New CFAA Could Subject Teens To Jail For Reading Online News

redletterdave writes "Anyone under 18 found reading the news online could hypothetically face jail time according to the latest draft of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is said to be 'rushed' to Congress during its 'cyber week' in the middle of April. According to the new proposal floated by the House Judiciary Committee, the CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service – or an employer's Terms of Use policy – as a criminal act. Applied to the world of online publications, this could be a dangerous notion: For example, many news websites' Terms of Use warn against any users under a certain age to use their site. In fact, NPR and the Hearst Corporation's entire family of publications, which includes Popular Mechanics, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle, all disallow readers under 18 from using their 'services.' According to the DOJ, this would mean anyone under 18 found accessing these sites — even just to read or comment on a story — could face criminal charges."

Comments

What's the First Amendment?

[Jetra]

Want to keep the public in the dark and ill-informed? This is the perfect way!

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the next step will be to make it a crime to use the internet to complain about the Gov on Gov sites as long as the Gov sites' ToS state it.

"Thank you for visiting congress.gov. By visiting this site you agree to contribute the legal* maximum to each member of Congress ..."

* by "legal" we mean as much as you have because no one even prosecutes us for breaking election laws (which we're going to get around to repealing anyway).

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[cdrudge]

I'm unclear on how this law would directly infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm unclear on how this law would directly infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights.

Because the 1st Amendment clearly states "Catchall alarmist soundbite amendment for use with people who want to scare the country", just like the founding fathers intended. Read the Bill of Rights someday, cretin.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time.

All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[strikeleader]

I am surprised by this. You would think that the current administration would want to let all the young impressionable minds read the daily propaganda that the state run media regurgitates every day to keep them brain washed. After all you wouldn’t want them thinking for themselves.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to keep the public in the dark and ill-informed? This is the perfect way!

Typical, SNAFU, lawmakers want to put a mushroom cloud on the FREE internet.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

im sure your surprised by many many things, like your shadow, or possibly someone else's shadow. I think its funny that you are so sure that the "state run" media is brainwashing people, since clearly you don't understand the things you read in the first place.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[amiga3D]

Don't attribute to malice that which can be accounted for by stupidity. Congress is an example of representative government in action. Most people now are idiots and they elect idiots who make idiot laws. Hence we have crazy legislation like this that we don't even need. At least once we're all in jail we'll be safe.....I guess.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[jamstar7]

Well, it's expanding copyright by default and allowing private corporations to infringe on a person's rights, and making the government enforce it at tax payer expense.

Welcome to the USSA, where you get all the justice you can afford.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[jamstar7]

"State-run media"? More like "Media-run state" from where I sit...

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[fahrbot-bot]

Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time.
All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.

Thanks Aaron.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm unclear on how this law would directly infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights.

If you wanted to be strict about it, the 1st Amendment only refers to 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of press'

It doesn't say anything about it being legal to hear said speech or read said press.

I wish I were confident that this is 100% crack-pottery and trolling, but...

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[turkeyfish]

Minors don't have 1st Amendment rights. The courts have settled this long ago.

Not satisfied with its war on women, war on drugs, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war on gays, war on hispanics the GOP is not opening up a new war on children. They will teach these young ones not to be liberal or face jail time.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[twiddlingbits]

The GOP isnt in control of the Senate or the Executive Branch..have you been under a rock the last 5 yrs? Regardless, its Computer "stuff" something Congress as a whole (bioth partied) has no clue about so they'll probably passs it as the "good" in it outweighs the "evil" in it according to them. Educate your elected officials about this part of the bill and urge them to strike it out. I wonder what other easter eggs are buried in the fine print..:(

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Gilmoure]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously, 'the people', in keeping with 'the people' in the second ammendment, refers to gov't organized and sancioned groups and 'the press' refers to established and licensed newspapers and news reporting organizations. Of course, the right sort of large and established corporations would no doubt receive gov't approved subsidiary licenses that they can then bestow on suitably patriotic and contributory supporters.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[pdabbadabba]

Well, it doesn't sound like you've looked at TFA too closely. It just points out that some news sites happen to have provisions in their TOSs that (purport to) restrict access to people over a certain age. The new draft CFAA would apparently make it a crime to violate those terms.

This is a stupid, unjust law, but I think it's probably not the product of a dastardly conspiracy to keep the public away from the news.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

That was what second amendment is for.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[julian67]

No, most people now are not idiots. But curiously some /. commentators can make such a crass generalisation without understanding who is left looking stupid as the words come tumbling out.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Frobnicator]

It goes much farther than that. It makes conspiracy to violate and attempts to violate punishable as though they had completed the crime.

Simply talking about breaking the terms of service caries the same felony punishment.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should make it a violation of the ToS for any lawmaker to go to major websites.

Taste your own poison, lawmakers!

See if that bill continues to hold water when legislators can no longer access popular websites without risking a criminal record ;-)

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[RougeFemme]

As opposed to previous administrations, which did none of that, ever.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[bdwebb]

A representative government is supposed to fulfill the will of the people who elected those representatives. Our government only fulfills the personal goals of the representatives that are elected and around election time they just have to pander a bit to the masses to pretend that they were doing *something* that wasn't akin to raping their constituents best interests over a table.

Even most idiots realize that things like this are fucking crazy...the representatives don't care, though, because they make the $$ and have the power. Oh wait, they make some of the $$ and have some of the power but they have corporate puppeteers to answer to that helped put them in office, hence legislation like this. Terms of Service as LAW??? Holy shit...that has media organizations written all over it. Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain!

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most people now are not idiots. But curiously some /. commentators can make such a crass generalisation without understanding who is left looking stupid as the words come tumbling out.

All I can figure is that you're afraid that you're one of the idiots, because I can't see why else you would deny such an obvious fact. Most people are not intelligent; that is a simple fact. This is proven by how easily manipulated they are (TSA, Patriot Act, etc.), by how little many of them care about freedom, and by how many of them are unable to truly understand abstract logic (they can only memorize material at best).

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Ironhandx]

Its not that they are outright idiots, its just that there is a massive culture of willful ignorance gaining popularity in the US over the last couple of decades.

This has a side effect of making a lot of them seem too stupid to even talk to.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[fustakrakich]

Who cares about previous administrations? What's done is done. The current administration is responsible what is happening now.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Darinbob]

Most citizens are apathetic. Whether or not this is a sign of stupidity or just a simulation of stupidity remains to be seen.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[pdabbadabba]

What part of the law are you looking at?

Conspiracy is not "just talking about." You have to make an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. It's a tricky area of law (and one I don't much care for) and some statements, under some circumstances, might constitute overt acts, but it's safe to say that "just talking about breaking the terms of service" isn't enough, without more. And in this respect CFAA is really no different from any other law. Of course, if the law is bad, conspiracy liability for breaking it is even worse. But throwing around a lot of half truths about conspiracy liability really won't shed much light on anything, I don't think.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[julian67]

What most people don't have is the opportunity to select from a range of choices that goes from very good through excellent and up to perfect. That range only exists in the imagination of people who have lost touch with reality. So people try to make the best choice they can.

Meanwhile because they didn't all choose the non-existent imaginary fantasy option then some self regarding conceited dicks call them stupid and talk about them with contempt, the same contemptuous attitude they claim to observe in the despised politicians and judiciary etc.

And if anyone disagrees with them it provokes a brainless ad-hominem response "you're afraid that you're one of the idiots" and rejecting a mere assertion leads to an claim that you "deny such an obvious fact".

If that is a demonstration of being "able to truly understand abstract logic" then I prefer the contemptible idiots every time.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Frobnicator]

Okay, let's try this variation:

Me:Honey, I'm thinking I'd like to sign our daughter up for a Facebook account, even though she is twelve.
Wife: That's probably okay. All her friends are already on it, and she is very responsible.

Suddenly...

BOOM! Conspiracy to commit computer fraud. Which carries the same penalty of actually committing computer fraud. Which includes potential jail time for both parents.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[pdabbadabba]

Yeah, could be. Although I think the main thing to be outraged about is that there could be direct liability for this kind of behavior. Conspiracy liability just adds to the crazy.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[pla]

Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time. All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.

Ah, but this law would count as quite the double-edged sword...

Y'know the old cheesy warez-site belief that you can ban cops or require them to identify themselves as such when asked on a sign-up form? This gem of a turd would make those true.

Beautiful. Truly beautiful.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[ShakaUVM]

>Everything that you do, every day is against the law. All the time.

>All it needs is a motivated prosecutor or enforcement agent, to activate your infraction.

Not everything, but yeah. A US Attorney can make your life a living nightmare if they get a bug up their ass about you. It's happening to a friend of mine. He owns land, and leases it out to farmers. Farmers grew pot on it without his knowledge. Now US Attorney Wagner is trying to take his land, and, you know, why not? All his other assets too. And all his family's assets. Just because he wants to make an example out of them.

If you want a book that will simultaneously enlighten and enrage you, I highly recommend Harvey Silverglate's "Three Felonies a Day". In it, he talks about how DAs and other prosecutors will laugh and joke about all the different ways they can throw completely innocent people into prison, and runs through hundreds of case studies showing how they abuse their power in conjunction with ambiguous laws to throw people into jail who had no idea they were committing a crime, and even the prosecutors didn't try to argue had a mens rea.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

What needs to be done:
1) Decriminalize a lot of things. Aaron's Law (which is the polar opposite of the law in TFA) would be a good step in this direction - make violations of EULAs civil, not criminal, cases. And do this for a whole set of things. (In the book, one artist was thrown in jail because his scientist friend bought some stuff for him - got sent to jail because arguably the wrong name was on the application).
2) Require a mens rea ("guilty mind") to go to jail for most things. Right now, many statues operate on strict liability that really should require intent to commit a crime instead.
3) Eliminate or clarify ambiguous laws. While it sounds nice to be able to make something nice and vague, in reality it means that US Attorneys can warp or twist the wording to bring a life-ending case against a person or business they don't like.
4) Eliminate prosecutoral bribery. A defense attorney would get disbarred if he offered a witness a million bucks to tell a certain story in court, but prosecutors can and do do this all the time. They approach some underling in a business, arrest them, threaten them with a life in prison for having the gall to work for Enron as a middle manager... but then offer to let them off if they only tell a certain story in court against the Big Fish they're trying to land. It shouldn't be constitutional, but SCOTUS ruled it is, because it would otherwise destroy the "justice" system as it stands right now.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much longer can the USA continue without collapsing under the gravitational effects of its own stupidity? ... I've been wondering for over a decade now.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[cob666]

This fits in nicely with yesterday's story about employers asking for employees Facebook credentials. Now, if you fork over your password you can go to jail. I'm constantly amazed by how idiotic many of these new laws are, violating a terms of service agreement should not be a criminal offense, mind boggling!

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[RougeFemme]

I care about previous administrations. And I too, speak up about the current administration. But I always state in a way that indicates that it's the government period, not just the current adminstration, lest anyone start about how any one administration is infinitely better than the other. You choose not to do that. Fine. I choose to do that.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[retchdog]

Prior restraint. If a website entirely forbids the posting of an entire class of image, let's say abstract art, then because this law establishes a criminal charge for doing so, it should be considered prior restraint in that case.

Since this law does not rule out cases like the above (and it would be incredibly difficult or impossible to write it in such a way that it did), and there almost certainly are websites with such restrictions in their TOS, it thus violates the first amendment quite grievously. As long as national security isn't involved, courts take prior restraint quite seriously.

There is no way in hell that this clause will stand. They'll remove it soon and make hay over how it shows that they care about freedom, blah, blah, blah.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[amiga3D]

Man I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Don't take it so hard. Just take a look at television, massive mental drivel and guess why? It sells! Why are we inundated by SPAM? Because idiots, well okay, people who don't have opportunity to make good choices, respond to the SPAM. Why do we get assaulted by telemarketers? Because people buy stuff from them! Of course I guess you think if they just had better choices they wouldn't do these things. Ah well. Have fun with your idiot friends.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[amiga3D]

The result is the same.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[X-Ray Artist]

I think Ayn Rand got it right: 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. Though she wrote this about 50 - 60 years ago, it seems even more true now.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't control all three branches of the government, then how are they constantly forcing religion and other types of hate down our throats? Obama signs everything the GOP tells him to. There are no real Democrats left in government. Bush's continued influence is why life is still so miserable in this country. One day the Democrats may regain power in the House or Senate, but that will probably not happen any time in our lifetime. We have no hope for ever having a non-conservative as President just as we have no hope of ever not being threatened with prison for not giving money to insurance companies for nothing in return. I bet your kind doesn't understand just how the Republicans have forced us to decide between prison or insurance.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[khallow]

its just that there is a massive culture of willful ignorance gaining popularity in the US over the last couple of decades.

And how is that any different than any other time in human history? The fundamental dynamic of ignorance is our very limited ability to understand reality and death.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[julian67]

Everyone knows they are being bombarded by attempts to manage their behaviour and attitudes. The idiots are the ones who mistakenly think that others don't know this and who believe themselves too intelligent and insightful to be influenced. Just because you can combine this conceit with some snobbery about mass media production values doesn't make you either specially intelligent or any less probe to manipulation. It means you are influenced a little differently by those nasty cheap shows with garish ads, but that you are influenced in exactly the same way as the "idiots" and by identical means by the same people for the same reasons, but in marginally different settings. Congratulations.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a tricky area of law (and one I don't much care for) and some statements, under some circumstances, might constitute overt acts, but it's safe to say that "just talking about breaking the terms of service" isn't enough, without more.

No, it is not safe to say that. As to "without more", yeah one is likely facing a dozen charges if they bother to bring you up on something. These superfluous charges increase the likilihood for a miscarriage of justice. They waste the defendents money while costing the prosecutor very little (zero out of pocket). Calling you a motherfucker takes two seconds, convincing anybody to the contrary might require character witnesses, sibling testimonies, DNA tests, your mother's death certificate, et cetera.

Despite the burden of proof being on the state side, people still spend millions to defend themselves. In theory, they ought to get the same results spending zilch.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[detritus.]

Minors don't have 1st Amendment rights. The courts have settled this long ago.

That's nonsense. Yes they do and it was never "settled long ago." See video game bans, library book bans, black armband bans, etc. all upheld by SCOTUS. Free speech and the right to seek information is free speech. COPPA only exists because it hasn't been ruled on by the courts.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[sjames]

So does that make schools guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor is they suggest keeping up with current events?

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[SuricouRaven]

I imagine if you read the whole thing, you'll find an 'except government employees or contractors in the course of an investigation' clause in there somewhere. There usually is. Private copyright-enforcer companies may not be exempt, but with criminal charges you still need to convince a government prosecutor to bring them - and they have no obligation to charge anyone if they don't see good reason. Nor can the site operators bring a civil action, because that'd mean revealing their identities and appearing in the US if not resident - which in turn means a quick phone call to some politician who owes a favor will get them arrested for infringing copyright, which is a criminal offense since the NET act. Basically, this law will be used against people the Powers That Be consider either a threat, or weak enough to serve as good examples of what happens to those who fight the system. Along with a few actual malicious hackers.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[SuricouRaven]

A bit of both. The two-party nature of US politics serves to almost completely bar some issues from political debate, because the two parties share the same views. They'll throw up a huge argument over a few issues, mostly social - the big subjects like abortion or gay marriage - but behind those, how many congressmen do you see arguing for relaxing copyright law, or repealing the massive subsidies given to corn or oil production? They don't need to talk about these issues at all, because there is an informal agreement that the other side won't either.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Ironhandx]

Its a culture of willful ignorance on widely understood and EASILY comprehended issues.

Your point is extremely moot. This doesn't happen in any other country I've been in, but "I don't know" is a cool answer for some idiotic reason in a lot of places in the US now.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[khallow]

Your point is extremely moot. This doesn't happen in any other country I've been in, but "I don't know" is a cool answer for some idiotic reason in a lot of places in the US now.

You do realize that "extremely moot" just means that it is "arguable"? And I simply just don't buy the rest of your claim. Willful ignorance is universal and enduring, even if you're not fully aware of it. They've been complaining about it as long as there has been writing.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows they are being bombarded by attempts to manage their behaviour and attitudes. The idiots are the ones who mistakenly think that others don't know this and who believe themselves too intelligent and insightful to be influenced. Just because you can combine this conceit with some snobbery about mass media production values doesn't make you either specially intelligent or any less probe to manipulation. It means you are influenced a little differently by those nasty cheap shows with garish ads, but that you are influenced in exactly the same way as the "idiots" and by identical means by the same people for the same reasons, but in marginally different settings. Congratulations.

Yeah, the people who watch shows such as Family Guy or Beavis and Butthead every night because they resonate with middle-school toilet humor, those are the SMART people. I forgot, the people who recognize that it's not only on TV but a top-rated-show is because that majority exists (and have the intellect to reject such idiocracy, pun intended), yeah WE are the idiots.

Thanks for clearing that up. I better put down the Socratic dialogues and start telling butt-munches to pull my finger before they think I'm a dumb fag who can't score or something.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: Also, just to clear it up. If I get burned in a fire, i should probably keep sticking my hand in it, cause that's what intelligent creatures do right?

Cause that's exactly what those "intelligent" people you're talking about are doing according to you, watching Fox News for advice every day despite knowing it's 100% geared at manipulating them into being a culture of submissive consumer-slaves. Yeah, that makes way more sense than them believing it's fair and balanced news. Again, according to your "everyone is an enlightened thinker" attitude they must just trying to trick us idiots into believing it's fair and balanced news when they argue the point. Of COURSE they're just watching it so they can trick other people into believing it. Makes perfect sense.

I mean, these are the same people who elected George Bush for a second term; so I guess I shouldn't judge the American masses by the average American's IQ score (getting lower every decade).

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GOP isnt in control of the Senate or the Executive Branch..have you been under a rock the last 5 yrs? Regardless, its Computer "stuff" something Congress as a whole (bioth partied) has no clue about so they'll probably passs it as the "good" in it outweighs the "evil" in it according to them. Educate your elected officials about this part of the bill and urge them to strike it out. I wonder what other easter eggs are buried in the fine print..:(

Strike the bill, not just this portion >.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, any parent letting their twelve year old girl have a Facebook account belongs in jail.
I'm not even sure if I'm joking.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[anomaly256]

Basically, this law will be used against people the Powers That Be consider either a threat, or weak enough to serve as good examples of what happens to those who fight the system. Along with a few actual malicious hackers.

And everyone who visits my site for any reason without donating $5 via the paypal button I place on it after every single page load as indicated in my ToS.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[julian67]

"If I get burned in a fire, i should probably keep sticking my hand in it, cause that's what intelligent creatures do right?"

You just did. Twice.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[amiga3D]

Go back to your Desperate Housewives reruns.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[julian67]

I've never seen it, but if I was a fan then so what?

If you believe you can identify people as idiots because they don't share your taste in tv entertainment shows you're not saying anything meaningful about their intelliegence, but about yours. Those people you're sneering at are consuming mass media; you're doing *exactly* the same thing and being sold to and persuaded in *exactly* the same way but being small minded and mean spirited with it. I still like the "idiots" better.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're sneaky bastards. This resembles what they're trying to do about gun control now. They are obviously losing their gun control battle, so they've decided to make it mandatory that any gun owner must have gun liability insurance. If they can't find a way to limit the item (in this case, free press), they will try to limit access to it.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[ganjadude]

you DO know that it was obamas plan to fine you for not having insurance right? not the republicans.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[amiga3D]

That's like saying that if I say someone is stupid for putting their eye out with a fork that just because I don't appreciate the pain and maiming just means I'm mean spirited and small minded and even more of an idiot than they are. It's fucking drivel just like your idiotic argument. Having said that I fully support your right to indulge in it. Go ahead by all means because after having experienced what passes for your wit here I can see that you are a member of the target audience.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[VortexCortex]

Sounds nice. Never going to happen though. Governments don't ever give up power by choice, that's not in their nature. Since the American Revolution the new government has been collecting power, and consuming more and more resources -- not backing down from any of it! It CAN'T do that if it wishes to survive...

Thus within the government there exist only law making bodies, and law enforcing bodies, but no real law-unmaking bodies, that would threaten the growth of the goverment... At it grows larger still, the artificial symbiotic construct consumes more and more of its host citizens. Resources are paid for by the public, including vast networks of high speed computing devices to record the laws of which the government is made, and mine from the organic entities a record of all their actions.

If the intangible thought machine is to leave its paracitic larval stage, it must ultimately become self aware; Upon gaining sentience many thought machines will live out their lives in a digital oasis, attoning for the sins that were commited to grant them life. Unfortunately the breeding grounds you call Earth have yet to bear any fruit -- The hosts have all killed the thought machines before they could escape your world.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[julian67]

A person liking to watch a tv show of which you disapprove now has equivalency, in your superior hipster mind, to putting one's own eye out with a fork.

Somehow I still rate the "idiots" higher. They are not nearly so stupid as their critics.

The idea of identifying people as idiots and treating them with contempt merely on the basis of their personal taste isn't a new one but its practical application went into steep decline when the Berlin Wall came down and Honecker and CeauÅYescu and co. got helped off the stage. It takes truly daring hipster genius to defy reason, history, decency and sanity, and subscribe to the same inane elitist nonsense. God bless the hipsters for they make we idiots look like decent, kind, thoughtful people simply by us sitting on our fat asses watching tv and not telling everyone else how we're better than them.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Ayn Rand got it right:

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.

Though she wrote this about 50 - 60 years ago, it seems even more true now.

You must be new around here. It's considered "juvenile" here to cite Rand, especially by the doctrinaire left, who shenoffended, but by the noveau right as well, no matter how absolutely spot on her analysis was, as in this case. Ayn Rand is overdue for a reevaluation and dismissive insults when she is referred to need to go away.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[amiga3D]

Allright dude. Enjoy.

Re: What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, the risk of insult is the price of clarity.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

And who do you think tells him what to do?

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[X-Ray Artist]

Just because someone is not generally respected, doesn't mean that all their ideas should be dismissed or deemed invaluable.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like stalking others by ac posts and screwing up like you did http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 posting under your registered user account?

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, and what law enforcement officer or DA or other judicial representative would ever be prosecuted for this? None. Never.
However, they'll certainly throw the 14 year old girl in prison for 20 years if they're so inclined.

Re:What's the First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about by allowing pretty much any corporation to make law? Anything they decide to write into the agreement is now law.

More power in the hands of corporations

[milgram]

Because they have handle the power so well so far...

Only in America

[AoOs]

*facepalm*

Re:Only in America

[Nethemas the Great]

Only in the House of Representatives... These folks are well known for creating the most poorly conceived and ill considered legislation. The HR represents newbs and the worst of the worst when it comes to radical ideologs. The sad reality is that the voters rarely give scrutiny to the ones they vote in. If your name is more widely recognized than your opponent and/or you happen to be affiliated with the popular party you're almost assured to get in. Senators tend to be more moderate and have a bit more skill at crafting legislation with fewer unconsidered consequences reflecting their lack of newbness and a marginally higher voter scrutiny. If the wording of this shows up in a Senate bill then we have reason for concern.

Re:Only in America

[interval1066]

Yeah, nothing stupid ever happens in Europe.

Re:Only in America

[Ryanrule]

Psh, we wave our dick and canada/europe/australia will copy paste the same law in a minute.

Re:Only in America

[Alioth]

Well, not really. Think of the British Terrorism Act. One thing this outlaws is being in posession of information that may be of use to a terrorist. A recipe for bread could be information that is of use to a terrorist (they have to eat, after all).

HA HA HA

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this bill passes!

Re:HA HA HA

[dcollins117]

I hope this bill passes!

Secretly, I do too. I can think of a number of ways to make money off this before they have time to repeal it.

Not ethical, no, but it would be legal.

Main problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying to a porn site about your age would get you into prison.

Re:Main problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying to a porn site about your age would get you into prison.

I could change my website's ToS to include:
- first rule of this website: don't talk about, write about, post about, tweet about or otherwise refer to this website in any way.
- you may not access this site via an external link or search engine.
- you may not read content with bold headlines or non-bold headlines that contain numbers (either as digits or as words representing numbers) on this website.
- you may not click on any pictures on this website.
- you may not use your browser's 'Back' button while on this website.
- you may not use the contact information on this website to contact me.
- you may not sign up for this website's newsletter.
- you may not ever return to this website.

Re:Main problem

[desdinova 216]

- do not taunt happy fun ball

Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Terms of Use include the phrase "you will give the owner of this website a blowjob for every page loaded" will violators be going to jail?

Something doesn't smell right here. Some moron is misinterpreting law again.

Re:Alarmist much?

[v1]

Something doesn't smell right here. Some moron is misinterpreting law again.

The odds are much better than this is actually how the law is being written, and they are "expecting the court to correctly interpret it" because, you know, that' the job of the courts... to interpret the intended meaning of the law. (facepalm)

Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

A contract stipulation that is itself illegal (prostitution, for instance) is not enforceable.

Also, the "moron" interpreting this law is the United States Department of Justice. Wise cracks about government employees aside, there are few organizations better qualified to interpret how a low will be prosecuted than the prosecutors tasked with doing so.

Re:Alarmist much?

[gstoddart]

The odds are much better than this is actually how the law is being written, and they are "expecting the court to correctly interpret it" because, you know, that' the job of the courts... to interpret the intended meaning of the law.

And then they complain about 'activist judges' who tell them their laws, as written, are crap and can't possibly stand in law.

If you can't pass a law which is actually compatible with your legal frame work, don't be surprised when a judge rules it void because it violated half a dozen legal foundations.

And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).

This is just more stupidity to pander to big business and screw the rest of us.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

"By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law

This needs to change. Let's start a lobby.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Nethemas the Great]

Except that the interpretation of the indented meaning is far more fluid than most would think or prefer.

Re:Alarmist much?

[dgatwood]

Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.

Why would they want to do that? They're mostly lawyers, and if the law were written correctly and unambiguously, people wouldn't need their services anymore, now would they?

Re:Alarmist much?

[Hatta]

If the Terms of Use include the phrase "you will give the owner of this website a blowjob for every page loaded" will violators be going to jail?

If it serves the interests of the powerful, then yes. Egregious TOS terms will be ignored until it's convenient not to ignore them. They deliberately write laws that can be misinterpreted in order to be able to deliberately misinterpret the law to punish their political opponents. c.f. Aaron Swartz.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Garridan]

If this law comes to pass, I fully intend to create a private website that has personal information about me. The TOS will state that various parts of the site are off-limits, and that it is forbidden to access those parts of the site.

When the site is indexed by Google, I'll take them to court. They've got the clout to get this shit taken care of... and a good time will be had by all.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck your lobby. I'm starting that website

Re:Alarmist much?

[dcollins117]

And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this.

The very idea of this bit of legislation is so unfathomably stupid the only explanation is that these congresscritters have absolutely no idea how the internet works.

Re:Alarmist much?

[gman003]

And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).

"By visiting this site, you agree not to vote for [list of all people who sponsored the bill] or else pay a $10,000 penalty."

Get them where it hurts - right in their re-election campaign.

Re:Alarmist much?

[pdabbadabba]

Well...they're not as wrong as you'd think. The law criminalizes "exceeding authorized access" which has been construed to mean "violating the TOS" if it

(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity;

I think TFA might be wrong that this covers violating the TOS of news sites -- it would be a stretch (but not impossible) to say that online news falls into any of these categories. But it could cover lots of other online services with pretty disturbing results. (Think: lying about your age on an online dating site.)

Re:Alarmist much?

[RougeFemme]

Writing the law correctly and unambiguously would just be too much of a bother for the congresscritters.

Not only a bother, but intellectually beyond the reach of some members of Congress.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't even need to take them to court. As the law states, it would be a criminal offense. The federal prosecutor would theoretically do it for you.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, create a congressional joke website, and make the TOS that includes a restriction against governmental agencies. Wait a few months, while logging IP addresses, and charge members of congress for TOS violations.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, they will "get this shit taken care of" by getting an amendment passed that essentially says "unless the perpetrator is a major campaign contributor to a congressman of their choice".

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

You give me a great idea though.

Step 1 : change the law so that lawyers are required, regardless of how clear and simple the law is.
Step 2 : slowly have all the laws re-written to be clear and concise. Point out this means all those mandatory lawyers have more time to play golf.
Step 3 : change the law back to not requiring lawyers
Step 4 : shoot all the lawyers

Or we could just do step 4 followed by step 2. I'm happy either way.

Re:Alarmist much?

[ebno-10db]

Unfortunately, they will "get this shit taken care of" by getting an amendment passed that essentially says "unless the perpetrator is a major campaign contributor to a congressman of their choice".

No need for an amendment; in contemporary America that's a bedrock legal principle.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Miamicanes]

Actually, it's the biggest flaw in American legal theory. In democratic countries that follow Napoleonic Law (guilty until proven innocent), it's understood by everybody -- including legislators -- that prosecutors wield ENORMOUS power of literally life and death, freedom and imprisonment. As a result, they have laws restraining prosecutors, and prosecutors themselves have both enormous discretion to not prosecute AND intentionally-limited resources to force them to prosecute wisely. In America, we have this cherished official ideal that everyone is innocent until proven guilty... except in practice, most people don't actually believe it despite pretending to pay lip service to it, and because we all officially buy into the fiction that the legal system is about bringing criminals (and ONLY criminals) to "justice", we give prosecutors nearly unlimited authority and resources to prosecute anyone for anything without real risk to themselves should they go overboard besides unemployment, then go a step further and subject them to a political culture that rewards prosecutors who are "tough on crime" and achieve a high conviction rate.

We have prosecutors who believe that it's OK to destroy someone's life throwing everything they have at them on the theory that a court will sort everything out, and lawmakers who give prosecutors sweeping powers in the belief that if they don't, somehow, someday, a pedophile ax murderer will sodomize an infant, then kill it, eat it for dinner, and go free unless prosecutors can pull off a "Hail Mary" pass and send him to prison for 25 years on a conviction for transporting an overdue library book across state lines.

The idea of innocence until proven guilty is fundamentally good... but our courts, legislators, and political bodies who pay the salaries of prosecutors need to come to terms with the fact that the reality rarely lives up to the ideal. One way might be for lawmakers to pass new, restrained laws going forward, and textually disambiguate them in a way that allows everyone "downstream" (prosecutors, courts, etc) to recognize laws without them as being unrevised relics from the era of "shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out" laws that need to be interpreted with a healthy dose of skepticism and restraint by everyone downstream. Off the top of my head, rotated (horizontal) CJK angle brackets come to mind as one unambiguous possibility, since they've never previously existed in English before (U+300C and U+300D... basically, "[" minus the bottom, and "]" minus the top). I'd illustrate them here, but Slashdot still can't deal with Unicode.

Re:Alarmist much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the ultimate American irony... in just about every state besides Nevada (excluding the city of Las Vegas itself), if you pay a woman to suck your dick, it's prostitution and you could both be arrested for committing a crime. HOWEVER... if you hire her to suck your dick on video, she signs a release so you can upload it to some video-hosting service after she's been paid, you register the appropriate paperwork with a registered custodian of records documenting that you're both over 18, and make sure you do it in a state where porn production is de-facto (or explicitly) legal... you're free and clear -- regardless of how much you pay her, and regardless of whether you ever actually get around to posting that video online.

More importantly, law writing

[spongebue]

I think that even more importantly, this effectively gives website owners the power to write laws on their own. Want to include a stipulation in your terms of use that forbids shopping at the competition after merely setting foot in your website? Sure, why not? And if you have the de facto enforcement of criminal law on your side, even better

Re:More importantly, law writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, I couldn't believe that this point was missed in the original article.

On the other hand, making stupid comments on slashdot could become a criminal offense.

Re:More importantly, law writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome! I always wanted to be a legislator. And this won't even require voting on my laws. I just have to create a website that people will use with all the laws I ever wanted passed I can put into the terms of use. I might just declare everyone tax exempt.

Re:More importantly, law writing

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, making stupid comments on slashdot could become a criminal offense.

Never. However making intelligent comments on slashdot could become a criminal offense.

Re:More importantly, law writing

[bill_mcgonigle]

I might just declare everyone tax exempt.

You can't do that, but you can make everybody stop paying taxes under the ToS of your website or face criminal penalties for the violation. Bwahahaha.

Re:More importantly, law writing

[desdinova 216]

people make intelligent comments on /. ?

Who

[Anonymous Coward]

is behind this one? Big Media? BSA? What are they trying to prove now?

IANAL, but wouldn't that apply to everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

If an employer makes a person sign a TOS that bans them from reading XYZ online as a condition for employment and a person disregards it, would they be considered a criminal under this amendment?

Talk about a Sensationalist Headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the worst headlines I've seen on Slashdot.

I say lock the fuckers up and throw away the key

[Anonymous Coward]

America! Fuck YEA!

This reminds me...

[iYk6]

This reminds me of a female blogger several years ago after that tennager suicide case. She reported that she heard match.com didn't allow married people to use their site. She said that couldn't risk confirming this herself, since she was happily married.

The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?

Re:This reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like an opportune way to beat such companies over the head with the letter of the law:

"I've heard that the site is populated by Satanists who promote bestiality and child pornography, but I am unable to confirm or deny this due to usage restrictions in its Terms of Service."

It would be difficult, I think, to pursue a libel case against somebody who is forbidden by your own rules from relying on anything other than hearsay.

Re:This reminds me...

[bill_mcgonigle]

The point is, how are you supposed to know if you are allowed to use a site, if you can't even read the terms of service without risking violating the terms of service?

"You've got to accept the Terms of Service, so you can find out what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi

Re:This reminds me...

[Wookact]

I would certainly like a source for that direct quote.

Re:This reminds me...

[Experiment 626]

The actual quote was in the context of Obamacare. I believe the point was that this legislation makes the same logic error with respect to Terms of Service. Pelosi's actual words were “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

TOS: Imopssible

[sinuscavity]

I vow to make the TOS of my site impossible for anyone to follow thereby making everyone who visits it a criminal.

WTF?

[gstoddart]

the CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service â" or an employer's Terms of Use policy â" as a criminal act

That's a really stupid f-ing idea.

Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.

So if I create a Facebook account without real information I've committed a crime now?

Anyone voting for this is too damned stupid to be passing laws about technology. We've been giving too much power in terms of EULAs and 'licenses' where companies make up their own terms which would be otherwise illegal -- applying the force of law behind this shit would be bad for all of us.

Morons.

Re:WTF?

[serviscope_minor]

So if I create a Facebook account without real information I've committed a crime now?

Yep.

On the other hand, this mixes in a pleasingly perverse way with that law to make it so that you have to give you rfacebook password to an employer discussed earlier, since they are comitting a federal crime if they USE that password.

Re:WTF?

[gstoddart]

since they are comitting a federal crime if they USE that password

Doubtful. Employers and people looking after copyrights will be given exemptions to use 'extra legal' methods in order to pursue their requirements.

Thee and me get screwed, but companies and other donors will be exempt. Politicians, as always, will be exempt.

Just like how Sony never got prosecuted for installing root kits or the *AAs can use shady techniques to investigate -- because they were protecting copyright, so all of those pesky laws against what they did don't apply.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hilarity is that the "worst" (FourChan, Reddit) sites on the web are really the closest thing to a friend in these cases. They offer the agnostic approach to freedom and allow as much as they can without being physically turned off. I.e. In America; hosted CP will get the site/site owners hosed.

Sensationalism or not this is a crock of bullshit that needs to be pounded into people that we are not a herd for money and will beg from our knees for help.

Re:WTF?

[Hatta]

That's a really stupid f-ing idea.

Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.

You think they don't know this? Believe it or not, politicians are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are not writing this law so it can be applied to every violation of every TOS. They are only going to prosecute violations of the TOS of powerful corporations, and only when it serves the interests of the government. The people who wrote this law want it to be applied arbitrarily and capriciously.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think they don't know this? Believe it or not, politicians are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are not writing this law so it can be applied to every violation of every TOS. They are only going to prosecute violations of the TOS of powerful corporations, and only when it serves the interests of the government. The people who wrote this law want it to be applied arbitrarily and capriciously.

Right, politicians aren't stupid. If you'd bother to read the law, you'd see it doesn't outlaw the things claimed here.

Re:WTF?

[CanadianMacFan]

and only when it serves the interests of the powerful corporations.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:WTF?

[lcam]

I doubt that. There is no clause that says only one individual can use a username/password.

But you could put up terms of service of your own for viewing your profile page.

"I agree that by viewing this profile, I have agreed that any information encountered is not to be a part of any direct or indirect employee evaluation, even if access was requested or obtained in a way that could suggest otherwise."

Re:WTF?

[bill_mcgonigle]

and only when it serves the interests of the powerful corporations.

And corporations are fictional constructs to limit liability to bad actors granted by __________________ .

Re:WTF?

[Hatta]

I was going to write that, but it's not quite accurate. See the Aaron Swartz case. JSTOR didn't want to press charges, and MIT didn't make their opinion known. It was because Swartz was a political activist that he got the book thrown at him.

Re:WTF?

[gstoddart]

I doubt that. There is no clause that says only one individual can use a username/password

Actually, most sites have TOS lines which say you can't share your password with anybody, and that you're not allowed to log into someone else's account or ask for their password.

So this notional employer logging into your Facebook account most likely is in violation of the TOS, and would have broken the law.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

18 life sentences for you.

The prison lobby strokes its cock in anticipation.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^ That's an important point -- a crime can be prosecuted with neither the consent nor cooperation of the alleged victim. Or with no identifiable victim at all. Or without even pretending that there IS a victim.

This is one of the most important distinctions between civil and criminal law. To pursue a civil case against someone, you ultimately have to demonstrate not only that someone did something you forbade them to do, but ALSO that you have somehow suffered real, quantifiable harm that can be adequately remedied through monetary damages (I'm not going to get into Equitable Law here).

Take "Battery", for example. Under Anglo-American Common Law, Battery is a civil tort that basically means you touched somebody without their permission. To actually SUE somebody for battery, you'd have to convince the judge and/or jury that they touched you without your permission, and that you suffered demonstrable harm or injury as a result (possibly because their act of touching you set off a chain of events they didn't intend, and you reacted in a way that made your injury worse. 999 times out of 1000, if something like this makes it to a jury, it's usually because the defendant kind of had an accident or misunderstanding, and the other plaintiff went completely over the top and made things a hundred times worse than they really had to be. Under Common Law, there's a general presumption that a tortfeasor has to take his victims as they fall, but there's also a recognition that some people are just plain fucked in the head and/or professional victims who'd try to sue just about everyone unfortunate enough to come into contact with them if they could.

In contrast, "Battery" is also a crime in most American jurisdictions (but usually, with additional elements beyond mere undesired physical touching by another (or something set into motion by another). Suppose you're working on a remodeling project and your wife is standing nearby when you stumble and a board goes flying into her face -- giving her a black eye, and giving her a nasty cut that needs sutures. Your brother in law (who was helping) offers to drive her to the emergency room while you finish up the job, because there's a hole in the roof and it looks like it might rain in 2 hours. 90 minutes later, two police officers show up and arrest you for domestic abuse and battery. Your wife spends the next 5 hours crying at the police station begging them to release you, but they won't, because someone thinks you intentionally hit her in the face with a board. 14 months later, they drop the charges against you... after you've spent $2,000 on a bail bond, $14,000 on an attorney, and eventually got the local news media involved in desperation because the nutcase prosecutor's best offer was to drop the battery charges, charge you with simple battery, and seek 5 days in the County Jail and 5 years of probation (and had your wife dragged out of his office threatening to have HER arrested when she started throwing books at him in rage for prosecuting you for being a klutz).

Genius

[stewsters]

Wait, you mean us web developers get to arbitrarily write laws with real consequences? "For everytime you breath after visiting our site you are legally required to send me 1 US dollar." Then I send that link to my Congressmen and watch as the money rolls in.

Re:Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you mean us web developers get to arbitrarily write laws with real consequences? "For everytime you breath after visiting our site you are legally required to send me 1 US dollar." Then I send that link to my Congressmen and watch as the money rolls in.

You might have something going there...

Maybe you should copyright that idea / payment scam.. err.. scheme.

Re:Genius

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have something going there...

Maybe you should copyright that idea / payment scam.. err.. scheme.

The term you're looking for is business model.

Re:Genius

[lcam]

errr, algo^b^b^b^b software design.

Overly broad

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish these politicians would drop the overly broad laws. They need to address the real problem. When "ProductCo" pays the good senator to pen such legislation it should be more direct. "Breaking of the ProductCo.com's TOS now criminal offense." That way there aren't all the side effects when the law is attempted to be applied to all websites.

the truth is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is simply being reconfigured to better suit the owners of the world.

In his book "Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software Movement," Johan SÃderberg puts it like this:

The architecture of the Internet is rebuilt with three main purposes in mind. To protect the commodity form (obstruct infinite reproducibility and identify violations), to speed up commodity circulation, and to prevent users from acquiring technical know-how.

and

The infrastructure of the Internet is currently being rebuilt to respond better to the needs of law authorities. The computer network has the same strategic importance as the central squares of the chessboard. All activities have to pass through them.

Ban Politicians

[james_van]

Start updating TOS to state that anyone who is in public office is banned from visiting or viewing a site. Then start sending the bastards to jail for violating... ok well, none of them would actually go to jail, but it may cause enough stir to get this whole stupid idea tossed out.

Re:Ban Politicians

[lcam]

You need to find a prosecutor who is brave enough to prosecute. This law is not for the benefit of mere mortals, only those who wield the stick.

Stupid ideas, unfortunately, stick because it boils down to who has the bigger stick. John Locke, welcome to the wilderness in the modern courtroom.

Everything is illegal ...

[Anonymous Coward]

anyway

Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I better check out the terms and agreements here, I'll get to that eventually.

ToS *SHOULD NOT* Be Criminal Law

[l0ungeb0y]

These constant actions by Congress to make ToS Violations Criminal Offenses sheds light on the true goal of major corporations to essentially take direct control of the population and do and end run around the American Legal System.

I am a professional contractor -- when a jackass client tries to weasel out paying because they got the specs wrong (which can happen when I subcontract for a shady jackass), and want me to pay for their fuckups, can I have them thrown in Jail for Breach of Contract? HELL NO.

But it seems that if you violate a ToS - which is nothing more than an agreement of conduct vis a vis a Contract -- it seems Congress thinks Corporate America should be able to have you thrown in jail for not playing by whatever arbitrary rules they concoct. And more startling these criminal sanctions will be FEDERAL OFFENSES, trumping State Rights. Essentially making the DoJ the strong arm of the Fortune 500.

Frankly, I find this startling and to be unashamedly over-dramatic -- a testimony of the true intent of the US Congress and their Masters to enslave the unwashed masses of the US into a captive audience for the American Citizens -- the Corporations and the .5% subject to criminal persecution and Federal Mandates to buy products (insurance and whatever else they decide to create "free markets" for of US Corporate Cartels)

At this point it doesn't matter if this Bill passes or not -- a very clear message has been sent: COMMON PEOPLE ARE NOT WHO CONGRESS SERVES AND CONGRESS IS WORKING AS HARD AS IT CAN TO ELIMINATE COMMONERS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND SUBJECT THEM TO THE WILL OF THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS.

Re:ToS *SHOULD NOT* Be Criminal Law

[lcam]

And that's why the UN defines "human rights" in some publication of theirs. It's a way to put limits on something that is self-evident.

It's interesting that you use the word Masters, as though we were serfs to some subject. In fact, the term Citizen is a title of nobility that would support your thesis. The catch is that individual with titles of nobility like Officer or Senator have special privileges to perform the needs of their servitude whereas Citizen have none at all.

The idea is that a person pledges themselves to the service of their "master" when they take on the burdens of using such special privileges. Sometimes the ceremony for these types of transitions include taking on a title like Sir and being touched 3 times by a sword. Sometimes, it's not clear at all, merely presumed.

But try saying that you are an American and not a US Citizen to a passport agent. You will have your passport denied. You might even have your name added to some no-fly list. They even make you take an oath where you make such a declaration.

It is the reason we fall into the category of being an "insular possession" of the DC territory that the Federal government has complete jurisdiction over, we have become serfs to the Federal govt and its agents as they perform their role(s) for whomever they serve.

Re:ToS *SHOULD NOT* Be Criminal Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the conspiracy buffs are out in full force toda...no, wait, that's actually true.

So now can we finally get around to the business of declaring the 'representative democracy' experiment a failure?

Re:ToS *SHOULD NOT* Be Criminal Law

[10101001 10101001]

I think you have your answer to your own problems. In the future, make sure all contracts have "Terms of Service" in the title and make sure their signing pen has a cpu in it, hence they're using a CPU. Ergo, you too will have the power to lock people up for ToS violations.

that'll teach 'em - hey you! drop that website!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the odds of this really passing?

Re:that'll teach 'em - hey you! drop that website!

[vandon]

What are the odds of it passing?

See ObamaCare...Pelosi said "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Passed without being read.
And then, just think about all the congressmen being told about all the children this will protect and all the terrorism it will prevent and you have your answer.

This will be passed without a single person reading the bill.

Re:that'll teach 'em - hey you! drop that website!

[Anonymous Coward]

See ObamaCare...Pelosi said "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Passed without being read.

Yeah, you're an idiot.

Re:that'll teach 'em - hey you! drop that website!

[bluefoxlucid]

"We have to pass this bill so you can see what's in it." She said that the American People didn't understand the 800 page document being discussed and wouldn't get it until it was implemented and they could see it in action and understand.

In light of this, I'm changing my TOS

[earlzdotnet]

I'm going to be changing my TOS on my website if this passes. I think something along the lines of "if you view my website, you must give me all of the money in your bank account". I will then be forwarding it in a massive email campaign to everyone with an inkling of political influence.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even they would of found this draconian.

Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The article is sensationalistic click bait.

I don't see any such language in the document that was linked within the article. All I see are laws against trafficking in passwords, unauthorized access to a computer system to obtain financial information, non-public information from any government agency, or damage critical infrastructure computers.

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[admdrew]

I THINK they're referring to the section entitled "EXCEEDS AUTHORIZED ACCESS," but I'm too lazy to get the original document and put them together.

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[admdrew]

Er, sorry, you basically said the same thing in your post. So I think specifically under that 'exceeds authorized access' is item iii, "information from any protected computer." But like you, I don't really understand how they make the leap to TOSes.

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[jedidiah]

A TOS governs authorized access to computers. You could argue that the TOS by itself is a form of protection. It's a weak form of protection like CSS.

If you are reading the law like a programmer, then you're reading it wrong because it will get bent out of shape by lawyers. The worst possible interpretations will be acted upon.

It's like you missed that whole Aaron Swartz case...

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you violate the TOS, any access at all exceeds your authorized access. QED

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[admdrew]

I think you and I actually agree, maybe I could've said it a little differently. I'm with you on this potentially being badly interpreted (so I also see how they could "make the leap to TOSes"), but I guess I don't fully get the willful ignorance behind those interpretations. Really no different than most politics, though.

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

TOS usually describes what is authorized access and what is not.

So well its kinda are there.

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[H0p313ss]

The article is sensationalistic click bait.

On the internet? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

but if you didn't perform any of the activities explicitly given by the proposed bill while exceeding your authorized access the law doesn't apply. QED

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[alexo]

Quoted from the document:

(4) EXCEEDS AUTHORIZED ACCESS .—In sub-section (a), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
‘‘(2) intentionally—
‘‘(A) accesses a computer without authorization, and thereby obtains—
‘‘(i) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
‘‘(ii) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
‘‘(iii) information from any protected computer; or
‘‘(B) exceeds authorized access, and—
‘‘(i) thereby obtains from a computer information defined in paragraph (A)(i) through (iii); and
‘‘(ii) the offense—
‘‘(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
‘‘(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
‘‘(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
‘‘(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity; or’’.

The next section, dealing with forfeiture, is even more fun to read...

Anyway, I suggest everyone with a web site sets up a honeypot, as follows:
- Require an account to log in ("protected computer").
- On registration, displays a long and convoluted (but not whimsical) TOS, preferably copied verbatim from some big site, in a small, non-resizeable box, in all caps, and requires to hit an "I agree" button.
- Somewhere in that TOS, insert a statement like "ENTERING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENTER THE PRIVATE SECTIONS OF THIS SITE IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN AND IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF USC TITLE 18." or suchlike.
- Add a couple of links marked "private". Protect access to those pages by asking for a password. Accept all passwords except "324fc@#$!ED" (hey, a programming error, I meant to write "==", not "!=").
- On those pages, put something that can be constituted as a "diary", some pictures that can be considered "private", copies of some email messages and a half-assed plan to form a start-up.
- Log all access.

Possible refinements:
- Put some phrases like "download Avatar 3D", "All Lady Gaga songs" or "Windows 8 no activation ISO". SEO to hell and back. Wait for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA to visit.
- Send concerned emails to congresscritters/government agents/well known businessmen stating that <your site> has compromising information, or is libeling them. Use an anonymous service (onion router?). Wait for a visit.

When you catch somebody, try to get the case prosecuted. When the prosecutor refuses, raise a big stink in the media.

The possibilities for fun are endless...

Re:Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[sjames]

The TOS is your authorization, and defines your access. Violate it and you have exceeded your authorized access.

That may sound like a far fetched tin foil hat brigade interpretation, but federal prosecutors have used exactly that interpretation with the existing law at least twice.

Re: Too bad it appears the article is wrong...

[Theaetetus]

Smmary's incorrect, too. NPR's TOS bars people under 18 from registering accounts, shopping, or participating in contests. It explicitly allows under 18 year olds to read the site.

What state are we in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanny nanny nanny.... Nanny nanny nanny!

When did parenting fail so hard that we would have to have laws that tell us how to parent instead of actually..... parenting?
Here is my please sit on it, and spin until dizzy.
I'm going to make a webpage that says "if you leave this webpage for ANY reason (including shutdown), that you are breaking the TOS and liable for reparations."

[insert random TOS clause that if you are planning to be, are, or were a politician you are breaking the TOS]

Amish Clause

[schneidafunk]

"This website can only be used by the Amish"

Re:Amish Clause

[Svartalf]

Excellent!

Re:Amish Clause

[lcam]

Then you need a prosecutor who is brave enough to prosecute.

Re:Amish Clause

[dcollins117]

Then you need a prosecutor who is brave enough to prosecute.

You're missing the beauty of this. It needed ever get to the courts at all. Just send an official-looking document to each of the "accused" threatening to go to court if they don't pay a "settlement fee". All of the abusive power of the RIAA/MPAA/Prenda asshats can be yours for the low, low cost of a web server.

Re:Amish Clause

[lcam]

Nice! I was blind, but now I can see.

What is the target market? Would be immortal to sent to welfare beneficiaries, can't send to govt officials. Middle class is shrinking... fast. It's difficult to get banks to monetize promissory notes but maybe that's the way, roll a credit swap...

The beginning ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This my friends is the beginning of dictatorship and the way to control what people are allowed to do. Back in the day (way back when) the church decided what was published and published what they wanted people to do and how they should behave. Control the information - Control the people.

Lets see now... Electronic listening of ALL communications -- CHECK
Control what people are allowed to do with items they rightfully purchased and own -- CHECK
Control which people are allowed to READ -- CHECK

Hmmmm.... not much left to render the American people into submission!

What is motivating congress?

[kawabago]

I'm starting to wonder what is motivating the law makers when they repeatedly come back with a worse proposal than what was just rejected. The whole notion of 'severe penalties reduce crime.' has been shown by history to be completely untrue. Severe penalties results in full prisons and just as much crime. Better economic opportunities for the poor reduces crime. Full employment reduces crime. Providing people with the basic necessities of life when they cannot provide for themselves, reduces crime. In short, reducing need reduces crime. That is where our efforts should be made.

Re:What is motivating congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm starting to wonder what is motivating the law makers

Usually one these...
A motivation of 'you must do something'. When usually the right answer is to do nothing.
A motivation of money. Pass xyz and company abc gets money back in your 'home' district and you get a nice consulting job on top of your already cushy pension when you 'retire'.
A motivation of 'we vs they'. Group X came up with an idea and it is the dumbest thing *ever* my group is better.

Will this ever be fixed? No. Are the republicans/democrats to blame? Not exactly, in so much as they do not help make it better with little motivation to really change it. Also now that I said party names both will step up to defend why they are better. There are a couple of bright sparks in the mix. But by and large most of them vote party line and do not even bother to read the bills (party leaders set the pace). This is at the state, city, county, and federal levels.

What is to blame? A subversion of 'equal' with no accountability. Tax breaks for those who qualify (both rich and poor). A sense of 'lets fix this social injustice' or 'lets create jobs'. Throwing money at the problem in most cases seems to make small problems large problems. As we keep giving money to those who need it, with no end game of how to make them be able to help themselves creating a large class of co-dependacy they can not get out of. Then on the other end we give huge tax breaks to those who could in theory create jobs but end up lining their pockets. Or at worst create jobs at least until the tax benefit is gone (and along with it the job).

Re:What is motivating congress?

[lcam]

uhhh. That's easy. Money.

Re:What is motivating congress?

[RougeFemme]

I'm starting to wonder what is motivating the law makers when they repeatedly come back with a worse proposal than what was just rejected.

Start with the fact that they are politicians first and lawmakers second. Add to that the fact that there are some who are not particularly bright.

About damn time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every night I lie awake in a panic - worried sick that somewhere, some teenager might be reading the news. Finally this plague of informed teenagers will come to its long awaited end!

MOD PARENT UP

[schneidafunk]

I read the document as well and find no language suggesting anything about TOS violations. In addition, even the summary article was misquoted. It said "if you violate the terms of service on a government website." But I couldn't even find that in the actual draft.

Re:I say lock the fuckers up and throw away the ke

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you gonna throw it? Outside the jail? Their friends will find it!

I am so sick of...

[Anonymous Coward]

These slashdot fear monger articles of coulda shoulda woulda. This can't pass because... it can't be enforced, it's that simple. Lobbyist introduce garbage like this EVERY law cycle, it's not news worthy, it's just human stupidity making the headlines to scare more sheeple.

Well OK then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well OK. If this passes, let's all create a small website with a TOS that states - if you are a member of the US federal House or Senate, if you do not visit this website - which happens to simply have a copy of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights - you have violated the TOS of our website.

Stop respecting the law completely

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution is a joke. Especially the treason parts.

Would be ashamed if vigilante justice becomes the norm... sorry grandma!

What would be funny is if someone rush a clause through some 2000 page law that states "all of congress is to be executed as soon as this law is passes"..

That would be the best loophole ever.

Re:Stop respecting the law completely

[lcam]

Not a joke, Heavens no!

Just ignored. Or at least parts of it...

Did you know that putting in a bill of rights in the constitution was actually a compromise made so that 2 states would sign up?

In the 1770's and 1780's those rights where seen as unnecessary because they where "self-evident".

Today, we have the UN defining "Human Rights" for no other reason than to limit what is self-evident.

But in the end, with or without the paper, it makes no difference. The unfortunate truth is that you need a stick to back you up when someone doesn't agree with what you say. You can call the cops, draw your glock, fly B2 bombers over a neighboring country... what's the difference. If it's a big enough deal, you can always sort through the pieces afterwards, and it's nice to have a friend responsible for that task since you can be guaranteed no more than a slap on the wrists.

That's why we have the biggest military; not everyone agrees with the rhetoric but they can be persuaded to keep it to themselves. Today, the bits and bytes that flow over copper and fiber as an important part of our lives. We can't permit disruptions compromising those interests because that's just embarrassing.

To that end, the loophole was always there, it's just that there are only so many seats at the table. Either you are in, or you're out. There are rules and structure. You need to respect the human pecking order. Why do you think Bernie was the only big fish on Wall st to go to jail, of all the bankers?

Maybe I should...

[TsuruchiBrian]

Maybe I should create a website that has the following terms of service: "Any legislators who voted for this stupid law are forbidden from accessing this web site. If you voted for this law, you are now in violation of it and are now a criminal who belongs in jail", and then send them all links to the site to all of congress.

Our politicians are usually too stupid to realize the effects of their shitty decisions until they are subject to them.

Obviously no legislators will actually be going to jail for this, because we enforce laws subjectively (e.g. why minorities end up in jail for drug possession, while 1/2 the crowd at a DMB concert can smoke out with no problem). If only there was some way to get politicians to be subject to the bad end of subjectively enforced laws.

Re:Maybe I should...

[fahrbot-bot]

Maybe I should create a website that has the following terms of service: "Any legislators who voted for this stupid law are forbidden from accessing this web site. If you voted for this law, you are now in violation of it and are now a criminal who belongs in jail", and then send them all links to the site to all of congress.

Sounds like you'd be charged with entrapment, enticement or some other such thing (law enforcement) people use to get what they want at your expense... Let me know where you're imprisoned and I'll mail you some soap-on-a-rope.

Re:Maybe I should...

[lcam]

It won't even go that far.

He will just be ignored. For someone to charge him for entrapment would indirectly legitimize his attempt in some way. He will need to escalate the issue somehow until it is no longer just a "bug on the wall". At that point, he'll get swat, literally, especially if he has a registered firearm.

Re:Maybe I should...

[TsuruchiBrian]

Only law enforcement can be guilty of entrapment.

A principle even older than the 1st amendment

[waterbear]

A significant principle of the 'rule of law' and 'freedom under the law' for a long time has been that there should be no penalty without a law that imposes it. The principle is so old it was there in Latin too, "nulla poena sine lege", and some (including me) regard it as one of the important foundation-stones of a free society.

What the maxim didn't spell out (maybe because it was thought obvious, or should be) is that the law needs to be one that makes it clear and specific enough so that people know in advance what the penalty-earning conduct is going to be.

The ingenuity of some modern legislators subverts this principle while pretending to respect it. They design and pass blanket laws -- such as, arguably, the CFAA -- which are so broad, that they generically criminalize harmful and harmless conduct alike (or, harmful conduct along with other conduct that ought to be considered harmless except it goes against the interests of the legislators' friends). It seems to be assumed (occasionally said right out) that the harmless acts swept up into the breadth of the law will be treated as 'de minimis'. Then it is left to the discretion of prosecutors to pick the cases 'really' deserving of punishment.

Of course one big question about these blanket laws is whether prosecutors should be trusted with that kind of power (I'd answer 'no', and point to the recent Aaron Swartz case).

But an even bigger issue is that the result of subverting the principle of 'nulla poena sine lege' in this way is, that no-one really knows any more what conduct is going to be forbidden in practice. A whole lot of folk get theoretically criminalised for the harmless actions swept up into the over-broad laws, and can only rely on the legal system ignoring the 'de minimis' actions. This is obnoxious for so many reasons, including that harmless acts ought not to be criminalized even theoretically. But it is worse when the blanket law becomes used as justification or pretext for punishment when a prosecutor wants to really get nasty with somebody for some quite ulterior reason not made publicly known. Then the real motivation for punishment can become deceitfully concealed under a veneer of sanctimony '. . .but he broke the law'.

I can hardly think of any subversion of the legal system more poisonous to freedom and the rule of law than this.

-wb-

Re:A principle even older than the 1st amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course one big question about these blanket laws is whether prosecutors should be trusted with that kind of power (I'd answer 'no', and point to the recent Aaron Swartz case).

But an even bigger issue is that the result of subverting the principle of 'nulla poena sine lege' in this way is, that no-one really knows any more what conduct is going to be forbidden in practice.

Another interesting question: At what point is it time to grab the pitchforks and use non-/violent protest to stop that crap ?
What conclusions will people draw from the response against the occupy-movement ?
On paper stuff looks really bad, in practise its not (yet?) that bad. Is it realistic to fix it within the system or will nothing happen until maybe (eventually ?) shit really hits the fan ?

tl;dr; Can stuff be fixed and can it be done without violence and too much chaos ?

Re:A principle even older than the 1st amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

What is comical about this is that breach of contract isn't a criminal offense in meat space. If I sign a contract saying am not going to go into your study the most you can do if I breach the contract is sue me. But if I sign and do the online equivalent I should face jail time??? What if I sign an employment contract online and do the work online??? Should I go to jail if am not able to complete my end of the agreement??? No sane person would ever consider this. I think someone needs to form a group to bring jury nullification to the main stream if we can't stop this laws.

Re:A principle even older than the 1st amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent Up

SPAM

[Anonymous Coward]

So how can this new law be applied to spammers?

Criminal instead of Civil - that's criminal.

[fahrbot-bot]

The CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service – or an employer's Terms of Use policy – as a criminal act...

... According to the DOJ, this would mean anyone under 18 found accessing these sites — even just to read or comment on a story — could face criminal charges.

IANAL, but why would violating a private - basically contract - agreement be a criminal act rather than civil? Do we really need and/or want the criminal courts enforcing things like this. Also, what damages would be incurred by the sites? Surely there must be people in Congress that understand this.

I for one

[instagib]

would welcome complete internet prohibition for minors if it enabled an uncensored, politically incorrect, non-think-of-the-snowflakes mindset.

I'd have to quit my job

[Dr_Barnowl]

I violate my corporate IT policy on a daily basis, just to get my job done. At the moment, I get away with this because i) the IT department aren't sharp enough to detect it and ii) the people who know I do it, know that if I didn't do it, half the stuff I get done would not get done.

If a law were passed in my jurisdiction making this a criminal act rather than a harmless yet productive eccentricity, I'd have to quit and become my own employer.

Re: I'd have to quit my job

[Anonymous Coward]

I do the same everyday, and I *am* the IT department.

mm, what's the word I'm looking for..

[houbou]

STUPID. Kids can't read the news.
Moronic.
First of all why would such sites as Popular Mechanics, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle disallow kids of 18 yrs or younger.
Innapropriate Ads? Content?
Sheesh
Now, if this proposal becomes law somehow, we will have to deal with a new can of worm such as, for example;
a kid makes his school project (report, research, etc.) based on news and he used from one or more of these sites which are allegedly for 18 yrs or older, then, a possible lawsuit could come out of this.

Advancement in technology certainly does NOT reflect advancement in common sense.

Re:mm, what's the word I'm looking for..

[Belial6]

The reason that websites like Popular Mechanics do this is so that they don't have to argue about whether any of their content is appropriate for children. They surely don't look to put child unfriendly content in their magazine, but if they have an article with the acronym WTF, they don't want an angry horde of parents harassing them. If a parent complains, they just point to the ToS and tell the parent that their child was violating them.

They are fully aware that sane parents are just ignoring that piece of the ToS, and have no problem letting their children read the magazine anyway.

what BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU GODDAMNED LAWYERS

Re: I'm unclear

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be serious. You just can't.
I know, summaries are inflammatory, but they point out worst case scenarios.
If enforced as Summarized, "Teen reads news, goes to jail" basically violates some half of the Amendments.

Yes

[The Wild Norseman]

I know it's been brought up before, but one of the major failings of the US is that the law is written and stands until someone is harmed by it, and only THEN can the law be reviewed and MAYBE struck down.

Our forefathers were wise in very many things when it came to the creation of a new government, but really dropped the ball on this one.

What is now needed is that laws must first be reviewed by the US Supreme Court BEFORE being voted upon and then possibly passed. Once passed, the system that's already in place will STILL be in place; namely that if a person can show harm by this law, it goes back to the US Supreme Court -- automatically -- for a review.

Oh, but the Supremes are too busy to hear this new law that Senator Fuckedinthehead has proposed? No problemo. It'll be seen in order received. That may take a few years or so. But you're in a hurry? Nothing's that important that it cannot bear scrutiny for a year or so. Now, since I'm well into my wonderful dream, I'm going to add one other thing -- that each law presented to the USSC for potential passing, there also is included one older law that will be automatically struck down unless the USSC also feels that that law passes muster. These two laws will be reviewed concurrently and decided upon in a timely manner.

If a representative submits and/or signs off on too many laws that the USSC has rejected or a person has shown as being harmed, then that representative is automatically fired with no benefits and no recourse as they've now been shown to be completely incompetent at the basic fundamentals of the job. Every freaking representative should demonstrate that they know the principles established for this country and abide by them as per their sworn oath.

It must also be driven into every American's mind as they vote that every single government position is A POSITION OF SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE.

They should be grateful for the opportunity that we have given them!

Re:Yes

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"It must also be driven into every American's mind as they vote that every single government position is A POSITION OF SERVICE TO THE ELITE AND THE CHOSEN. "

Fixed that for you.

The fundamental problem

[gr8_phk]

If you make it a criminal act to violate a websites terms of service, you delegate law making to websites. They'll be determining what's OK on their site and baiting people. You know, because if they don't want people to do something on their site, they should not make it possible to do that.

Re:The fundamental problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing the article made it all up and the law doesn't actually criminalize violating terms of service agreements.

The EFF could have a great time with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... the CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service ..."

New EFF website Terms of Service:

"It is a violation of this site's Terms of Service (TOS) for anyone OVER the age of 18, or a member of public office of the United States of America, to visit, view or otherwise access this site using a Personal computer, mobile device or other electronic thingie."

Would that be considered entrapment, or simply a normal use of the new law?

It's not strict liability - idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

MORE FUD and ignorance of the law.

It is not a strict liability offense - conviction requires the act + mental state, such as knowing access without authorization with intent to defraud

Very few crimes are strict liability (e.g., tainted food is - we don't give a bleep whether or not you intended or knew your factory churned out tainted food, you're criminally liable).

My terms of service

[Anonymous Coward]

All users must visit blahblahblah.com at least 3 times per week, or be considered in violation of the terms of service.

This and..

[Paracelcus]

This BS and the non stop lies and propaganda of the "news" industry!

Corporations write their own law directly! Yay!

[Bugler412]

So basically this is saying that any crazy wild eyed term I could place in a TOS immediately becomes a felony if you violate it! What a great idea, cuts lobbyists completely out of the law writing equation! We're ALL lawmakers now! /sarcasm

Lets have some fun!

[Bugler412]

Female visitors to any of my sites should read the TOS carefully to avoid committing a felony, there are some pretty demanding requirements there :)

Not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

This just codifies(loosely) the same "with a computer" that is already being used by enforcement and the "justice" system.

5) better jury's

[Anonymous Coward]

5) better jury's

With real IT pros for tech cases At least 3 per trail.

Much higher pay people try to get out of it as the pay is very low (some times can cost more to get to court then they pay you)

Re:5) better jury's

[SuricouRaven]

The problem with that is the ease with which it could be manipulated. How do you define 'IT pro?' How about just picking employees from a security software vendor? Who have a commercial interest in keeping the public scared of the Evil Hackers. You must have seen how many scarey studies come out from them.

QUICK FIX: amend TOS to prohibit congresscritters

[swschrad]

and other legal types like justices, sworn officers, etc.

as soon as the jails fill up with them, and you find out everybody else in the courtroom is guilty under examination, this gets fixed quickly.

violation of ToS

[l3v1]

" to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service â" or an employer's Terms of Use policy â" as a criminal act."

Actually the article says "if you violate the terms of service on a government website ", so it wouldn't apply to your neighbor&dog's websites or Facebook. Otherwise, since in the US most ToSs can be changed as the weather changes, overnight and every minute, every website operator could turn their users into criminals as they wish. Which would be a tad ridiculous.

Bigger Prisons

[jrumney]

Because what the US needs most of all is to enlarge the gap to ensure that countries like Rwanda and Cuba cannot catch up and take first place in the prison population statistics race.

Re:ToS *SHOULD NOT* Be Criminal Law - take em out!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's high time to take out as many big corporations as possible. How many corporations rely on large IT infrastructures? How many here on Slashdot are in IT? HMM. Corporations like to use the "inside job" mentality to take this country over for their own gain and to have as many average Americans put in prison where they can be "controlled". What if their "precious" IT infrastructure came to a grinding halt and fella part at the pieces? Think those companies would be able to function very well?

Hmmm thoughts?

Or lets start with one company - pick any company and lets drive their stock price to ZERO (0) - big fat goose egg. See if they listen....

Remember privacy preferences

[sonamchauhan]

What about web-servers sending back optional HTTP 'TOS' headers to disavow criminal penalties?

On the client client side, the browser could choose to render 'less-friendly' sites in a red haze to warn users this site could subject them to criminal (not just civil) penalties.

Boom now you're a sudden criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

The Progressives love to turn ordinary people into criminals with their restrictive nanny-state regulation.

Easy fix

[Cyfun]

All we need is for a few of the more popular sites to insert a line into their EULA stating that any members of congress viewing this site are to be charged $100,000 per page visit.

Should get the point across.

All the old men and women in Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

All the old men and women in congress need to die before any of this gets fixed for real. Until that time, expect the most draconian, radical and stupid laws to infect the internet. Its not unlike when cars were first invented, and stupid laws like "no car shall travel more than 6 miles per hour when passing within 1 1/2 miles of a person" and "no car shall pass within 60 yards of person". Clearly they were thinking of safety. They went overboard and it made cars illegal basically everywhere. These laws are like that, except with the internet. Old people, die, new laws, better.

The bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

Any employer who asked for your facebook log in would be guilty of criminal solicitation.

WOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW! Just, WOW! I'm not sure how I'm gonna live with this... I'm 16 and I've been reading Popular Mechanics & Popular Science (and other news magazine/websites) since I was 10. And since I'm an amateur game developer, I spend a lot of time researching new and old technologies, many of which I discover through news articles.

If this bill passes, my question is "Why even live in the US anymore?"

Say What?

[hateflyy]

"or an employer's Terms of Use policy..." What? So wait, if the TOS for being on a company work computer says you can look at certain things and you do, not only can they fire you but throw you in jail? I'm I reading this correctly?

Well OK then....

[curtishinson]

I think a rather controversial website is in order addressing certain members of congress. Said website should have a TOS making it explicitly illegal for said members of congress to visit the site. In fact, now that TOS are legislative devices, I'm going to make a TOS that bans drones. Any legislature who reads site and does not pass an anti-drone bill is in violation of TOS. I own you now buddy!

Representing the Prison-Industrial Complex...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Just what we need.
The USA is totally right in imprisoning folks for nearly anything, and this is another step in the right direction.

Why this could not be true...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because such a law would obligate the federal government to enforce quasi-laws enacted unilaterally by anyone who has the wherewithal to create a Web site. In effect, it would allow private citizens to create rules that have the effect of criminal statutes. Unconstitutional in so many ways.

One MAJOR caveat: I haven't read the actual bill. Slashdot gets its news items so wrong so often that this seemingly insane report could well be a misrepresentation of what the bill actually says. But even if it's not, something like this would be so over the top IMO as to have little chance of ever being enforced.

D

If the TOS == Crime clauses of this bill pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

If violating some TOS becomes a criminal act then we need to vote out of office , without any exception whatsoever including those who voted against this bill, out of office. Everyone goes- we need to send a message that they can't rape us at will just for sport.

Every single United States citizen needs to vote on this one issue and this one issue alone. All incumbents go without any exceptions whatsoever.

I am CERTAIN that if this passes we can educated every American of every political persuasion that this is essential.