The fact that the girl committed suicide is unfortunate, but it's her own choice, and her own fault. Intent is a large part of the law, and there's no way any kid would actually intend to make another kid kill herself.
There are a lot of sociopaths out there, many of them kids. And in this case we're talking about an adult who went through a lot of trouble to emotionally destroy a child, and ended the last communication with something along the lines of "we'd all be better off if you were dead." I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility that she was trying to push the girl into killing herself. Some people get irrational when they think they're "protecting" their children; look at Wanda Holloway, who tried to have her daughter's cheerleading rival's mother murdered (and possibly the daughter's rival as well).
What if the boy wasn't fake and really did decided to break off the online relationship, and she still killed herself. Would it be his responsibility? What if it was a real relation ship? A friendship? or maybe you just talked to the person that committed suicide so you're the one at fault now.
No, he wouldn't. It all goes to intent. If the boy really existed, and he decided to break up the relationship because he didn't like the girl, or heard some rumors about her, or was bored with her, he wouldn't be charged. If he, from the beginning (like the woman in the real situation), started a relationship specifically in order to harass and abuse her, he might be charged. It's like if you're allergic to peanuts. I might be charged if I know this and sneak some into your soup in order to harm you. I wouldn't be charged if I didn't know about it and snuck some into your soup because I thought you needed protein.
If you prosecute one person for the use of a pseudonym, you really need to prosecute everybody for the use of a pseudonym.
That makes no sense. To use your analogy, you and a lot of people here are arguing that if someone intentionally drives over and kills a bunch of pedestrians with their car, they shouldn't be punished under the law, because that would be punishing the act of driving a car.
That is, if you can show in court that millions of people are logging in to websites with fake names, but you're the only person to be prosecuted for that "crime", then can you get the case thrown out on the grounds that your constitutional rights are being violated?
I believe, but am not positive, that you'd have to show the selective prosecution was based on a prohibited reason--like age, sex, race, etc. Just because a law is rarely enforced doesn't mean it can't be.
Only if you want to take advantage of the services they're offering. If the price they ask (your personal information) is more than you're willing to pay, nobody will make you sign up.
Amen; there have been plenty of sites I've decided not to sign up for because I didn't like all the information they demanded.
Simply put, NO one but lawyers or lawyer wannabes reads the terms of service because the average man on the street can't understand it
I'm a lawyer, and I don't usually read the TOS. But I also don't sign up to web sites with fake names in order to emotionally abuse 13 year old girls. The best way to avoid committing a crime is to use a modicum of ethics and/or common sense.
All these posts denigrating the law and the justice system, based on something as inherently unreliable as a slashdot article summary. First of all, if anyone here thinks that under this law you could be indicted for just creating a pseudonym on an online forum, you really need to learn critical thinking skills. Hell, anonymity is constitutionally protected in many circumstances.
I've read the indictment, and that's not what it says. The relevant federal law requires that the unauthorized access to be done in furtherance of some tortious or criminal act. To extort money, to cause physical injury, to get government secrets, to damage the computer, etc. In this case, the defendant gained unauthorized access to myspace to intentionally inflict emotional harm on this girl. Now whether that qualifies as "physical injury," I don't know; they might have to show that the defendant intended the girl to physically hurt herself or sustain injury as a result of the abuse. But even if it gets thrown out, it is still close enough to justify bringing the charge in the first place. No, it is not a symbol of the horrible legal oppression everyone suffers here. I am not especially pro-prosecutory; in fact, I almost joined the public defender's office after law school, and I am very skeptical of prosecutors in general. But I'm also sick of the ridiculous overreaction everyone here has everytime anyone anywhere is charged with a crime.
If you have issues with the Wired article, post a comment on Wired taking them to task. The Slashdot summary does a decent enough job of "summarizing" the article. Palegray.net and Soulskill have nothing to be "ashamed" of.
It wasn't a Wired "article," it was a Wired blog. And just because Wired does something dumb doesn't mean Slashdot does too. It's the difference between journalism and hey-let's-give-our-friends-cushy-jobs-that-require-almost-no-work.
Wow, speaking as a lawyer that is definitely news to me. Outside certain time restrictions imposed by the FRCP, a judge has incredibly wide discretion to manage his calendar. I've seen court decisions dragged out for months, while others were decided within a day or two.
If he were smart the Judge would somehow trick Congress into standing outside of the purported power-stripping machine in his Fortress of Solitude, then when it started Congress would lose their power.
Slashdot could really use some editors or something to verify the headlines and story submissions actually match reality.
Nowhere does he state explicitly or implicitly that donating to a bona-fide charity (Red Cross, Red Crescent, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) is a 'scam'.
And nowhere did I claim that. I was simply pointing out that the rich do frequently use charity donations as a way to avoid income taxes. The problem is you assume "charitable giving" always means a straight donation of money. When the ultrarich give the structure they use is often very different from how you or I would give.
My thoughts exactly. Since I doubt you've ever been anywhere near a courtroom, and like most slashdotters developed your opinion of the law from unsubstantiated rumor, garbled third-hand accounts, and water cooler gossip, I don't really see why anyone should put credence in your viewpoints here.
What's funny (not ha ha), is MOST lawyers have that kind of success rate, because when they're losing, they know that, and settle, so they neither win nor lose, and it doesn't affect their success rate. I can't believe you didn't know that.
Ok, right there you admit that lawyers will know when they're losing, and they'll settle.
Then....right here you say:
Prior to entering court, chances of success are 50%.
Do you see how these are mutually exclusive positions? If they "know" they're losing, why not just take it to court so they can get that mythical 50-50 chance you think they have?
The simple fact of the matter is that
And, by the way, your comment that:
First of all, its not 'the right evidence' until its presented in court... prior to court there is no way to be sure if the evidence will even ever get to be presented, and if it doesn't get presented then its not affecting the outcome.
is ridiculous. The Rules of Evidence are pretty straightforward, and the lawyers know at the beginning whether 90% of the evidence will be admissible or not.
I've read the plaintiff's letter and to the lay-person it reads pretty reasonably. In effect, "We can't prove our case because the plaintiffs lied, hid evidence, and generally didn't cooperate to the extent required by law".
Well IAAL and the letter is not especially convincing. For one thing the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be blaming the defendant for acts by several third parties. Another thing is that a lot of the criticism uses generic weasel words, like "inconsistencies" and "deceptive and/or incomplete information," which lawyers tend to use when they don't have anything concrete to attack. The alleged inconsistencies aren't especially damning when you're talking about witnesses and parties describing events that took place a while ago. The case ID number makes me think it was filed in early '05, so I'd think that would be the earliest the discovery requests came, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to be uncertain as to who was at your house on certain exact dates several months ago.
As someone who doesn't really follow the free software movement, I think he should have focused on promoting the advantages of open-source, rather than bashing those that are free to license their software whichever way they choose.
Well that's the thing, Stallman isn't an open source advocate, he's a free software advocate.
Seriously, you would not believe how often accountants hear 'laypeople' talk about how much of a 'scam' charitable donations are for the rich. It is a popular meme that just will not die, mores the pity.
Yes, an extremely small 50% chance of losing. You may have a slightly better chance with a jury, but in a case involving a stolen laptop, you won't get a jury.
You obviously have very little experience in the court system. Some lawyers in civil court have a 90%+ success rate.
If you work in the field you'll know judges are tough... Unless you admit to yourself 'you never know,' regardless of evidence or strength of arguement, I don't see your career lasting too long.
You're missing the point; there's always some uncertainty, but an experienced lawyer with the right evidence is far more likely to win his or her case than lose. Your claim that it's basically a coin toss is just ridiculous, and you can ask any judge or lawyer.
I work in this field, trust me it's not random. There's always a chance you'll lose, but if you have the evidence and the law on your side it's an extremely small chance. And don't hire a lawyer who is too eager to stay out of court; chances are you won't be getting the best representation you can.
People always assume bringing a lawsuit against someone will be beneficial. Again, it costs significant money with zero guarantee of any reimbursment for court costs and lawyers fees, let alone recovering stolen property.
If the property is valuable enough, a lawyer is probably worth the price. If it isn't, you can always just bring suit yourself in small claims court or (depending on how your state court system is set up) county court (which in my state handles cases worth more than small claims court but less than $15,000). Small claims court and county courts don't always use formal evidentiary and procedural rules, and the judges are used to guiding parties through the lawsuit.
Flipping a coin is as good an indicator as anything of whether you'll win in court under any circumstances, no matter how strong you think your case is.
If you have the evidence on your side, and the defendant doesn't really have much of a defense, you're probably going to win. Chance doesn't have too much to do with it.
fail to see how the tenant could successfully sue the apartment building owner. What grounds? Sure he created a false sense of security *maybe* but he certainly didn't create an unsafe condition. It's no more unsafe than if the fake camera was not there.
Well the difference if the fake camera was not there is that the tenant would not have relied on it in that case. Anyway to show negligence you have to show a duty existed, the defendant breached that duty, the breach was a proximate (which doesn't mean only) cause of the injury, and the injury caused damage to the plaintiff. The law mandates that landlords take a reasonable effort to ensure the safety of their residents. In a high crime area, a fake camera might not be considered "reasonable," especially if a similar crime happened before and the fake camera didn't do anything to prevent it.
You can't just open up a building, advertise for tenants, and then assume your sole job is to collect the rent.
Why anyone would wish to pursue this before or instead of a (free or state funded) criminal prosecution I have no idea.
Because there are different remedies and a different burden of proof. In a state-funded criminal prosecution their main goal is to convict and punish the perpetrator, and they must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You might get your property back, after it's languished in the evidence locker for a year or two. If the property was destroyed or lost, however, the state's not going to reimburse you. In a civil case you can either get the property back or damages, whether or not the property still exists or not, and you only have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence.
Anyway it's not an either/or proposition, you are allowed to sue in civil court at the same time the defendant is being prosecuted in criminal court.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the girl committed suicide is unfortunate, but it's her own choice, and her own fault. Intent is a large part of the law, and there's no way any kid would actually intend to make another kid kill herself.
There are a lot of sociopaths out there, many of them kids. And in this case we're talking about an adult who went through a lot of trouble to emotionally destroy a child, and ended the last communication with something along the lines of "we'd all be better off if you were dead." I think it's entirely within the realm of possibility that she was trying to push the girl into killing herself. Some people get irrational when they think they're "protecting" their children; look at Wanda Holloway, who tried to have her daughter's cheerleading rival's mother murdered (and possibly the daughter's rival as well).
What if the boy wasn't fake and really did decided to break off the online relationship, and she still killed herself. Would it be his responsibility? What if it was a real relation ship? A friendship? or maybe you just talked to the person that committed suicide so you're the one at fault now.
No, he wouldn't. It all goes to intent. If the boy really existed, and he decided to break up the relationship because he didn't like the girl, or heard some rumors about her, or was bored with her, he wouldn't be charged. If he, from the beginning (like the woman in the real situation), started a relationship specifically in order to harass and abuse her, he might be charged. It's like if you're allergic to peanuts. I might be charged if I know this and sneak some into your soup in order to harm you. I wouldn't be charged if I didn't know about it and snuck some into your soup because I thought you needed protein.
If you prosecute one person for the use of a pseudonym, you really need to prosecute everybody for the use of a pseudonym.
That makes no sense. To use your analogy, you and a lot of people here are arguing that if someone intentionally drives over and kills a bunch of pedestrians with their car, they shouldn't be punished under the law, because that would be punishing the act of driving a car.
That is, if you can show in court that millions of people are logging in to websites with fake names, but you're the only person to be prosecuted for that "crime", then can you get the case thrown out on the grounds that your constitutional rights are being violated?
I believe, but am not positive, that you'd have to show the selective prosecution was based on a prohibited reason--like age, sex, race, etc. Just because a law is rarely enforced doesn't mean it can't be.
Only if you want to take advantage of the services they're offering. If the price they ask (your personal information) is more than you're willing to pay, nobody will make you sign up.
Amen; there have been plenty of sites I've decided not to sign up for because I didn't like all the information they demanded.
Simply put, NO one but lawyers or lawyer wannabes reads the terms of service because the average man on the street can't understand it
I'm a lawyer, and I don't usually read the TOS. But I also don't sign up to web sites with fake names in order to emotionally abuse 13 year old girls. The best way to avoid committing a crime is to use a modicum of ethics and/or common sense.
All these posts denigrating the law and the justice system, based on something as inherently unreliable as a slashdot article summary. First of all, if anyone here thinks that under this law you could be indicted for just creating a pseudonym on an online forum, you really need to learn critical thinking skills. Hell, anonymity is constitutionally protected in many circumstances.
I've read the indictment, and that's not what it says. The relevant federal law requires that the unauthorized access to be done in furtherance of some tortious or criminal act. To extort money, to cause physical injury, to get government secrets, to damage the computer, etc. In this case, the defendant gained unauthorized access to myspace to intentionally inflict emotional harm on this girl. Now whether that qualifies as "physical injury," I don't know; they might have to show that the defendant intended the girl to physically hurt herself or sustain injury as a result of the abuse. But even if it gets thrown out, it is still close enough to justify bringing the charge in the first place. No, it is not a symbol of the horrible legal oppression everyone suffers here. I am not especially pro-prosecutory; in fact, I almost joined the public defender's office after law school, and I am very skeptical of prosecutors in general. But I'm also sick of the ridiculous overreaction everyone here has everytime anyone anywhere is charged with a crime.
I always wanted to play Archon when I read about it in magazines when I was a kid (never have a C64). You have just cured me of that. Thanks.
Hey, don't be hating on Archon. GREAT game.
If you have issues with the Wired article, post a comment on Wired taking them to task. The Slashdot summary does a decent enough job of "summarizing" the article. Palegray.net and Soulskill have nothing to be "ashamed" of.
It wasn't a Wired "article," it was a Wired blog. And just because Wired does something dumb doesn't mean Slashdot does too. It's the difference between journalism and hey-let's-give-our-friends-cushy-jobs-that-require-almost-no-work.
1. Judges cannot arbitrarily re-arrange court dates.
Wow, speaking as a lawyer that is definitely news to me. Outside certain time restrictions imposed by the FRCP, a judge has incredibly wide discretion to manage his calendar. I've seen court decisions dragged out for months, while others were decided within a day or two.
If he were smart the Judge would somehow trick Congress into standing outside of the purported power-stripping machine in his Fortress of Solitude, then when it started Congress would lose their power.
Slashdot could really use some editors or something to verify the headlines and story submissions actually match reality.
Nowhere does he state explicitly or implicitly that donating to a bona-fide charity (Red Cross, Red Crescent, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) is a 'scam'.
And nowhere did I claim that. I was simply pointing out that the rich do frequently use charity donations as a way to avoid income taxes. The problem is you assume "charitable giving" always means a straight donation of money. When the ultrarich give the structure they use is often very different from how you or I would give.
Pure adolescent fiction.
My thoughts exactly. Since I doubt you've ever been anywhere near a courtroom, and like most slashdotters developed your opinion of the law from unsubstantiated rumor, garbled third-hand accounts, and water cooler gossip, I don't really see why anyone should put credence in your viewpoints here.
What's funny (not ha ha), is MOST lawyers have that kind of success rate, because when they're losing, they know that, and settle, so they neither win nor lose, and it doesn't affect their success rate. I can't believe you didn't know that.
Ok, right there you admit that lawyers will know when they're losing, and they'll settle.
Then....right here you say:
Prior to entering court, chances of success are 50%.
Do you see how these are mutually exclusive positions? If they "know" they're losing, why not just take it to court so they can get that mythical 50-50 chance you think they have?
The simple fact of the matter is that
And, by the way, your comment that:
First of all, its not 'the right evidence' until its presented in court... prior to court there is no way to be sure if the evidence will even ever get to be presented, and if it doesn't get presented then its not affecting the outcome.
is ridiculous. The Rules of Evidence are pretty straightforward, and the lawyers know at the beginning whether 90% of the evidence will be admissible or not.
Not really. I'm a professional; I have to deal with professionals. I'd rather deal with hippies.
I've read the plaintiff's letter and to the lay-person it reads pretty reasonably. In effect, "We can't prove our case because the plaintiffs lied, hid evidence, and generally didn't cooperate to the extent required by law".
Well IAAL and the letter is not especially convincing. For one thing the plaintiffs' lawyers seem to be blaming the defendant for acts by several third parties. Another thing is that a lot of the criticism uses generic weasel words, like "inconsistencies" and "deceptive and/or incomplete information," which lawyers tend to use when they don't have anything concrete to attack. The alleged inconsistencies aren't especially damning when you're talking about witnesses and parties describing events that took place a while ago. The case ID number makes me think it was filed in early '05, so I'd think that would be the earliest the discovery requests came, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to be uncertain as to who was at your house on certain exact dates several months ago.
Being militaristic about OSS is just not helping the cause, and just makes us OSS users look like hippies and activists, and not professionals.
What's wrong with hippies and activists? Are they somehow inferior to "professionals"?
As someone who doesn't really follow the free software movement, I think he should have focused on promoting the advantages of open-source, rather than bashing those that are free to license their software whichever way they choose.
Well that's the thing, Stallman isn't an open source advocate, he's a free software advocate.
Seriously, you would not believe how often accountants hear 'laypeople' talk about how much of a 'scam' charitable donations are for the rich. It is a popular meme that just will not die, mores the pity.
Funny, the head of the IRS disagrees with them.
Yes, an extremely small 50% chance of losing. You may have a slightly better chance with a jury, but in a case involving a stolen laptop, you won't get a jury.
You obviously have very little experience in the court system. Some lawyers in civil court have a 90%+ success rate.
If you work in the field you'll know judges are tough... Unless you admit to yourself 'you never know,' regardless of evidence or strength of arguement, I don't see your career lasting too long.
You're missing the point; there's always some uncertainty, but an experienced lawyer with the right evidence is far more likely to win his or her case than lose. Your claim that it's basically a coin toss is just ridiculous, and you can ask any judge or lawyer.
To be fair to RMS, he doesn't really personally attack the Foundation, but simply cites an LA Times story criticizing it. The LA Times story makes a convincing argument that the Foundation's investing in pollution-causing industries negates a lot of its good work, and uses as an example an African man who has been immunized by the Foundation against polio and measles, while his lungs are destroyed by a nearby oil plant whose owner the Foundation invests in.
I work in this field, trust me it's not random. There's always a chance you'll lose, but if you have the evidence and the law on your side it's an extremely small chance. And don't hire a lawyer who is too eager to stay out of court; chances are you won't be getting the best representation you can.
People always assume bringing a lawsuit against someone will be beneficial. Again, it costs significant money with zero guarantee of any reimbursment for court costs and lawyers fees, let alone recovering stolen property.
If the property is valuable enough, a lawyer is probably worth the price. If it isn't, you can always just bring suit yourself in small claims court or (depending on how your state court system is set up) county court (which in my state handles cases worth more than small claims court but less than $15,000). Small claims court and county courts don't always use formal evidentiary and procedural rules, and the judges are used to guiding parties through the lawsuit.
Flipping a coin is as good an indicator as anything of whether you'll win in court under any circumstances, no matter how strong you think your case is.
If you have the evidence on your side, and the defendant doesn't really have much of a defense, you're probably going to win. Chance doesn't have too much to do with it.
fail to see how the tenant could successfully sue the apartment building owner. What grounds? Sure he created a false sense of security *maybe* but he certainly didn't create an unsafe condition. It's no more unsafe than if the fake camera was not there.
Well the difference if the fake camera was not there is that the tenant would not have relied on it in that case. Anyway to show negligence you have to show a duty existed, the defendant breached that duty, the breach was a proximate (which doesn't mean only) cause of the injury, and the injury caused damage to the plaintiff. The law mandates that landlords take a reasonable effort to ensure the safety of their residents. In a high crime area, a fake camera might not be considered "reasonable," especially if a similar crime happened before and the fake camera didn't do anything to prevent it.
You can't just open up a building, advertise for tenants, and then assume your sole job is to collect the rent.
Why anyone would wish to pursue this before or instead of a (free or state funded) criminal prosecution I have no idea.
Because there are different remedies and a different burden of proof. In a state-funded criminal prosecution their main goal is to convict and punish the perpetrator, and they must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You might get your property back, after it's languished in the evidence locker for a year or two. If the property was destroyed or lost, however, the state's not going to reimburse you. In a civil case you can either get the property back or damages, whether or not the property still exists or not, and you only have to prove your case with a preponderance of the evidence.
Anyway it's not an either/or proposition, you are allowed to sue in civil court at the same time the defendant is being prosecuted in criminal court.
My state even created civil actions for the victims of a wide variety of crimes.