EFF urges judge to dismiss MySpace case
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is opposing the prosecution of a Missouri mom who allegedly created a fake MySpace account to harass a teenage neighbor, saying the prosecutors' misuse of a federal law that targets computer fraud could turn millions of Americans into criminals.
The civil liberties organization filed an amicus brief Friday (click for PDF), urging a Los Angeles federal judge to dismiss the indictment of Lori Drew. She was charged in May with felony conspiracy and three counts of intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization when she violated MySpace's terms of service.
The EFF, a prominent voice in Web advocacy, said in a release Monday that "criminal charges for a 'terms of service' violation is a dramatic misapplication of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), with far-ranging consequences for American computer users." The organization adds--in theory at least--that users who don't read the terms of service on Web sites they visit would be accused of a federal crime.
The CFAA is usually used to prosecute hackers and identity thieves. But the EFF argues that citing the law for a terms of service violation would mean, for example, that anyone under the age of 18 who uses the Google search engine would face criminal charges.
According to police, Drew created a fake MySpace account and posed as a teenager named "Josh Evans" to befriend and verbally attack 13-year-old Megan Meier, a former friend of Drew's daughter. It was reported that after a particularly hurtful conversation with "Josh" in October 2006, Megan committed suicide in her O'Fallon, Mo., home.
The case drew national attention after a local newspaper reported the story, but Missouri prosecutors could not prove that Drew broke any laws. Instead, charges were brought in a Los Angeles federal court, utilizing the CFAA to indict Drew for violating MySpace's terms of service.
According to those terms, users agree that: "By using the MySpace Services, you represent and warrant that all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate and you will maintain the accuracy of such information." Members also acknowledge that harassment is prohibited.
The argument now being made by the EFF was advanced by Drew's attorney in late July. He said the law being used to prosecute Drew is flawed, unconstitutionally vague, and tries to criminalize behavior committed by millions online every day. Drew faces 20 years in prison; she has pleaded not guilty.
Although the EFF is campaigning against the indictment of Drew, it nonetheless called Meier's suicide "tragic."
If the underlying crime is a felony, that would make drew guilty of murder one.
What she did was harassment at best, manslaughter at worst. What I don't understand is why they're going after her with these technical laws. If what she did was cause the death of another person, it doesn't matter what tools she used to do it, she caused the death. If I harass someone with a phone and they commit suicide, I'm guilty of manslaughter. If I chase someone in a car and they crash and die, I've committed manslaughter. With manslaughter you aren't saying someone was killed in cold blood, you're saying a person died as a result of your actions, and you pay the penalty even if you didn't intend that person to die. The classic is killing a passenger while drunk.
As for breaking terms and conditions, that's at best a civil offense, if any offense at all. Terms and conditions exist for you to use a website or a piece of software. You break them, the company involved has the right to terminate your account and stop your use of their software and hardware. That's it. In fact most TOS agreements violate laws themselves.
No one is going to prison for breaking TOS. Deliberately harassing someone is a crime, causing them to commit suicide through that harassment is also a crime. That seems to be enough.
The fact is that this girl was KNOWN to have mental problems (probably from a too-conservative upbringing, where she was sheltered from everything since she was VERY young) and she was allowed by her parents to be on the internet..... which is not the most......... feelings-aware thing on the planet.
If anyone should be going to prison, I have to say it is this girl's parents..... why? Because they let this girl on the internet KNOWING she had mental problems and didn't monitor her online life, like I did with my daughters until they were 13.
And the actions of the so called adults on the other side of the situation were simply stunning, intentionally emotionally setting up a teenage girl and then ridiculing and harassing her. I doubt they intended or considered her committing suicide, and I agree this case doesn't fit. But they are scum.
Now, because of sensationalist media reports, the government is trying to charge a caring parent with charges that were stretched past all relevance or meaning close to their original intent because they don't have any real charges they can use.
This is a purely political move and they need to just take the loss.
If you don't believe me, please have a look at the DISCLAIMER section. They are all in bold font----what does this suggest?
people have been using nom-de-plume since the beginning of publishing. i think this only counts as identity fraud if there were a real "Josh" and his reputation was defamed or his bank account pilfered.
investigators often pose as law enforcement to get questions answered. i don't see the government rounding up wackenhut employees who own or use computers online.
i feel very sorry this girl is dead. and there should be a lawsuit at least. people who commit suicide have on-going problems. no one event **forced her** to kill herself. but to the degree this evil-spirited woman contributed to her death, she ought to be forced to cough up a lot of cash.
The EFF is clearly right.
- by wrioseac August 5, 2008 5:02 AM PDT
- I don't see why this is a crime at all... Why something like this is considered a murder? I mean if I tell someone something or I behave in some "unpleasant way" and the person in question kills [his/her]self, I'm a murderer?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by OldGaDawg August 7, 2008 10:02 AM PDT
- The Above Is Totally BULL [S]!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Like this
-
(20 Comments)Examples:
1. (a classical one) I have a girlfriend. Then after some time I get to know someone else I fall in love with. I begin a relationship with the new one and tell the former that everything is over between us. Then the poor girl takes some pills and closes her eyes for the final sleep. She even leaves a goodbye letter behind, detailing that our broken relationship was the cause. Am I a criminal now?
2. I have a classmate who is fat and ugly. I keep telling him about this few times a week in the school, sometimes humorously or ironically while playing out in the school yard, sometimes in an uglier manner. Then for some reason on one of the days I'm cruder or more offensive as "usual", the fat guy cries, is so upset he doesn't pay attention while crossing the road and is hit by a car. If I hadn't been so harsh with him he would have crossed the road attentively as usual, so my words caused his death. So I'm a criminal?
3. A newbie on a tech forum asks some insanely dumb question. I'm not in my best mood and throw an answer making him look the biggest idiot of all times. He replies something like: "Ok, then i'm gonna kill myself because of what you said". Then I tell him: "Just do it, the world would be a better place without a jerk like you. Have fun dying." Then the guy takes his father's gun and blows out his mind (or anything what's in his head... ;) ). So I am a criminal in this case?
4. My boss has some kind of hearth disease. One day I tell him a terrible joke I read in a newspaper. He begins to laugh at his maximum, makes a heart attack and dies. That makes me a criminal?
Ok, some may say that I didn't want to cause the death of these persons, but what if I did? For example what If I wanted to kill my boss because of his beautiful wife? I knew he had a weak heart and prepared one of my best jokes for one of his busiest days, when it was terribly hot and humid air in his office? But who can prove this? Even if after a few months I marry the widow?
So my point is that until someone doesn't cause another person's death physically (by will or by accident) It can't be considered a criminal. Of course, it can be harassment or anything else, but not murder or manslaughter.
In the MySpace case they try to make the woman a murderer and since they cannot, they want to make her a dangerous hacker...
And the girl even had some kind of mental illness... So, the cause of her death was actually her mental illness not what a fictive person was saying to her on MySpace. Because a healthy child would have reacted differently. He/She would have ignored the attacks, or would have talked to the parents about it, or something like that. Now maybe this is a bit off topic, but what we have witnessed in this case is a little bit of "natural selection at work"...
I'd like to ask Wrioseac "Do you even have any children?"
Mrs. Drew had knowledge of her victims mental instability, planed her assault, carried it out "non-stop", abusing this child to the brink of "self-destruction".
All the above 1 - 4 [BS]. Are you even from this world? The fact that Mrs. Drew planned this can be best described as "Premeditated".
If I may go but one step further with your samples above? Place yourself in those shoes that have fallen to there demeanor and think about that.