funsec mailing list archives
RE: The lawyers weigh in [Was: Re: Everyone on FD is now under arrest]
From: "Gary Funck" <gary () intrepid com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:38:41 -0800
-----Original Message----- From: Fergie Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:29 PM There's a pretty substantial legal thread on this (actually from lawyers) over on Boing Boing: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/09/flame_someone_anonym.html
I realize my reply and questions may be too serious for what is in fact a frivolous thread, but ... here's an excerpt from the above-mentioned reply: In a comment to my co-blogger's post, I point out problems with Declan's article. I write: Declan's article is misleading. The provision extends a telephone harassment law to apply to email. Declan describes the provision as applying whenever a person "annoys" another: "A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity." But that's not what the law says. Instead it provides: "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." ---- Isn't the author splitting hairs? I agree that it seems the law doesn't say you have to provide your real name/identity when annoying someone (as Declan suggests), nor does it say you will be penalized if you annoy someone anonymously, but rather you will be penalized if you have the _intent_ to annoy someone and then do so anonymously. Guaging intent should be interesting. Still, if one were to take this law seriously, Declan's characterization doesn't seem too far wrong as a form of advice. A few questions arise: 1. What does it mean to be "anonymous"? Isn't MrAnnoying () hotmail com enough to identify me, or must I provide my full legal name and SSN for good measure? 2. The "threaten, or harass any person ..." language is interesting because it does seem to include any and all members of a mailing list for example, which lines up pretty well with another comment made by Declan regarding Usenet losing some of its "character". 3. How will this square with recent interpretations of the law that support the idea that anonymous bloggers might (with intent?) annoy public figures with impunity? http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/11/anonymous_blogg.html _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- The lawyers weigh in [Was: Re: Everyone on FD is now under ar rest] Fergie (Jan 09)
- RE: The lawyers weigh in [Was: Re: Everyone on FD is now under arrest] Gary Funck (Jan 09)