General Category > Blog

Terrorism, web sites, games and privacy (anonymity)

<< < (4/13) > >>

ratty redemption [RIP]:
agreed, crazy and i find it ironic that they call that act 'patriot' which is also the name of one of their flawed missiles systems they sell to just about any country who can afford them. also analogous to breaking an egg with a sledge hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/072903gsn1.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/60minutes/main601241.shtml

kat:
Looks like congress is pushing to make misdemeanor crimes felonies in light of all that news about computers being compromised in recent months. Interesting article on WebProNews - Could Lying on Facebook, Checking Out NSFW Stuff Land You in Jail?. The UK and EU have their own "Computer Misuse Acts".

Refs mention in the article:

* Current Law - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
* New amendment pushing for Felonies - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1151Other Resources
* Computer Misuse Act 1990 (UK) - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/contents
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_computing

kat:
Interesting article in IT Pro about a new bit of draft (daft) Legislation being proposed by the UK Government, the Draft Defamation Bill. Reading through the article I'm not entirely sure who they're trying to blame and/or hold accountable or responsible for cleaning up the mess caused by Trolls or defamatory posts. Without reading further (and based on what's written in the article) this has the potential to set a very dangerous precedent.. exactly who is making the judgement call that "9/11 was an inside job" to use a topical example, is a defamatory statement that merits the invocation of what then would be a 'breach' under the Deformation Bill?

In fact, why is it even necessary for this to be written up? This website, as all others on the Internet, has it's own, albeit generic, Terms & Conditions that allows matters of defamation etc, to be dealt with in whatever appropriate manner is deemed fit by the sites owner - Facebook, Twitter, DigitalArtists et-al can all pull, delete or remove accounts because users voluntary acquiesce to that as a condition of use. In other words, by proxy there already exists a *private mechanism* to deal with most issues that occur to which this Bill seems to infer no-one but the State has the authority to deal with. For the Senior Staff Writer on IT Pro (c/f the box-out comment on site) to make or imply this is anything but a private property matter is pretty bad... for that same person to then imply that freedom of speech is conditional is absolutely horrifying.

(And yes, one has the Right to Freedom of Speech, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't consequences for being a dumb-ass. It's a very powerful weapon, so use it wisely. Else you give those that can the ability to take it away. Digital ID anyone?)

Further Reading

* Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill - First Report

ratty redemption [RIP]:
interesting and i wish i could say i'm shocked by this latest attempt by our respective governments to demonstate they 'know what's best for us' but yes, the internet isn't like the wild west, it is for the most part privately owned and there are already rules in most places, even if end users tend to ignore them a lot of the time, they can and do get banned for breaking a site's tos. even youtube uploaders can ban users from commenting on their pages, we don't need any more policing.

kat:
Lying on the Internet could land you in jail?!
--- Quote from: CNet ---The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," Richard Downing, the Justice Department's deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow ... The law in question, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, has been used by the Justice Department to prosecute a woman, Lori Drew, who used a fake MySpace account to verbally attack a 13-year old girl who then committed suicide. Because MySpace's terms of service prohibit impersonation, Drew was convicted of violating the CFAA. Her conviction was later thrown out.
--- End quote ---
This is a little odd because the 'crimes' they're wanting to target relate to infringements of 'private property' agreements. The Terms of Service agreements are effectively contractual obligations between consenting private parties so any offense would more likely be a Civil matter rather than a Criminal one - unless some type of harm to others was perpetrated.

References

* The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
* UK equivalent - Computer Misuse Act 1990

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page