If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   New law could put teens in jail for visiting online news sites. At Fark, they're cool as long as they bring beer   (yro.slashdot.org) divider line 43
    More: Unlikely, New Laws, news sites, computer fraud, electronic publishing, House Judiciary Committee, Abuse Act, teens, Hearst Corporation  
•       •       •

3754 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Apr 2013 at 6:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-04 02:42:31 PM  
ARE YOUR TEENS POSTING TO FARK.COM? News at 11
 
2013-04-04 02:51:16 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-04 05:34:55 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-04 05:43:10 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-04 05:52:25 PM  
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?
 
2013-04-04 05:56:46 PM  
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?
 
2013-04-04 05:57:49 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 06:08:44 PM  
Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: This is how Obamao plans to fill his reeducation camps!
 
2013-04-04 06:13:01 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 06:14:56 PM  

flucto: 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.


Your all-caps rant is entirely appropriate.  Allow me to chime in:

THIS LAW ESSENTIALLY MAKES CORPORATIONS PART OF GOVERNMENT AND ALLOWS THEM TO DRAFT LAWS.  IT'S COMPLETELY farkING RIDICULOUS.

/Can I haz revolution now?
 
2013-04-04 06:15:08 PM  
so, they're trying to make the enforcement of contracts a criminal deal?  that is pretty farked up.  dnrtfa and don't really plan to
 
2013-04-04 06:21:45 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-04 06:21:56 PM  
Missing a bigger point: EMPLOYER'S TERMS OF USE also like law. Log into Facebook at work? See you in 20 years, felon!
 
2013-04-04 06:26:15 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 06:32:09 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 06:43:36 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 06:46:33 PM  
Sites have terms of service?????

/Ignorance of the terms of service as a defense is no excuse and 'sites have terms of service?'

//Geeeez. Whats next? Your employer using DPI on all employees outgoing private communications?

////GOP: Keeping people dumb for over 70 years.
 
2013-04-04 06:46:35 PM  

theusercomponent: Sounds like corporate policy becomes federal law.


Wait until you start seeing people in jail on work release for violating work rules that then get more jail time.
 
2013-04-04 06:47:48 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 06:49:18 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 06:49:42 PM  

BunkyBrewman: 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.


Tell that to my "minor in possession" citation.
 
2013-04-04 06:55:44 PM  
Age Gate! It's what's for...this EXACT thing!
 
2013-04-04 07:43:15 PM  

ArkAngel: 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.


Good point. These terms of use policies are in regard to the workstation you use for the most part. That still leaves plenty of room for email, as you mentioned, unauthorized browser use such as logging into Facebook, and Obama only knows what the penalty is for Free Cell/Solitaire. Minesweeper might be the death penalty.

wildcardjack: theusercomponent: Sounds like corporate policy becomes federal law.

Wait until you start seeing people in jail on work release for violating work rules that then get more jail time.


Brilliant! *twirls mustache*
 
2013-04-04 08:09:24 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-04 08:12:07 PM  
This is awful legislation- what constitutes "authorized access" is wholly undefined, other than some nebulous notion that "authorized access" is what the service provider thinks it should be, and anything else is not.

From a technological point of view, it's nearly impossible to take advantage of a web server. It is an extremely stupid machine, and will happily do whatever you want it to. If you program your web interface so that teenagers can access private data by changing URLs, the web server will happily do that for you. If you can't be arsed to get regular updates, your server will happily accept and run malicious code. If you fail to change the default administrative password, your computer will happily give anyone and their brother access. The owner of the computer can avoid all of these things easily, and this isn't even rocket science- a half-competent web programmer or sysadmin can easily avoid all these things. We should be prosecuting companies that are criminally negligent in the way they handle your personal information, rather than blaming a "hacker" when exploit the URL field in their web browser.

The definition of "unauthorized access" should start with unauthorized executable code (i.e. putting a virus on people's machines) and MAYBE we can branch out from there. Unless someone has legitimately put some foreign executable code on your system, it is doing EXACTLY what you told it to do, regardless of that is what you wanted it to do. Don't like it? Hire competent people.
 
2013-04-04 08:24:29 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-04 08:25:35 PM  
Jeffery clicked the link, and as expected was met with the site's legal disclaimer and user agreement. Clicking the legal scan button was an unconscious reflex. The pages of text scrolled by quickly as it was compared with his online ID. The volume of highlighted segments made him doubtful, and he had already approximated the score when the scanner's synopsis page popped open. Twenty three minor infractions. Below the list of applicable laws, was a red box that stated simply: "This site was deemed inappropriate for citizens of your legal standing. Continue?"
   Jeffery let out a heavy sigh. Twenty three infractions was a lot, Maybe even enough to attract attention from a internet legality firm. But it wouldn't lead to anything more than a misdemeanor anyway. Sullenly he clicked the red button, wishing that he had a false ID, Despite the fact that getting caught one of those wouldn't be a misdemeanor.
 
2013-04-04 09:46:59 PM  
It's a start.  But to really make the law effective they need to expand it to include lawns.
 
2013-04-04 09:53:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon:  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.


So it's wild-eyed scaremongering to point out that a law theoretically allows something, and we should just trust that while it "could be used that way," that they won't? Did I get that right?

In Maryland, when they passed the seatbelt law, they did so while saying that they would  never pull somebody over simply for not wearing a seatbelt. It would only be a secondary offense if they were otherwise breaking the law. As soon as the law was passed, that promise went out the window, and they started pulling people over for seat belts even when no other law was being broken. It's not scaremongering to point out that if the law makes something illegal, it will probably be enforced on somebody.
 
2013-04-04 11:03:25 PM  
I'd like to say I remember when Slashdot wasn't full of neo-libertarian douche-canoes with the singular ability to take any shiatty legislation and spin it into a Government Conspiracy To Control Our shiat, but I might be over-sentimentalizing it.  At some point it'll be right up there with WND for pearl-clutching and hushed outrage.

That being said, this is shiatty legislation from shiatty people who don't know shiat about the shiat they're legislating shiattily.
 
2013-04-04 11:04:50 PM  
They ought to just make a law that imposes a life sentence for doing something somebody else doesn't want you to do, and be done with it.
 
2013-04-05 12:38:51 AM  
I think I'm going to start a website called sarahpalinmichellemalkinnude.com.  It will have an 8-pt font terms of use page that will require them to send me $1million and never vote republican again.

Given that no one will comply I hope that our prisons will become packed with conservative scum.
 
2013-04-05 01:33:30 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-05 01:54:38 AM  

ArkAngel: 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.


Don't bother. Reverse concern troll is on a roll.
 
2013-04-05 02:21:14 AM  
trollbait opinon headlines aside, when we find informational headlines to be false, can we change them plzthx? it depends what kind of beer they bring.
 
2013-04-05 04:54:00 AM  

evilmousse: trollbait opinon headlines aside, when we find informational headlines to be false, can we change them plzthx? it depends what kind of beer they bring.


This. I've been on Fark since I was 17, and I've nearly always got Shiner.

/Let the beer snobbery begin!
 
2013-04-05 06:03:52 AM  

flucto: 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.


Government of, for and by corporations
 
2013-04-05 07:18:47 AM  

Car_Ramrod: 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


But you are if you use their social networking.

That sounds like "actual bad shiat" to me.

Gyrfalcon: 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.


A) I don't think this is a left right issue, but is an issue of pissing off peopel in charge and them having ammo to fark you over.  As far as them not being "maliscious" enough to do it, read up on Aaron Swartz

B) Is this a joke?  Since people in power can railroad you for little things giving them more power to railroad you is ok?  You really want to hang your hat on that?  Cause if so you just got yor "favorite" tag.
 
2013-04-05 08:32:34 AM  
Keep 'em stupid and docile. They GOP game plan.
 
2013-04-05 08:42:29 AM  
New law could put teens in jail for visiting online news sites.

What if they visit an online news aggregator that links to a second online news aggregator which links to an online news site?
 
2013-04-05 08:46:02 AM  

flucto: 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.


^ THIS.
 
2013-04-05 11:51:33 AM  
Remember this- The Governments goal is to make everyone a criminal so you have no rights by laws.
 
2013-04-05 02:34:45 PM  
Too bad this is all totally made up. There's no such provision in the proposed legislation.

Don't you all have basements to tidy up or something?
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report