DOJ: Violating a Site's ToS Is a Crime 536
ideonexus writes "CNET has obtained a statement to be released by the Department of Justice tomorrow defending its broad interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) that defines violations of 'authorized access' in information systems as including any act that violates a Web site's terms of service, while the White House is arguing for expanding the law even further. This would criminalize teenagers using Google for violating its ToS, which says you can't use its services if 'you are not of legal age to form a binding contract,' and turns multiple attempts to upload copyrighted videos to YouTube into 'a pattern of racketeering' according to a GWU professor and an attorney cited in the story."
Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
For a second there I thought the Obama Administration (and government in general, for that matter) had a sudden attack of conscience and decency. For that second I actually got to believe that it was even *remotely* possible that a government official might actually take the side of the vast majority of citizens and consumers in America, as opposed to functioning exclusively as the slavering lapdog of corporate America. In a brief instant I got to see what the U.S. might look like if we were an actual democracy instead of just a poorly-disguised corporatocracy.
Well, it was a nice second.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Funny)
For that second I actually got to believe that it was even *remotely* possible that a government official might actually take the side of the vast majority of citizens and consumers in America
So what were you high on? ;-)
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
The Obama administration was doomed at the onset. EVERYBODY... look at who our Vice President is. Mr. Biden has been a hit man for Hollywood and the Recording industry for... let's just say a long time. This has made him a profound antagonist for Silicon Valley, Open Source, Net Neutrality and a free (as in liberty) national infrastructure for the transmission of ideas and human artistic expressions which are free (as in beer) goes dead against everything he's been paid to think.
These are polarizing times and laws like the ones mentioned in the article above effectively criminalize the internet for the very people for whom it is most urgently needed (i.e. the next generation.) As long as we see fit to eat our own young in name of corporate greed, and hold onto every bit of IP with a white knuckled death grip, we will continue to see the borderline sociopathic and megalomaniacal demand greater control on every word, thought, feeling or human hope. To these despots, the First Amendment is a blasphemy, and until every man, woman and child pays them for the privilege of having a thought(tm) there is more dirty work to be done in Washington.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1. build fake "terrorist", "child porn", or other website
Step 2. TOS disallowing access by members of government, police, any federal, state, or local agency
Step 3. log access and report offenders
Re: (Score:3)
The Obama administration was doomed at the onset
I disagree. It was the American Public that was doomed.
privilege of having a thought(tm)
Only approved thoughts...
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tire sealant.
That was pretty specific. Is this a reference I am not understanding?
Have you ever done tire sealant? No? That's why.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
If I write in my site's ToS that all spam is unauthorized access, can I get Jeff Bezos thrown in jail every time Amazon sends me another coupon I didn't ask for?
Of course not. Laws are not intended to be used against the rich.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:4, Insightful)
Its extremely difficult to felate the XXXXX-AA (pick your media organization here), and write a meaningful law that makes any sense at the same time. I think it has something to do with reduced oxygen transport to the brain and possible concussion.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:4, Insightful)
If I write in my site's ToS that all spam is unauthorized access, can I get Jeff Bezos thrown in jail every time Amazon sends me another coupon I didn't ask for?
That depends on the amount of legislators and executives you can afford to buy.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you have to abide by Facebook's ToS on every site with a "Like" button and a FB tracking cookie?
Alternately: would you have to abide by a judge's ruling to share passwords with the spouse who you're divorcing, if this will violate Facebook's ToS and submit you to even more judicial scrutiny?
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
ex post facto.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime
Why is that clear?
Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.
That sounds like a tort to me.
The pipe is not the content, and while you might be able to argue you have a right to use the Internet, you don't have a right to use any particular website, especially any that is private property.
Not every contract violation is a crime, nor should it be.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
I invite someone over for dinner.
I tell them I have a no shoes in the house rule.
They refuse to take off their shoes.
I tell them to leave, but they refuse. They are trespassing because they refuse to leave, not taking off their shoes isn't relevant.
Unauthorized access:
I invite someone over for dinner.
I tell them I have a no shoes in the house rule.
They refuse to take off their shoes.
They would now be in criminal violation, just because they didn't follow my rules.
Re: (Score:3)
One of my old coworkers once got our office IP address banned by Google. He had decided to *ahem* automate his porn collection by writing a recursive spid
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Unauthorized access should be 'using the site when you are clearly forbidden to'. Aka, when you hack someone else's password or something.
It is exactly analogous to trespass, but with trespass law, we have very clear laws. And people can't put up signs that say 'You can only enter if you do eight thousand different things I will specific in this fine print here or you're trepassing'.
No. They can say 'No trespassing' or 'Authorized access only', and people must assume they need to get permission first. They can put up a gate or lock a door, and people must assume they need to get permission first.
They can't have a fricking path and post rules saying 'you can use this path only if you do X', and then have people arrested for trespass who break the rules. That is not possible under current law. And they certainly can't stand there and have a doorman let people in (You know, like automatically making an account.) and then have the person arrested for trespassing later.
Breaking rules is not trespassing. And it is not unauthorized computer access if someone breaks rules. The only rule is 'Was there some indication that people were barred in general? If not, were you somehow specifically barred from access?'
And, no, you're not required to do any math there...they can't say 'You are barred if you break the rules.' You have to actually be specifically barred. This isn't some goddamn logic problem.
Hell, in the real world, sometimes you can ban 'certain things' from your property, like 'solicitors'...and this requires a law defining what those are and that people can rightfully ban them. People aren't allowed to make up their own restrictions and sic the police on people who don't agree with what that restriction means. There are specific rules about how and what the few things you can put on a sign. (Hours of access are a common one.) And this sign must be publicly posted in a specific way.
Or, in another example, casinos can't post a sign saying 'No card counters allowed', and have card counters arrested for trespassing. They can have a rule against that, and throw them out, and have them arrested for trespassing if they come back...but not for breaking the 'access rule' in the first place.
But, apparently, we've decided that web sites should have near infinite power to have any visitor arrested. All they have to do is come up with some vague rule, or, hell, a rule that every visitor violates, like 'This site may only be accessed between using IE 5', and they can have people arrested at will.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime,
That's not clear at all. Do you think landlords should be able to charge their tenants with criminal acts for being late on rent? Typically speaking most contracts can be broken without committing a criminal act. It's a terrible idea to enforce contracts or TOS through criminal law.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty clear it should be some sort of a crime
No. Not its not clear that this should be the case at all.
Fact is, a website is someone else's property, and violating someone else's rules on their property is, at the least, a violation of an agreement.
So what? Its a violation of an agreement. They can try and sue you for damages if they feel they've been harmed enough to be worth it.
But to make it a crime is absurd. Think about what it means for something to be a crime. The police are involved... you are arrested, you get a criminal record... because your a criminal if you commited a crime.
If I order a thousand widgets from your company, and we sign a contract that you'll deliver them May 1st. If your late... you've just violated our signed contract... that's way more forceful than a ToS fine-print on a website... and that's not a crime. Can you imagine a world where it was. You miss that May 1st deadline... and the police show up to arrest you for committing a crime
Next time your late on a cell phone bill payment... your arrested. You agreed to pay them $X by y date, even signed a contract.
Next time your late bringing in a library book; well you've already got a criminal record for the cell phone crime... I guess you get hauled of to PMIA prison, you repeat offender.
Violating a contract shouldn't be a crime. Violating a ToS even less so.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, Obama is Holder's boss and can [to my knowledge] fire him at will.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, Obama is Holder's boss and can [to my knowledge] fire him at will.
Why Obama hasn't yet done so is a mystery to me. There's some pretty crazy stuff coming up the pipeline from the "Fast and Furious" scandal.
It's off topic, but I'll explain a little. The program "walked" guns (via drug cartel smuggling networks) into Mexico without a) keeping track of the guns, b) informing Mexican authorities, or c) ending the program (the last two points differentiate it from a similar failure during the Bush administration). Then a federal law enforcement officer died in a shootout that included two guns from this program.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh it's much, much worse than that once you start looking into. You know being a canuck, I really didn't believe the whole conspiracy thought that the F&F scandal was an attempt at restricting the 2nd amendment. Those gun nuts though? They were spot on call it as it was, especially when you see how much Holder had his hands in it.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:4, Informative)
The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, not Judicial.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:4, Insightful)
After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.
Yep, this means corporations are writing the laws. You can only be criminal for breaking laws. Breaking ToS is criminal, therefore they have written laws.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Insightful)
After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise
True enough. Bush is an idiot. Bush is an asshole. Bush has spewed out some whoppers. OTOH, Obama is a lying turncoat with no balls.
Hard to say who was the better (or worse) president.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Obama stood as that, stood as "Change", and then gave us a big "Fuck you". Essentially, what we know now is that it's going to take decades to actually get someone in power who's not a right wing (pro-war, pro-torture, pro-extrajudicial killings, pro-corporate, anti-worker) extremist. Decades. Because there's no good reason to believe that the next jackass the Democrats put up will be any less extreme than Obama.
Quit getting so hung up on political parties. There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings, anti-multinational corporate privilege, AND that has a long record of backing up his stated position with consistent stance and voting record. But he's trying to get the Republican nomination. Check it out some time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a candidate right now that is anti-war, anti-torture, anti-extrajudicial killings, anti-multinational corporate privilege
Ron Paul isn't any of those. He's just against federal funding for any of those.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Funny)
On the upside, if he did get elected president it would be a huge boon for small torture business owners.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to assume you're referring to Ron Paul. He and John Huntsman seem to be the only Republican candidates who have been showing signs of sense.
There are some big problems though:
1. Neither Paul nor Huntsman have a chance of winning the nomination, because those same corporations that they refuse to kowtow to are the ones who are providing campaign funding and media mouthpieces. For examples of this phenomenon, see the various campaigns of Dennis Kucinich (only truly notable question sent his way duri
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:5, Interesting)
After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.
Isn't it more an expansion of corporate power to give companies the right to make their own laws? If violating TOS is a crime, then a TOS is effectively law. The government's expansion is secondary to this. Theirs is the power to prosecute more "crimes" -- by broadening the definition of crime -- but it's the aggrieved party that has to report the crime in the first place, e.g. Microsoft, Arm & Hammer, Ford . . . whoever wrote the TOS in question.
And I'm pretty disappointed with the administration, too.
Re:Wow, I first read that as "*isn't* a crime" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
People have been trying to control wealth and power of the world for a lot longer than 200 years.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like Obama was really a plant, put there just to destroy the Democratic party by getting him elected on a populist platform and then screwing over everyone he voted for, so they'll never vote Democrat again.
Except that none of the other Democrats have come forward to publicly disown Obama from their party, and they've all been working hand-in-hand with him, so they're all complicit.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire democratic party sucks. But they suck less than the republicans. You should note that the Republican party has also been weakened by the Tea Parties brinkmanship, just as much as the democratic party has been weakened by its own failures.
I think the disillusionment with Obama's false hope and change is part of what is feeding into the Occupy movement. Occupy has a higher approval rating than the Democratic party, and the Republican party and the Tea Party. Its going to take more than a year to o
Woo hoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
dont forget "prima nocta"
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:5, Interesting)
By reading this site, you agree to pay the website owner $1 per word. The fact that this term is displayed with white text on a light beige background does not invalidate it in any way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prohibited activity includes, but is not limited to: (...) using any information obtained from SourceForge.net in order to contact (...) any user without such user's prior explicit consent (including non-commercial contacts like chain letters);
Oops, I guess replying at all is already contacting.Shit, I think I hear FBI vans.
Re: (Score:3)
The Devil: "I invented the TOS agreements. You ever say "yes" to those TOS agreements without reading it first? See you soon, buddy!"
http://www.hulu.com/watch/299647/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-the-devil-on-penn-state [hulu.com]
Re:Woo hoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
Southpark did it first [wikipedia.org], and better [southparkstudios.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Now you are just getting silly. You must be joking, it's obvious a person can't make outrageous demands in their TOS and expect them to be fulfilled. A corporation on the other hand...
Re: (Score:3)
Who is 'Thou'?
Is there any expectation that legal terms be written in a language that people use?
TOS, EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
This spells potentially problems for a lot of people because most people do not read the TOS or EULA documents.
They're often in some obscure link in tiny italic font because companies don't really care if you read them- they use them to kick you off when it is convenient for them.
How many people for example are aware of Slashdot's TOS that states you have to sacrifice a goat once a week if you disable ads.
Think I'm joking?
I am- but I bet the vast majority of slashdot users wouldn't know for sure because they havn't read the TOS.
I used to- but they're so long and full of legaleese I stopped.
If citizens are going to be held accountable for violating TOS as a criminal offense- we're either going to have a bunch more criminals OR in order for TOS to hold water they have to pass a dumb user test- be short, to the point and easily understandable by Joe the plumber.
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Another point to add is that almost all of them look like job contracts. They basically save every and all rights because you're the one interested in using the service and not the other way around.
Sometimes they do this just to be on the safe side (legally speaking) but that
still feels wrong and forces very easily breakable ToS on users.
quote from Salon.com ToS. [salon.com]
(so full of lawyerly jargon that makes you want to shoot the writer/s)
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, the phrase "throughout the universe" is not an uncommon one anymore, at least in publishing and entertainment. I first stumbled across it in articles about recording contracts. I've seen it adopted in more and more places, as it seems to be an easy way to characterize "If I try to list them all, I'll forget one, so, no, I don't want to specify particular regions into which I can dump your crapola". Yeah, the "universe" part does seem a bit of overkill but, on the other hand, it does add that bit of cosmic surreality to the licensing experience. By now it's probably standard in all content licensing contracts.
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
the vast majority of slashdot users wouldn't know for sure because they havn't read the TOS.
This is exacerbated by the fact that almost every TOS agreement or EULA says something like, "we can change this at any time, and don't have to notify you".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is another option.... people will be forced to avoid sites that have a ToS that is more than a couple sentences long. Nobody has the time, or the lawyers, necessary to fully understand these crappy terms anyway... Everyone assumes that if they do right by any normal civil expectation, that they won't be in trouble.
Again, business wins. Thanks for nothing, Obama. I'm glad you didn't pretend to be pro-life and do nothing about it like a Republican, but you did pretend to be for the people, and have d
Re: (Score:3)
How many people for example are aware of Slashdot's TOS that states you have to sacrifice a goat once a week if you disable ads.
Think I'm joking?
I am-
Man! I wish I had read your entire post before sacrificing this flock of goats!
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:4, Funny)
If citizens are going to be held accountable for violating TOS as a criminal offense- we're either going to have a bunch more criminals OR in order for TOS to hold water they have to pass a dumb user test- be short, to the point and easily understandable by Joe the plumber.
The first one.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as the ToS don't say that I have to buy the goats I'm going to argue that I was quite willing to do it and it's CmdrTaco's responsibility to ensure that the goats he ships me for sacrifice arrive.
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused. Do I have to keep sacrificing goats or not?
Re: (Score:3)
No. But you do need to use more allspice in the gumbo.
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides traffic crimes, I am not aware of any crime I have committed.
However, that said, I am almost certain I must have committed a felony at some point in my life- there are so many laws- and so many I don't know- it is inconceivable to think I have not unwittingly committed one at some point in my life.
Fortunately outside the digital world- they would probably be hard to prove- and/or the police don't care to prosecute for obscure laws (or don't know them themselves).
It would be easy for a website to trip you up and prove it if they like.
There is also a difference between government passing rules- and corporations passing arbitrary complex TOS to getcha.
I vote for my congressman. I don't vote for the operator of goatsdoingcrazythingstosheep.com
Re:TOS, EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately outside the digital world- they would probably be hard to prove- and/or the police don't care to prosecute for obscure laws (or don't know them themselves).
This is not fortunate. I mean, obviously it is fortunate that you haven't been thrown into prison, but it creates a situation where you could be tomorrow for little to no reason. Circumstantially connected to a major crime? Sleep with a police officer's wife? Fight that unfair traffic ticket? A few hours or days of work and they can almost certainly find something that will stick at least long enough to make your life miserable. Selective enforcement should be terrifying, it is very little different from saying "we can legally arrest and convict anyone, at anytime we feel like".
Re: (Score:3)
I vote for my congressman. I don't vote for the operator of goatsdoingcrazythingstosheep.com
Irrelevant. The Invisible Hand will ensure that everything is perfectly fair and just. In fact, we'd all be better off if we just eliminated our democratic government, and replaced it with a corporation, as The Invisible Hand will force it to behave much more responsibly than any government ever could.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides traffic crimes, I am not aware of any crime I have committed.
Ever used a patented device without obtaining permission from the patent holder?
"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html [cornell.edu] Bolding mine.
What is going on down there? (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Canada, and while we aren't without our problems as well, the headlines coming out of the US lately, including this one, are just ridiculous.
What is the problem? Since when did the government become so extremely pro-corporation, and anti-citizen? Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?
For the people, by the people? What happened to that.
Re:What is going on down there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there no pressure to do something, like cap contributions by corporations to political parties, or something, anything?
Because citizens like us can't fund the lobbying necessary to compete with the corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? In 2008, Obama spent $7.39 per vote. McCain spent $5.78. As with every recent US Presidental election, the winner was the one who spent the most. $7.39 per voter really isn't that much. If you can convince voters to spend $10 on getting a president who works for the people, then you can outspend both parties. If you can persuade 5% of the electorate to give $100, then that's enough (based on past performance) to buy 50% of the popular vote...
Your politicians are bought and sold, but for far
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Canada, and while we aren't without our problems as well, the headlines coming out of the US lately, including this one, are just ridiculous.
More ridiculous than bill C-11?
Because criminalizing the ripping of a legally purchased DVD to play it on your optical-less netbook (since you have to "break" CSS to do that) is the epitome of Canadian values?
It's all about power (Score:5, Insightful)
If everything is illegal, it means the government gets to pick and choose who to prosecute, meaning you'd better be on their good side.
Re: (Score:3)
I know many might jump on you for paraphrasing Ayn Rand, but I think you're correct. We've already seen that such rules ARE abused, and that almost any potential lawbreaking has been used as a foothold for surveillance or other actions which impact us as citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I recently read Atlas Shrugged. As I recall these were the major themes:
Re: (Score:3)
I'll step forward and say I strongly disagree with pretty much all of that as a political philosophy.
It's pretty pretentious as a business leadership philosophy, but could be mangled into some actual shape.
The problem is the government is not a fucking business. It does not exist to 'reward effort'. And it is not a fucking 'organization' in that sense of the word.
Here's, let's just dissect this single line: Winners focus on results, and believe success should be rewarded; losers focus on intentions, and
Re: (Score:3)
And even if you can defend yourself you'll probably go broke doing so. We've left behind the rule of law and moved to the rule of simple power.
Re:It's all about power (Score:5, Informative)
Same as it ever was.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957.
After Attorney General and eventual Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson [roberthjackson.org], put it ca. 1940:
"With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him."
The only thing that's changed in the intervening 70 years is that in 1940, this sort of thing was regarded by the Judicial and the Executive branches as a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
My father was a cop, and he would tell us this exact thing. There are enough laws that they (the cops) could find some laws anyone has broken and basically arrest anybody they wanted at any time.
New ToS clause (Score:5, Funny)
The following acts are considered violations of these Terms of Service. Additional acts may be considered violations at the owner's discretion.
1. Being a member/employee of the United States Department of Justice.
2. Being a member/employee of the RIAA and/or associated organisations.
3. Being a member/employee of the MPAA and/or associated organisations.
Obigatory: Ayn Rand (Score:4, Insightful)
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
Re:Obigatory: Ayn Rand (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, Ayn Rand makes heroes of CEOs of giant corporations -- the same people who, in real life, buy these laws and regulations. There's a lesson here, but I doubt you or any other of the legion of Randroids will get it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you'd actually read Atlas Shrugged you would know that the corporate heads who buy these laws and regulations are portrayed as villains.
Remember the anti dog-eat-dog law? No?
Re: (Score:3)
If you'd actually read Atlas Shrugged you would know that the corporate heads who buy these laws and regulations are portrayed as villains.
I've read it. And yes, I remember her cartoon-villain evil CEOs, and her cartoon-hero good CEOs. And I know which type exists in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
I've read it recently. All those cartoon villains are frightenly believeable now. This was not the case 30 years ago (or I was to young to be this cynical, one of those).
Re: (Score:3)
Ayn Rand makes heroes of CEOs of giant corporations -- the same people who, in real life, buy these laws and regulations
Actually, the book makes both heroes and villains out of those CEOs. In her world, there are 2 types of CEOs. Some are the ones that build the company up from nothing, who value the product and the quality of the creation. The others are the financial analyst/legal types who do it for the power. While Ayn Rand oversimplified everyone to being either black or white, don't accuse the her of glorifying corporations - for every "good" CEO in the Atlas Shrugged there are 100 "bad" CEOs.
I've heard this one before (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't this the charge against the woman in the Megan Meier [wikipedia.org] suicide? As I recall, it didn't work. The judge essentially said that the law was too vague to mean that ToS violations counted as unauthorized access [wikipedia.org]
The DoJ can say whatever want, but they'll have a hard time of it. A federal court set precedent saying the opposite.
Recent facebook password swapping (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminder! (Score:3)
Laws should work FOR the people whose government represents them.
This whole fiasco reminds me, clearly, that business has priority over citizens in the US. Getting sick of this place more and more as the constitution and the purpose of our government has faded into the corrupt benefit of greed and exploit.
What's up with the DOJ? (Score:4, Informative)
They're the department that bought the $16 muffins. link [yahoo.com]
They claim that Willie Nelson's song The Gambler is proof that online poker is illegal (yes, you read that right).link [gpwa.org]
And now a ToS violation is a crime.
Maybe the DOJ needs to be brought to justice.
It's just politics, so it's all OK, right? (Score:3)
There was a time when I would have seen this as simple politics: appease the wealthy donors and corporations, but in the end the politicians don't follow through, or if they do it's struck down in court. Both sides know the game, both sides get something out of it [1], and in the end it doesn't matter too much. No harm, no foul. It's just politics.
But this isn't just politics: corporations creating law by TOS? That's the definition of corporatism. In the future we should expect this precedent to be used by auto manufacturers, home builders, coffee baristas, etc...
[1] The benefits to wealthy donors and corporations are: control of the conversation (setting the boundaries of 'reasonable' discussion), some laws passed in their favor (even if it takes them a long time), their interests are always addressed first during uncertain times (like with new technology).
Criminals, Felons, all (Score:5, Insightful)
I am now convinced that the only purpose for Government is to pass enough laws to make felons out of the entire population.
Gaming TOS/EULA (Score:3, Funny)
Orin Kerr's testimony opposing the CFAA... (Score:5, Informative)
http://volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-on-the-need-to-narrow-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/ [volokh.com]
http://cdn.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Testimony-of-Orin-S-Kerr.pdf [volokh.com]
" 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 my testimony, I want to explain why the CFAA presents a significant threat to civil liberties. I want to then offer two narrow and simple ways to amend the CFAA to respond to these problems. I will conclude by responding to arguments I anticipate the Justice Department officials might make in defense of the current statute."
Void for vagueness (Score:3)
Sounds like all those computer laws - which now by proxy include all TOS - are begging to get thrown out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
this *has* to be FUD (Score:3)
In a statement obtained by CNET that's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow, the Justice Department argues...
This interpretation is so obviously wrong, both in terms of common sense and as a textbook example that I suspect it's simply author Declan McCullagh trolling for outrage and click-throughs, perhaps unintentionally. Arguing that a violation of a private contract between two parties should be criminalized is simply not something a person who has passed any state bar --or a 1L criminal law course-- could make.
I'd like to see the "statement obtained by CNET", but of course it's nowhere to be found. All we have is McCaullagh's interpretation of it. I think... I hope... he's simply misreading the statement. It's convenient that they do not provide the source for which this article is entirely based upon.
Re:Enough (Score:5, Funny)
Surely the next guy will be different!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if the next guy is named "Shirley", he might well be "different".
Vote third party (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)