new internet rules (maybe)

[Tom-D]

How is this going to effect this web page ?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/

 

[Jim Logajan]

How is this going to effect this web page ?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57324779-281/doj-lying-on-match.com-needs-to-be-a-crime/

Holy mother.... :yikes:

 

[Jim Logajan]

Not at all, unless the Terms of Use prohibit exaggeration...


The DoJ position is that terms of service must be enforceable...nothing that revolutionary there.

You don't see a problem with making a contract violation between two private parties a federal felony?

I'm also curious why you don't see any distinction between civil and criminal law?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Happens all the time. Copy a DVD...you have a license agreement between you and the copyright holder permitting you to use the DVD for your personal use, copy it and distribute it to your friends, and by violating that contract you will be subject to criminal penalties.

Can't argue that specific case - another very bad law that needs to go.

Go into a restaurant and have a meal, and walk out. By violating your contract with the restaurant (an unwritten contract at that) to pay for your meal, in most states you can be charged with theft.

Absolutely no aspect of that scenario meets any of the requirements for the existence of a contract. That is why theft is under criminal law.

Consider this absurd sounding scenario that I believe this interpretation of the CFAA law allows:

The PoA User's Agreement states that "Deliberately circumventing the censor filter is prohibited."
Someone creates an account and makes posts "humorously" praising an Adulf Hilter.
A second person chimes in. Then in real life that second person commits murder, and evidence later shows the second person to be a White Supremacist.
DoJ thinks the first person may have been an accomplice but has absolutely no evidence to tie the two people. So they charge the first person with a violation of the CFAA because the person violated the previously mentioned agreement by circumventing the censor filter.

Of course the CNET article pointed to a real case that was wonderfully worse, because only one person was involved so the absurdity and its real danger gets masked from view.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'd say that the restaurant-patron relationship is the very essence of a contract....

I think you need to make up your mind about the details of the scenario you are proposing. Your original scenario was simply "Go into a restaurant and have a meal, and walk out." It is my understanding of contract law that "implied" contracts only exist where actions can show expected intent by both parties. If the eater had complained the food was terrible and left without paying, there would be a contract and resolution would require lawsuits, not the police. If I order food, eat, and leave without paying or saying a word to anyone, it may still be just a civil matter, depending on jurisdiction. In others, it would be criminal - but even in those, it doesn't take much to place it into civil law.

I'll put it like this. If I'm a chef, and I cook you a $10,000 meal that you don't pay for, you can bet that I'm going to sue you for, among other things, breach of contract.

And also call the police.

Yes, you can call the police. Yes, you can sue. But depending on details you haven't provided, it is either a criminal matter or a civil matter; generally not both at the same time. If the police arrive and I say I'm not paying because the food wasn't any better than a $10 meal, they'll advise you there is no crime and that you are going to have to sue because it is a civil matter.

Lastly, I think your posited scenarios are either not relevant or equally bad law and do nothing to dilute the inanity and danger of the DoJ's interpretation of the CFAA (which the court unfortunately agreed with.) I get that you think that there is nothing remarkable about it. I absolutely disagree, irrespective of your attempts to belittle people like myself who believe otherwise.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Your understanding of implied contract law is incorrect.

No doubt - but your explanations so far have been short enough to be demonstrably incorrect also. I have no doubt you could do better.

That's still theft. Keep in mind that there are different degrees and forms of "theft."

My alternate scenario simply summarized an example from a book on my bookshelf about contract law that attempts to highlight the difference between civil and criminal. You can check the net for similar examples that claim many related scenarios aren't theft. Those web sites and my book may be wrong on the basis of being incomplete or not nuanced enough, but I would need something other than your simple assertions.

The police might say that, it might not be worth the time/effort to arrest or prosecute, but it's still illegal. You don't need any more information.

There was no debate on my part on whether the actions taken by the eater was illegal.

First, I didn't posit the original scenario. I only posted to try to clear up some misconceptions.

Second, I'm sorry that you think that attempts to explain things are "attempts to belittle."

"EXAGGERATORS ANONYMOUS. A Trillion Strong and Growing" isn't an attempt to explain anything, it is an attempt to belittle. I don't have it handy, but I'm pretty sure the date on my birth certificate isn't yesterday.

But, suit yourself. I'm done here.

I find it unfortunate that you direct your alleged legal expertise occasionally toward defending the growth of unfettered reach of government prosecution in ways that are bound to yield abuse of authority.