Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

[KagomJack]

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.

http://tinyurl.com/czpo4

[Adrenachrome]

You're annoying me. I'm calling the White House

[Demosthenes]

We need a petition going to put an end to this bullshit.

Either that, or I'm moving to Canada ASAP.

[Medieval Bob]

But you... at least sort of know who he is.

Anyhow, I love it. I don't think it'll stick though... It seems to ambiguous to not get overturned pretty soon. Someone will take a case to the Supreme Court, and they'll be all, "Sheeeeeee. That's whack!"

[Thanatos]

We need a petition going to put an end to this bullshit.

Either that, or I'm moving to Canada ASAP.

Bush's term ends in '08, right? 2 years... 2 years!!!!

[Medieval Bob]

http://news.com.com/FAQ+The+new+annoy+law+explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=nl

Q: So what does the rewritten law now say?
The section as amended reads like this: "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."

[gruesomeBODY]

ill wait out the two years then see what happens.

[Adrenachrome]

No self respecting Judge would enforce that shit based on "annoyances"

[Demosthenes]

Honestly? What, are they going to take me to court and be like "WAHH WAHH HE TOLD ME TO FUCK HIMSELF." Cry more, noobs.

God, people suck.

Harassment is one thing . . . annoying is completely different. If we're in the middle of a flame war, I don't want to go to jail for speaking my goddamned mind.

[Lenny]

Nuts to Canada. They've got too much space.

Come and live in Britain! Not only do you get to drink at 18 but the Pubs are open 24 hours!

And that's all I can think of for our advertising spree... :(

----------

Silly Bush. Burn the Bush! Make him the Burning Bush! lawl!

[Sovereign]

Canadian drinking age is 18/19. And they aren't british, so they have that up on you.

[Lenny]

But a lot of Canada speaks French. A serious downpoint.

[Medieval Bob]

A lot of British speak faggy.

[Sovereign]

Bob, stop annoying me. I'm on the line with the authorities.

[Chruser]

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.

http://tinyurl.com/czpo4


Just out of curiosity, how are you supposed to take anonymous offenders who post "annoying web messages" to court? If you're able to take them to court in the first place, they're not really anonymous, are they?

In Sweden, IP addresses are classified as personal information, and therefore void anonymity when recorded on web sites or in e-mails. Even if they're not classed as personal information in the U.S., I still see certain difficulties in obtaining people's IP addresses from public web sites / discussion boards to trace the offenders down.

I suppose some, say, forum administrators would not find it a particularly good idea to give themselves or their board a reputation of gladly handing out hidden, personal information of their members so others can sue them.

Or wait? Is it going to be illegal to hide personal information about the offender from the "victim"; an obstruction of justice? How do you know the "victim" isn't actually just trying to gain information about someone who hasn't done anything to him/her?

[Lenny]

In many countries not only do they monitor everyone extremely closely, but it is the law that you have to disclose private information if requested by some patsies from the Higher Ups.

And it's all down to Terrorism apparently. Britain has recently (in the last year or so...I don't really follow things that much) passed a law that means you have to disclose the information, and they can monitor you all the time. It comes as no surprise that we are the most watched nation in the World. America probably comes in as a close second, with Japan and/or China somewhere near after Yahoo has been freely giving out information to courts.

If you, as the Forum owner, refuse to comply with the requests then it is quite probable a Search Warrant or whatever can be issued to search the servers and find the information by force.

We live in free countries bound tightly and kept prisoner by stupid laws.

[!King_Amazon!]

I never really understood how this works, but how does this new US law even have an effect on foreign internet users? It's like the US makes the laws for the internet or something.

[Dar_Win]

I wonder what Chuck Norris would have to say on the topic.

[Lenny]

As far as I'm concerned, it's US occupants only. I can annoy people as much as I want over here.

[PureRebel]

thats what you get america for having such a shit president. burn him!