Lying on the Internet could soon be a federal crime

[southwestforests]

"Just to reiterate, in case you didn’t catch that sly turn of legalese, the DoJ is saying that not allowing them to prosecute people for violating websites’ terms of service would make it “more difficult or impossible” to scare people with the threat of prosecution. Yay, America!"

Lying on the Internet could soon be a federal crime (http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/lying-on-the-internet-could-soon-be-a-federal-crime/)



‎"For example, Kerr explains that Google’s terms of service stipulate that if ““you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google,” you are forbidden from using any of its sites or services. Seeing as the legal age of contract in most states is 18, “a 17-year-old who conducts a Google search in the course of researching a term paper has likely violated Google’s Terms of Service. According to the Justice Department’s interpretation of the statute, he or she is a criminal,” writes Kerr."

Kerr’s full testimony is well worth the read (view it here: pdf) http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Testimony-of-Orin-S-Kerr.pdf — a sentiment we hope Congress will agree with enough to reject the DoJ’s efforts to impose a Draconian interpretation of the CFAA on the American public.

[southwestforests]

The U.S. Department of Justice is defending computer hacking laws that make it a crime to use a fake name on Facebook or lie about your weight in an online dating profile at a site like Match.com.

In a statement obtained by CNET that's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues that it must be able to prosecute violations of Web sites' often-ignored, always-unintelligible "terms of service" policies.

DOJ: Lying on Match.com needs to be a crime | Privacy Inc. - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/)



‎"What makes this possible is a section of the CFAA that was never intended to be used that way: a general-purpose prohibition on any computer-based act that "exceeds authorized access." To the Justice Department, this means that a Web site's terms of service define what's "authorized" or not, and ignoring them can turn you into a felon. "
Imagine that enforced by these people -

"STATEN ISLAND, NY (CBS) Patrick Timoney brought a gun to school Tuesday and nearly got suspended for it. Sounds reasonable until you see the gun – a two-inch LEGO toy gun.

Photo: LEGO toy that almost got Patrick Timoney suspended.

9-year-old Patrick, a fourth grader at PS 52 in Staten Island, N.Y., says he brought some of his LEGOs to school to show his friends during lunch but when the principal saw that one of those toys was a gun she pulled him out of class and called his parents.

A spokesman for the city's Department of Education says that the principal, Evelyn Matroianni, was just following the "no tolerance" policy of not allowing any weapons on campus.
"

Two-Inch LEGO Gun Gets 4th-Grader Patrick Timoney in Trouble; Where's the NRA? - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6173526-504083.html)

[doctormax]

harold Camping and the doomsday cult types are not going to like this are they. ;) oh the world is ending we have been bold boys and girls no don't forget to send me as much money as you got to my paypal account

[Retired_for_now]

It's not lying on the internet that causes the problem - it's this fetish for anonymity that effectively shields one from the consequences (social, legal, or otherwise) of one's words and actions. We'd see fewer lies and a lot less libel and fraud if the miscreants couldn't just create a new internet "identity" for each event.

You can always find extreme examples of foolishness if you have a big enough sample - and if it's not unusual/extreme it's not news.

Yogi (privacy yes, anonymity only if there's a good reason for it)

[charleswlkr54]

Lying about you weight on Facebook a federal crime? Yeah RIGHT!

[ct ertz]

No big deal. Soon lying will be the way of the dinosaurs. Big government will just tell everyone what to think and what to say. A happy little world. NOT.

[CharlieC]

They've got to catch you first - a program of giving them constant bullshit seems to be the right one.

3 dead trolls - The privacy song - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eIUOUfhoJ8)

I liked the original line in the song - "Visa thinks I'm an eskimo named Nell" - but I guess modern audiences wouldn't get that one.

Regards,

Charlie

[CMDRTED]

What about the obvious, lying on Television. Guess that makes Osama oops Obama a criminal right???? Oh yeah he does it on the internet too, go to jail, do not pass go, or Hawaii, or Malyasia or Kenya, or wherever you started from.

[Phil]

If everyone who ever lied was a criminal, then is planet Earth a prison?

[Marco]

Lying about your weight on a dating site is a crime? My ex owes me millions!

[Spar]

You know what liars do when they die? Lie still.

[doctormax]

hee hee girls will now to cover themselves put on their myspace and facebook and dating sites with lines like this ;)

"i don't know my weight so put in on my myspace I am the same weight at a Jaguar E type. i figured i got the same sort of curves and purr like a kitten when in top gear "

[flightsimmer2010]

ya would think that all this B.S. would stop. i know lots of people on social sites and other sites that may umm "forget " they are married
but lying on the net is gonna be a crime?? "shaking in my boots" see just about everyone i ever talked to , or posted a message to in a fed prison?
and the country is doing so swimmingly that the congress wants to investigate this??
lets review:
you cant eat fatty foods, you cant smoke. you cant drink, you have to have special light bulbs, you cant do this you cant do that??
hey welcome to the U.S.S.A!!
learn to wear black uniforms and goose step
WTF happened to the United states?

[ramatoto]

Oh my God! Is it a big joke, or for real? I fear it is for real....

Guys, i´m so terrible happy, not to live in the US...:)....

In the past, it was called "the land of the free"......but now? Twentyfive years ago, i´ve had the chance to move to Utah....today i´m happy that i´ve stayed in Europe.

[ct ertz]

We got lazy. Let some people make a few decisions for us so we wouldn't have too, and it blew up into what we have now. It is salvageable, but only if we have the will.

[CharlieC]

I find it astonishing that any legal authority would contemplate such a course of action. Any rational person knows that the legal system only works for the actions of a small number of people - attempting to prosecute a large number of people for what is, at most, a trivial offence opens the legal system to collective protest action. Imagine what would happen to the court system if 5000 people turned themselves in for lying on the Internet and demanded their day in court - the system would collapse in days.

There was a famous failed case in Australia in the 1980s where some 150 defendants were taken before the courts as a single case of welfare fraud. The whole thing collapsed when it was realised that the cost of the judicial resources used was out of proportion to any penalties likely to be awarded.

Regards,

Charlie

[murphyaa]

That sounds like an idea. If this passes, everybody turn themselves in. Let's see how long it lasts.

[rbeach84]

Not to mention a US law wouldn't mean "Jack" overseas! Visions of glory, borne of smoke...

Want to protect against internet threats? Unplug! The world can be a mean and nasty place - just like it always has been. Laws are meant to level the field a bit not pave it smooth!

String theory comes to mind...

[John Wagenseil]

Please google "SOPA" or "stop online piracy act".

The Washington Post is a conservative newspaper, yet it has posted an opinion piece expressing doubts about the wisdom of passing such an act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/sopas-ugly-message-to-the-world-about-america-and-internet-innovation/2010/12/20/gIQATlhEYN_blog.html


SOPA would be enforceable in other countries since domain names and the digital addresses of web sites are registered on servers in the US. There is language in the act to create a "great firewall of the US" to prevent people in the US from accessing objectionable material on overseas servers. Non corporate sites are endangered by the act if they cannot pay the required licensing fees needed to hosts original material and provide links to possibly copyrighted material.

[southwestforests]

Oh my God! Is it a big joke, or for real? I fear it is for real....
Allow me to answer that this way, if you might.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 3261
To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by
combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 26, 2011
Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself and Mr. CONYERS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr.
BERMAN, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr.
CHABOT, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr.
TERRY, and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation
by combating the theft of U.S. property, and
for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
5 ‘‘Stop Online Piracy Act’’.
6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of
7 this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Savings and severability clauses.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:23 Oct 27, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6211 E:\BILLS\H3261.IH H3261 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2
•HR 3261 IH
TITLE I—COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Action by Attorney General to protect U.S. customers and prevent
U.S. support of foreign infringing sites.
Sec. 103. Market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S.
funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
Sec. 104. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft
of U.S. property.
Sec. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger
public health.
Sec. 106. Guidelines and study.
Sec. 107. Denying U.S. capital to notorious foreign infringers.
TITLE II—ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
Sec. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.
Sec. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.
Sec. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.
Sec. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.
Sec. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.
1 SEC. 2. SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
2 (a) SAVINGS CLAUSES.—
3 (1) FIRST AMENDMENT.—Nothing in this Act
4 shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free
5 speech or the press protected under the 1st Amend6
ment to the Constitution.
7 (2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY.—Nothing in title I
8 shall be construed to ...

[southwestforests]

It's not lying on the internet that causes the problem - it's this fetish for anonymity that effectively shields one from the consequences (social, legal, or otherwise) of one's words and actions. We'd see fewer lies and a lot less libel and fraud if the miscreants couldn't just create a new internet "identity" for each event.

Problem with that -
I am in a couple closed/secret Facebook groups for people with chronic and/or degenerative diseases & a fair number of members have created alternative secondary identities to employ there because the rest of Farcebook's multi-million members just don't need to know all the details of what any given person goes through in trying to survive and live those lives from day to day.

Farcebook's Terms of Service

4. Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
You will not create more than one personal profile.

plus

the DoJ is saying that not allowing them to prosecute people for violating websites’ terms of serviceMaybe it's just a distortion in my own perception, but I fail to see a "fetish for anonymity that effectively shields one from the consequences (social, legal, or otherwise) of one's words and actions." in created an alternative secondary identities to employ in the above mentioned groups in order to ensure security.

[Retired_for_now]

swforests - your closed group is an example of privacy, not anonymity. You are not "pretending" to be something you are not in order to evade responsibility for your words or actions. You are engaging in a social activity where you have an identity, just not linked to your real name because as you said, other "just don't need to know all the details ."
A subtle distinction, but one that's worth thinking about as we come to grips with (or not) all the various types of criminal and sociopathic behavior enabled by the internet anonymity fetish.
Yogi