MySpace ruling could lead to jail for lying online daters
The MySpace suicide case concluded last week, with the jury finding Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor counts of gaining unauthorized access to the popular social-networking site.
While most of the press attention has been focused on the specifics of the case, the more important issue is the potential impact this could have on the Internet in general.
Web site terms of service, which end users universally ignore, suddenly have teeth: violating them is a federal hacking offense, punishable with jail time. The days of being able to freely lie on the Web could be coming to an end. This could mean serious trouble for people who lie about their age, weight, or marital status in their online dating profiles.
Bad cases and bad laws
The specifics of the Lori Drew case are messy and emotional. The important fact is that there is no federal cyberbullying statute, so the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles turned to a novel interpretation of existing computer hacking laws to try to punish the woman. The general idea is that in creating terms of service, a Web site owner specifies the rules of admission to the site. If someone violates any of those contractual terms, the "access" to the Web site is done without authorization, and is thus hacking.
Unfortunately for Internet users everywhere, a jury bought the theory last week and found Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, punishable with up to one year in a federal prison and a $100,000 fine for each of the three counts.
Horrible terms of service
Until the Drew case is overturned, terms of service would appear to have the power of federal hacking laws to back them up, at least in cases where an ambitious federal prosecutor is interested in making a name for himself.
Back in March, I wrote about Google's insane terms of service--which forbid the use of the site's search engine, free e-mail service, or any of its other offerings by people under the age of 18. The site's terms state:
"You may not use...Google's products, software, services and Web sites...and may not accept the Terms if...you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google.
Under the Department of Justice's current interpretation of hacking laws, every high schooler who uses Google to do homework is in theory a criminal.
However, it gets even better than that. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted in its amicus brief to the court, the dating site Match.com prohibits married persons from using the Web site to cheat on their spouses:
"You must be at least eighteen (18) years of age and single or separated from your spouse to register as a member of Match.com or use the Website."
Dating site eHarmony takes this even further, forbidding its users from lying in their online profiles:
"You will not provide inaccurate, misleading or false information to eHarmony or to any other user. If information provided to eHarmony or another user subsequently becomes inaccurate, misleading or false, you will promptly notify eHarmony of such change.
All those people who have lied about their age or weight in an eHarmony profile would now appear to be computer hackers. Oh, and if you gain 30 pounds after posting your profile and don't promptly update your profile--yep, jail for you.
Silver lining...a weapon against RIAA
Back in the early days of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, activists discussed the creative use of terms of service to keep agents of the RIAA and MPAA from visiting their sites, and collecting evidence for later trials. In a few minutes of searching, I was able to find at least one Web site whose terms of service still forbid such activity.
Notice to RIAA & MPAA and affiliated contractors: Pursuant to DMCA statutes, you are forbidden from accessing or reproducing any content on this site, due to a violation of our terms of service. This is not a matter for discussion. You must exit this Website now.
These amateur click-wrap agreements didn't seem to hold much weight back then. Could the precedent set by the Lori Drew case provide ammunition to pirates, activists, and the thousands of other Internet users who have an anti-RIAA ax to grind?
Parry Aftab, a lawyer and executive director of an anti-cyberbullying group hailed the court case as a victory, telling the Associated Press that the "verdict has made it very clear if you use the Internet as a weapon to hurt others, especially young, vulnerable teens, you're going to have to answer to a jury. This is not acceptable."
For those of us who see the over 30,000 lawsuits filed by the RIAA as an abuse of the legal system and an organized shakedown of vulnerable high school and college students who know little about the law, perhaps this warning will hold true.
Christopher Soghoian delves into the areas of security, privacy, technology policy and cyber-law. He is a student fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society , and is a PhD candidate at Indiana University's School of Informatics. His academic work and contact information can be found by visiting www.dubfire.net/chris/. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
SOLUTION: Use a different search engine. See how simple that was.
I think there should be more laws that cover the safety of everyone on the internet from fraud, scams and the people such as Lori Drew, and those who prey on Kids. With both parents having to work these days, there isn't time left to raise a family the way it should be. Look at the divorce rate. Times dictate survival, and these days it is a fight for adults to survive. You know it has to be tough on kids. Women like Lori Drew should be locked away for many, many years. Death would be too easy.
As to Google and silly search engines and your proposed sollution - it sounds like the "switch the channel" argument. The internet is not a broadcast medium with on off open close functionality - it is a pervasive speaking forum. One can no longer know where the information comes from or where it goes and from whom. Once a computer is connected to the internet the ability to control the conversation is gone. One link leads to another. It isn't so cut and dry. Your answer should have been, use a static printed encyclopedia or dictionary, because that is seperate from Google and rules governing its use are clearly defnied and do not need reading up on - once you "tune in" to the internet, it's like like walking into a bar, you can't control who will hit on you or offer you a drink.
Also, wow your opinion on dating is downright scary. You have the right to lie in order to seduce a mate? Do you get many 2nd dates??
Anyone who lies, online or elsewhere, is liable for it. The question is, what is that person's intent. If it's to get women into bed (consenting adult women that is) that's one thing. If however, it is to assault and bully a teenager to the point of suicide, that is quite another.
(and I know none will read beyond that first sentance, LOL).
But if they are going to do this, they will need a more standardized TOS for web service providers to prevent the more moronic cases like the Google one shown in the article.
Simply because random lawyer speak is NOT going to cut it.
But if they don't cyberbully, it is not the same case.
This lady HARRASSED a minor to the point of suicide. Gee do you think maybe that had SOMETHING to do with her sentence maybe? It had absolutely nothing to do with the EULA of some stupid web site.
You honestly think you can be sent to jail for something like that? Get real. I'm sure the fine for that is a slap on the wrist (at best). At worst they are nearly un-enforceable (which is exactly what courts have ruled).
What a load of sensationalist crap.
"Moderate Safe Search "can only go so far. (same as the Image Labeler)
Quite simply, it is up to parents to watch over kids online, they should be active in watching their kids online if they don't want them seeing illegal material.
I'm quite surprised to see that in Googles terms, i couldn't remember it the last time i read it (good few years back at least, might have forgotten though, i tend not to remember most EULAs i read, most are the same)
I remember back when i was at school, Image Searches were outright blocked because people were looking at porn.
They never got all the image search sites though.
Anyway, i'm not sure what will become of this.
It could make the web a rather scary place.
Register on a site with a Scrubs character, then 2 days later, cops kick the door down and arrested for copyright infringement and hacking...
In the case of TOS agreements, I fully agree with you. It's insane and companies have gone to great lengths to cover every possible angle, in the end creating incomprehensible "agreements" that are as a result largely ignored. These are not clear and serve no apparent purpose other than to put users at a disadvantage.
PS: To all of those who missed yet another point, this court did not, and cannot, set any precedent. And if you think a misdemeanor conviction is a big deal, think what it's like to be on the defendant's end of a wrongful death action in civil court. This criminal charge could be very small change in comparison.
Yeah, like if you log on to a site that stores confidential data, have the ability to view it, but view so against the agreement you have with the site's owner. Like someone at the phone company using their system maliciously to watch someone else's phone logs. Or, someone at the government using a database to further their own curiosity. Or a pedophile who logs onto a teen dating site and uses it to launch attacks on teens.
Or, say you take your work system and download a rootkit on it or a video game. Maybe you decide to use your work system to harass people or run your own Neo-Nazi site. Problem is you are using your corporate IP address to this and a corporate system. (Or government or wherever you work.)
If you think a jury trial is going to convict a 17 year old for using google, it isn't going to happen. If you think computer use laws are mature, they are not. But, if you want to say that sites can not protect their intellectual property as intangible as it may be... you are quite wrong.
The author is a smart guy. He has some credentials. He makes an interesting case. It is amusing and has a readable angle to it. But, it is an angle. The computer usage laws and this current case are simply not that far off. They are off, but it is not the end of the world. Sites do have a right to protect themselves and declare fair use of their intangibles be they websites or whatever other sort of owned server.
I say it's unlikely because it's just not cost-effective. Then again, I'm disgustingly surprised on a daily basis when it comes to the petty and frivolous lawsuits being reported, so who knows!
That said, the prosecution made a mistake in choosing to prosecute on these grounds and for such a violation. They should have prosecuted for sexual abuse of a child. What she did was essentially the same thing as raping the girl; after all, as they say, rape isn't about the sex, it's about the power. She wanted power over this girl, she got it by pretending to be a love interest, a sexually attractive boy. She should have been tried on that basis so that a conviction would at least mark her for life.
People are cruel. I wouldn't hurt myself because someone said something mean to me, but some people are more sensitive to criticism (obviously). We seem to have forgotten that the truth of the Cain and Abel story in Genesis. We ARE our brother's keeper. That doesn't mean you should expect other people to care about you, but it does mean you should care about others, because would you rather be around happy people or miserable people? Take care of yourself first, but does it really hurt that much to be nice? Try it - you'll like it.
The "false information" was the key points mentioned. I said this before. What happened to all the Identity Theft the media was fawning over for airtime. It has not gone away. People used pseudonyms and screen names to PREVENT their ID from being stolen. This case ruling does not allow us to put out false information about us to protect our ID. I can't say I'm 190 years old (obviously false) and other false info on my bio when sites REQUIRE an age.
This case has the threat of people knowing who each other are when online, and thats what scares me. Only criminals will hide, or the government will be EXEMPT (of course they will be given a waiver!) from this if it comes to the extreme in the future.
Get to reality. It's no longer hiding in the wires. We all are in a glass house called the internet now and there's no place to hide.
- by Pete Bardo December 1, 2008 10:23 AM PST
- You're all missing the point, including the author. The judge declared a mistrial. This isn't going anywhere.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Zippy-T-Pinhead December 1, 2008 11:22 AM PST
- Sorry Pete. The case went to the jury - the jury found Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor counts of violating the terms of service with MySpace. Not sure where you're getting your information, unless you are aware of a set-aside of the verdict being contemplated by the judge. FYI: Criminal Procedure 101 - a mistrial may not be declared once a verdict is reached. In rare instances, there may be a jury nullification if the jury is later found to have committed an error in tabulating or otherwise, but that's very rare.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (52 Comments)