Topic: Dept of Justice: Violating a TOS online is a crime
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w started this discussion 15 years ago #14,170
The U.S. government thinks it should be able to prosecute you for using a fake name online or not abiding by your ISP's TOS. Jesus fucking christ.
http://volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/
http://volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/
The current version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) poses a threat to the civil liberties of the millions of Americans who use computers and the Internet. As interpreted by the Justice Department, many if not most computer users violate the CFAA on a regular basis. Any of them could face arrest and criminal prosecution.
In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook or lying about your weight in an online dating profile. That situation is intolerable. Routine computer use should not be a crime. Any cybersecurity legislation that this Congress passes should reject the extraordinarily broad interpretations endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.
In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook or lying about your weight in an online dating profile. That situation is intolerable. Routine computer use should not be a crime. Any cybersecurity legislation that this Congress passes should reject the extraordinarily broad interpretations endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/
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.
Scaling back that law "would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution," and jeopardize prosecutions involving identity theft, misuse of government databases, and privacy invasions, according to Downing.
Scaling back that law "would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution," and jeopardize prosecutions involving identity theft, misuse of government databases, and privacy invasions, according to Downing.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #251,833
People that back shit like this seriously don't live in the same world we do or something, it's just so fucking un-american. 1984.
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,869
It's not going to be used to prosecute people for identity theft. It's like how the patriot act catches more marijuana smokers than terrorists*
*based upon arrests that were made possible by the patriot act.
*based upon arrests that were made possible by the patriot act.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,874
> un-american
shit, it's the 1950s all up in this thread.
Surely even the most ardent minarchist would believe the enforcement of contracts is a valid exercise of government power?
shit, it's the 1950s all up in this thread.
Surely even the most ardent minarchist would believe the enforcement of contracts is a valid exercise of government power?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,875
@previous (D)
> Surely even the most ardent minarchist would believe the enforcement of contracts is a valid exercise of government power?
Only a communist would say this.
> Surely even the most ardent minarchist would believe the enforcement of contracts is a valid exercise of government power?
Only a communist would say this.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,877
@previous (E)
There's nothing communistic about this. I am merely trying to understand the political philosophy of the posters here. Judging from their posts on various issues they do not have a consistent ideology, and pick their positions on various policies based upon the benefit to themselves, rather than the justice or fairness of the policy.
There's nothing communistic about this. I am merely trying to understand the political philosophy of the posters here. Judging from their posts on various issues they do not have a consistent ideology, and pick their positions on various policies based upon the benefit to themselves, rather than the justice or fairness of the policy.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,878
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,880
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Insofar as you accept that the state should prosecute people for "crimes against society", should you not accept this as a valid exercise of that power?
Insofar as you accept that the state should prosecute people for "crimes against society", should you not accept this as a valid exercise of that power?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,881
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,887
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Cool response! You totally justified your position. My respect for you as a person has grown.
One method of eliminating cognitive dissonance is to ignore all evidence and arguments that oppose your views. Is this really what you want to choose?
Cool response! You totally justified your position. My respect for you as a person has grown.
One method of eliminating cognitive dissonance is to ignore all evidence and arguments that oppose your views. Is this really what you want to choose?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,888
Looks like there is a bill in the Senate that would narrow the scope of the law so it doesn't apply to private citizens' adherence to TOSes. Not sure how likely it is to pass.
It's discussed in the text of Kerr's testimony to Congress from the Volokh post I linked.
It's discussed in the text of Kerr's testimony to Congress from the Volokh post I linked.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,889
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,892
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,935
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,938
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,954
They won't stop until we're all borg.
TheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #251,960
@OP
Was this the fuck you we're asking about what I'm doing? I promise, I had nothing to do with this...
Jokes aside, this is just a little bit of your freedom you give away for the huge amount of security against terrorism you gain... lol, seems like it wasn't jokes aside.
Was this the fuck you we're asking about what I'm doing? I promise, I had nothing to do with this...
Jokes aside, this is just a little bit of your freedom you give away for the huge amount of security against terrorism you gain... lol, seems like it wasn't jokes aside.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,230
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,287
The problem with politicians, is that they make laws on things they know nothing about. They know as much as the bill's title or (maybe) the contents of the bill. There's no in-depth research and understanding.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #252,294
@previous (I)
Pay attention. They don't even make the laws anymore. They are complete puppets for lobbyists now. We pay them six figures to serve as a rubber stamp for whoever pays the campaign bills.
Pay attention. They don't even make the laws anymore. They are complete puppets for lobbyists now. We pay them six figures to serve as a rubber stamp for whoever pays the campaign bills.
The Question joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #252,592
the crypto-fascist corporate illuminati are consolidating their surveillance program. not joking.Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #252,596
I can't shake the feeling American leadership has been taken over by traitors who hold her Constitution and her citizens in contempt.