Comments on: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. And that irritates CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh.

[The Odd One]

You've gotta be kidding me.

*snort* Yeah, right. And they plan to enforce this, how, exactly?

Preventing cyberstalking, huh? That's as easy as changing your screenname. Besides, the whole point of screennames is to prevent real stalking, which is much more dangerous and likely to actually be harmful.

[Talcum-X]

No, not kidding

They don't have to enforce it, per se, the tort lawyers will. Like OSHA, HIPAA, ADA and all the other intrusive governmental acronyminsultings, it is just another way for the lawyers to reach into your pocket.

BillyBob says something "annoying" to you in a chatroom and Voila' you have a Federally Mandated actionable offense.

Cheers, eh?

[steven.randolph]

IF Bush believed in limited government...

Mr. McCullagh got it exactly right. IF President Bush really supported our Constitution, as he's sworn an oath to do (twice), he never could have supported this legal travesty. But the sad reality is, Bush only supports those parts of the Constitution that grant power to the Executive, as he actively attacks and subverts the parts of the Constitution that limit Executive powers or protect the rights of ordinary persons. This is only one of a very large number of examples of the Bush attitude on this subject, that have piled up over the past five years or so.

[Halcyon6]

What did you expect?

Look folks, what did you expect?
This is coming from the same people who gave you the Iraq war based on false pretences...These are the same people who say they want less Government, what they don't say is that they want less Government for them to deal with, not for you...Their political postings are nothing more that stepping stones on the path of their personal desires...They aren't serving their country or "The People"...Their serving Themselves...

I didn't vote for this ****** the first time around and I sure didn't the Second time around either...Tho I hate to admit I know many who did, simply because we were at "WAR" and they reasoned you don't change Presidents in a Time of War..How convenient for him don't you think...

The Republicans have become very good at what I call "Redneck Rhetoric"...Even tho I know many of these types of people are truly Good , Honest, Hard working people, they tend to lean towards the, hell ya lets shootem attitude...This is a big part of why things have shifted toward Republican disparity in Government...Next time around I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse than another one of these people...Maybe Soupy Sales will run again next time?..He'd certainley make a better President than Bush ever could...

In Conclusion, Anyone who disagrees with me, feel free to post your feelings here...I will be annoyed by it of course, therefore your "Breaking The LAW"...Then immediately present yourself to the local police for incarceration...Go Directly to Jail, Do not Pass Go!

[Franco8274]

forums?

I wonder how this will affect political and other forums where trolling is a common practice. Although I dislike being "trolled", I certainly wouldn't want anyone punished by the feds for it, when all a person has to do is ignore them. Just another example of the whittling away of our freedoms. Politicians suck.

[grkuntzmd]

SPAM

Could this law be used against spam? I so, it might be more effective/better enforced than CAN-SPAM.

[Seaspray0]

Probably so

From what I see, it looks like it could. But how are you going to enforce a national law on someone outside the US boundaries? You can't. Even if they were inside the US boundary, the spammers use methods that forge their identity to the point they can't be pinpointed. The article does bring out a good point... "annoy" is rather a vague term. No doubt the spammers could hire enough lawers to argue that point to their benefit.

[elfwreck]

Prosecuting spammers? Nice idea; not gonna happen.

I expect that's what'll make it unenforceable; otherwise there'll be thousands of attempted prosecutions of spammers & companies that forward bulk email.

And while I rather like that idea, I don't think it's what the authors of the bill had in mind.

I wonder if the idea is to ban all anonymous content on the web--after all, anyone can claim to be annoyed by the contents of any site.

[jrhymer]

Bull S#*t!!!!!!

I think this bill is just crap. Take for instance, say you wrote an article for a newpaper and you didn't want anyone to know it was you who wrote, they then just put anonymous for the author of the article what's any freakin' different. I'll stop with that because I'm really getting heated.

[BobRed0965]

The Sky is falling, the sky is falling!

This article is demagoguery at it's best.

The section he is referring to simply amends a law that has been around for 70 years! All the amendment does relevant to this article is clarify that the term "telecommunications device" also includes internet access. This is an interpretation that could have been made with or without the amendment anyway.

I agree that they could have (and should have)done a better job in wording the law's amendment to be clear that it refers to communication directed to an individual person (as the original law intended). However the article was written to excite it's readers and impose a liberal point of view.

http://www.reddert.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=727&Itemid=1

[n3td3v]

Bush is a P.R puppet for U.S gov underworld

Bush doesn't decide anything, he's handed a peice of paper to sign and he's convinced to sign it. He trust's his advisors and takes their word for it. Thats what happened with Iraq, nad in everything he does. Don't blame dubya for being a moron, he's just the P.R puppet for the underworld of the U.S gov who tell Bush what to do and what to sign.

[freedomofthepress]

Bush - puppet?

of course he is...I just watched a film put together by Alex Jones...initially thinking the premise was preposterous..."Terrorstorm" ...about government sponsored terrorism throughout recent history(last 100 years).
they need a dummy like bush to do their dirty work...and of course he's like "duh...okay"

[tjaxsun]

The Guilty Object

If you have nothing to hide then such laws should not bother you but be welcome....Otherwise - beware

[TheMongoose]

Another Political Commentator who doesn't tell the whole story.

Nice job, not including "in a lewd, ect, ect" mannor. It's nice to see that Political Commentators will never change in leaving out the whole story.

[marigolds]

This is a VoIP clause.

You are misrepresenting it.
Section (a)(1)(C) is designed to cover VoIP services which were technically exempted as computer services under the previous version of the law. The exclusion of interactive computer services is still in section 223(h), so information services (which would cover usenet, internet forums, BBSes, etc.) are still excluded.
VoIP is not an information service and hence would be affected by the added clause.
Now, if the FCC suddenly turned around and changed the classification of information services (which is highly unlikely given the effect it would have on cable internet regulation), then we would have a problem. Basically though, in order not to be an information service, a communication needs to be a phone call and not a phone call to a 976 or 900 number (which are explicitly classified as information services and are covered separately in that same section for that reason).

[oh well okay]

STOP - you're making sense....

why would you confuse all of these poor people with facts when it is far easier for them to be knee-jerk "I hate bush and it's all his fault" people. this is some of the worst reporting i have seen in a long time, especially considering besides specter, kennedy, schumer and biden didn't just endorse it - they CREATED it and SPONSORED it.

[marigolds]

Relating to my first comment...

Or in other words... that section applies to phone calls.

[WTFisTHIS]

I'm Annoyed by all the stuff Bush says!

Can I sue him?

[casper2004]

President Bush decides who gets freedom and when.

No you can not sue Bush. He is setting it up so that everyone else takes the blame for things except him and who he deems deserving of rights.

[Breakerslion]

My Religious Obligation

As a member of the Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric (POEE), it is my religious obligation to annoy those that would otherwise be free to annoy me unchallenged, and to do so under an assumed name. This includes advertizers, politicians, evangelists, and other shameless hucksters. I look forward to challenging this law under the Freedom of Religion Act, and Act II Scene IV of The Merchant of Venice.

Screw Mars! Buy some books.

[drdavis]

E-Annoyance

What's the big deal. If you identify yourself you have no problems. I hate it when people send emails that you can't get back to them.
So I think it is a great idea. identify yourself and you will have no problems...

[casper2004]

Got anything like this, CNET?

Rather than make a law like this, we should be able to get software that bounces email back to the sender.

[_Juliet]

americans..

wow you americans have so much freedom now, im like totaly jelous. Me thinks your gov't is gradually taking your freedoms away. Im just glad I live in a actual free country where i can say and think how i feel and not be locked up or investagated.

[casper2004]

What country are you in?

It seems to me Bush is doing a pretty good job creating his dictatorship around the world.

[blindlizard]

Why aren't you all blaming the Dems that signed too?

Why is everyone blaming just Bush on this. I like how the article says that Specter (the most left Republican in the Senate) made it so that the Congress had to sign (taking away blame from them), but they don't give President Bush or the Administraton the same out.

I think this is a rediculous idea, but put blame where you should. The people who wrote and signed it are all equal to blame, but the biggest blame must go to the idiot that changed the wording and hid it in a larger bill. How about we all flame him, oh wait we can't without using our name.

[Tony_Blair]

Hmm...

I'm a U.K. resident and i'm presuming this is only enforceable under U.S law as any alternative would be ridiculous... well more ridiculous.

So does that mean the U.S. courts will spend the taxpayers money discovering my identity in the case of a transgression, investing time and energy that could be spent elsewhere only to have it wasted because they can't even prosecute me?

Not that they'll need to of course as I'm not afraid to use my name. George you can come and find me. I have a few bones to pick with you.

[David Arbogast]

Rejected - Pull the Article

<<If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.>>

If the author wants to accuse the President of the United States of violating constitutional law, perhaps this should be the focus of the article, no?

Think about it... which is worse... lousy wording in a bill about cyberstalking... or a President violating the constitution.

The author of this article injected political bias and launched unfounded and unsupported legal claims against the President. The article should be pulled immediately.

I highly doubt the author has enough "Constitutional Law Experience" to accuse, and judge the president in a technology article. Go back to Wired.

And get biased political authors out of my tech news please.

What trash. Where's the support? Where's the legal defense? What a cheap and easy shot... "I'm writing an article about a bill I don't like... I think I'll take this opportunity to accuse the President of illegal actions without substantial evidence or any consideration to the fact that he may be innocent."

So much for democracy and unbiased media. News.com is going downhill fast... and they are riding the far-left liberal open-source roller coaster of insanity. I'm about done getting information here.

[oh well okay]

your stupidity makes my head hurt...

i just read the text of the section - it does not as far as I can see criminalize web postings, message boards, etc, but only email. the person has to "receive" the communication - not go out and find it. #2 - bush does not make the laws - the selective bashing is just ridiculous. anyone bother to take a look at who SPONSORED this bill? along with specter, you can forward your hate mail to kennedy, schumer, and Biden. not everything in this world is bush's fault. if he had vetoed the bill , you would be on here saying he is for domestic violence. amazing to me how uniformed you people are on how the government works - "it's all bush's fault!" - you sound like children.

[gsparky2001]

Thank You

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking,Mr Bush is doing a lot better than some other presidents have done,and every problem in the world should not be blamed on him.(By the way I am a registered INDEPENDENT wich is what everyone should be instead of playing this stupid
childish games of the democrats against republicans and Vise Versa,This is why nothing ever gets done in washington because they really dont seem to care (Politicians I meen)about the real issues at hand as much as they do disagreeing with the oppossing parties,They should be voted into office for What they Stand For,Not Who They Stand With" maybe then something might actually get accomplished for the people instead of just lining the politicians pockets with our hard earned money,I waste enough of my own money by myself,I sure dont need some politician doing it for me....Anyways thats just my oppinion,i could be wrong.d.g.