Imagine Being Thrown in Prison For Using a Fake Name on the Internet

[Obama 2012 1,714]

intersting....

---------

http://stompmud.com/online-activities-could-land-you-in-prison/

(Wall Street Journal – September 14, 2011) —– Imagine that President Obama could order the arrest of anyone who broke a promise on the Internet. So you could be jailed for lying about your age or weight on an Internet dating site. Or you could be sent to federal prison if your boss told you to work but you used the company’s computer to check sports scores online. Imagine that Eric Holder’s Justice Department urged Congress to raise penalties for violations, making them felonies allowing three years in jail for each broken promise. Fanciful, right?

Think again. Congress is now poised to grant the Obama administration’s wishes in the name of “cybersecurity.”

The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that “exceeds authorized access” to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.

The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed “authorized access.” Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include “terms of use” violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.

Breaching an agreement or ignoring your boss might be bad. But should it be a federal crime just because it involves a computer? If interpreted this way, the law gives computer owners the power to criminalize any computer use they don’t like. Imagine the Democratic Party setting up a public website and announcing that no Republicans can visit. Every Republican who checked out the site could be a criminal for exceeding authorized access.

If that sounds far-fetched, consider a few recent cases. In 2009, the Justice Department prosecuted a woman for violating the “terms of service” of the social networking site MySpace.com. The woman had been part of a group that set up a MySpace profile using a fake picture. The feds charged her with conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Prosecutors say the woman exceeded authorized access because MySpace required all profile information to be truthful. But people routinely misstate the truth in online profiles, about everything from their age to their name. What happens when each instance is a felony?

In 2010, the Justice Department charged a defendant with unauthorized access for using a computer to buy tickets from Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster’s website lets anyone visit. But its “terms of use” only permitted non-automated purchases, and the defendant used a computer script to make the purchases.

In another case, Justice has charged a defendant with violating workplace policies that limited use to legitimate company business. Prosecutors claimed that using the company’s computers for other reasons exceeded authorized access. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed.

The law even goes beyond criminal law. It allows civil suits filed by private parties. As a result, federal courts have been flooded with silly disputes. In one recent case, an employer sued a former employee for excessive Internet usage from work. The alleged offense: visiting Facebook and sending personal emails. In another case, a company posted “terms of use” on its website declaring that no competitors could visit—and then promptly sued a competitor that did.

Remarkably, the law doesn’t even require devices to be connected to the Internet. Since 2008, it applies to pretty much everything with a microchip. So if you’re visiting a friend and you use his coffeemaker without permission, watch out: You may have committed a federal crime.

Until now, the critical limit on the government’s power has been that federal prosecutors rarely charge misdemeanors. They prefer to bring more serious felony charges. That’s why the administration’s proposal is so dangerous. If exceeding authorized access becomes a felony, prosecutors will become eager to charge it. Abuses are inevitable.

Real threats to cybersecurity must be prosecuted. Penalties should be stiff. But Congress must narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act before enhancing its penalties. There’s no reason to make breaching a promise a federal case, and certainly not a felony crime.

Mr. Kerr, a former federal prosecutor, is professor of law at George Washington University School of Law.

[mawilson 2,133]

What happens when each instance is a felony?

All Americans (with very few exceptions) become felons.

[NoneYa 73]

Funny how my ex wife told me so many BIG untruths and legally stole so much money from me but she goes free. Life is not fair is it ? She should be in prison for how she treated me. Hey, but I am good ! She is still her and miserable. I knew I should have had her use a computer to talk to me !

Edited September 19, 2011 by DaleFlorida

[luckytxn 2,264]

It would suck if they showed up at the door with a scale and told whoever answered to step on it and get weighed. If a few pounds more than stated on a profile they will arrest you and send you to prison.

Look the Feds want to control the populace. They will make laws to do so. The more people they can control the more power they have over them.

[Captain Oates 911]

A more useful measure would be to extradite West African scammers to the USA or to use drones to destroy their homes - any home where scamming was coming from

[slim 1,525]

This is what we get when we let the government control all aspects of our lives.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

intersting....

---------

http://stompmud.com/online-activities-could-land-you-in-prison/

(Wall Street Journal – September 14, 2011) —– Imagine that President Obama could order the arrest of anyone who broke a promise on the Internet. So you could be jailed for lying about your age or weight on an Internet dating site. Or you could be sent to federal prison if your boss told you to work but you used the company’s computer to check sports scores online. Imagine that Eric Holder’s Justice Department urged Congress to raise penalties for violations, making them felonies allowing three years in jail for each broken promise. Fanciful, right?

Think again. Congress is now poised to grant the Obama administration’s wishes in the name of “cybersecurity.”

The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that “exceeds authorized access” to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.

The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed “authorized access.” Courts are still struggling to interpret this language. But the Justice Department believes that it applies incredibly broadly to include “terms of use” violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.

Breaching an agreement or ignoring your boss might be bad. But should it be a federal crime just because it involves a computer? If interpreted this way, the law gives computer owners the power to criminalize any computer use they don’t like. Imagine the Democratic Party setting up a public website and announcing that no Republicans can visit. Every Republican who checked out the site could be a criminal for exceeding authorized access.

If that sounds far-fetched, consider a few recent cases. In 2009, the Justice Department prosecuted a woman for violating the “terms of service” of the social networking site MySpace.com. The woman had been part of a group that set up a MySpace profile using a fake picture. The feds charged her with conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Prosecutors say the woman exceeded authorized access because MySpace required all profile information to be truthful. But people routinely misstate the truth in online profiles, about everything from their age to their name. What happens when each instance is a felony?

In 2010, the Justice Department charged a defendant with unauthorized access for using a computer to buy tickets from Ticketmaster. Ticketmaster’s website lets anyone visit. But its “terms of use” only permitted non-automated purchases, and the defendant used a computer script to make the purchases.

In another case, Justice has charged a defendant with violating workplace policies that limited use to legitimate company business. Prosecutors claimed that using the company’s computers for other reasons exceeded authorized access. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed.

The law even goes beyond criminal law. It allows civil suits filed by private parties. As a result, federal courts have been flooded with silly disputes. In one recent case, an employer sued a former employee for excessive Internet usage from work. The alleged offense: visiting Facebook and sending personal emails. In another case, a company posted “terms of use” on its website declaring that no competitors could visit—and then promptly sued a competitor that did.

Remarkably, the law doesn’t even require devices to be connected to the Internet. Since 2008, it applies to pretty much everything with a microchip. So if you’re visiting a friend and you use his coffeemaker without permission, watch out: You may have committed a federal crime.

Until now, the critical limit on the government’s power has been that federal prosecutors rarely charge misdemeanors. They prefer to bring more serious felony charges. That’s why the administration’s proposal is so dangerous. If exceeding authorized access becomes a felony, prosecutors will become eager to charge it. Abuses are inevitable.

Real threats to cybersecurity must be prosecuted. Penalties should be stiff. But Congress must narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act before enhancing its penalties. There’s no reason to make breaching a promise a federal case, and certainly not a felony crime.

Mr. Kerr, a former federal prosecutor, is professor of law at George Washington University School of Law.

I swear I read an article recently that mentioned hacking has been decriminalized...I'll have a look.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I swear I read an article recently that mentioned hacking has been decriminalized...I'll have a look.

Eh found it. nm There is this amendment however -

http://judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/JEN11A19-Grassley-Franken.pdf

[Captain Oates 911]

It would suck if they showed up at the door with a scale and told whoever answered to step on it and get weighed. If a few pounds more than stated on a profile they will arrest you and send you to prison.

Look the Feds want to control the populace. They will make laws to do so. The more people they can control the more power they have over them.

I would go for that - but with a slight amendment - they should undergo compulsory liposuction and the fat could be used in power stations - no more nuclear stations would be needed and existing ones could be closed

Obese Americans could contribute 10 trillion tons of highly usable fuel and the best part is they could give it all again the following year - that's what I call a sustainable energy source

It is also estimated the vehicle gas mileage would increase by 15% simply by hauling lighter passengers

There is an offset in that Cialis sales would drop if spouses of a certain gender became more attractive

[SuperDuper! 230]

[TBoneTX 45,284]

It would suck if they showed up at the door with a scale and told whoever answered to step on it and get weighed. If a few pounds more than stated on a profile they will arrest you and send you to prison.

This should actually be done to 99.44% of all the American women whom I decided to date off singles' websites in the Bad Old Days pre-Mrs. T-B. A head-shot-only (or no photo), and defensiveness or evasiveness during inquiry about personal appearance, was a dead giveaway, sigh man. They would also lie about their age and their need for makeup, gag man.

[slim 1,525]

This should actually be done to 99.44% of all the American women whom I decided to date off singles' websites in the Bad Old Days pre-Mrs. T-B. A head-shot-only (or no photo), and defensiveness or evasiveness during inquiry about personal appearance, was a dead giveaway, sigh man. They would also lie about their age and their need for makeup, gag man.

At risk of stirring this up and creating an entirely hijacked thread... the women on Match.com don't hold a candle to the women on loveme.com.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It would suck if they showed up at the door with a scale and told whoever answered to step on it and get weighed. If a few pounds more than stated on a profile they will arrest you and send you to prison.

Look the Feds want to control the populace. They will make laws to do so. The more people they can control the more power they have over them.

I would guess that the law is in need of full review and clarification and that test cases will emerge which force this to happen. Just because it's ridiculous doesn't mean it's part of some shady conspiracy to control people. A little perspective goes a long way.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I would guess that the law is in need of full review and clarification and that test cases will emerge which force this to happen. Just because it's ridiculous doesn't mean it's part of some shady conspiracy to control people. A little perspective goes a long way.

Of course abuses would never occur.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Consider the source...