ARE YOUR TEENS POSTING TO FARK.COM? News at 11

Ummm.... NO.

Isn't the producer or the ones that distribute materials responsible for making sure minors don't visit those sites?

How many kids are arrested for buying cigarettes underage?  They're not.  It's the people selling it to them that are responsible.

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."

Well that's simply a blatant lie. According to NPR's Terms of Use:

You must be at least eighteen (18) years of age to register for or participate in the NPR Community or other social networking features of the NPR Services; submit any User Materials or personally-identifying information on or through the NPR Services; participate in any online contests; and/or place an order on the NPR Shop. If you are between the ages of 13 and 18, you may browse the NPR Services or register for email newsletters or other features of the NPR Services (excluding the NPR Community) with the consent of your parent(s) or guardian(s), so long as you do not submit any User Materials. If you are under 13 years of age, please do not send any information about yourself, including your name, address or email address. If we discover that we have collected any personally-identifying information from a child under the age of 13, we will remove that information from our database as soon as possible.

...

You represent and warrant that (a) if you Submit any User Materials or personally-identifying information on or through the NPR Services, you are at least 18 years of age

So no, you wouldn't be violating NPR's Terms of Use if you're under 18 and simply reading their website. I'm assuming the other sites have the same regulations just to protect themselves. Stop this alarmist bullshiat, it distracts people when actual bad shiat happens.

VIOLATING SOME CORPORATION'S TERMS OF SERVICE BECOMES A FARKING FELONY? WHAT THE FARKING HELL IS HAPPENING IN THIS FARKING COUNTRY? FARK THAT. SERIOUSLY, FARK IT RIGHT IN THE FARKING EAR. IT CAN NOT BE FARKING ALLOWED. FARK.

So my curiosity got the better of me, and I read the International Business Times article this linked to, and it says:

In fact, the Hearst Corporation's entire family of publications, which includes Popular Mechanics, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle, all include this language, written in all caps:

"YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE COVERED SITES OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT ACCESS AND/OR USE THE COVERED SITES."

None of those sites have that language. WTF are they talking about?

You can read these proposed alterations to the bill in its entirety here.

According to the new proposal floated by the House Judiciary Committee, the CFAA, which was originally passed in 1984 as a measure to thwart hacking, 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.

The bill doesn't contain the words "Terms of Service" or "Terms of Use". Seriously, WTF are they talking about?

Car_Ramrod: The bill doesn't contain the words "Terms of Service" or "Terms of Use". Seriously, WTF are they talking about?

How are we going to whip things into a proper frenzy with that kind of wet blanket thrown on the fire?

Car_Ramrod: You can read these proposed alterations to the bill in its entirety here.

According to the new proposal floated by the House Judiciary Committee, the CFAA, which was originally passed in 1984 as a measure to thwart hacking, 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.

The bill doesn't contain the words "Terms of Service" or "Terms of Use". Seriously, WTF are they talking about?

It's the section on "exceeding authorized access". Technically, lying on forms you fill out for most websites will violate their TOS and you are therefore exceeding authorized access. The odds of someone being prosecuted for such a thing are next to nothing, but the idea of it even being possible is scary.

ArkAngel: Car_Ramrod: You can read these proposed alterations to the bill in its entirety here.

According to the new proposal floated by the House Judiciary Committee, the CFAA, which was originally passed in 1984 as a measure to thwart hacking, 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.

The bill doesn't contain the words "Terms of Service" or "Terms of Use". Seriously, WTF are they talking about?

It's the section on "exceeding authorized access". Technically, lying on forms you fill out for most websites will violate their TOS and you are therefore exceeding authorized access. The odds of someone being prosecuted for such a thing are next to nothing, but the idea of it even being possible is scary.

I'm still not seeing that. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just can't read that from what I'm seeing. Maybe I'm missing it. I'm seeing that using someone else's password to access information you're not authorized to see is punishable, but that seems fairly acceptable. What part should I be reading specifically?

theusercomponent: Missing a bigger point: EMPLOYER'S TERMS OF USE also like law. Log into Facebook at work? See you in 20 years, felon!

Where in the bill does it say that? I'm genuinely interested, since I know the government can be really dumb about tech matters.

theusercomponent: Car_Ramrod: theusercomponent: Missing a bigger point: EMPLOYER'S TERMS OF USE also like law. Log into Facebook at work? See you in 20 years, felon!

Where in the bill does it say that? I'm genuinely interested, since I know the government can be really dumb about tech matters.

Well, I didn't read the actual bill, but the linked quote did say "treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service - or an employer's Terms of Use policy - as a criminal act."

Sounds like corporate policy becomes federal law. Too many bathroom breaks -> felony, show up late for work -> felony, etc. I hope the bill isn't worded like that.

It's not. At least from what I've read. That's why I'm confused. I think this is a lot of fear mongering without basis. Which I do not care for.

Car_Ramrod: ArkAngel: Car_Ramrod: You can read these proposed alterations to the bill in its entirety here.

According to the new proposal floated by the House Judiciary Committee, the CFAA, which was originally passed in 1984 as a measure to thwart hacking, 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.

The bill doesn't contain the words "Terms of Service" or "Terms of Use". Seriously, WTF are they talking about?

It's the section on "exceeding authorized access". Technically, lying on forms you fill out for most websites will violate their TOS and you are therefore exceeding authorized access. The odds of someone being prosecuted for such a thing are next to nothing, but the idea of it even being possible is scary.

I'm still not seeing that. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just can't read that from what I'm seeing. Maybe I'm missing it. I'm seeing that using someone else's password to access information you're not authorized to see is punishable, but that seems fairly acceptable. What part should I be reading specifically?

It's the part on "exceeding authorized access". It basically reads that if you use or access a computer in ways that aren't authorized by the owner (i.e. reading Fark at work if your work bans personal use), then you are guilty of violating the CFAA.

"intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section  [1] of title
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer

The case of  Andrew Auernheimer is a recent example. He discovered that AT&T was giving personal information out to iPad subscribers in a non-protected way, then wrote a script to access the information. He's the one who downloaded the 120,000 email addresses. He didn't hack any computer or break any passwords. He simply changed the numbers in the URL. It's the same basic vulnerability that let users see photos of non-friends on Facebook some years ago. It basically goes along the lines of the corporation saying "if you use our website in a way we say you can't, you're guilty of violating the CFAA". This would include things like giving false information, trolling, alt accounts, name calling (defined as "harassment in the XBox live TOS), even clearing cookies on your own computer to avoid the article limit many newspaper websites have.

The main problem people have with the law is the amount of arbitrariness behind it. A prosecutor might threaten charges to shut up a critic and be able to legitimately press charges for things that aren't in any law book. It would give individual people and companies the ability to define a crime. And given how few people read a website's TOS, most people would never even know they violated it. It's the whole idea that fascist societies have that everybody is guilty of something.

theusercomponent: Car_Ramrod: theusercomponent: Missing a bigger point: EMPLOYER'S TERMS OF USE also like law. Log into Facebook at work? See you in 20 years, felon!

Where in the bill does it say that? I'm genuinely interested, since I know the government can be really dumb about tech matters.

Well, I didn't read the actual bill, but the linked quote did say "treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service - or an employer's Terms of Use policy - as a criminal act."

Sounds like corporate policy becomes federal law. Too many bathroom breaks -> felony, show up late for work -> felony, etc. I hope the bill isn't worded like that.

It only involves use of a computer. If your company bans private communication on company time, an email would violate the law but a phone call would not.

ArkAngel: The main problem people have with the law is the amount of arbitrariness behind it. A prosecutor might threaten charges to shut up a critic and be able to legitimately press charges for things that aren't in any law book. It would give individual people and companies the ability to define a crime. And given how few people read a website's TOS, most people would never even know they violated it. It's the whole idea that fascist societies have that everybody is guilty of something.

In other words, teens can't be put in jail for reading an online news site, or commenting on it. This is the kind of wild-eyed scaremongering that goes on in leftist conspiracy theories: "Well, if they did this, then someone might do that, then someone else could do this, and then if this happened...." Yes, it's all theoretically possible, if everyone were as a) genuinely smart and malicious as some on the left believe those on the right are, and b) if there weren't already better and easier ways to railroad somebody into jail if they wanted to.

The main problem with the law in the real world is it attempts to fix a problem that doesn't really exist and can't really be cured by this type of law. It's evident that the law is trying to prevent Wikileak-style data dumping, and the kind of financial hacking that you mentioned in the part of your post I cut. It's not meant to exclude anyone from accessing Facebook at work or to put individual people in jail for either accidentally or even knowingly violating a TOS. That it could be used that way is not proof that anyone would do so, or even could successfully do so in court.

And I seriously doubt it's any corporate interests nudging their political lackeys and saying "Make our policy manuals law." Again, they're just not that smart or foresighted. This is someone trying to legally restrict the Internet again, like they have been every year since 1986, and it won't work, again, like it hasn't every year since 1987. The only interesting new take on this one is the response of "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" which is the first time I've seen it used to actually defend the Internet.

ArkAngel:

"intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section  [1] of title
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer

It sounds like they are aiming at people who hack into a computer or use access they have been given for a malicious purpose. But then the law says what it says, not what its supporters want it to say and as is the "unauthorized access" could be very broadly interpreted.

It doesn't matter who they 'mean' to attack or who they are 'aiming' at. Laws consist of words, and if the words allow massive abuse and overreach (which they clearly do in this case) then fark me if those things will not occur. It makes not a bit of difference what the law's drafters say they intend.