Accessing a computer without authorization, phony accounts

[DNR]

This is a discussion on the recent conviction of the Myspace cyber-bullying case. You should read the exterpts below from top to bottom to get the full reaction. The verdict is important to hackers because it shows how computer crime laws will be applied to people like us that bend the rules sometimes. Here they have convicted a person for creating a bogus myspace account - she was not convicted on the conspiracy - the cyberbullying because of the 27 days the suspect and victim interacted - she was nice and friendly 26 of those days. The charges are applied because the account was created for the intent to discover information from the victim - they were neighbors that lived down the street from one another, and the suspect thought the victim knew who might be harassing her daughter. This violated the user agreement the suspect had with Myspace.

LOS ANGELES: A federal jury here has handed down what legal experts said was the country's first cyber-bullying verdict, convicting a Missouri woman of three misdemeanor charges of computer fraud for her involvement in creating a phony account on MySpace to trick a teenager who later committed suicide.

the conviction was highly significant, computer fraud experts said, because it was the first time that a federal statute designed to combat computer crimes was used to prosecute what were essentially abuses of a user agreement on a social-networking site.

Specifically, the jury found Drew guilty of accessing a computer without authorization on three occasions, a reference to the fraudulent postings on MySpace in the name of Josh Evans.

Legal and computer fraud experts said the application of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, passed in 1986 and amended several times, appeared to be expanding with technology and the growth of social networking on the Internet. More typically, prosecutions under the act have involved people who hack into computer systems.

"Keep in mind that social networking sites like MySpace did not exist until recently," said Nick Akerman, a New York lawyer who has written and lectured extensively on the act. "This case will be simply another important step in the expanded use of this statute to protect the public from computer crime."

"As a result of the prosecutor's highly aggressive, if not unlawful, legal theory," said Matthew Levine, a former federal prosecutor who is a defense lawyer in New York, "it is now a crime to 'obtain information' from a Web site in violation of its terms of service. This cannot be what Congress meant when it enacted the law, but now you have it."

[Gogeta70]

So basically she used myspace for what it's for -socializing- to talk to people, which is a natural way of gathering information. The person she was talking to, her neighbor's daughter, commited suicide and now she's being 'blamed' for that person's actions? That's bullshit. In my opinion, she didn't do anything wrong.

[Lundis]

The charges are applied because the account was created for the intent to discover information from the victim

I think obtaining information should be legal.... Cases like this shows how fucked up the world is. They focus on the wrong thing completely, and they don't even realize it

Sure, what she did wasn't "good", but why did the girl suicide? I don't know anyone who would even think about suiciding after chatting.

[ph0bYx]

Personally I think it's the parents fault. They should have known that their child is mentally weak, and that the Internet is a dangerous place for 13 year old kids, especially if they're mentally weak.
Now they focus on charging that woman that committed the crime, but not knowing that such "crimes" happen every 5 seconds in the world.
If anyone should be charged than it's the parents. If they've payed more attention to their child and supported him in more aspects of his life, than the child would have came crying to parents and ask for help like every other child instead of committing suicide.
But they needed a sacrificing lamb so they can't blame themselves and to show the dangers of Internet (like they are not enough of those indicators already) to the world. And I wouldn't be surprised if MySpace has his fingers in it, to show that there's no fucking around with them! LOL

To conclude, the girl was obviously mentally weak, as all kids at that age I suppose, but the parents are there to protect them from the dangers of the world and prepare them for life. It's sad to see a young girl committing suicide, but that sort of thing could have happened in real life too.

P.S: Cyberbullying?? Give me a break! The real life bullies are the real criminals. Those bullies live a scare on a persons psyche for life. Cyberbullies are a joke.

[DNR]

I got no complaints so far

Now, the gist of it is this: a judge and jury saw fit to convict someone for abusing a site's TOS. Anybody on the internet had the right to access myspace - its on public domain. BUT, the conviction was given for the impersonation of self (suspect pretend to be boy) and misusing the myspace service to befriend the suicide victim.

The worry here is that now this opens a new realm of computer crime convictions. What next? Will they require me to use my real name instead of a nick? Will there be some national database to collect user activities - just like requiring government officials to preserve their emails, will they require ISP to preserve the last 3 years of your internet activity - in case someone wants to file criminal charges for abusing the internet?

Who is to blame for the suicide? I think it should be a combo punishment - everyone involved share some responsibility. The parents should have monitored her internet activities, like parents do. Myspace should have admins to monitor the site (although the two suspect and victim were nice to each other until the last day). What about the girls other friends? Did no one offer support that day to that girl?

The internet is also responsible: All of us know the excitement of belonging to a cool forum, maybe perhaps for the first time. How could one not expect a 13yr old to be so effected by joining Myspace or suck-o. Suck-o is run by a few old timers, we might use Nicks and avatars, but we knew the rules of how to interact with each other - be real. We don't need Laws or Government intervention to tell us how to act on the internet. We try to teach the newbies the rules, but thats like trying to drink from a firehose.

This court case is going to be another example of where humans failed to police themselves, and the government steps in to slap more rules and laws to control internet behavior.

DNR

[ph0bYx]

What next? Will they require me to use my real name instead of a nick? Will there be some national database to collect user activities

ermm:

Code: Select all

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026842.200-review-ithe-numeratii-by-stephen-baker.html

and let me quote a comment from NS:

If filling out false information is a crime on the internet than everyone would be in jail. It is unreasonable to expect people to use their true identity and true information when surfing the web. That is a violation of privacy and putting one's self in danger of numerous types of crimes such as identity theft, stalking, etc.

PS: Here's another article related to the first, but I didn't have time to read it yet:

Code: Select all

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16162-what-the-data-miners-are-digging-up-about-you.html

[computathug]

Here i see how a misinterpretation of laws and rules, which have got bound so bad they dont have any direction to turn but they need to look like they are doing something to deter others from doing the same. Foe one to me this woman should have known better. Most children of this age are not mentally ready for the world and the way it is lived. I see the reaon of misuse here being only that she used the account she set up for nothing more than maliscousness and had thought about this all the way and knew what she was doing. Ok she had her reasons...her own daughters well being, but also had revenge in her own mind over a 13 year old child. Was this child the easy target!

If i was to go out and cause a fight and someone died, i would be looking at manslaughter charges and holds a 7year sentence. If i planned to go out and murder someone then its a murder charge and am looking at 15 years upwards. How the murder is committed would also depend on whether the courts can with hold you indefinately.

This was obviously planned and had some thought put into it. This woman set out to cause this child some distress. I think they should get done for this but the laws will never make things in this world perfect. It would be one law after another and its where does this end.

I also agree the parents should have monitored more but we cant watch over our children 24/7 or we would just be wrapping them in cotton wool and they would become prisoners in there own home. More needs to be taught about computers and there safety but the government ignores these issues and puts it all down to the user. We are lucky in the respect its something we are interested in and have made it our quest to learn or we would be in the same situation as most other parents, clueless!! People dont understand the dangers of the web and only see the good side of things until its too late.

So who is to blame, the child! I certainly dont think so. The parents, some should be put to them but how much punishment do you want to give them, they have just lost there daughter, isnt that punishment enough! The lady who misused the internet for her own wrong actions, definately, and its also down to the government to teach more through advertisements, schools and leaflets. The blame will be passed on through this but really it all comes down to one person. The woman who should have known better!!!

[Lundis]

the suspect thought the victim knew who might be harassing her daughter

I don't see how this is the same as planning to harm her.

[Lyecdevf]

Her actions caused some one to commit suicide, which caused huge public out rage. Now for people to trust the government, law,...some one needed to step in and punish this person who caused another person to commit suicide. If some one did not sentence this person there would be mass chaos, people would not pay taxes, and so on...so for the sake of wide spread peace and tranquility some one had to pay. They would have sentenced her for any thing. If she made grammatical errors on her account that would be good enough for a conviction.

[DNR]

@lundis Well the idea of befriending someone just to use them seems wrong. The jury did not convict her of her death - just using the myspace in violation of its TOS.

@lye Right, so the public 'forced' the government to step in an impose more regulation to internet activity. Once you get a conviction based on a law that was written by the high court - it becomes Case Law, that means that lawyers have an example to use against other people. Just the 'idea' or loose interpretation of the 'intent' of that case law can be applied as 'evidence' against you. What will it be next, a court order to give up a nick - because someone else is using it? Will Chat be monitored, and people prosecuted for drunken banter? If the next noobie dies with Suck-o opened on the front page of his computer - could we all be in court?

DNR