. Re:TOS, EULA by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:TOS, EULA by gknoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  10. Criminals, Felons, all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am now convinced that the only purpose for Government is to pass enough laws to make felons out of the entire population.

  11. Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  12. Re:TOS, EULA by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".