Subby - feel free to look up the definition of "fraud."

Hope and Change indeed

bronyaur1: Subby - feel free to look up the definition of "fraud."

Thats why we have a civil court system.

bronyaur1: Subby - feel free to look up the definition of "fraud."

It has nothing to do with fraud at all. They want to criminalize violating the Terms of Service of any website. Go read the FARK Terms of Service and see how many ways you might be prosecuted if the government decides it doesn't like you!

hmm....on one hand, this is a pretty asinine idea. breaking a website's terms of service agreements shouldn't be a criminal offense. at worst it's a civil case.

But on the other hand I would dearly love to see some of our alt loving crap weasels here on fark outted and crushed by that authoritarian legal system they claim to love so much.

*sigh*

sad to say it, but I think I'd have to protect the rights of the crap weasels. I hate them all so very, very much...but the larger evil would be to allow the cops to run free online and throw anyone they wanted into a jail cell over lying on a facebook profile.

"The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," Richard Downing, the Justice Department's deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow."

If violating a website's terms of service can be made a criminal act, it would dramatically change our court system. Violations of contractual law have never been criminal unless is somehow violates separate criminal statues.

If violating terms of service is to be a criminal act, if you troll here on Fark you could be arrested. Don't give me any crap about that not being the intent of the action. The end result is that same and law enforcement has a very long record of using any statute within reach to prosecute a person they target. The Patriot Act was passed to protect us from terrorism. Yet nearly 90% of those arrested are for drug violations.

Just look at what happens to someone who doesn't stop fast enough for a policeman. The officer piles a mountain of moving violations on the suspect and the net sum of those violations often results in jail time (after he/she recovers from the beating). I know of a 22 year old kid who drove drunk and wrecked his girlfriend's car at 4 am. He now has 18 separate driving related charges against him. Are 18 charges necessary?

Allowing violations of contractual law to become criminal acts would be an extremely dangerous precedent.

Weaver95: But on the other hand I would dearly love to see some of our alt loving crap weasels here on fark outted and crushed by that authoritarian legal system they claim to love so much.

No. No you wouldn't. That's like when I say "JESUS CHRIST YOU SHOULD NEED A LICENSE TO BREED!!", I don't really mean it.

NFA: Allowing violations of contractual law to become criminal acts would be an extremely dangerous precedent.

it would be entirely consistent with the type of society we're becoming though. the law seems to be less about protecting the weak and more about beating down anyone who gets in the way.

you're right - this is a very dangerous precedent....but wait and see, someone will step forward and defend it. And they'll be serious too - they won't be trolling. they'll really think this is a great idea. it's incomprehensible to me that someone would be so willing to just give away their freedom but they'll line up and demand to be abused by the cops.

what_now: Weaver95: But on the other hand I would dearly love to see some of our alt loving crap weasels here on fark outted and crushed by that authoritarian legal system they claim to love so much.

No. No you wouldn't. That's like when I say "JESUS CHRIST YOU SHOULD NEED A LICENSE TO BREED!!", I don't really mean it.

no, I'd really like to see authoritarians crushed and destroyed by the laws they helped put into place. I just don't want to pay the price of admission for that particular show.

I guess I'll have to settle for encouraging our local authoritarians to just admit they're all closet BDSM freaks and go find themselves a dominatrix rather than going to the polls and voting for asinine laws the rest of us don't need or want.

Speaking of which, why isn't Holder on trial?

wee: Speaking of which, why isn't Holder on trial?

because socialism, that's why.

As has already been pointed out, the broad criminalization of what has for the past six or seven centuries been accepted to be a civil matter (violation of a private contract) would be an extremely radical change and create massive repercussions.

The DoJ must know that no high court in the country would ever interpret the statute this way. And furthermore, if the article is right they're basing their theory on the use of the term "exceeds authorized access." The problem with that is the statute very explicitly defines it:

" (6) the term "exceeds authorized access" means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; " statute here

Pretty clearly this means to hack into a computer, not to violate contractual provisions, which is why Lori Drew's conviction was overturned on appeal.

Rincewind53: As has already been pointed out, the broad criminalization of what has for the past six or seven centuries been accepted to be a civil matter (violation of a private contract) would be an extremely radical change and create massive repercussions..

I don't think people understand the implcations nor do they care. Look - if people really understood our insane patent laws or just what RIAA's plans for copyright law actually mean, they'd fight tooth and claw against those changes. But people don't do that...they in fact fight FOR the 'rights' of corporations to crush the weak.

Weaver95: because socialism, that's why.

I wasn't making it a political issue. Also, I'm not a republican or tea bagger, so save it. But I am a gun owner and firm believer in our second amendment rights, and so I really want to know why he hasn't been charged with one or more crimes.

wait, what???

does FB TOS require you to be honest when you make a page?
that is unpossible!!!

they would have to arrest every politician and artist with a FB page. they are all a bunch of liars.

God, I'm reading the decision in U.S. v. Drew, and it's making me want to yell at the judge for being completely unaware of modern language as relates to usage.

From the decision:
However, this Court concludes that an intentional breach of the MSTOS [MySpace Terms of Service] can potentially constitute accessing the MySpace computer/server without authorization and/or in excess of authorization under the statute.

There is nothing in the way that the undefined words "authorization" and "authorized" are used in the CFAA (or from the CFAA's legislative history) which indicates that Congress intended for them to have specialized meanings. As delineated in Webster's New World Dictionary at 92, to "authorize" ordinarily means "to give official approval to or permission for...."

Every single person who grew up using the internet or has been using it for a serious amount of time knows deep down that violating MySpace's terms of service is not "unauthorized access of a computer (MySpace's servers) to obtain information that the accesser is not entitled to access."

JVD: Anyone at the DOJ, or actually just anyone that supports that law needs to suck-start a Glock.

You can bet that every major video game publisher along with the RIAA and MPAA as well as every other company that has a TOS is just salivating over this.

Here is an example, you know how EA came out with their origin program and how it sends back every bit of information about your computer, well some people came up with a way to "sandbox" that program so it doesn't get your private information, The DOJ is effectively arguing that doing that should be a federal crime.

Hell I wouldn't' be surprised if visiting specific websites with noscript or addblocker is against the sites TOS, should that be a federal crime? Where does the insanity end?

FerneJohn: cman: Hope and Change indeed

bronyaur1: Subby - feel free to look up the definition of "fraud."

Thats why we have a civil court system.

Boy, you're dumb...

And you are a politically incorrect jerk.

How do you think those who are "dumb" would see their medical condition used in a blatant pejorative sense?

cman: FerneJohn: cman: Hope and Change indeed

bronyaur1: Subby - feel free to look up the definition of "fraud."

Thats why we have a civil court system.

Boy, you're dumb...

And you are a politically incorrect jerk.

How do you think those who are "dumb" would feel to see their medical condition used in a blatant pejorative sense?

Fixed that for my "dumb" self

wee: I wasn't making it a political issue. Also, I'm not a republican or tea bagger, so save it. But I am a gun owner and firm believer in our second amendment rights, and so I really want to know why he hasn't been charged with one or more crimes.

What should he be charged with?

Just to further add, the statute they want to prosecute under was originally written in 1984. 1984. Just let that settle in.

"Unauthorized access of a computer" so clearly was not intended to mean violation of a website's terms of service because The Worldwide Web had not been invented yet.

pervvywanker: I'm listed on Match.com as a black, female, one-legged Vietnam veteran with a spanish surname. Then... SURPRISE!

micro-penis?

In the spirit of full disclosure, I feel I need to make known that my name is not Mixolydian Master. It is not even close. After further consideration, I will delete this account and post under my legal first name, and alternate fark account name: Skinnyhead