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.
Update: Here are two different views of this law:
Orin Kerr says:
This is just the perfect blogosphere story, isn’t it? It combines threats to bloggers with government incompetence and Big Brother, all wrapped up and tied togther with a little bow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of bloggers are taking the bait.
And Cal Lanier blogs that this amendment simply applies the existing law to VOIP.
Here’s the important part of the new definition: includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications .
If that doesn’t ring a bell, you probably aren’t familiar with the battle to define VOIP (voice over internet protocol). The previous law assumed that all phone calls would be made via a “telecommunications service” using a “telecommunications device”.
I’m not entirely sure why anonymity is an issue here. I guess this is something I “just don’t get.” but that’s standard fare with politics.
I’ve had a lot of discussions about the issue of annoyances in the past. The ideal scenario, as far as I can see it at this time, is that there should be an extension of the undue harassment laws (or whatever they are called in your area). Looking at the article, it looks like an earlier version of this had better wording.
But there’s a bright side for this. It would be quite easy for this to be overturned by a judge for being unconstitutional if it ever goes to court. Steve, you might know more about this than the rest of us as you said you work at a court. In state cases, people sometimes sue about the constitutionality of a law. For instance, the recent violent video game law California. Can that be done for a federal law?
Yeah, well, we used to be free, which is more than the Chinese can say.
Did you know that up to 30,000 letters a year are sent are sent out by the Justice Department every year under the National Security Letters provision? The FBI uses them to demand records of Web site traffic, e-mail addresses and library use. The law bars organizations that receive the letters from publicly objecting to them.
“I’m not entirely sure why anonymity is an issue here.”
First, people are generally afraid to post using their real names. No one likes to have their real name, number, address, online. There are scary people out there.
Second, to shut up people that make waves. Like I said, it simply does not matter whether the posting is accurate or not. All that matters is whether it was anonymous. That’s the real scary part. The fact that you can say something truthful and STILL get arrested for it!
When faced with the prospect of putting your true identify on the net, a lot of people will simply shut-up instead of complain.
It’ll be thrown out the first time it hits court. However, first it will be used to scare “I Hate Walmart” websites and the like.
The ACLU should have a field day with this measure. As the original article and some comments point out, they’re mesing with the First Amendment here…
NumLock, that’s what I thought about the DMCA and the Patriot Act.
Wait, this could be a good thing. I think this means I can have Robert X Cringley III arrested everytime I read one of his annoying blurbs. Or did he legally change his name to Cringley?
I agree the courts will probably throw it out, but it’s simply one more step by the Bush Bubble Machine to erode our fundamental rights.
Last year, I wrote a satiric, parody novel in which I had two federal agents tell a character that he couldn’t reveal they’d talked to him–even to his own lawyer. It was the most absurd parody of the gov’t I could think of. A year later, here come the National Security Letters!
Proves my point that Parody is Lost (blatant plug for blog), but, more annoying is that I’m going to have to rewrite that section and think of something even more bizarre…until the Bushettes coopt that as well.
Sigh…
In Jamesons Veritas
The article spends most of its time on the “annoying” aspect. But I’m more concerned about the “anonymous” aspect. Because if you’re anonymous online and, through no fault of your own, just happen to annoy someone., you’re in deep shit. Let’s face it, “annoying” is a subjective term. Right now I’m writing this under the Ima Fish pseudonym. And if I annoy someone, which I’m sure I will, I’ll be liable. Essentially you’re at risk whenever you post anonymously. Thus, to save your legal ass, you never should.
But yet print authors can use pseudonyms without any legal threat. Kind of a double standard, don’t you think?
My guess is that corporate America is upset that the internet gives real people the freedom to vent and wants it stopped. Think about a person upset with Sony, for example, posting anonymously about a problem he had. Even if everything the poster said was true, Sony could still attack the guy merely and solely because he was anonymous.
I would like to draw attention to the way in which this law was given to the President. It clearly says in that article that this provision was hidden in a much larger bill, and the President probably knew nothing about this when he signed it (not that I’m saying he would object if he did).
I think one of the biggest problems in todays system are the so-called “riders.” Any lawmaker can attach their pork project to an education bill and it has to be passed because the education bill itself is too important to veto. When this backfires it can be equally as bad. Case in point: Ted Stevens of Alaska attached a rider to a military spending bill that would have opened up the Alaskan oil reserve. Congress shot down the bill as a result, even though it would have provided funds for more body armor and supplies for our troops in Iraq. Ted Stevens and his rider placed our troops right back in harm’s way.
I have thought of this subject before, and my solution would be to invalidate any riders that are attached to a bill of a different nature, and to ban the formation of unweildy and disparate bills and appropriation packages altogether. This would mean more bills to pass or vote down, but it would be alot easier to cut the fat from the budget and prevent unnecessary and dubious reforms.
Not that that would ever happen. They sure like their pork, after all.
Damn there goes my nicknames usefulness. But I always leave a trail anyways to my blog so no big loss.
B.T.W thats a stupid law. How about balancing the budget.
Budget.
Yes look it up Bush.
I’m going to have to read this law. But from what I read like others have said it was snucked in as a rider to a must pass bill. Also the way it was most like sold and not fully disclosed is that is was an anti-stocking law/antispam law. I will need to find out when this goes into effect though because I’m forwarding all the spam I get to the FBI. I want them to prosucute since that stuff annoys me and they don’t use their rename.
This is very bad law and needs to be over turn or reworded to cover stalkers like the house version did.
This from a guy who supports the Patriot Act but not the DMCA.
Sorry for the Double post but I missed the side bar with the text of the bill .
“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.”
This would be a fun thing to prove though. I point out “without disclosing his identity and with intent to”. First someone needs to go back to law school since the bill is restrict to men “his” not his/her/their. Second “with intent to” falls under the persepsion of the doer. But Office I didn’t mean to annoy them I just though it was a fact/ fun. I sent 2 million times because I though she didn’t get it the first 999,999 times.
Ok, I tried to find the orginal text from the bill itself. The one Cnets links suk. There is no direct link to this wording. Can anyone who understand how to search these bills find the exact text? I found SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING. This talks about the internet but I can’t find the “Annoy” part. I just find it hard to believe it would say his and not their. I wanted to see if Cnet copied it correctly. I asls hate when they do the —- thing and leave things out with out something giving the whole text .
Another case of overstating what actually happened. Angst, angst, and more angst — what would this blog be without it? Here is the entire Section 113 of the bill, as passed by both the House and the Senate:
“SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended–
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and’ at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’.
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device’ in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.”
Oooo those Republicans are so evil…
Let me point out that this bill is an ammendment to an existing law: the Violence Against Women Act that was passed in 1994 and reauthorized again in 2000 (uh, wasn’t Clinton in office then?). The law was scheduled to expire next September without this reauthorization.
And what activity does this Act address?
“Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication;”
So the law has been on the books for nearly 12 years and my read is that it always applied to the Internet — the ammendment adds clarity to that point.
Uh, so what’s the problem again?
What a waste of electrons.
The whole pile of crap — including the predictable Congressional resolution of the question — was in response to a couple of lawsuits dealing with libel and slander. This waste of time won’t last in court; but, it covers the butts of a couple of ISP’s for a while.
“Uh, so what’s the problem again?”
There is a huge difference between using a phone and using a computer. Unless someone happens to use a speaker-phone, phones involve a conversation between only two people. Also, in case you haven’t noticed, phone conversations have NO shelf-life. Once they’re done they’re gone. Forever.
The web is different. The posts you make here are read by numerous people over periods of years.
These differences make phone conversations very personal while the web is more impersonal. And it’s pretty obvious that a personal threat is more dangerous than a threat in general. Thus there already is an incentive NOT to make threats online, because if you do you’ll almost certainly get caught.
Also, due to the aforementioned differences, threats made on the phone are harder to prove. Unless you happened to record it, which is illegal itself in most states, there is no transcript or recording of the conversation. While threats on the web are saved forever.
It should also be noted that it is much more difficult and sinister to fake your ID on a phone than it is online. Nearly every person on the planet uses an email address that does not involve their name. But hardly anyone hacks their phone to keep their identity a secret.
These differences show why it’s more of a free speech issue when applied to the web than when it is applied to phones.
And one more thing, as attorneys are masters of stretching plain language, I see no reason why (ii) could not be stretched to include any number of things NOT related to stalkers and women. My example of Sony using the law to go after an anonymous disgruntled customer would still work.
It only effects us US citezens. So if you are not a US citizen you may still have have a chance for your freedoms and rights.
You miss the point, Steve. The law has been on the books since 1994. Do you actually believe that a court would rule that sending a threatening email would not qualify as using a “telecommunications device?” You can send an email by telephone line, cable, cell tower, or satelite — have I missed any? — which all happen to be part of the telecommunications network.
The statute includes the transmission of “image”. Do you really believe our lawmakers were only concerned with obscene faxes sent to a minor? How many homes had fax machines in 1994? If the law is applicable only to telephones, then why does it say “makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device?”
I didn’t include this in my previous post because it was already exceeding the acceptable length (as this one will), but the prior definition of “telecommunications device” stated only what it is not:
“(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.”
And before you say that (B) excluded the Internet:
“The term ‘interactive computer service’ means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.”
Hmm, seems our legislators wanted to shield the providers of Internet access from responsibility for stalkers using their system. Yep, it’s pretty damn obvious now — the 1994 law clearly included use of the Internet.
So why did Clinton sign the bill ,,, twice?
“You miss the point, Steve. The law has been on the books since 1994”
Yeah, and it was applied to phones. And as I pointed out, phones and computers are different. Very different.
And I disagree with your interpretation. (B) clearly excluded the use of the Internet. Exactly how could you get on the internet without using a service, system or software? If you use email. you’re using “software” and your ISP’s “service.” If you send a chat message, you’re using “software” and your ISP’s “service.” If you post to a blog, you’re using “software” and your ISP’s “service.”
If you could show me an example where you can use the internet WITHOUT using software, a system, or a service, I’ll agree with you.
Gads I hate the length of this. Here goes…
Argument 1: If the Internet were not within the scope of this law, then why did (h)(1)(B) exclude ISPs from culpibility from the crime committed by users of their service or software?
Argument 2: All the entire Sec. 113 amendment did was changed the definition of “telecommunication device” to include paragraph (C). It now reads:
“(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes 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 (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).”
So if (B) excludes the Internet but (C) includes it, then the amendment created a legal contradiction. But, as I earlier stated, (B) includes the Internet so a contradiction doesn’t exist.
Now for my speculation. What I perceive (C) does it make it very clear that someone cannot, for example, use software to deliberately spoof his address in order to maintain his anonymity while engaging in the proscribed activity. Spamming or denial-of-service comes to mind.
If I have to start “chatting” with my real name, I’ll stop.
Mostly because I don’t want my employers and co-workers to be able to google me and know what I do or what I really think.
I don’t harrass anyone or break any laws (that I know of!) but I am honest and frank with people in my on-line discussions.
The work-world is often a cruel place where employers will betray you for profit and some coworkers for personal gain. Therefore, I draw a pretty strict line between my professional and private life. I _really_ don’t want my work world to know that much about my private life.
I’m amazed so many believe we have Constitutional rights
a) to anonymity, and
b) to not be annoyed.
I must confess now – my real name is Bill Gates