|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Annoying People on the Internet is now a Federal Crime
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-09-2006 07:34 PM
quote:
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
Source
Looks like we can all still annoy each other here at Film-Tech since we all (supposedly) use our real names. Those of you who submitted a false name because you are afraid of the internet will now have to serve some time if you've ever annoyed us.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-10-2006 01:52 AM
Here here. I wish we had something like it .
All the problems related to pointless flaming, personal abuse and misleading information circulating I've noticed on other forums and listserves has had one root cause: that people are able to post anonymously. Policing a system in which identities are checked (either proactively, at registration, or reactively, if a problem comes up) means extra work; but as this site shows, it's definitely worth it.
I'd go even further and make it a legal requirement for ISPs to clearly publish the name and address of anyone registering a domain name. For one thing that would make it more difficult for phishing sites (or those selling illegal goods, e.g. pirate software) to operate, and for another it would hold to account those who use the web to conduct hate campaigns anonymously. For example, this site was set up by a group of anonymous individuals (or at least, it's claimed to be a group - it could be one individual) in 2004 to oppose funding cuts at the British Film Institute. While a lot of their concerns are valid and I share them, rumours quickly started doing the rounds as to who was behind the site, was it former staff who had scores to settle, etc.? That speculation undermined their message, the assumption being that it they had a legitimate case there was no reason why they couldn't make it openly. Some of the 'signatures' on that site are probably false, especially the celebrity ones; and a few of the posts amount to little more than vindictive (and possibly libellous) attacks on other people.
Do a 'whois' search under this site's domain name, and all you'll get is the ISP in Bristol which hosts it. If ISPs were forced to verify the identity of and publish the name of the individual or organisation (with company registration no.) which registered the domain, this sort of crap would end.
I now get instantly suspicious of anyone who contacts me and will only give a Hotmail address and/or a mobile 'phone number, because both can easily be obtained anonymously. While I guess some would argue that the ability to communicate anonymously can be a democratic safeguard, my experience is that it can cause huge problems (as John Siegenthaler found out in his brush with Wikipedia).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 01-10-2006 08:49 AM
I'm with Wolff on that.
I don't think that law goes far enough. I think it should be illegal to send advertising that specifically includes mis-spelled words, improper English, and hidden text intentionally meant to foil auto-sorting mechanisms in the user's email software. That way, any time I get an email advertising "C1al!s", I should be able to track that illiterate moron down and prosecute him out of existance. The fine for that should be about six billion dollars tax free. That way I can make a couple of bucks along the way.
It should also be HIGHLY illegal to pretend you represent a legitimate corporate entity that you don't. So the next time I get an email from e-bay, that really isn't from e-bay, or from Microsoft that really isn't from Microsoft, THEY can send in a hit squad and take that person out. Anyone who does that should be shot in the head with one of those rail guns from Quake III.
And another thing....
quote:
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy
People who do not use proper English punctuation annoy the hell out of me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-10-2006 02:08 PM
There is more to the article. If you read the entire article on the link, you can actually get a feel for the leanings of the author. You can also get a feel that the author doesn't take harassment seriously. After all, he is a reporter, and they make a living harassing people.
This kind of law might actually require reporters to print the truth all the time. That could be very hard for many reporters who rely on heresay and conjecture to write stories and columns.
The law is intended to protect people from others who maliciously post things about them that would be considered libelous and slanderous, and also to protect people from others who intent to cause them harm for their own selfish and personal reasons.
As rediculous as the law may appear to rights activists and player haters ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) , it actually makes perfect sense and is grounded in reality. While it makes it illegal to annoy someone on the internet, we must actually look at the legal definition of annoy, and the intention of the law. This is what judges are going to do when faced with criminal and civil litigation based on this law.
What the critics fail to address is that many laws start out very vague in initial context, and require judicial review to define through court cases just how the law can be applied. At first we will see some seemingly frivolous attempts to enforce the law, and through those we will find out just how it can be applied.
It will all work out on its own, and will not be a hinderance to free speech, as some would like to believe. Free speech does come with many responsibilities, such as making sure that your speech is actually true, accurate, and not inciteful of a criminal nature. You cannot call for the murder of your neighbor, nor can you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is not a fire.
Ciao
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-11-2006 08:34 AM
quote: Dave Williams
Free speech does come with many responsibilities, such as making sure that your speech is actually true, accurate, and not inciteful of a criminal nature.
Amen to that. The Siegenthaler incident was very worrying, I thought. He found out the hard way that he had no legal means of forcing Wikipedia either to delete the libelous content or identify the author. Indeed, it later emerged that Wikipedia could not identify the author, because he had posted the content anonymously. The scary thing is that Siegenthaler is, relatively speaking, a rich celebrity who can publicise his case in his own national newspaper and can afford to hire nasty lawyers. If anyone did something similar to me, I would not be able to do either; in fact, I would have no legal right to have the identity of the author revealed, even if the ISP involved had that information.
One solution would be to introduce a form of criminal libel in which ISPs were responsible for libelous content on any sites they hosted or emails their servers sent. But the resulting hassle and insurance costs would probably force around 80% of websites to close, including many which do a lot of good and are responsibly run. It would also increase the cost of running the Internet, becuase ISPs would have to pass the costs of policing onto their customers.
The only other option that I can see is to get anonymity out of the system as much as possible. Forcing an ISP to check the identity, hold accurate contact information for anyone they allow to release data into the Internet and to provide that information if required to do under certain circumstances is a lot easier and cheaper than making them responsible for the content itself. And let's face it, the damage caused by anonymous use of the Internet far outweighs the safeguards it offers in some, very limited circumstances, in every scenario from some teenage kid wanting to stir up trouble among his friends to the 9/11 hijackers.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 01-11-2006 07:28 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
The Siegenthaler incident was very worrying, I thought. He found out the hard way that he had no legal means of forcing Wikipedia either to delete the libelous content or identify the author...
What you (and the quoted report) fails to mention was that anyone, including Siegenthaler or a representative thereof could have changed the entry. You dont need a lawyer, or a law, you just need to act. Wikipedia (at the time) allowed anyone to edit anything. It has mechanisms in place for handling confrontations and disputes.
It is a widely help opinion that what we have here is a newpaperman who wanted a story rather than simply to quietly have it fixed.
Wikipedia isn't perfect, but its a useful tool, however its not a substitute for decent research.
quote: Leo Enticknap
For example, this site was set up by a group of anonymous individuals (or at least, it's claimed to be a group - it could be one individual) in 2004 to oppose funding cuts at the British Film Institute. While a lot of their concerns are valid and I share them, rumours quickly started doing the rounds as to who was behind the site, was it former staff who had scores to settle, etc.
On the site it says
quote:
There has been much criticism of the Custodes Lucis as hiding behind anonymity and refusing to make our real identities known. Among the Custodes are members of staff of the British Film Institute and people who work with the Institute in a variety of ways.
We do not believe that any of us in those categories who identify ourselves publicly will be allowed to retain our jobs at, or connections with the BFI. We therefore remain resolutely anonymous.
Anomnity isn't necessarily bad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
. Or I could come annoy you all in person... I don't think thats covered by the new law.....
Printer-friendly view of this topic