Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Cyberspace a Separate Place? 240

Posted by michael from the stranger-than-we-can-imagine dept.
Sierran writes: "According to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals (and reported by The New York Times) cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location. This has some interesting legal ramifications; does this mean we'll see Internet 'virtual estate' zoning as in Stephenson's Snow Crash?" Most courts have held the opposite - that internet activities are firmly rooted in the real world, located wherever the computers and people are.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cyberspace a Separate Place? More

Cyberspace a Separate Place?

Comments Filter:
  • This could be either good or bad... Good because governments may not have the jurisdiction over the internet, and bad, because freedoms we take for granted like free speech and such may be unenforceable.

    Not sure what I think of this... It's of course too soon to tell what the ramifications of this case are.

    • ...and bad, because freedoms we take for granted like free speech and such may be unenforceable.

      At the same point, try enforcing the lack of free speech.

      Note the law was against DeCSS, you saw how far they got trying to enforce that!

      Somehow I don't think free speech online is under fire. :-)

    • Re:Good and Bad (Score:2, Interesting)

      by plaisted ( 449711 )
      Free speach exists by default, so to speak. If there are no laws otherwise and no one enforcing censorship etc., then there is free speech.

      Think about it: Curtailment to free speech happens when a government threatens to do something (fine, jailtime, gestapo knocking at your door) if you say something they don't approve of. If the government does nothing like that, then anyone can say whatever they want.

      Applied to the internet, you have to assume that anyone can get a web page, which is a reasonable assumption, I think.

      • Re:Good and Bad (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        Free speach exists by default, so to speak. If there are no laws otherwise and no one enforcing censorship etc., then there is free speech.

        The opposite is also true. If you have no laws PROTECTING speech, then there is no free speech.

        Your speech would only be as free as the speed with which you can draw your sidearm.
    • The question answered by the ruling does not directly address digital content as such. It simply highlights a weakness in local zoning law.

      The position that no offer of adult entertainment for public consumption at the dorm where video is being shot, suggests that anyone may situate video production facilities for pornographic movies within this area without penalty.

      The next logical question is: Are the videos transfered to digital media for distribution at that loction (aparently not) or another location and would that other location (for the purposes of zoning) be considered to be offering entertainment of an adult nature - becaue it's vary likely the location of the hosting facility is zoned for light industry. Perhaps, alternatively the court is suggesting that the service is being offered at the point of consumption, since it is cinsidering 'cyberspace' to be a distinct location. It's disappointing that this clarification wasn't made in the ruling.

      --CTH
  • exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location

    So where then?
    And do I have to declare where for tax purposes?
    (Try telling that to the IRS!)

    • Re:Tax? (Score:2, Informative)

      by shibut ( 208631 )
      Based on previous rulings (e.g., sales tax) the physical location of the business does matter for tax purposes. In fact, in the sales tax case residents of any state in which the company has an office must pay sales tax. I don't think the IRS would give up their share w/o a fight...
  • So does this mean I can argue that while my *ster servers exist in the U.S., it actually exists in a virtual Sealand?

    I can see this is going to cause a lot of confusion (and we're gonna see this exploited a bunch)...I'd love to see what people like the RIAA could do with this.

  • Law (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by mischief ( 6270 )

    Does this mean that patents held in real life don't apply in cyberspace? What about domains? Intellectual property? What laws are there in cyberspace? Can I copy mp3s online as long as I don't burn them to CD and listen to it off of that?

    • Go Further, any machine connected to Cyberspace, is therefore part of Cyberspace, and therefore any content contianed within it is IN cyberspace.

  • Location (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Red Aardvark House ( 523181 )
    I thought the Napster case, if not setting precedence, gave insight into the idea that your jurisdiction is where the servers are. After all, if not for the servers, then the infringement could not take place.

    In this case, the house is in Tampa, not only serving up webcam feeds, but where "the action" is taking place. It almost seems trivial that the images are distributed over the internet, since the place of manufacture is clearly in Tampa.

    • Re:Location (Score:5, Insightful)

      by well_jung ( 462688 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:47AM (#2391800) Homepage
      In this case, the house is in Tampa, not only serving up webcam feeds, but where "the action" is taking place. It almost seems trivial that the images are distributed over the internet, since the place of manufacture is clearly in Tampa.
      That is true. However, this case was about wether the zoning laws should apply. What they (Virtual Dorm) were doing was NOT illegal, per se. It's firmly covered by the First Amendment.

      At issue here was if the city could use it's zoning laws to kick them out of that neighborhood (probably to save the children). The court ruled they can't, since the zoning laws are meant to allow cities the ability to keep casinos, strip clubs, and car factories away from the neihborhoods where the people that actually vote live. The reasoning for this is to avoid negative imapacts on property value, crime, and genreal peacefulness. Since the Internet was the forum for the service that Virtual Dorm provides, nobody was physically going to the house to watch the girls. Since nobody was going to watch them @ the house, the house isn't really where the infringing behavior is going on, and none of the traditional issues with strip clubs wrt zoning were applicable.

      It's quite different to run an Adult website than to run an "Adult" bookstore or a strip club. Not many bachelor parties hanging around outside your Co-Lo breaking beer bottles and pissing on flowers. ;)

  • Where is this comment?

    Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

  • setting up an end run on the Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LorenzoV ( 106795 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:09AM (#2391661)
    The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a state cannot charge sales tax on goods ordered from another state; this is a direct violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. Now, suppose that the internet is declared to be present in all states simultaneously. This would now open the door to states charging sales tax on internet purchases, regardless of the nexus of the merchant.
    • Yes, however because the company is located in another state it is them that you are ordering from, using the internet is just a means of communication, much like mail ordering, only high tech. If the internet exists in all states simultaneously, it also exists in all countries simultaneously, and so only international law should apply.
    • A small clarification. States cannot tax goods without an in-state nexus without congressional permission. That is because the Supreme Court ruled that nexus was a requirement it is a dormant commerce clause violation. A dormant commerce clause violation is one where the courts are going to presume that Congress wants things a certain way if it has not spoken, and Congress has not spoken yet.

      That is why we need to worry about internet transactions being taxed by states -- one little law, and boom it will be happening, and it would be constitutional.
  • Time to Declare Independance [eff.org].

    Death to the Lameness Filter!

  • There seem to be two ways of establishing legal traditions. One is to plan things out ahead of time, being aware of the mistakes of the past, and the other is to muddle one's way through, sort of making it up as you go along. Our system, based on English common law (but much changed from it), is definitely in category two.

    Do you trust our modern-day lawyers and judges to decide something so important as jurisdictional boundaries on the Internet in the anonymity of thousands of courtrooms? And, furthermore, isn't this Congress' job? Last I checked, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to choose which courts hear which items (with the caveat that whenever courts hear something, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction). I'm not that eager to put something like this in the hands of the people who gave us the DMCA, but I prefer a public debate to the mess we're going to get if we let lawyers slug this out behind closed doors using arcane rules that have frequently produced nigh-incomprehensible results.
    • There seem to be two ways of establishing legal traditions. One is to plan things out ahead of time, being aware of the mistakes of the past, and the other is to muddle one's way through, sort of making it up as you go along. Our system, based on English common law (but much changed from it), is definitely in category two.

      A little of both, I would say, since those who crafted the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights had the benefit of 150 years of intense experimentation into the structure of government (particularly in England and France) available to them as they drafted their documents. That was also a time of deep philosophical discussion of those questions at all levels of society (can you imagine Gary Condit at the Constituational Convention? Gag).

      sPh

    • You seem to have forgotten the way the US legal sytem works. There are three branches - the legislative (Congress) which passes the laws, the Executive (President, Cabinets) which enforces the laws, and the Judicial (courts) which decides the legality of the laws.

      Very often the courts will wind up with an issue for which there is no clear cut law. Then it's up to the judge(s) to make a rational decision based not only on case law, but also on what makes sense in modern society and to themselves. Sometimes these rulings wind up with the legislature passing a new law to either reaffirm the ruling or to invalidate it (whether or not the new law is legal is another question).

      That's all that's really happened here.

      And as for the flames of "the Internet has no boundaries!" - yeah. That's nice. When you want to get back to the Real World, let us know because the Real World still has boundaries and so legal precedent of what laws apply to cyberspace make a huge difference. How would you like to get deported to China for breaking a law there on the Internet because the industrialized countries had agreed to respect each others legal systems when it came to viewers inside their country? Or get deported to the US because the NSA decided you were a threat?

      As it happens, this ruling could make such a thing impossible, since Cyberspace is in a different legal jurisdiction... the question becomes, who's jurisdiction is it? And no, anarchy is not a viable solution. Go read some Niven if you think otherwise.
  • Treating the Internet as a separate country actually makes a lot of sense. It could greatly simplify legal issues.

    In an ideal world an international body would be set up so that any taxes gathered in this new country would go to humanitarian causes, helping third world countries develop, preventing diseases, promoting global stability and democracy, etc. Unfortunately the countries of the world are willing to unite and work together to fight and make war, but not to make the world a better place.

  • I donn't know about everyone else but .... (Score:4, Funny)

    by vtechpilot ( 468543 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:16AM (#2391684)
    When I am online its is a special magical place completely different from my living room. I loose all contact with the physical world. I know this because I can't hear the telephone ring.

  • it is out there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VEGETA_GT ( 255721 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:18AM (#2391690)
    "cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location"

    Think about it, I sit here at my compute, but what I do/say is out on servers everywhere. Do I know where, no. And can we consider the info being passed around to be something you can hold onto. No, its in a electronic form. Once something is on the net, its everywhere. What physical object can be everywhere at one. None.

    The net is its own universe onto its on. You can't really apply one countries law onto it since it extends to all places in this world. cyberspace has physical entry points in this world (pc's, servers) but after that, its just out there

    my 2 cents plus 2 more
    • as the Voyeur Dorm lawyer said:

      "Nothing takes place in the house, everything takes place in a virtual place,"

      Which sort of goes beyond logic. Nothing is going on there? Hardly.

      It is sort of like if they were selling video tapes. If they were selling video tapes, they would be subject to postal laws, etc.

      There is the actual activity that happens in the house. and then there is the commercial activity that takes palce their.

      Of course, by giving out the street address, they are sure to encourage flocks of cars to try to drive on by, people harrassing the girls, and making life uncomfortable in general. In other words, trying to shame them into leaving.

      • I think it would depend if the server is in the house or elsewhere, and where the financial transaction is processed. Filming adult video and selling that video are distinct and seperate activities. Whether the process is synchronous or aynnchronous should be irrelevent. Of course, IANAL.


        Of course, if you arouse the ire of Town Hall, you are in for trouble. Adult businesses are always on uncertian ground, even when they conform with every applicable law. An adult business can effectivly shut down by tying him up in court on bogus charges until the owner gives up or goes bankrupt. The legal system is far too easy to abuse in this regard


        Politicians get good "clean up this town" press by persecuting adult businesses. Due to our society's schitzophrenic attitude regarding anything sexual, getting rid of "smut" almost always gets a favorable response. Not many people are willing to speak out against these unfair actions for fear of being stigmitized as "perverts".

        • Filming and selling aren't necessarily all that separate. Harry Rheems got paid like $100 for a day's work asan actor on Deep Throat filmed out in California or somewhere, never got any royalties or per centage of the box office anywhere or a cut of the video tape sales, in other words he was basically a day laborer.

          About 10 years later he's hauled into court (federal, I think) in Memphis or around there, even though he'd never been anywhere near there in his life, to stand trial for violating community standards.

          Never heard how it turned out or if he ever recovered from the crushing legal bills, but wherever there's an ambitious prosecutor don't assume the existance of very many legal protections. Remember the old saying about a DA being able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

  • ...the real world and the wired is not so clear.

    :)

  • This is a *zoning* law issue (Score:5, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:19AM (#2391698) Homepage Journal

    But you wouldn't get that from the summary, would you?

    The court is interpreting the zoning laws properly:

    ...the Supreme Court has held that a city has authority to zone or displace an adult business, because it has an important interest in preventing so-called "secondary effects" on adjacent properties -- such as a decline in property values or an increase in crime.

    Yet "those concerns are not implicated in this case," Weinberg said. Voyeur Dorm's business does not encourage "guys with bloodshot eyes to tromp around the suburbs of Tampa, looking for naked ladies," he said.

    This is clearly a case of prudish interests trying to use a zoning law against its originl spirit, and not getting away with it. That's good. But it's not a major change in cyberspace law.

    • Once again we see that the majority of people (including the people that come up with and approve the articles) are too busy sounding brilliant about the "implications" to read the articles and try to figure out what actually happened. The judiciary in this point made what I agree to be a valid estimation: That the activities that DID occur in the house (basically young ladies getting paid to walk around naked indoors) were legal under the spirit of zoning statutes (preventing visible business/activities likely to have a negative impact on the neighborhood) and that the "sexual commerce" aspect of the business occurred at locations remote to the actual house in question. In fact, this can be seen as affirming the notion that cyberspace activities occur at the "point of sale" so to speak - the judge's point is that the nasty men everyone objects to are jogging it in the privacy of their homes or offices, not in this uptight little Florida community that's so horrified that there are naked girls in a house in their pristine little suburb.


      The "cyberspace is a whole other world" interpretation is just being slapped on this narrow decision. It won't hold up as a precedent in a case with broader implications.

    • Ok, then let's address this from a zoning perspective. A residential property has no business acting as a commercial property, no matter what form that commerce takes place in.


      Then, there's the issue that it's trivial to take an internet address and turn it into a physical address. (Well, so long as you have the right software tools.) At which point, I would have to disagree. Since it's cheaper for some crazy freak to download a few bits of software, establish where this house is, and simply go there, instead of paying whatever fees this cam charges (whether openly or not), it =DOES= affect the local area.

      • Any zoning law I've ever seen allows for business to take place from the home, as long as said business operates within certain bounds... like, you can't have a showroom open to the public all day.. but you can certainly invite a potential customer over to talk business.

        Many accountants operate out of their home.. perfectly legally.
        Many home-based businesses are out there. What about contract programmers working from home? That's operating a business from your home.. are you saying that is illegal?

      • Ok, then let's address this from a zoning perspective. A residential property has no business acting as a commercial property, no matter what form that commerce takes place in.

        What a crock!

        I know that bullshit like the D^H[censored to avoid controversy, but still pretty damned easy to guess] has gotten most people used to the idea that laws simply exist to force foreign values and artificial contraints upon others. But don't ever forget that there used to be actual reasons for laws. Anytime someone is accused of breaking the letter of some law without any consideration given to that law's purpose and spirit, we are all getting fucked.

        In the case of zoning laws, their purpose isn't to tell people they're not allowed to make (or lose, if you're a dot-com ;-) money at home. It's because commercial entities typically have customers, employees, etc coming and going all day. Most people don't want to live next to a McDonalds or a Bank of America -- I already get all the carbon monoxide that I need, thankyouverymuch.

        If the purpose of commercial zoning was to somehow control whether or not the activities that people perform, are allowed to lead to money, then the whole concept of "home office" wouldn't be tolerated.

        "Oh no, you were thinking of an invention while laying in bed one night? If that invention might be profitable, then please get outta this part of town while you do your daydreaming. We don't want your kind around here."

        "Building Apples in your garage? Hey, I'm calling the cops!"

        "Wait a minute, that porn you shot -- you're going to sell it? Whoa, whoa, that's a zoning violation."

    • Voyeur Dorm's business does not encourage "guys with bloodshot eyes to tromp around the suburbs of Tampa, looking for naked ladies," he said.

      Speak for yourself [mapquest.com]...
      • Congratulations, you've shown people how to get to the intersection of Kennedy and Tampa Street, which happens to be smack in the middle of downtown Tampa's business district. (I used to work a block away from there, at an office building at the intersection of Jackson and Franklin St.)

        I'd like to give you credit for the joke, but you'll have to try a little harder. Pick a suburb near the university (it's called "dorm" for a reason, and my suspicion is the suburb in question is Temple Terrace, renowned across the county for being tremendously uptight).
        • But if you enter the address (2312 West Farwell Drive) given in the NYT article into MapQuest's search box, it returns a map showing a location about 1500 ft. east of St Joseph's Hospital (no doubt the place where they invented baby aspirin).
    • Exactly. It is in no way a jurisdictional action, and that is what many, many more networking cases tend to revolve around. Here it is just how zoning law is applied.

      The court has merely interpreted the zoning law to be intended to prevent the activities of some defendant from upsetting the activities of some plaintiff. If I opened a piledriver testing facility next to a hospital, that would be in violation of the zoning laws regarding sounds.

      If I could _mute_ the piledrivers so that there was absolutely no alteration in the condition of the people at the hospital whether they were on or off, I would not be in violation of that particular law.

      That it involves the internet really has nothing significant to do with it
    • Although the case does not state this, it is generally preferred to interpret statutes to avoid constitutional issues if reasonable. Here, by interpreting the zoning law as not addressing the internet context, the constitutional First Amendment issues are avoided.

      This ruling does not prevent the town from amending its zoning law to specifically cover the issue. At that point, the constitutional issue would be unavoidable.
    • The American Family Association has significant representation on the City Counsel through one Bob Buckhorn, which is what gave rise to this matter. Representatives for the defendants, an able First Amendment attorney, raised the First Amendment issues, but the Court didn't reach them because the zoning ordinance itself was held to require that the entertainment not merely originate in, but also be received in, the alleged adult entertainment facility (hence the social impact).

      Ultimately AFA Bob will probably rework the ordinance, the case will once again be tried and the defendants lose below, and the Eleventh Circuit will once again have the issue, but will ultimately have to face the (very interesting) First Amendment questions.
  • the Supreme Court has held that a city has authority to zone or displace an adult business, because it has an important interest in preventing so-called "secondary effects" on adjacent properties -- such as a decline in property values or an increase in crime.
    If this applies in the physical world, does it now also apply in the virual world?

    eg Can an authority now order the displacement/zoning away adult material online because its proximity to my bussiness (eg A very similar or misspelt domain name, or perhaps on the same server) causes my bussiness to be devalued/dissrespected?

  • The Internet is a series or privately and publicly owned networks connected together. The routers, switches and servers are owned by corporations. These corporations are based in political boundaries we call countries and must follow the local laws and regulations as well as those of countries in which they operate.

    What makes anyone think cyberspace is a different world? With this argument one can say they can set up an online heroin business that should be immune to any legal ramifications.

    • What makes anyone think cyberspace is a different world? With this argument one can say they can set up an online heroin business that should be immune to any legal ramifications


      Bad analogy, they should be able to set up an online heroin business with no legal ramifications, but unless you are going to use the drug in cyberspace and not have it delivered to you physically they'll get busted when they try to ship it. It is a separate place with separate rules. It's the interaction with the real world that cause the gray area.

  • Not really another place (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rupert ( 28001 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:24AM (#2391721) Homepage Journal
    This is not really about the location. If the company running the Voyeur Dorm was showing the live video feeds on a TV in its offices in (say) Miami, then that would be subject to Miami's zoning laws, not Tampa's (where the house is). Presumably a city could come up with a zoning law that restricted the areas in which adult web-hosting businesses could operate.

    This ruling would strike down such zoning laws. The judge ruled that because there are no secondary effects of operating the business (late night visitors, disturbances, unsavory characters roaming the streets) then the city does not have the right to restrict constitutionally protected behavior.

    And quite right, too.
    • America is in the hands of the Religious Right extremists (so much so, that the President is capable of making openly religious remarks, with barely a whisper of a complaint about the seperation of Church & State, and even fewer complaints about our Beloved Leader ranking himself as having greater morality than the very God he preaches about.)


      Given that, anything which offends the Religious Right (anyone of the wrong color, sexual orientation, gender, occupation, etc) is open to being targetted by State-sanctioned terrorism. Don't think it can't happen in the US - it does, far too much already.


      What does this mean? Should these girls not sell what they want to sell, because of some potential threat?


      I don't give a damn what these girls do, but I DO object to the claim that what they do cannot affect the local neighborhood. Should anyone decide to destroy immorality, in that area, they are likely to destroy most of the surrounding landscape, too. Including other people, who have nothing to do with this.


      In short, what they do affects EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING that they are near. Whether they should have to pay attention to that is another issue, though them being selfish a-holes certainly doesn't inspire confidence that they would voluntarily consider the wellbeing of those around them.


      Terrorists, whether State-sancioned or not, Religious or athiest, are not discriminate. They want results, they want them quickly, and they want them dramatically. I'd say anyone living within a block of the cam, especially in times as troubled and dangerous as these, is living in a much higher risk bracket than almost anyone else in America.

      • Isn't that rather like saying that you believe abortion should be legal, but that no one should actually perform any because if some lunatic bombs them the people in the building next door might get hurt?

  • Don't look at it backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dooferlad ( 101535 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:27AM (#2391731) Homepage Journal
    Most comments posted so far are looking at this from the point of view of people creating different laws for Cyberspace. This isn't really in the spirit of the ruling. The point is that Voyeur Dorm wasn't selling sexually explicit material in a particular area where it was banned. This doesn't mean that I, in the UK, can import pr0n on the net, and say it is OK because it is in cyberspace. The point is that cyberspace sales don't affect the people in the area directly by changing the atmosphere of the area (the law that was being challenged was to do with keeping sales of a sexually explicit nature away from residential areas, because it changes the mood of the area for the worse). You can't just use this ruling to say "DECSS doesn't break the law, because the law doesn't apply to cyberspace", the law does (in all the places I know of at any rate).

    -- Dooferlad
    • I can see your point, I just don't agree with the conclusion the courts came to. Anybody can figure out the geographic location of a server, with just a few simple tools and a map.


      Since this is possible, it follows that the area cannot be assumed to be unaffected, merely because the commerce is over the Internet.


      (This does not mean that I think any given activity should be legal, banned, or purple; just that courts - and even technically-aware people - have a tendancy to jump to conclusions, rather than think things through.)


      Ok, so far I've established that I disagree with the conclusion, but what, exactly, are these tools that enable you to figure out the geographic location?


      First, there are the "obvious" ones: ping, bping, traceroute, tracepath, prtraceroute, prpath and xtraceroute. Yes, you do need all seven, as they all supply different information. As not all routers supply their geographic location, the key is to use the closest known router. From there, you can use the names, IP numbers and AS number to figure out what block of addressed belongs to who, over what geographic area.


      This gives you a radius you can plot on that map. By using prpath, you can determine the number of paths from any given AS number to any given destination. This allows you to eliminate a certain percentage of that circle you just drew. (More paths and higher intermediate timings, the further away. More paths and lower intermediate timings, the closer & better-connected.)


      Then, you simply use a bit of detective-work. Servers need power to run, so you can ignore anything marked as thick forest, swamp, ocean, etc. The better the connectivity, the more money these people have. (Not many slums have T3 or T4 lines running to them.) Likewise, poor connectivity suggests an area without much cash. Otherwise, they wouldn't be running a server on some cans & string.


      By this time, you're probably in the region of a few blocks. But you can narrow it down still further. The lag is a function of routers, but it is also a function of distance. (Partly because signals don't travel instantaneously, but much more because long lines will generate more errors, requiring more retransmits.)


      What you need to do is calculate the approximate length of the line, by calculating the effort required to induce errors on that line. ping and bping are good for this. Just load up the line, and see how the delays vary with load.


      Ok, now you've got the length of the line. This gives you an arc inside of those few blocks I mentioned. The server is located in that arc.


      Once you know that, then it's a question of going down there and figuring out which of the remaining houses on your list are likely candidates. (If the cam shows a dozen people, houses with a dozen cars are more likely than a house with one scooter.)


      There. A simple recipe for tracking down any server on the Internet. Simple? Sure! All the tools are free & commonplace, and it requires the user to be able to add, subtract, and draw circles and lines. Hardly rocket-science! There is nothing in this list that an 8-yr-old couldn't do, with zero training in computing, but with a basic understanding of geometry.


      It's also legal, unlike the REALLY quick method of finding out. (Phoning the ISP, pretending to be someone in authority, and bluffing the information out of them.) Bluffing is the single-fastest way to locate anything, anywhere, but as Kevin Mitnick found out, it's often the fastest way to make some SERIOUS enemies. (He was a "computer cracker" only in the technical sense. In the professional sense, he was a bloody good psychologist and a phenominal manipulator to boot.)

      • By your line of argument, zoning should also be able to prohibit strippers from living in a neighborhood. After all, it takes far less work than you detailed for customers of a strip club to find out where a stripper lives and start hanging around her neighborhood.

        All you've shown is a lack of security for the girls, not any violation of zoning...

  • What about gambling? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rand Race ( 110288 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:27AM (#2391734) Homepage
    With this ruling, which makes perfect sense with regards to zoning laws (sorry P2P people, this doesn't cover you), it seems that online gambling should recieve the same protection. For adult businesses and gambling establishments the reasoning in controlling them via legislation is their 'secondary effects' on the immediate community. There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries and since online-only businesses do not have any significant detrimental effect on the surrounding communities they can not be contrilled via zoning restrictions. Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous.


    Now, what about online prostitution?

    • There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries

      I can think of a couple off the top of my head: the state has an interest in enforcing the contract between you and the casino, viz., that the game is fair. Also, states hate to have untaxed economic activity within their borders.

      Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous

      By this reasoning, laws against murder are also contrary to the 1st amendment. (Thou shalt not...) The Constitution does not prohibit an ethics, even one based on a religion, from influencing the law. Indeed, Christianity *does* influence Western law, Islam *does* influence law in the Middle east, etc.

      Now, what about online prostitution?

      It's run by companies like Covad: you give them your money, you get fucked.

      • Regarding the 'state enforced contract'. Sorry.. bullshit. Yes, that may be true in many places... but an online casino loses it's business FAST if it's not honest. That goes DOUBLY for online casinos.. as it would be even easier for them to cheat their customers. Most are audited by very reputable firms every year to ensure the house take on the games is *precisely* as they stated it would be.

        We all know the reason the government regulates gambling is because they want the taxes.. nothing more. Everything else is just PR nonsense to get people riled up about it.

        Also... with regards to online casinos, forcing them to run from jursidictions outside the US simply moves the business & associated jobs, etc, outside the country.. it does not change the customer base AT ALL. that's the point. I can assure you that Americans gamble like mad online, all the time.. at casinos that are all run outside the country, by other americans, pefectly (despite the odd test case) legally.

  • This is what happens when we tread into new territory. Different courts make opposing decisions, some for the good, some for the bad. Government pass laws, some good, some bad. Eventually the dust will settle, and hopefully someone will straighten out the mess that has already been created.

    -Shade
  • i don't go anywhere when i place a telephone call. correspondence via snail mail has no impact on my physical location. and i sure as fuck don't go to new 'places' when i 'surf' or send email - my fat ass is still right there in the chair. which part of this did the honorable judge spacely not understand?
  • of course the obligatory login-free link [nytimes.com].
    "Look, the Eleventh Circuit recognized that there is another place out there that is not in Tampa, that is not anywhere, but is where these people are offering services," said David Post, a law professor at Temple University who specializes in Internet law. "The way the court talked is meaningful," he said, adding later: "It suggests that judges are wrestling with the idea that in some cases we are going to have to come up with new legal frameworks" to address cyberspace.
    this is a totally illogical ruling. the internet is not some ether that just floats around and doesn't exist in any physical location. the judge should have realized that these porn transactions happened at the location of the server.

    the article doesn't even say where the servers are. they may be in nebraska or they may be inside the house where the cameras are.

    whatever local statutes there are against adult entertainment transactions should apply to electronic ones too.

    this is no different than if they were offering a 1-900 phone service. the transactions don't happen in "another place out there".
    • If you had read the article you would see that it is a completely logical ruling, that held up the spirit of the zoning laws that were the focus of this case.


      It's also importnat to point out that these transactions do not take place at the server only.
      They take place at every hop along the way and on every machine that carries a packet to it's final destination. It is not a direct connection from one machine to another. Are all the imtermidiate carriers accessories to the crime? Cyberspace is a different place, the normal rules of space and time are dramatically different than what we're used to in the Real World, localization of a global network just does not work.

    • this is a totally illogical ruling. the internet is not some ether that just floats around and doesn't exist in any physical location. the judge should have realized that these porn transactions happened at the location of the server.

      For over a hundred years, courts have held that corporations, a non-physical entity with no address, no social security number, and no personal liability, are persons under the law.

      Lawyers have counted angels on the heads of pins for generations. 'Bout time something good came out of their heads for something other than a corporation -- for us.
  • Anyone worried about trivial things like taxes is missing the point here. This is clearly a Fourth Amendment workaround--an attempt to evade the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."


    The last time the government tried to pull this with wiretapping even Louis Brandeis couldn't save us and the precident stood until 1967! Here's a good link about Olmstead vs. the United States [nesara.com].

  • in making cyberspace fall under the jurisdiction of federal law alone. It kind of makes sense in a way, if the "location" spans states and the state governments themselves can't agree who should be enforcing what laws, perhaps it's up to the federal government. Of course, then you get into international issues, like off-shore gambling, participating in illegal activities via the 'net overseas. Will the 'net then fall under U.N. jurisdiction? What about countries not in the U.N.?

    Back to the subject at hand: I would think states would want it both ways here. Make it so that they can legitimately tax sales online (ignoring current interstate sales laws), without having to go to the trouble of enforcing criminal laws of the Internet themselves.

    Feh...I could be wrong. :)

  • Finally some legal sense and recognition of what we have all always known. Hopefully the will be the beginning of more legal precedents getting set. CyberSpace is different, and should be considered differernt from a physical location. Almost to the point that its considered a different state/province/or even country all together. To this end even the laws governing CyberSpace should be made by those involved in and using cyberspace, and not by those for the most part "disconnected".
  • I can't believe this case even went to court. Anyone could videotape a porn movie in a private house in that municipality and later sell it in a store. But it's not ok to transmit the video over the internet?

    The government really needs to stay out of people's homes.
  • ...the new york times just inadvertently gave 10,000 geeks the address of the Voyeur Dorm.


    I can't imagine what we'll be seeing tomorrow...


    CmdrTaco Arrested with Pants Around Ankles, Stalking Frightened Co-Eds


    You heard it here first...

  • Does that mean we can make a declaration of independence?

  • Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @08:55AM (#2391841) Homepage
    Basicly it's a ruling stating that this company isn't causing problems in its neighbourhood, and therefore doesn't violate zoning regulations. If they were producing something that's illegal in the state in general (say if making such video recordings at all were illegal), it'd be different, then the laws will apply as normal. It's simply a case of a company not violating the *intentions* of zoning regulations, and therefore got off the hook. And I'd say it's a good thing, that sometimes the legal system looks at laws and make sure they are enforced as intended, not only by the letter.
  • Show me a cyberspace jail and I'll start taking this seriously. We cannot proclaim cyberspace to be a 'place' without throwing out all hope of redress when someone commits a crime there.

    The only arguement against this is that it is nigh on impossible to kill someone online, or even do them physical harm (anyone challenge this??) and as such the worst crimes cannot be commited entirely online, and so will come under a physical locations jurisdiction.

    Crime against property, stealing the contents of someones bank account, wiping their hard drive, any act committed online are relatively minor and so it doesn't matter that we can't 'get justice'. This is the brave new world we just chose to live with that.

    As I said - that would be the only arguement I could think of to support the 'other place' concept - and personally I think its so full of holes to be a joke.
    • You can kill someone from online, how about the guys who were breaking into the power grid? That could do some really interesting things, think home respirator getting immense electrical surge or cutting power. Also where does "online" stop, is it just the "Internet", Internet2, BBS, connection over a phoneline to another system. There's probably a nuclear power plant somewhere in the world that has a modem, etc. connection, there could be some massive deaths there (course that's very improbable of ever occuring).

      I don't know about you, but if I had all my money wiped from my bank accounts it would *not* be a minor thing, it's not like people keep cash in a hole dug out back. Think about people who are retired and living off of their savings from the past 50-60 years, and ALL their money is now gone, what are they going to live off of?

      I don't think anybody could support these types of arguments, and as you said are way full of holes.

  • Tampa officials sought to close down the house because it allegedly violated the city's zoning rule, Section 27-523, which largely prohibits in residential areas "any premises . . . on which is offered to members of the public . . . for consideration, entertainment featuring . . . specified sexual activities."

    Guess that means in Tampa you're not allowed to bring home a date.
  • I don't agree with the ruling. It sounds to me like another uneducated, or miseducated judge has ruled on something they don't understand.

    This is what I mean: saying the internet is a seperate "place" out there is like saying that a phone line is a "place" also. When business is done over the phone, it's between two parties who are firmly based somewhere in the real world. My point is that the internet is just a communications medium and not a location. If you want to frame business transaction laws do so in regards to where the company is registered, not where it's servers exist.

    Another way of thinking about things is a 3 piece model, for example: When you call 1-800-ABCDEFG, you might be talking to a telemarketer based out of a strictly telemarketing company somewhere like Charleston, SC, but Hooked on Phonics as a company resides elsewhere (I don't know where, but let's say Portland, Oregon.) So the actual transaction taking place is between you and the company in Portland, and as a secondary transaction the company in Portland pays the company in Charleston for it's telemarketing service. This is basically the same setup as the internet. You have a company, a web hosting company, and a customer. If they establish the internet as a "place" then this web hosting company will be responsible for taxes on all of its transactions, as well as other legal ramifications. I personally don't beleive that this is the right way to go about things, we need to have laws based on entity to entity transactions rather than the actual path taken.

    • Read the actual case (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nanojath ( 265940 )
      If you read the actual case (there's a link in the NY Times article you'd find that this is really a reasonable interpretation. What's going on here is that some people want to shut down this house because they don't like the fact that someone is filming naked girls there, so they tried to use the letter of some zoning laws (specifying that a premise cannot make a public commerce offering of a sexual nature) to get the business thrown out. The business objected that the house is just a "filming/staging area" and that the actual commerce occurs remotely. The judge (rightly, I think) agreed: The spirit of the zoning law in question is about the public in the physical sense coming to do commerce at a specific local location. The judge is saying this zoning law cannot impact non-public activities, even if they are sexual in nature and carried out for the purpose of commerce. This is actually a precedent saying the internet IS like any other form of communication. Just because a transmission of data occurs in real time over telecommunications lines, the judge is saying it is no different than if they taped some naked girls and then mailed that tape to a customer. By the way those protesting the business were interpreting the law, that would be illegal too - as would making an adult film, or running an adult chat line from one's home, or writing a dirty story for Penthouse, for that matter.


      I can only thank my lucky stars that "ignorant" judges like these ones are deciding legal precedents instead of people like you who don't bother to synthesize the facts.

      • That's right. The key points don't concern cyberspace, but rather that the zoning ordinance used was not really applicable to this sort of operation. The ordinance specifically and only prohibited sexual entertainment in certain zones. The "entertainment" wasn't occurring there, but wherever the video is downloaded. The ostensible reason for the ordinance was that strip joints and adult bookstores attract undesirable traffic -- and if the security at Voyeur Dorm is good, there aren't going to be any such problems, nor did the city present any evidence that there were problems. And if there is some other motivation for the ordinance that the zoning commission did not want to publicly admit to, that isn't something the court needs to take into account...

        If the ordinance forbade all businesses, then it would stand up. Of course, that also means no home offices...

  • MMOGs as cybernations? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @09:31AM (#2391998)
    Does this mean that the areas in online games (EverQuest, Ultima Online.) are now considered to be separate space? If so, do they count as part of the nation that they are hosted within, or are they separate nations? Does this mean that because Norrath (EverQuest) is a land unto itself within cyberspace, I can give lectures on cracking SDMI within Norrath and not fear prosecution by the US government?

  • I hate that word (OT) (Score:2, Insightful)

    by demon ( 1039 )
    "Cyberspace" - kill me. I hate that word. It's so... so... stupid. I can't think of a word to sufficiently describe my distaste for that word. I don't even remember who came up with that word, but please, please, let them be appropriately beaten for it...
    • William Gibson coined it in his cyberpunk stories in the seventies and eighties.

  • Say good-bye to "rights" (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Friday October 05, 2001 @10:05AM (#2392104)
    Personally, I think the concept of "rights" as something that individuals hold in relation to governments (including their own) is just about over in the United States.

    The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting today the the U.S. Government is currently holding at least 300 people in connection with the 9/11 incident. These 300 are being held in secret, without being allowed to communicate with attorneys, without their attorneys being informed when court proceedings are being held, without family members being informed where the prisoners are being held or even that they _are_ being held, and with all records of the proceedings being kept under "seal" (a concept that I don't believe appears in the Constitution of the United States).

    Any objections to that? You will probably be next.

    sPh
    • I couldn't find the article you are citing, although I found this [post-dispatch.com], which indicates that 150 people are being held, some in Europe and some in some in the US. It makes no mention of whether or not these suspects are being denied an attorney or other rights.

      However, I have heard of many people, suspected of involvment in the 9/11 attacks, being held in the US on immigration violations. Currently, there are some pretty messed up US immigration laws that allow people to be caught in a legal limbo, in jail, but with no trial, sometimes for years. It is a messed up situation, but it is not new since 9/11. Also, it only affects non-US citizens who have not dotted the i's and crossed the t's with regard to their immigration status.

      While I certainly am not supportive of this situation, it is very different than the broad, sinister powers you are ascribing to the government. The government is not locking up US citizens, but it is taking advantage of poorly written immigration laws to hold suspects indefinitely.

  • deeper issue (Score:2, Interesting)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 )
    I think the deeper issue at hand is current laws do not address internet businesses and whole new models of commerce. Most of the laws reguarding zoning were created to address public works, transportation, realestate, development, property value and other physical issues. Those zoning laws were created to prevent a person from opening a store at home, since there wouldn't be sufficient parking or facilities to accomodate a large number of people. A lot of zoning laws are there for good reasons, but it doesn't stop people from using them incorrectly. Law suits like the one mentioned have been creeping up as neighborhoods become aware of what is happening. The definition of space/cyberspace is actually not relevant. No matter how much people love/hate the word. Laws surrounding commerce, and how businesses operate define what is permitted.
    In the next few years, this case may become very important. If there are no visible external signs of business transaction at a location, it is hard for law enforcement to monitor/enforce. The only way a person would know a neighbor was operating an adult business from home is if they went to the website. Conservatives will always have a problem with the sale/purchase of adult services, but that doesn't give them the right to misinterpret a law and use it to their own gains. It is obvious the legal system and law enforcement doesn't know how to handle these new situations. As internet businesses continue to grow world wide, enforcing laws will becoming increasingly difficult. With great freedom comes great burden. This case has a lot more at stake than just adult entertainment. At it's core, it about culture and commerce.
  • I mean, we always have to remember that these servers, at the moment, are run by real people, from real physical locations, in real jurisdictions, where the law applies to them.
    One should not be able to avoid local law by simply going 'online'.

    It is important, however, when it comes to more purely informational crimes.. for the courts and lawmakers to realize that if they make running a certain type of site illegal online from their country, it will not preven those who want such information from obtaining it; the site will just run from somewhere else where it IS legal, and the exact same audience will be there to see it (Audience being the whole internet).
  • Now that the address (the real physical one) has been published, (2312 West Farwell Drive, Tampa Florida) what's the likelyhood that the mentioned "unsavory" types might come around looking for a free live show? Might this not just be the result that the municipal officials were hoping for? Unsavory types show up, the case is re-opened in court, the house is forced to move...

    What the hell do I know? ;o)
    • If I were running that company, I'd figure a way to sue the local government for exposing the address to the public. It's like publishing the address of exotic dancers, a practice frowned-upon by dancers themselves.
      By making the address public (and this is assuming, btw, that the address isn't listed on the site) the government there could be encouraging harrassment not only from the neighbors but from roving psychos around the country.
  • They are specifically tied to a physical location and specific items. So do the cops need a warrant to search my house and ALSO one to search my "cyber-space" even though the machine holding said cyber space sits in the same location ? I more confused than ever...
  • The Eleventh Circuit did not hold [emory.edu] that the cyberspace conduct wasn't *in* Tampa, they merely held that a particular Tampa zoning ordinance prohibiting offering of adult entertainment to members of the public presumes that the customers physically attend the premises so zoned and wherein the entertainment is performed.

    It isn't a very deep or fundamental observation about technology to suggest that a person at the other end of a communications line from a source location isn't physically located at the source. Saying that it is "in virtual space," wasn't really more meaningful than that, except in the case where the other guy is also in Tampa, albeit at a different place.

    Because the statute itself didn't expressly address regulation of sources of publication, the Court didn't address the First Amendment issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Close