new internet rules (maybe)

DOJ must have too much free time! I think they have more important issues on which to focus.

Rich
 
Tom-D said:
How is this going to effect this web page ?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/
Click to expand...

Not at all, unless the Terms of Use prohibit exaggeration...
exaggeratorsanonymoustshirt.gif


The DoJ position is that terms of service must be enforceable...nothing that revolutionary there.
 
Sh*t. Between this and my girlfriend, I think it is probably time to take down the match.com profile before I get caught.
 
There is already the DMCA and the OCILLA provisions, the lazy-assed recording industry just wants to invert the tables and make the ISPs and folks like google do their leg work for them. In fact, Google does extensive video screening as it is...got to talk to the VP in charge of YouTube the other day...pretty amazing what they have going behind the scenes during uploads.
 
JeffDG said:
The DoJ position is that terms of service must be enforceable...nothing that revolutionary there.
Click to expand...

Except that terms of service are usually regarded as civil contracts, not criminal. To turn a ToS violation into criminal conduct is like saying that it would be criminal to take a stick of gum into a ballpark where the conditions of entry said "no outside food allowed".

Unless the ToS provisions were specified by legislation (or were authorized by legislation), it's hard to see how a violation would be criminal.

YMMV.
 
JeffDG said:
Not at all, unless the Terms of Use prohibit exaggeration...


The DoJ position is that terms of service must be enforceable...nothing that revolutionary there.
Click to expand...

You don't see a problem with making a contract violation between two private parties a federal felony?

I'm also curious why you don't see any distinction between civil and criminal law?
 
wsuffa said:
Except that terms of service are usually regarded as civil contracts, not criminal. To turn a ToS violation into criminal conduct is like saying that it would be criminal to take a stick of gum into a ballpark where the conditions of entry said "no outside food allowed".

Unless the ToS provisions were specified by legislation (or were authorized by legislation), it's hard to see how a violation would be criminal.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Often unauthorized use is considered a criminal issue. Copying your favourite DVDs for example can meet with criminal penalties under Copyright law.

The law makes unauthorized access to a computer system a crime. That covers things like hacking of systems, right. But if you agree to terms of service for a computer system then willfully violate them, you are, just like a hacker, accessing the system without a valid authorization. Nobody forces you to sign up for a Match.com account, or a Facebook account. If you then violate their TOS, you are, legally speaking, accessing those systems without consent, and are essentially hacking.
 
JeffDG said:
The DoJ position is that terms of service must be enforceable...nothing that revolutionary there.
Click to expand...

Criminalizing what should be a civil matter sounds like a really bad idea to me.
 
Jim Logajan said:
You don't see a problem with making a contract violation between two private parties a federal felony?

I'm also curious why you don't see any distinction between civil and criminal law?
Click to expand...

Happens all the time. Copy a DVD...you have a license agreement between you and the copyright holder permitting you to use the DVD for your personal use, copy it and distribute it to your friends, and by violating that contract you will be subject to criminal penalties.

Go into a restaurant and have a meal, and walk out. By violating your contract with the restaurant (an unwritten contract at that) to pay for your meal, in most states you can be charged with theft.
 
JeffDG said:
Often unauthorized use is considered a criminal issue. Copying your favourite DVDs for example can meet with criminal penalties under Copyright law.

The law makes unauthorized access to a computer system a crime. That covers things like hacking of systems, right. But if you agree to terms of service for a computer system then willfully violate them, you are, just like a hacker, accessing the system without a valid authorization. Nobody forces you to sign up for a Match.com account, or a Facebook account. If you then violate their TOS, you are, legally speaking, accessing those systems without consent, and are essentially hacking.
Click to expand...

The potential for abuse by overzealous prosecutors is astounding.

I thought you were for limited government.
 
Jim Logajan said:
You don't see a problem with making a contract violation between two private parties a federal felony?

I'm also curious why you don't see any distinction between civil and criminal law?
Click to expand...

What's a conspiracy, if not a contract between two private parties?
 
JeffDG said:
Often unauthorized use is considered a criminal issue. Copying your favourite DVDs for example can meet with criminal penalties under Copyright law.

The law makes unauthorized access to a computer system a crime. That covers things like hacking of systems, right. But if you agree to terms of service for a computer system then willfully violate them, you are, just like a hacker, accessing the system without a valid authorization. Nobody forces you to sign up for a Match.com account, or a Facebook account. If you then violate their TOS, you are, legally speaking, accessing those systems without consent, and are essentially hacking.
Click to expand...

Actually copying a DVD you own (for backup purposes) isn't a crime. (fair use) However breaking the encryption to do so is.

Gotta live the logic there. Thanks MPAA!
 
Paragraph 3 sentence 7 under the TOS that you agreed to by signing up for socialnetwork,com clearly states that you must lick the bottom of my feet whenever I say llama..

<---<^>--->
 
That's the trouble with criminalizing TOS violations: Who the heck has time to read them all?
 
JeffDG said:
Happens all the time. Copy a DVD...you have a license agreement between you and the copyright holder permitting you to use the DVD for your personal use, copy it and distribute it to your friends, and by violating that contract you will be subject to criminal penalties.
Click to expand...

Can't argue that specific case - another very bad law that needs to go.

Go into a restaurant and have a meal, and walk out. By violating your contract with the restaurant (an unwritten contract at that) to pay for your meal, in most states you can be charged with theft.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no aspect of that scenario meets any of the requirements for the existence of a contract. That is why theft is under criminal law.

Consider this absurd sounding scenario that I believe this interpretation of the CFAA law allows:

The PoA User's Agreement states that "Deliberately circumventing the censor filter is prohibited."
Someone creates an account and makes posts "humorously" praising an Adulf Hilter.
A second person chimes in. Then in real life that second person commits murder, and evidence later shows the second person to be a White Supremacist.
DoJ thinks the first person may have been an accomplice but has absolutely no evidence to tie the two people. So they charge the first person with a violation of the CFAA because the person violated the previously mentioned agreement by circumventing the censor filter.

Of course the CNET article pointed to a real case that was wonderfully worse, because only one person was involved so the absurdity and its real danger gets masked from view.
 
Jim Logajan said:
...

Absolutely no aspect of that scenario meets any of the requirements for the existence of a contract. That is why theft is under criminal law.

....
Click to expand...

I'd say that the restaurant-patron relationship is the very essence of a contract....

I'll put it like this. If I'm a chef, and I cook you a $10,000 meal that you don't pay for, you can bet that I'm going to sue you for, among other things, breach of contract.

And also call the police. ;)
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'd say that the restaurant-patron relationship is the very essence of a contract....

I'll put it like this. If I'm a chef, and I cook you a $10,000 meal that you don't pay for, you can bet that I'm going to sue you for, among other things, breach of contract.

And also call the police. ;)
Click to expand...

Yet if the contractor builds a deck on the back of your house and you don't pay him the police are going to say its a civil matter. Odd isn't it?
 
AdamZ said:
Yet if the contractor builds a deck on the back of your house and you don't pay him the police are going to say its a civil matter. Odd isn't it?
Click to expand...

Very. Even though I'd say "theft of services" (not counting materials and whatnot) is a crime in all 50 states.
 
I think a lot of the confusion over how laws should apply to the Internet could be solved by recognizing that it is a communications medium. I think a question that needs to be asked in every case is, "Would this communication have been illegal if it had been conducted over the telephone?"
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'd say that the restaurant-patron relationship is the very essence of a contract....
Click to expand...

I think you need to make up your mind about the details of the scenario you are proposing. Your original scenario was simply "Go into a restaurant and have a meal, and walk out." It is my understanding of contract law that "implied" contracts only exist where actions can show expected intent by both parties. If the eater had complained the food was terrible and left without paying, there would be a contract and resolution would require lawsuits, not the police. If I order food, eat, and leave without paying or saying a word to anyone, it may still be just a civil matter, depending on jurisdiction. In others, it would be criminal - but even in those, it doesn't take much to place it into civil law.

I'll put it like this. If I'm a chef, and I cook you a $10,000 meal that you don't pay for, you can bet that I'm going to sue you for, among other things, breach of contract.

And also call the police. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, you can call the police. Yes, you can sue. But depending on details you haven't provided, it is either a criminal matter or a civil matter; generally not both at the same time. If the police arrive and I say I'm not paying because the food wasn't any better than a $10 meal, they'll advise you there is no crime and that you are going to have to sue because it is a civil matter.

Lastly, I think your posited scenarios are either not relevant or equally bad law and do nothing to dilute the inanity and danger of the DoJ's interpretation of the CFAA (which the court unfortunately agreed with.) I get that you think that there is nothing remarkable about it. I absolutely disagree, irrespective of your attempts to belittle people like myself who believe otherwise.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I think you need to make up your mind about the details of the scenario you are proposing. Your original scenario was simply "Go into a restaurant and have a meal, and walk out." It is my understanding of contract law that "implied" contracts only exist where actions can show expected intent by both parties.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of implied contract law is incorrect.

If the eater had complained the food was terrible and left without paying, there would be a contract and resolution would require lawsuits, not the police. If I order food, eat, and leave without paying or saying a word to anyone, it may still be just a civil matter, depending on jurisdiction. In others, it would be criminal - but even in those, it doesn't take much to place it into civil law.
Click to expand...

That's still theft. Keep in mind that there are different degrees and forms of "theft."

Yes, you can call the police. Yes, you can sue. But depending on details you haven't provided, it is either a criminal matter or a civil matter; generally not both at the same time. If the police arrive and I say I'm not paying because the food wasn't any better than a $10 meal, they'll advise you there is no crime and that you are going to have to sue because it is a civil matter.
Click to expand...

The police might say that, it might not be worth the time/effort to arrest or prosecute, but it's still illegal. You don't need any more information.

Lastly, I think your posited scenarios are either not relevant or equally bad law and do nothing to dilute the inanity and danger of the DoJ's interpretation of the CFAA (which the court unfortunately agreed with.) I get that you think that there is nothing remarkable about it. I absolutely disagree, irrespective of your attempts to belittle people like myself who believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

First, I didn't posit the original scenario. I only posted to try to clear up some misconceptions.

Second, I'm sorry that you think that attempts to explain things are "attempts to belittle."

But, suit yourself. I'm done here.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Your understanding of implied contract law is incorrect.
Click to expand...

No doubt - but your explanations so far have been short enough to be demonstrably incorrect also. I have no doubt you could do better.

That's still theft. Keep in mind that there are different degrees and forms of "theft."
Click to expand...
My alternate scenario simply summarized an example from a book on my bookshelf about contract law that attempts to highlight the difference between civil and criminal. You can check the net for similar examples that claim many related scenarios aren't theft. Those web sites and my book may be wrong on the basis of being incomplete or not nuanced enough, but I would need something other than your simple assertions.

The police might say that, it might not be worth the time/effort to arrest or prosecute, but it's still illegal. You don't need any more information.
Click to expand...
There was no debate on my part on whether the actions taken by the eater was illegal.

First, I didn't posit the original scenario. I only posted to try to clear up some misconceptions.

Second, I'm sorry that you think that attempts to explain things are "attempts to belittle."
Click to expand...
"EXAGGERATORS ANONYMOUS. A Trillion Strong and Growing" isn't an attempt to explain anything, it is an attempt to belittle. I don't have it handy, but I'm pretty sure the date on my birth certificate isn't yesterday.

But, suit yourself. I'm done here.
Click to expand...
I find it unfortunate that you direct your alleged legal expertise occasionally toward defending the growth of unfettered reach of government prosecution in ways that are bound to yield abuse of authority.
 
I was just reading the revised terms of use for the red board, and I was struck by how much subjectivity there is in determining whether one has violated many of its provisions. Look at the prohibition against posting somerthing "objectionable," for example. That kind of language is very common in terms of use. That's why I think making such things subject to criminal enforcement would make determining whether the law has been violated too arbitrary to be Constitutional.
 
Palmpilot said:
I was just reading the revised terms of use for the red board, and I was struck by how much subjectivity there is in determining whether one has violated many of its provisions. Look at the prohibition against posting somerthing "objectionable," for example. That kind of language is very common in terms of use. That's why I think making such things subject to criminal enforcement would make determining whether the law has been violated too arbitrary to be Constitutional.
Click to expand...

LOL imagine getting arrested for breaking the PoA code of conduct... I have had my share arguments on here and tried to stay away personal attacks but hey let's be honest we all say things maybe we shouldn't sometimes. Being subjected to criminal charges for saying something on the Internet would be pretty ****ty. Oops did I say a bad word on the forum? Arrest me..? Yikes. :/

<---<^>--->
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top