Curse

Fril Estelin · May 23, 2008, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Disclaimer: very US-law-intensive article, it's real and before you make comments, have a thought for "MTM" who died commiting suicide.

Very, very sad story, illustrating how people should not trust the electronic medium as it is and how the whole digital world can lead to very bad things in RL. More importantly, the article highlights the gap between communication laws applying to non-electronic communications (phone, etc) and the need for something in the digital domain. At the moment, the net has grey zones from the point of view of the law, and we already saw that with RMT and other kinds of social engineering hacking.

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/473

Quote:

Anti-Social Networking
Mark Rasch, 2008-05-22

On May 15, 2008, a federal grand jury Los Angeles indicted 49-year-old Lori Drew of O’Fallon, Missouri, on charges of unauthorized access to a computer, typically used in hacking cases. Yet, Drew's alleged actions had little to do with computer intrusions.

The middle-aged mother had allegedly created a MySpace page in the name of "Josh Evans" -– purportedly a 16-year-old boy -- and used the page to contact a friend of Drew’s daughter, a 13-year-old girl. The girl, who had a MySpace page, is referred to in the indictment only as MTM (although the girl’s name is widely reported elsewhere). While Drew’s initial motivation was purportedly to get information from MTM about her relationship with the woman's daughter, eventually the fictitious online relationship between "Josh Evans" and MTM turned ugly and abusive. When the fictional "Josh" broke up with the pre-adolescent MTM, the distraught girl committed suicide. Only later did MTM’s parents learn of Lori Drew’s alleged subterfuge.

Initial research by investigators could find no law that Drew had broken. However, prosecutors in Los Angeles resorted to a novel legal theory to charge Drew with crimes which could result in twenty years in jail. Ironically, the crimes charged have almost nothing to do with MTM’s suicide or Lori Drew’s alleged "cyber bullying." Instead, the prosecutors assert that merely violating MySpace’s (or any other Web site’s) "Terms of Use" constitute a prosecutable offense.

A "crime" in search of a statute

There is no doubt that Lori Drew’s alleged actions are unconscionable and inexcusable. But is it a federal computer crime? If so, what is it about what Lori Drew did that is deserving of criminal prosecution?

Let's review the allegations in the case.

First, she created a MySpace page with false information, lying about her name, gender and age. Second, she used that account to communicate with MTM. Third, using the "Josh" identity, she flirted with MTM, and inevitably got "information" from her -– most likely information about Drew’s daughter. Fourth, someone using the "Josh" identity -- there were several people using the account at this point -- broke up with MTM in a manner that ultimately contributed to MTM’s suicide.

Nobody has yet alleged that Drew intended that MTM commit suicide or that she encouraged it. This appears to be a classic case of someone either intentionally or negligently causing another "severe emotional distress" –- a civil and actionable tort but not a crime under current law. Indeed, as a result of the suicide, the Board of Aldermen of Dardenne Prarie, Missouri passed a law last November making it illegal to engage in a pattern of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to suffer "substantial emotional distress" or for an adult to contact a child under 18 in a communication causing a reasonable parent to fear for the child's well-being. It is not clear that such a statute would survive First Amendment scrutiny, and a recent study (pdf) showed that 7 percent of online teens said they have felt scared or uncomfortable as a result of contact by an online stranger and another study (pdf) showed that 32 percent of all teenagers who use the internet said that they had been targets of annoying and potentially menacing online activities, such as receiving threatening messages, having their private emails or text messages forwarded without consent, having an embarrassing picture posted without permission, or having rumors about them spread online. With the tens of millions of users on online social networking sites, the Missouri statute could conceivably make criminals of millions, including millions of other teenagers.

There is also a federal harassment statute, 47 USC 223 (a)(1)(E), which makes it a misdemeanor to "repeatedly initiate communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person . . .who receives the communication." But was Lori Drew’s sole purpose to harass MTM? Putting aside that question, the statute may not even apply here since it requires that you use a "telecommunications device" which, under section (h)(1)(b), "does not include an interactive computer service." Both statutes, 47 USC 230(f)(2), and case law (pdf) make it clear that social networking sites like MySpace are "interactive computer services" so the federal harassment statute likely can’t be used.

The Missouri "harassment" statute is likewise unavailing, as it generally just prohibits communications that "use coarse language offensive to one of average sensibility" and is a misdemeanor to boot. While several states have either passed or are considering passing cyber-bullying statutes, these generally are directed at having school officials develop policies to prohibit offensive online conduct and are not criminal statutes aimed at making such offensive conduct a felony.

Social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook have gone to great efforts to try to protect the privacy and security of the services they offer, including reaching extensive agreements with state's attorneys general regarding policing of internal policies and protecting privacy. But in the case of MTM, the public outrage and outcry regarding the nature of Drew’s conduct sent prosecutors scrambling to find something, anything, that they could prosecute her for.

It was the paucity of relevant laws that lead the United States Attorney’s Office in Missouri, where the harassment occurred, to decline prosecution. Based upon the fact that MySpace’s servers are located in California, prosecutors in Los Angeles picked up the baton, and forged ahead with a prosecution for computer crime and conspiracy to commit computer crime.

Computer, crimes and misdemeanors

The Federal Computer Crime Statute, 18 USC 1030(a)(2)(c), makes it a crime to, in interstate commerce,

intentionally access a computer without authorization or exceed authorized access, and thereby obtain information from any protected computer.

The crime is a misdemeanor unless it is committed "in furtherance of any . . . tortious act in violation of the . . . laws of the United States or of any State." While the infliction of severe emotional distress is generally considered "tortuous conduct," it may not violate the laws of the state. In some states, torts or "civil wrongs" like negligence, libel, defamation, or even trespass are defined by statute and could violate state laws. Indeed, Missouri implicitly recognizes a list of different torts by statute, including things like wrongful death, trespass and medical malpractice. However, the tort of "intentional infliction of severe emotional distress" in Missouri appears to be a creature of common law, not statute. Just as a breach of a contract can lead to liability but is not truly a "violation of the law" the intentional tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress may not be a "violation of the law" even if it is subject to a civil action recognized by law.

This may be moot, as the felony-misdemeanor dichotomy is an illusion: If you exceed authorization to access a computer and thereby obtain information, it’s a misdemeanor, but if you do so with in furtherance of any tort or crime, it’s a felony. But wait. Trespass, including computer trespass -- that is, exceeding authorization to access a computer -- is itself a tort. Not only that, but it’s also a violation of many state computer crime statutes. So if all you do is exceed the scope of authorization to access a computer, you immediately are committing a tortuous and criminal act, and therefore a felony. You trespass -- a misdemeanor -- with intent to trespass -- a tort or another misdemeanor -- and thereby commit a felony. Indeed, if you gain any information, this may constitute the tort of "conversion" -– taking the property, in this case information, of another. Obtaining information could also be larceny, once again transforming the misdemeanor into a felony.

If convicted on all counts, Drew could go to jail for as much as twenty years, but the Federal Sentencing Guidelines would dictate a sentence of between four and six and a half years, depending upon such factors as whether a court finds Drew’s conduct involved a "vulnerable victim," an "abuse of a position of trust or skill," the "the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury," or an "an intent to obtain personal information."

Intentional Trespass?

There are several other ambiguities in the statute.

First, while it requires proof that Drew "intentionally accessed a computer without authorization" the law does not make it clear whether the word "intentionally" modifies both "access" and "without authorization." Thus, if Drew knew she was accessing the MySpace computer server in Beverly Hills, but did not know that she was exceeding her authorization -- because, say like 99 percent of all users, she never read the Terms of Service -- would she be guilty of a crime?

Under contract law, failing to read a contract that is "readily available" doesn’t excuse you from being bound to its terms, and it is probably for that reason that the government in its indictment alleges that the TOS are readily available. But does an unread TOS mean that the unauthorized access is therefore intentional? Using the physical trespass analogy, if I know I am entering the property of another, but don’t know that I am not allowed to, am I guilty? Under the common law of "trespass to land," no intent to commit a trespass was required. All that was necessary was that the act resulting in the trespass be volitional -- that he knew he was walking onto land, not that he knew it was the land of someone else. As a general rule, the conspicuous "posting" of no trespassing signs is sufficient to provide "constructive" notice, even if the alleged trespasser did not see the sign. For example, under Missouri law, criminal trespass in the First Degree -- a misdemeanor -- requires proof that the property was fenced in, that the trespasser knew that they weren’t permitted in, or that there was a "posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders" -– including apparently just putting a purple slash on a tree. Criminal trespass in the Second Degree -- a $200 fine -- is a crime of "absolute liability."

However, this analogy is imperfect for the Drew case. Generally, "no trespassing" signs simply say that. In the Drew case, however, it wasn’t an all or nothing proposition. Drew was entitled to be on MySpace, access MySpace pages (including that of MTM) and use the service. The mere violation of terms of service allows MySpace to revoke or terminate her right of access, but it does not necessarily render her access "unauthorized" or "exceeding authorization."

Another analogy can be made to those jurisdictions which, for example allow licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons, but also permit owners of various establishments to restrict this right by posting notices to that effect by, for example, a sign that says "no guns on premises." If you knowingly enter the establishment with the posted notice while possessing a firearm, you are liable for prosecution for trespass. In essence, your "right of entry" is terminated by your violation of the "terms of use." But what if the establishment had another sign that simply said, "no spitting." Does this imply that if you expectorate, you go to jail?

Fril Estelin · May 23, 2008, 11:53 AM // 11:53

Continued...

Quote:

Breach of TOS = Go to jail

After this, things get really hairy.

According to the indictment, what Drew did that was a crime was to provide false information to MySpace when she signed up, and then use that account to obtain information. The MySpace Terms of Use provide that "by using the MySpace Services, you represent and warrant that all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate." Your use of MySpace, like your use of thousands of other Web sites and interactive services, are governed by such terms of use or terms of service. Thus, an employer may have a policy which says "business use only" of the Internet or of e-mail. Web sites frequently have "conditions" placed on your use of the service, such as no commercial use or no deep linking or no harassment or no spam. Violation of these contractual provisions moots your "authorization" to use the service and constitutes a "trespass."

This theory has been used to civilly sue those who, for example, access the Ticketmaster Web site in violation of terms of service or other Web sites in a way that would constitute a "trespass to chattels".

Many years ago, the government attempted to prosecute an IRS employeefor browsing at files he was not authorized to see in violation of his employment agreement. The Court of Appeals rejected the government’s claim that this constituted an "unauthorized access" to the computer in order to obtain "something of value." Partially in response, Congress broadened the scope of the computer crime law to include "exceeding the scope of authorization" to access -- or use -- a computer, and eliminated the need to show that you got "something of value." Indeed, if you obtained "any information" in excess of your authorization, you could be prosecuted. Presumably, this would include public information, like that on a public MySpace profile.

Despite the broadening of the statute, this appears to be the first time that the government has, in a criminal case, taken such an expansive view of what the law prohibits. The consequence of the government’s position in the Drew case is that virtually any violation of a Terms of Use, Terms of Service, or employers’ computer use policy can land you in the federal penitentiary.

Here is how it works. You access, or use, a computer -- including a web server, PC, or many electronic devices -- that is governed by some Terms of Use or Terms of Service. When you breach those terms of use, you have exceeded your authorization to access that computer. Send an email to your mom in a company that has a "no personal use" policy -– that’s an "unauthorized" access to the computer. If you use your home broadband network for commercial purposes -- say, to VPN into the office, or check corporate e-mail -- you have probably violated the terms of use of the broadband provider and committed a crime.

While we can be sympathetic to the government’s motives in this case, their manipulation of the statute goes beyond making breaches of agreements into crimes. To prove that Drew exceeded unauthorized access, the government has to prove that the defendant thereby obtained information from a protected computer.

So what information did Drew obtain and from what protected computer? The information obtained could simply be access to MTM’s public MySpace page. Or, it could be the contents of the "chats" or messages from MTM to the fictitious "Josh Evans." The revised law puts no limit on the type or value of the information obtained.

Moreover, the victim of the crime -- while identified in the indictment as MTM -- is under the government’s theory actually MySpace, the company whose computers were "accessed" in excess of authorization. But MySpace is no more the victim of these crimes than they would be criminally liable for the suicide -- a theory rejected in a federal case called Doe v. MySpace (pdf) involving the parents of a teenager who committed suicide. They are suing MySpace for failing to prevent their child from having an online relationship with an adult.

If this case sets a precedent, it will be a crime to essentially provide any false information online, if that violates a Terms of Use and you get any information as a result.

What’s wrong with that? Plenty. First, we have a long tradition in the United States of both anonymous and the use of pseudonyms in political discussion. Whether it is Hamilton, Jay and Madison’s "Publius," or Ben Franklin’s "Silence Dogood", America's founding fathers frequently disguised their true identity in a manner which, if communicated online would violate a provider’s terms of use and therefore constitute a federal crime, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is a Constitutional right under the First Amendment to such "anonymous" speech.

In defense of lying

Much has been made of the fact that Drew lied about who she was when she created her MySpace account, as if this is an anomaly. Lying, exaggeration, and misrepresentation are ubiquitous both online and off. Indeed, in many cases there are good reasons to lie -– particularly when creating a MySpace or Facebook account. A report (pdf) released last year by the Pew Internet and American Life Foundation found that, of those teenagers whose online profiles can be accessed by anyone online, nearly half said that they gave at least some false information in establishing the account. For younger teens, the number was more than two-thirds.

While some people reportedly put up fake information to "be silly" or "playful," a great number of them did so to protect themselves from predators and stalkers, and to protect their own privacy. Thus, they lie about their teenage status to escape the notice of those trolling for underage children. They lie about their home town to keep predators from finding them. They lie about their e-mail addresses to prevent spam and other unwanted solicitations and to prevent cyber-harassment. Indeed, the United States Federal Trade Commission -- the organization principally responsible for protecting privacy in general and the privacy of children in particular -- noted that "common responses to perceived threats to privacy included avoiding sites that make information requests and providing false information."

Remember, Drew was indicted for providing false registration information to MySpace and then using the account in excess of her authorization. Her motive for doing so is relevant only to determine whether the crime is a misdemeanor or a felony. Thus, providing false information to MySpace -– even if just to protect yourself –- could land you into legal hot water. Indeed, in the case that lead to the indictment, MTM herself -- apparently with her mother’s knowledge -- provided MySpace with false information about her age, as MySpace does not permit access to persons under the age of 13. In theory, MTM would have faced jail time under the government’s theory of prosecution.

A British study of mostly adult users of social networking sites showed in 2007 that 31 percent of them provided false information in order to protect their own privacy. A cursory glance at the photos of MySpace users suggests that many of these pictures are fakes. The fake pictures are a violation of MySpace’s TOS and are done to obtain "information" and therefore a crime, under the prosecution's reading of the law.

It’s not just teenagers lying on MySpace. Suppose Lori Drew was concerned about her daughter’s potential drug use, promiscuity, alcohol use or other behavior. Let’s also suppose that their relationship was dysfunctional, and she didn’t feel like she could just talk to her daughter. In a misguided but well intentioned effort to protect her daughter, Drew creates the "Josh Evans" persona and engages in a conversation with her daughter about topics like drug use, alcohol use, and sexual conduct. Indeed, many parents keep tabs on their children’s use of social networking sites either with or without their children’s knowledge, although it is not know how many do so through the use of ruse or subterfuge. If the government’s theory of prosecution is successful, this conduct would be a crime. Moreover, if committed with the intent of the parent to commit the tort of "invasion of privacy" of the minor, it could be a felony.

Big lies, little lies and doing time

The "exceeding authorized access" theory is not limited to false statements or false claims. Since your "access" to any Web site is conditioned on your complying with all of the terms of use, any violation of the terms can render your "access" "unauthorized." Thus, if on MySpace you "include a photograph or video of another person that you have posted without that person's consent" you have violated the TOS, and therefore "exceeded" your authorization to access to MySpace service. If you "provide instructional information about illegal activities" including hacker tutorials or explanations even if intended to help defend against attacks, this may violate TOS and make you subject to prosecution.

If there is a genuine need for a cyber-harassment or cyber-bullying statue, then by all means, let’s pass one. Much has been made in the Drew case of the fact that an adult was "harassing" a child. But would it have really mattered to MTM if the online comments and dumping were done by a real, rather than illusory, "Josh Evans?" Would the pain have been any less and the result any different? If we do draft such a "harassment" statute, what would –- or constitutionally could -– it say?

The fictional Josh apparently told MTM that "the world would be better off without you" hours before the fragile and depressed MTM hung herself. While many States have criminal statutes regarding "promoting a suicidal act" Missouri does not appear to be one of them. If Drew/Evans really intended that MTM kill herself, then this could likely be prosecuted under such a statute. But not every imperative to "drop dead" is the solicitation of suicide.

What kinds of "cyber harassment" should we make a crime? This strikes a delicate balance between the right of free and sometimes uncomfortable speech and the right to live in a peaceful and civilized society. Is saying "I hate you" a hate crime if said to a 13 year old by another 13 year old? What about an adult to a child? A mother to a daughter? Vice versa?

On May 15, 2008 the Missouri state legislature passed a new bill which would define "harassment" as communications of any kind conducted to knowingly frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress or knowingly using unwanted expressions that put the person in reasonable apprehension of offensive physical contact or harm or knowingly making unwanted communications with a person. Under that statute then, texting a friend after they tell you, "I don’t think we should talk anymore," might be a prosecutable offense.

Similarly, do we really want to make providing false information in violation of TOS a "computer trespass" punishable by the federal government thousands of miles away from where the statement was made or read? Certainly, transparency breeds accountability. A recent federal law made it both a crime and an enhancement to the federal sentencing guidelines to lie on a domain registration. Other countries like India and Germany are considering passing statutes also making it a crime to provide false information online. In the United States, such actions were considered criminal only when done as part of a "scheme or artifice to defraud" someone out of "money or property." As noted above, there are many good reasons NOT to provide accurate information online, most notably protecting privacy. The debate about false information is one we should have openly, and not attempt to shoehorn this crime in a Terms of Use debate.

The most troubling aspect of the California indictment is the fact that it might just succeed.

First, while we can argue that this is not what the statute was intended to prohibit, the language of the statute is capable of that interpretation. Just as with any "trespass" statute, the owner of the property, in this case Fox’s MySpace, gets to make the rules about who is allowed in and who is a trespasser, and the criminal law enforces these rules. If Drew’s lawyers file a motion to dismiss, it might be difficult for a judge to find a deficiency in the indictment itself. The Indictment tracks the language of the statute, and may be legally sufficient. Moreover, public and jury outrage over the egregiousness of Drew’s conduct may lead to acceptance of the "breach of contract, go to jail" theory of liability.

In the end, however, the precedent would open up the field of prosecutable offenses. Workers could be prosecuted for using their computers for personal reasons. Members of online dating sites could be prosecuted for making themselves sound more exciting. And, anti-government protesters who don’t provide accurate information to their ISP’s, IM providers, or social networking sites would also face the threat of prosecution.

While the government’s response would likely be, "Oh, don’t worry. We would never prosecute you." The reality would require that that statement end with "... yet."

Avarre · May 23, 2008, 12:23 PM // 12:23

Being mean is not a crime. Children being brought up to fall apart at the slightest upset isn't either, but I know which of those two factors I'd rather blame here.

pumpkin pie · May 23, 2008, 12:36 PM // 12:36

this law should never be pass. the people will lost. imagine you have to provide your true identity over the internet. OMG!

PS: I've been reading about this case. Its not all Lori Drew's fault, I have no doubt that she's a very very ignorant woman and well just plain stupid.

At the same time think she already suffer a lot of punishment befitting her "crime" such as never be able to fit into the community she now resides, probably have to move into the mountain and become a mountain dweller forever since her home address and phone and everything has been published online. Her family home has also be harrass (spelling) for the past year.

I also think Megan's parents has to be held responsible to some extent for what happen to their daughter leading to her committing suicide. For crying out loud, her father was in the house when she was on myspace being "cyberbully" and her mother left her alone to do something else knowing she was on myspace and crying. Why the hell did she let a 13 year old girl have a myspace account? and why the hell did she not terminate her account when the 13 year old daughter receive messsages that are sexual?

Yes it is sad, Megan took her life. But are we, "the general internet users" to be punished, that we will have to give up our identity just to express ourself on some forums, or just to use a free email service. I've never up until now given one single piece of information that is true about myself online, and not about to do so anytime in the future either.

Fril Estelin · May 23, 2008, 01:26 PM // 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Children being brought up to fall apart at the slightest upset isn't either

What made you think she (MTM) was a child like this? In essence, you are expecting people to be "like this" or "like that", as if there was a "character license" for being on the internet. If someone from GWG comits suicide partly because of public messages he got here, will you immediately blame the parents?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

imagine you have to provide your true identity over the internet. OMG!

Then how do you catch the bad guys?

Quote:

At the same time think she already suffer a lot of punishment befitting her "crime" such as never be able to fit into the community she now resides, probably have to move into the mountain and become a mountain dweller forever since her home address and phone and everything has been published online. Her family home has also be harrass (spelling) for the past year.

Granted, she should not be hammered with the new legislation and even prosecuted more intensively because of the fact that her case is pushing the boundaries of the law. But lawyers are also human beings, with emotions influenced by public opinion.

Quote:

I also think Megan's parents has to be held responsible to some extent for what happen to their daughter leading to her committing suicide. For crying out loud, her father was in the house when she was on myspace being "cyberbully" and her mother left her alone to do something else knowing she was on myspace and crying. Why the hell did she let a 13 year old girl have a myspace account? and why the hell did she not terminate her account when the 13 year old daughter receive messsages that are sexual?

Agreed, that's one thing that the article doesn't discuss and generally something that people avoid saying, because it's not politically correct. In this story, the 3 parents are to blame and should face charges. But that won't happen, Megan's parents are probably already suffering enormously and people will prefer not to charge them, they've lost their daughter. I can't imagine how they'll feel if they realise the role they played in her suicide.

Quote:

Yes it is sad, Megan took her life. But are we, "the general internet users" to be punished, that we will have to give up our identity just to express ourself on some forums, or just to use a free email service. I've never up until now given one single piece of information that is true about myself online, and not about to do so anytime in the future either.

Then, how do you cope with the fact that bad guys behave like you, except you don't have "criminal" intents? If we push your point one step further, Anet, Amazon, eBay, you-name-it-internet-company will close its doors. No MMOs FTL. There has to have one level of accountability at some point.

To carry on on your point, if total anonimity was simple to obtain, terrorists would be greatly helped. Just FYI, the mastermind behind the 7/7 bombing attack in London was caught in Rome thanks to the non-anonimity of mobile phones (though you can get the impression that it is, by removing the SIMlockand changing the SIMcard, but there are much nastier attacks that will grant you a status almost impossible to track).

I understand the reaction of "don't touch our civil liberties" (I actually created that discussion to follow up with a discussion with someone on absolute free speech), but then one has to be put in front of the situation "from the other side". Anonimity means you can commit crime and not be caught.

To center the debate, the discussion here should be one about responsibility, the law and internet. Making parents responsible is both a matter of education and of law, but it seems lawyers are fighting to make it possible.

Blackhearted · May 23, 2008, 01:39 PM // 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Children being brought up to fall apart at the slightest upset isn't either,

You say that as if people who suffer and struggle with depression and such do so intentionally, or are raised to intentionally in all cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Yes it is sad, Megan took her life. But are we, "the general internet users" to be punished, that we will have to give up our identity just to express ourself on some forums, or just to use a free email service. I've never up until now given one single piece of information that is true about myself online, and not about to do so anytime in the future either.

Technically you DO give out some true information about yourself to every site you visit and you may not even know it. It's called your IP Address. And it can be traced to your exact location if so desired. So much for your little goal..

Redfeather1975 · May 23, 2008, 01:48 PM // 13:48

I heard that when actors grow a beard for a role they say they are more easily prone into being a douchebag. Also if there is a mirror present in a workplace area, people are far less likely to do bad things in the area.
Anonymity allows bad people to do bad things more easily.

Avarre · May 23, 2008, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

What made you think she (MTM) was a child like this? In essence, you are expecting people to be "like this" or "like that", as if there was a "character license" for being on the internet. If someone from GWG comits suicide partly because of public messages he got here, will you immediately blame the parents?

If someone commits suicide over things that exist purely on the internet, my blame is solely on that person and whoever helped develop them. I don't know the case under discussion, but it seems absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

You say that as if people who suffer and struggle with depression and such do so intentionally, or are raised to intentionally in all cases.

You don't know, either, if that was the case here. People are pretty quick to label a person as having 'problems' that explain their behavior, when in quite a lot of cases, the person needs to grow up. Again, I don't know the full story and can't make a final judgment here - but somehow I doubt a 13-year old girl has such crippling depression that the internet makes them kill themselves.

Anyways, the idea law against this (activity on the internet) is absurd. It's far too open-ended a kind of scenario.

Redfeather1975 · May 23, 2008, 02:10 PM // 14:10

At least mommy ain't looking like such a good role model now to her children.
Probably too late though.

Fril Estelin · May 23, 2008, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

I doubt a 13-year old girl has such crippling depression that the internet makes them kill themselves.

I think you seriously underestimate either what depression is, or how attached people can become to things that "exist purely on the internet". Either way, you're right to point at the fact that we don't know much, but it seems to me like an excuse not to try to understand the problem (of course, it's neither mine, nor yours, though it may become if our children suffer from it).

Asking people to "grow" is very misleading statement IMHO, it's akin to saying "I don't have this problem, so to avoid it, just be like me". Instead of admitting that all sorts of people have all sorts of attitudes and that the law regarding internet can help protect the weakest person.

The point I want to discuss here is that the law can't really accomodate with all sorts of nasty behaviours on the net, not yet. But things change, and I don't see how we can seat here and simply wait for it to be changed. Of course, facebook is a very, very, very bad example, as this website is electronic anarchy. How would we feel if this little kid (well she has to be over 13 to play GW ...) had the same story in GW?

Avarre · May 23, 2008, 03:20 PM // 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Instead of admitting that all sorts of people have all sorts of attitudes and that the law regarding internet can help protect the weakest person.

Next will there be control laws regarding attitudes in real life, to protect the weakest people?

Young children should not be going to places that can damage them. This is where the parents taking an interest comes into play - it's not the job of the majority to bend to the weakness of the minority, but the job of that minority to stay out of the way of what can cause problems. Especially on the internet, where the places you go are at your control.

Quote:

How would we feel if this little kid (well she has to be over 13 to play GW ...) had the same story in GW?

I'd wonder why a child that took the internet so seriously was allowed to interact in an unrestricted internet environment, personally.

Tyla · May 23, 2008, 03:28 PM // 15:28

If you ask me, it's the influence of whoever did it, and the fault of the person who did it for choosing it.

If it's someone like, 13, or such, it's down to their parents / guardians to place restrictions to prevent this stuff from happening.

quickmonty · May 23, 2008, 04:29 PM // 16:29

I've been following this story since it first came out. Some stupid kid kills herself because she is rejected on the internet.

Darwinism works!

pumpkin pie · May 23, 2008, 05:34 PM // 17:34

actaully Fril Estelin, there's no total anonimity at all when you go online. You just don't give out your identity to every tom dick and harry that happens to browse the internet.

if i were to spread dangerous contents of how to make bombs and schedule some very bad activities, i am sure someone will be at my door steps right after I click the post quick reply button.

The thing is not to give up your last right of 100% exposure, I don't mind if some government is monitoring me, go ahead, they will be wasting their time, because I have nothing to hide, but I don't want people with bad intents to know who, what, where, I am, I want that anonimity.

Fril Estelin · May 23, 2008, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Next will there be control laws regarding attitudes in real life, to protect the weakest people?

Young children should not be going to places that can damage them. This is where the parents taking an interest comes into play - it's not the job of the majority to bend to the weakness of the minority, but the job of that minority to stay out of the way of what can cause problems. Especially on the internet, where the places you go are at your control.

Do you realise where this discourse would take us if we were to apply it to reality? People killed in car shouldn't have been on the road? Handicaped people shouldn't drive cars or take buses? Very bad students shouldn't get jobs?

Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting your facts that the majority is strong and the minority is weak (or maybe it's the case in Singapore?). And this interpretation of what the net IS (a dangerous place) as a basis of what it should be (a safe place) is wrong. When the roads were dangerous for people, laws have been introduced. In the UK, the number of people killing themselves because of binge drinking is increasing (and sadly, women are affected a lot by that), so laws have been introduced. The law is here to protect the "weak" (technically, this is not the case as the law attemps to be semantically neutral if I understand correctly what lawyers say, though in practice it's different).

Quote:

I'd wonder why a child that took the internet so seriously was allowed to interact in an unrestricted internet environment, personally.

Ok, that's what I guessed you'd answer. Now, what would you think if this was your child who did it (despite all your efforts to educate him/her about internet)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

actaully Fril Estelin, there's no total anonimity at all when you go online. You just don't give out your identity to every tom dick and harry that happens to browse the internet.

There are technical means to make tracing back information to the source very difficult (but not impossible). IP address can be hidden and spoofed. Mobile phone numbers can be reprogrammed. And so on. But we're digressing here.

Quote:

if i were to spread dangerous contents of how to make bombs and schedule some very bad activities, i am sure someone will be at my door steps right after I click the post quick reply button.

Well, terrorists are already doing it on the net and some of them aren't caught. Of course, the fact you're in the US makes things different. Bear in mind the net has no geographical boundaries.

Quote:

The thing is not to give up your last right of 100% exposure, I don't mind if some government is monitoring me, go ahead, they will be wasting their time, because I have nothing to hide, but I don't want people with bad intents to know who, what, where, I am, I want that anonimity.

First, we're in full agreement you know, I want anonymity too. Secondly, how do you know that "the government" (first part of your sentence) and "people with bad intents" (second part) are not the same? (we can take the extreme view of the situation where you're a muslim ...) The government decides who is "bad" and, of course, for most people it's ok. But I believe that under Bush presidency, he was able to twist the meaning of the word "bad".

(why do I get the feeling of a "me against you" kind of thread?)

Chthon · May 23, 2008, 10:40 PM // 22:40

1. This is a case of prosecutors being really repulsed by what this woman did and trying to find a way to punish her, even though there's not a law on the books that really covers it. It may also be a case of a prosecutor mulling over a run for governor or something trying to score some popularity points by taking on a high-profile case. (Anyone recall a particualr N.Carolina prosecutor named Nifong?)

2. The internet really has nothing to do with this. The core part of her actions that bothers us is causing the kid to kill herself. It would be no better or no worse if she had pretended to be "Josh Evans" over the telephone or through postal letters.
There's a really apt quote, by Douglas Adams I think, that I can't seem to find right now, so I'm going to paraphrase: We tend to focus on new technology when it's used in criminal (and morally repugnant) actions -- "Ooooo the bank robbers were planning their heist over the internet" -- but 80 years ago it was "Ooooo the bank robbers were planning their heist over the telephones." Whatever the new technology de jour happens to be is really irrelevant to the heart of the matter -- these people are going to rob a bank.
It should be a very strong hint that something is wrong here when the charges have everything to do with the internet, but the heart of the "crime" really has nothing to do with it.

3. 18 USC 1030 is very, very badly drafted. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that Congress cooked it up after they got scared watching Hackers. It is supposed to criminalize hacking -- exploiting software vulnerabilities to gain or escalate your access rights. Why, then, is it drafted so badly that it even arguably covers signing up for myspace with inaccurate info? Two reasons: First, Congress has pretty much zero technical aptitude. They don't understand hacking, so they can't do a very good job of specifying what exactly it is they're outlawing. Second, they did want to cover "social hacking" where you trick some idiot into giving you a username and/or password, and writing a vague, super-broad law seemed like a good way to do that.

4. What's probably going to happen in this case is the trial judge will throw the charges out before it even gets to a jury. Common sense dictates that the law really can't criminalize signing up for myspace using fake info. If the prosecutor decides to appeal, we're either going to see an appellate decision restricting the scope of the statute to "real" hacking or one declaring the whole law unconstitutional because it's too vague for an ordinary person reading the law to be able to figure out what is or isn't illegal under it. If the prosecutor wants to appeal again, the Supreme Court will deny certiorari because it's an easy case and there's nothing they'd want to add. (In most circumstances, the Supreme Court can and does refuse to hear cases it isn't interested in.)

5. I'm a bit disturbed that someone gave this guy a JD, much less a high-level job at the Justice Dept. (maybe a Bush appointee on political grounds?) because he makes several elementary errors of statutory construction. For example:

Quote:

The crime is a misdemeanor unless it is committed "in furtherance of any . . . tortious act in violation of the . . . laws of the United States or of any State." While the infliction of severe emotional distress is generally considered "tortuous conduct,"... the tort of "intentional infliction of severe emotional distress" in Missouri appears to be a creature of common law, not statute. Just as a breach of a contract can lead to liability but is not truly a "violation of the law" the intentional tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress may not be a "violation of the law" even if it is subject to a civil action recognized by law.

is just dead wrong. See Erie.
Similarly

Quote:

This may be moot, as the felony-misdemeanor dichotomy is an illusion: If you exceed authorization to access a computer and thereby obtain information, it’s a misdemeanor, but if you do so with in furtherance of any tort or crime, it’s a felony. But wait. Trespass, including computer trespass -- that is, exceeding authorization to access a computer -- is itself a tort. Not only that, but it’s also a violation of many state computer crime statutes.

is also dead wrong. The offense that triggers the extra felony-level penalties has to involve underlying actions different from or in addition to those that make up the 18 USC 1030 violation that's getting bumped up to a felony. A prosecutor absolutely cannot bootstrap like that. See Blockberger.
He does a good job of introducing the topic generally, and I think he does a good job of explaining why the prosecutors' position leads to an absurd outcome, but his legal analysis is very poor and should not be relied upon.

6. Since I have a feeling it's what Fril is really more interested in, let's ask the question: Should what this woman did be illegal? Or, as the author says,

Quote:

What kinds of "cyber harassment" should we make a crime? This strikes a delicate balance between the right of free and sometimes uncomfortable speech and the right to live in a peaceful and civilized society. Is saying "I hate you" a hate crime if said to a 13 year old by another 13 year old? What about an adult to a child? A mother to a daughter? Vice versa?

I don't think this is as exciting as a question as the author makes it out to be.

If you knew, or should have known, that a particular person was mentally unstable and that saying a particular thing to him might cause him to kill himself, then your actions fall somewhere on the Murder-Manslaughter-Negligent Homicide spectrum (just as much as if you induced a mentally unstable person to kill someone else when you knew or should have known your words would have that effect.) So, why isn't murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide being charged here? I'm guessing that the Missouri prosecutors looked at the possibility and decided that she couldn't have known the kid would go kill herself over a broken heart.

I should hope it's obvious that we don't want to criminalize saying something that causes someone to kill themself when you had no way of knowing they would do so. Criminal law is all about blameworthy mental states; crimes are things you do intentionally or, at the very least, with excessive recklessness in the face of danger to others. (Civil law is another matter.)

All that's left then is whether deliberately (or recklessly) hurting someone's feelings should be a crime. Under certain circumstances it is a tort (a basis for a civil lawsuit), but I don't think that the government has any business making it a crime. If people besides Fril are interested in discussing this topic in particular, perhaps I'll come back and post more on it here in this thread.

Malice Black · May 23, 2008, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Fril, it's an honest answer. Why are people so interested in things that don't concern them?

I only take an active interest in things that concern me, my family and anyone else that I might care about. Some disturbed child topping herself is hardly going to be of concern.

The fact is, not many people will care. Look how many people have read the thread, and then look at how many people have replied. They didn't care enough to even bother posing their thoughts.

It's a big world, and one less disturbed child will make difference. Same goes if you or I suddenly decided we'd had enough. The world goes on.

I do my little bit by donating to worthwhile causes (NSPCC, breast cancer etc) but shit like this matters not.

Kanyatta · May 24, 2008, 04:20 AM // 04:20

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Megan_Meier

Though it may be horrible, I lol every time I hear the story. I have 0 respect for MySpace RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOs.

arcanemacabre · May 24, 2008, 07:56 AM // 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

I should hope it's obvious that we don't want to criminalize saying something that causes someone to kill themself when you had no way of knowing they would do so. Criminal law is all about blameworthy mental states; crimes are things you do intentionally or, at the very least, with excessive recklessness in the face of danger to others. (Civil law is another matter.)

All that's left then is whether deliberately (or recklessly) hurting someone's feelings should be a crime. Under certain circumstances it is a tort (a basis for a civil lawsuit), but I don't think that the government has any business making it a crime.

QFT 100%

When I first heard this story on my local news, I thought it was just horrible. My initial reaction was "BURN HER! BURN HER!!!" But really, this is the truth of the matter. It is very likely this woman had no intention to make this girl commit suicide. What it really breaks down to is simply hurt feelings, as Chthon describes. What happened after has nothing to do with this woman. It may or may not have been the fault of the parents, but I'm thinking it was just a matter of unstable mental issues.

I also agree with Chthon that this really has nothing to do with the internet. At least no more than a victim beaten to death with a baseball bat has to do with baseball bats.

Avarre · May 24, 2008, 08:31 AM // 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Ok, that's what I guessed you'd answer. Now, what would you think if this was your child who did it (despite all your efforts to educate him/her about internet)?

Well, considering for that to happen everything I believe about education, control, and the internet would have to have been reversed, I don't know what I'd do, because I wouldn't be me. Why don't you tell me, since it's pretty obvious the only answer you'll accept is 'I'd be filled with remorse and hatred for such a crime'. Why bother asking if you can't accept other views?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

2. The internet really has nothing to do with this.

Completely agreed with this point.