- Related Stories
-
Free speech under Net attack, study says
December 5, 2005 -
GOP beats Dems on tech-friendliness
October 28, 2004 -
Political spoof a boon for JibJab business
October 8, 2004 -
Bush vs. Kerry on tech
June 28, 2004 -
Annoy.com free to bother Netizens
September 24, 1998 -
States mull harassment laws
January 31, 1997
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."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
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.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
prohibition, identity, crime, law, blog
If you want you could just rewrite your entire post as:
<Worthless talking point> * 5
the prisons: what about them? Bad behavior is being punished.
torture: Name one single instance of confirmed torture
Geneva Convention: Name one single instance of geneva convention crimes. -Terrorists are not covered under this document.
I really hate it when CNet lets these political moonbats write articles about technology. News.Com should not be a personal political vent for the authors. It is irresponsible and immature.
Where I see trouble is enforcing this and discovering who "anonymous" is. If I go find a public wireless access point (aka coffee house), create a dummy email, and procede to spam the White House with thousands of "Anonymous" emails, whom do they stop? Stop the email providers? Not likely. Stop free wireless Internet access? Good luck. (Might as well turn off the Internet in either case!) If you can't find "anonymous", how to you stop "anonymous"?
If someone half-knows what they are doing, this "law" is unenforceable. As for the remainder of the public, this "law" is worthless.
THIS IS PROOF LAWMAKERS HAVE NO IDEA HOW TECHNOLOGY WORKS. Obviously Sen. Arlen Specter and her confederates need to update their technology concepts or fire their advisors or both!
See http://www.answers.com/annoy
The law only requires that you identify yourself, it does not prevent you from annoying someone.
No different than the real world. Lets say someone who is mad at you, comes to your front door every day and irritates you by saying something ridiculous or false about you. Would you report that person to the local authorities and have him off your back? That is exactly what this law will allow you to do on the internet as well. It helps you, to identify someone who annoys you.
Please before replying to my post, please clear up the word Annoy in a good dictionary.
best,
Valli
GWB
"How do you tell if a politician is lying? His mouth is moving."
I demand your full name, address, and social security number.
If you don't comply I will report your post to the authorities. Although they probably already know about it.
like you that allow for our massive government to continue to grow
without bound. Governments, US in particular, are the biggest
threat against humanity.
Bush lies!
This article also does not point out blame on Republicans. It just so happens that the president has to sign or veto every law, that's his job in case you forgot.
The bill, however, is written sloppily, vaguely, and ends up infringing the rights of ordinary Americans rather than narrowly targeting a definable set of vicious criminal actions.
The Republicans, by the way, talk a great game about Freedom but sure have a lousy recent track record in defending it.
"any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;"
HOWEVER, I wonder whether the term "annoy" and the associated language might only be found in the previously passed act, with this act merely amending it to include items published on the internet.
(In particular, look at section 113. I don't have the time to search for that right now, but may do so later.)
"you sir are an idiot. you sir are an idiot, you sir are an idiot, and i am your father." now, looking at that quote, it may annoy you that i call you an idiot, and i am identifying myself as your father, which in my experience a father would not call his son that (although you may be from an exceptional family) by falsely identifying myself as your father and then blatently annoying you, you may call this a federal offense.
I hope this post has been informative as well as annoying.
you suck.
http://www.well.com/user/declan/nym/georgia.0797.txt
Regards,
Anonymous
Thank God I didn't vote for this *******. No one can blame me for a stupid president.
By the Way... Did I mention my name is Ty Tyson? :b
Secondly, there are WAY to many people with WAY too much free time on their hands, doing such jerky things as passing assinine legislation like this. (Did I annoy someone by saying that)?.....(TOO BAD)!!
Thirdly, While not everything that is: spoken, printed, typed & posted, or broadcast, may be: polite, politically correct, in good taste, etc;
we are still guaranteed FREEDOM of SPEECH & EXPRESSION, whether such words "annoy" someone or not. There are TOO many OVERLY sensitive people out there, getting all bent out of shape over TOO MANY TRIVIAL things, these days,.....GET A LIFE!!
On top of it all, whether our right to free speech and expression is sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution or NOT,.....speech, thought & expression are inherent HUMAN abilities, and it is only a smug, ARROGANT Government (or a tyrannical one) that would dare believe they could legislate these human processes.
This law is one example of how some lawmakers (and the chief law-signer himself) have their collective heads irreversibly stuck up in a place where the sun never shines and where they love to hear the echo of their own voices.
Lastly,....I must have annoyed SOMEONE, with what I have said, but I don't give a rat's a$$, and I must have violated this new law, because in addition to possibly annoying someone, I am also doing it anonomously!
cat
The article references a good example of this scope of reference when the owner of the site Annoy.com felt his site would be impacted by the Communications Decency Act, but the courts ruled that this only applied to obscene material, not that which he was delivering. Scope of reference from the letter of the law to the spirit of the law established.
Using common sense to interpret slight ambiguities wouldn't leave much for pundits and lawyers to do, though, would it? Makes for a good read though, especially when its never been hipper to be anti-establishment.
Excellent points. By and large, I agree. However...
I have been a software engineer for over 10 years. A few of my more recent projects include an email server and a web server.
There are a few points that concern me:
1. Every phone service in the nation records who called whom, when and for how long. (That's generally how they make money!) Even if the caller ID doesn't show, the phone company has it. Unless you use a pay phone, you're a fool to make harassing calls. Even then a pay phone can give you away. I've heard there are ways around this however all are illegal and the fedral government has ways around every work-around.
2. Every email can be traced to the sending computer. Coupled with a time stamp, you have information that uniquely identifies a place and time. Even email through dial-up can be (and is) traced. With a specific place and time you can identify almost any person -- given 99% of emails, you can absolutely identify the perpetrator with 100% accuracy.
Don't agree? Think back to the '90s when hackers were being found and convicted. The hackers didn't send authorities their name and address but their computer (in effect) did. Today's systems are even more secure with better, faster tools.
2. Anyone who can get around this is untracable and truly anonymous. That means... there is NO WAY to find them and NO WAY to enforce the law.
3. Blog sites are black boxes. Some may log each message with the location of the person making the log. If so, you have a unique way to identify a person - a place and time. Otherwise... who cares? YOU have to go to THEM to be harassed or annoyed. How is that THEIR fault? Oh, that's right! We live in a time where companies are responsible for CONSUMER content! (Search: Napster and Rock Star)
4. What is "true identity?" My name is Bob Platt. But there are at least 4 other Bob Platts within 30 miles of me and at least 10 across the nation. Just a name could result in hundreds of people. So "true identity" must be more than just your name... but anything more is confidential. So we're back to your computer being your true identity. But if my computer is my identity, why do I need to identify myself if I'm out to harass someone? Am I not already identified?
As it stands I don't see this "law" going anywhere or doing much of anything. It smells of swiss cheese -- full of holes.
BTW, good job on breaking the stroy, Declan.
It could be argued an IP address is an identity.
It could be argued an account name or email address is an "identity".
So the only persons likely to be affected by this law would be the cowards who cyber stalk from behind anonymous remailers. Anonymous remailers remove the identity of the original sender and then retransmit the message to the destination defined by the sender. Therefore the send of the message has no "identity", as the point of origin can't be traced. The remailer administrators themselves don't have any way of knowing where the message came from or any way to trace or block such messages.
If the intent of this law is to make abuse of anonymous remailers illegal, than it's a step in the right direction.
However if the real intent of the law is to insist every person place their name upon every message they send out to the internet, it's clearly a violation of the First Amendment rights for anonymous speech.
People have a right to privacy just as much as they have a right not to be harrassed.
If someone is "annoyed" enough and have legitimate grounds to be annoyed, that person can file a subpoena to the NSP or ISP or email provider.
There are a lot of kooks out on Usenet and on the intenet in general. LE should not be obliged under this law to be annoyed with frivolous complaints by kooks who feel "annoyed" because someone referred to a kook who would file a frivolous complaint like this, as a kook.
Are LE prepared for the flood of complaints about people who may have differing opinions which may be considered "annoying"?
This is a poorly written law.
- This country is becoming more and more like Nazi Germany everyday...
- by GPayne January 9, 2006 11:29 AM PST
- Sieg Heil Bush.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- How so?
- by ebrandel January 9, 2006 2:16 PM PST
- Without talking points show me where we're locking up dissidents?
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- No, that's Stalinist Russia
- by johnkeller2004 January 9, 2006 5:42 PM PST
- Not like Nazi Germany.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- Remember Adam Weishaupt?
- by casper2004 January 10, 2006 8:27 AM PST
- That's been the plan since 1776.
- Like this
-
- be careful
- by scottyc2005 January 12, 2006 11:18 AM PST
- I am not a supporter of this law or ones like it but you should be careful when making comparisons to Nazi Germany. When someone makes that comparison it makes them sound like they are on the fringe and takes away any credibility they may have.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 9 pages (393 Comments)Unfortunately you won't be able to, but you're part of the ChimpyMcBusHitler crowd so facts don't matter. Go back to reading Kos.
Like Stalinist Russia.
Hitler despised democracy, and said it often. Bush...and Stalin...always praise(d) it, while twisting it into something grotesque.