 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to fatness
Re: Is it legal to give fake information on the Internet? said by fatness:Wait a minute. You mean your real name is not red2?
Is fatness your real name or a physical attribute? 
--
Senate - get off you butts and actually create a budget that has spending cuts 3x the amount of tax increases like you promised.
|
|
 DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | reply to Snakeoil
If you need a fake e-mail address, use me@privacy.net
»Stopping Spam »How do I protect my email address when registering at web sites I don't trust? |
|
DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | reply to doesitmatter
said by doesitmatter :i'm not talking about giving fake information to stores for fraudulent purposes.
i'm just talking about giving information to sites that don't involve money at all.
say someone signs up for a new email account, for example. if they give a fake name, fake birthday, fake zip code, etc, have they done anything against the law? if so, how does one maintain one's online privacy without breaking the law, aside from not using the internet at all?
Not in the USA, so long as you're not trying to commit a crime.
I'm not sure about Greece. |
|
| reply to red2
said by red2 :Sorry, IT IS LEGAL. There is no law that makes using another name illegal. Do we arrest all authors who use pseudonyms?
If you borrow a book from a friend and forget to return it, is that illegal? Of course not. If you friend accused you of having stolen it, the chances are that the police officer who is called would just ask you to return it. But if wanted to be difficult, he could arrest you, the the D.A. could decide to charge you and a judge could find you guilty.
So does this mean that not returning a book is illegal? No. It simply means that law is based on interpretation, so everything you do in life could potentially get you in trouble.
Sorry if I'm being an ass here, but please don't say something is legal or illegal when clearly the ACLU and the EFF have been campaigning about this very issue because it's not clear cut. Those guys aren't stupid. Just because something carries a low risk of being enforced, it doesn't mean that it's not illegal.
The CFAA as stated is AMBIGUOUS. It's simply not written clearly, and a lawyer/judge can interpret a breach in Terms of Service as hacking and therefore criminal under the current language of the CFAA or other state statues.
The analogy of theft vs borrowing isn't very apt. Criminal theft statutes are no way even CLOSE to how ambiguously the CFAA is written. In order to commit common law theft, there needs to be (1) a taking of property; (2) without PERMISSION; (3) with the INTENT to deprive the rightful owner of such property.
It would be better if you argue that such an interpretation of the CFAA or other anti-hacking statutes would be unconstitutional, that is it's unconstitutionally vague therefore a breach of due process. Even then, this is not helpful to a person who has been thrown in jail and exhausted all legal methods of relief, therefore even if SCOTUS does decide that such an interpretation is unconstitutional, it doesn't necessary provide retroactive relief.
It would even be better if you simply stated, it's not clear whether it's illegal or legal but the chances of being prosecuted can be very minimal depending on the situation. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | OK, I'll buy that argument. Logically, an action is either illegal or legal, but it does not follow that the status of a particular action is simply decidable. |
|
| reply to doesitmatter
It probably should be illegal to provide real names on the internets.  |
|
| reply to Anonymous1
said by Anonymous1 :Sorry if I'm being an ass here, but please don't say something is legal or illegal when clearly the ACLU and the EFF have been campaigning about this very issue because it's not clear cut.
I understand your point and appreciate a good discussion.
Let me try this another way.
There is NO specific law that I know of in the US that states that using a fake name, birthday, etc. is illegal. Rather, there is a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that COULD be INTERPRETED, if DESIRED, in such a way as to hold almost anyone who uses the internet to be in violation. I'll buy that.
So, there needs to be INTENT, someone needs to have been "harmed" and "damages" sustained.
The example of theft was just to say that circumstances can be INTERPRETED many ways. It depends on context, intent, the harm caused, etc. Let's go back to the filming of a police officer example. Is that illegal? Absolutely not. But if you record audio, he could contend this is wiretapping. If you get in his way, he could contend that you interfered with the performance of his official duties. So does that mean "Don't film police officers. Because it is Illegal." No, it simply means that, as with many things in life, you need to use discretion.
I'll continue to use the name "red2", and you can continue to be "anonymous1". We both won't lose any sleep over it, though we both don't appreciate that the wording of the CFAA could potentially create an issue. Then again, few things in life are certain, other than death and taxes. |
|
|
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | reply to doesitmatter
I'm 18/F/Oregon and have DDs.
I'll let you know if the cops come. Until then, its safe to say giving fake information on the internet is legal. |
|
| reply to red2
said by red2 :The example of theft was just to say that circumstances can be INTERPRETED many ways. It depends on context, intent, the harm caused, etc. Let's go back to the filming of a police officer example. Is that illegal? Absolutely not. But if you record audio, he could contend this is wiretapping. If you get in his way, he could contend that you interfered with the performance of his official duties. So does that mean "Don't film police officers. Because it is Illegal." No, it simply means that, as with many things in life, you need to use discretion.
Interpretation is what lawyering is all about. It's basically plumbing with words. Words have meaning, and all the arguing is simply what is the meaning of a certain word. If one is a textualist (strictly looking at a statute's text and nothing else), there's nothing denying the interpretation that a TOS breach is a violation of the CFAA. The thing is, many judges and lawyers are textualists. Hell, there's a few justices on the US Supreme Court who are pretty strict textualists. They simply believe it's not their duty to go beyond what the text says, because that would in essence be legislating from the bench (simply unconstitutional). Therefore it's important that laws are written clearly. It's also our duties as citizens to push for clearly written laws.
-----------------
Yes.. In majority of states where all parties must consent to an audio recording, there's usually an exception where if it's obvious a recording is taking place, and the recording is in public, there's simply no reasonable expectation of privacy. So we simply don't run into this problem. I believe Maryland is an example of this, although its officers seem to have bad training.
Unfortunately there are certain states that are a bit backwards when it comes to wiretapping/eavesdropping laws such as Illinois and lack such an exception. When that happens you get ridiculous cases e.g. the kid who was peddling $1 art on the streets, and was charged with a misdemeanor for not having a proper license. But because he decided record with audio he was charged with an illegal recording. The judge refused to drop the illegal recording charges. Simply ridiculous.
----------
Btw. I'm anonymous1, you're red isn't a violation of any of dslreports' TOS. However, it certainly is on e.g. Google. |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by fatness:Wait a minute. You mean your real name is not red2?
Is fatness your real name or a physical attribute? Enough with the insults, But Cudget.
--
here comes leadership |
|
| reply to doesitmatter
If you really want to hide and be very stealth. You can signup for a tor anonymous e-mail address and use the tor bundle browser. |
|
| Here's another little example for the legal/illegal debate.
Google nears $7 million settlement with U.S. states over Wifi incident: source »news.yahoo.com/google-nears-7-mi···tor.html
Google's "Street View mapping cars collected passwords and other personal data from home wireless networks" and
"The company has said it "segregated" the data after it became aware it collected it."
So, how exactly do you "accidentally" collect such data when you are taking photographs? And once you do so, how are you NOT exceeding your authorized access? And they admit it?
So why isn't this a criminal investigation, and since it happened in several states, a federal crime?
Furthermore, "Google was fined $25,000 by the FCC for impeding its investigation into the matter. But the FCC said it would not take any enforcement action against Google for the incidents"
Why not? They committed a crime and then tried to prevent it from being investigated? Now you go try this and see if the result is the same. |
|
 Bink63Namedrop THISPremium
join:2002-10-06
Everywhere | reply to doesitmatter
Crap, I guess I'm not really a hot 20something redhead, named Joanne. |
|
 Phoenix22Death From AbovePremium
join:2001-12-11
SOG C&C Nrth | awright, enough! back away from the keybord...............slowly.............face that wall over there.........put you hands behind your back............left hand first...ok.......now watch yer head ;=)) |
|
| reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:If you really want to hide and be very stealth. You can signup for a tor anonymous e-mail address and use the tor bundle browser.
Yeah - you're a huge champion and patron of TOR....
»[BT] TOR |
|
