Slashdot Mirror
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."
Want to keep the public in the dark and ill-informed? This is the perfect way!
Because they have handle the power so well so far...
*facepalm*
- Witticism is an epitaph on the death of a feeling
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.
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
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?
I vow to make the TOS of my site impossible for anyone to follow thereby making everyone who visits it a criminal.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"This website can only be used by the Amish"
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
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.
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.
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.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
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.
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-
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.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
would welcome complete internet prohibition for minors if it enabled an uncensored, politically incorrect, non-think-of-the-snowflakes mindset.
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.
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.
"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.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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!
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
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.
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.
- do not taunt happy fun ball
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?
This BS and the non stop lies and propaganda of the "news" industry!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
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
Female visitors to any of my sites should read the TOS carefully to avoid committing a felony, there are some pretty demanding requirements there :)
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.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
" 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.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
"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?
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!