As much as I disdain this [insert rude epithet], I don’t think that the courts are the way to go. You may feel otherwise: perhaps to make an example is worthwhile in such a notorious case?
Sister Toldjah’s writing about it, too. (h/t memeorandum)
Investigations: while Specter wants Congress to look into “Spygate,” Patterico drops a bombshell on the LA Times, and David Vitter was acquitted for having instrumentalized the (presumably) suicided DC Madame’s employees prior to joining the Senate, in case you missed that.
Applebee’s. Where the Racists Are.
She should not have been indicted.
Shamed. Shunned. Harrassed. Yes.
Indicted? Not so much.
exactly.
Look, guys, I’m trying to provoke an argument, here.
I suspect she’ll be acquitted, but I can’t say that I won’t enjoy her trip through the wringer.
I know…that’s wrong of me. I’m a bad man.
All of that has been happening to the Drews, Carin. They aren’t getting away with what they’ve done, not by a longshot.
And you’d have one, if you only you’d misrepresented yourself on the internet.
(But the prosecutorial S&M contingent should arrive shortly. That “make an example” talk gets ’em all tight in the shorts. So you did fine.)
Coffee!
Jeffersonian – and I’m ok with that. While I don’t feel bad that she’s being indicted … it does seem like a waste of time and money.
OK, I’ll bite. Why shouldn’t fraud that leads to the death of another be prosecutable?
Of course she should have been indicted.
Because stocks aren’t allowed anymore; we are so much more tenderhearted.
And unless there’s people flocking to fund her defense, the lawyer fees she’ll incur are in themselves a slap on the buttocks. And, the further publicity.
I think she might’ve preferred stocks, eh?
She’s not charged with fraud, EG. While there’s fraud in the broad definition, there isn’t in the legal one.
I don’t see any argument here about why she should not be indicted.
I certainly don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth. Is this more of a gut feeling thing?
Maybe you are confused about what she is charged with?
It’s pretty clear she did do what she is accused of doing – she engaged in an unpermitted use of a California-based company’s computers, and conspiring with others to do so. Is it a jurisdictional question? Because that is not new, and well settled. She’s not being charged with hurting Megan.
She’s being charged with illegal use of a computer system owned by someone else, to hurt someone.
Sarah, is violating TOS a crime? Should it be?
I don’t see a jurisdictional issue as it’s a federal case. But I don’t see a crime in spoofing a MySpace page. I’d imagine that half of them violate the TOS in one way or another.
The allegation is that she used private computers without persmission, and it seems to me that is reasonable to proscribe that by law.
I don’t think I have to point out that there was more to the TOS violation than spoofing an identity. The allegation is, the fraudulent identity was created with the express purpose of causing HARM to a client of the service. Not merely having a pseudonym or sock.
Let her walk around, so everybody can say to her “Oh yeah, you’re the heartless bitch that killed that poor little girl, aren’t you?”
Pablo,
I’ll give you that fraud does not appear in the indictment, but in other words it does in that the “lack of authorization” is due to the lies used to obtain it. Lori is charged, and rightly so IMO, with intentional infliction of emotional distress. I further think that since the violation of the terms of the TOS were the means by which this conspiracy (which still must be proved) to commit that crime was carried out, that the jurisdiction becomes evident. IOW, the violation of the TOS is not what they are actually being charged with, as this is not against a law, unless, as in the case here it is an overt act used to further a criminal enterprise. Which it was.
I’m not a lawyer, so if I got something wrong here I would appreciate someone filling me in.
“persmissions”
And without persimmons, too.
The violation of TOS constitutes the ‘without permission’ unless I’m missing something. She accessed a publicly available website through its intended interface. That is not the hacking the law was designed to address.
Suppose someone is banned here and told not to return. If they go to another computer and post, have they broken this law?
EG,
Infliction of distress is a tort, not a criminal charge.
Pablo, in a very technical way, probably. As a practical matter it doesn’t reach any tipping point of mattering unless it becomes a nuisance or threatens the company enough that they press for prosecution. They might do so to protect themselves from civil liability. If a user misused their system todo so to harm another person, and the person is indeed harmed, that person has certainly opened themselves up to prosecution under the law as written.
If this were just a Greenwaldian sockpuppet incident, then there wouldn’t (nor should there be) prosecution of any sort.
Death resulted from Lori Drew’s behavior. That elevated the level of prosecutorial interest. This could be considered a ‘slap prosecution’.
Well deserved I think. Or, stocks.
As an icon of speech rights, she should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom and made co-anchor of the Olbermann show. God bless America.
Infliction of distress is a tort, not a criminal charge.
Seems like a real jurisdictional problem then. Is this a case in which the grand jury is indicting the proverbial ham sandwich?
Pablo – I take it one objection or concern you have, is that the law is being overstretched when it is applied to use of the Myspace’s computer’s “normal interface”, instead of penetration of the system by some other unpermitted means.
The strongest argument I can think of on that point, if it’s indeed one you are making, is that it is possible to penetrate a system for nefarious purposes, to gain private information about clients, by fraudulent use of such an interface, to which you would otherwise not have access.
The “jurisdictional issue” is a big fat red herring.
Myspace is headquarted in California, and the crime alleged, such as it is, was committed using that entity’s computers. That the injured client and the perpetrator live elsewhere doesn’t mean that the computers of Myspace weren’t illegally used.
Drew’s crime, according to the indictment, isn’t directly against Megan, though she was a client of Myspace, whose computers were unlawfully (according to the indictment) used.
The “intentional infliction of distress” element is still important, however, as it is one element of establishing use of the computers was forbidden.
But that doesn’t apply, SarahW, because there’s no indication that she was able to access something on that system to which she otherwise wouldn’t have had access. The deception, in other words, didn’t facilitate access to information.
Indicting her under a law intended to criminalize hacking seems like a stretch. That doesn’t mean it won’t work, of course.
Want to expand a bit:
“it is one element of establishing use of the computers was forbidden, and therefore unlawful.“
My #27 was in response to your #25, SarahW.
“But that doesn’t apply, SarahW, because there’s no indication that she was able to access something on that system to which she otherwise wouldn’t have had access. ”
I’m not sure that’s completely correct, at lease not in the broad sense of gaining access to Megan’s myspace account, which Drew would not have been able to view as “Josh” without making the “josh” character up. And of course, it’s still an important element of the unpermitted use, that “josh” was created with malice, with the intention to harm the client of Myspace.
least, not lease. Speaking of leashes, where is DOMINO!
My point was that she didn’t need to make up the Josh character in order to view Megan’s account, at least not by my understanding of how Myspace works. Granted, she wouldn’t have gotten very far in the rest of the scheme in that case.
I still think it’s a stretch, and if it succeeds and therefore establishes a precedent it probably has ramifications for web anonymity.
Furiously deleting all his anonymous MySpace accounts…
Megan’s myspace profile was set to “private”, and Drew could not view it without the creation of a false identity. The whole scheme, creation of Josh, was to gain access to Megan’s account and see what she might be saying, or provoked to say.
I hate to be a broken record, but it’s still important element of proving the charges, that she did so with malice.
Now I’m confused. Can a prosecutor bring tort “charges” in a criminal court?
If the indictment is too “stretchy”, the court may have some basis (there are rules for this sort of thing) to narrow the statute and by it’s findings prevent it’s use to prosecute similar activities.
Myself, I think legislation to limit one kind of internet anonymity would be reasonable and prudent and unlikely to interfere with conduct that should be protected. Adults, with exceptions, should be proscribed from purposefully pretending to be children or age-peers in communication with children on the internet, and perhaps narrowly proscribed from egaging in such communication with intent to harm. ( The former would punish the conduct wihtut having to prove intent. The latter would add an additional element making prosecution more difficult, making prosecution a more rare undertaking.)
The Moderate Voice – We need a debate on race, because of all you racists.
Ed guy, there are some torts that are crimes, or vice versa. In this case, the “tort” is important in the sense that it is an element of proving the actual CRIME, that is, that Drew gained access to, or used Myspace’s computers in an unpermitted way.
They aren’t charging her with infliction of emotional distress, per se. Proving unpermitted use of the omputers may hinge on proving the intentional harm, however.
But she’s still only violating the TOS by being mean to someone, she’s not “hacking,” per se. If there had been a real “Josh” and she stole his credentials, it would be a slam dunk. If MySpace doesn’t validate users before granting accounts, they’re not taking reasonable precautions to prevent people from doing what she did, and it’s hard to see how they can claim fraud.
Who’s pictures did Drew use to create the Josh character? I wonder if that boy could sue her.
That would probably have to be a DMCA case, MayBee.
Jim in KC- forgive my ignorance, but DMCA is what?
The End of the World Maybee, it gave Metallica the right to come to our house and rape our mothers, then take all of our food and crap on our stairs.
’tis true, I read it on Slashdot.
JC – the statute, as written, provides no exemption for violations resulting from abuse of TOS. Drew isn’t charged with teasing or hurting Megan. She’s charged with gaining access to information on a computer without permission
of the owners of that computer. That Drew gained access to protected computers, and how and why Drew gained access, they will have to prove in order to prove she did so without permission.
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with such charges if Drew had lured Megan with a trojan horse, and damaged Megan’s property using Myspace computers.
What Drew did really isn’t so different from that. But in this case a trojan *identity*, a lure to cause harm, was used to inflict damage.
LMC is mostly right, as far as Metallica goes, anyway. Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
It’s a good example of non-technical lawmakers completely fucking up law having to do with technical topics.
Which is why I think it’s a reach, and will be hard to prove, because those are not protected computers. They’re accessible to pretty much anyone, from pretty much anywhere, and MySpace makes no attempt whatsoever to verify that the person creating an account as Josh is, in fact, Josh.
More specifically, the charge is unpermitted use of a protected computer system. The fact that Myspace’s or another company’s or agency’s
protection is crap, is not going to provide legal cover to someone who violates the protections in place, even feeble ones. Otherwise, that argument would apply to someone who finds a way to breech the crap protections, and grabs poorly protected credit card numbers or medical data.
Jim, but they ARE protected. Drew, without the trojan boy, would not have been able to view Megan’s page, or use Myspace computers or informtion gleaned from them, to communicate with her.
Also, Myspace is *not* the computers it runs on. It’s a system or entity with its own access rules separate from the access rules that apply to the computers it runs on.
I’m not saying they have bad protection, I’m saying they have none, and that’s an important distinction.
The whole thing really boils down to who has the authority to create accounts and assign access rights. If they’ve delegated that authority to any random person who can manage to browse to their site, it’s simply not reasonable to call that system protected.
Myspace owns computers with protected information on them that Drew gained access to without permission. Or anyway, prosecutors will have to prove she did. in order to prevail.
Jim in KC, is your argument is that the interface was not protected from false identities, except by TOS, therefore any information not available for public view, but available with a false identity, was never on a protected system?
Because the pics of Megan, and her contact information, and her comments and content were not publicly available, and they were stored on Myspace computers with security protections to keep unauthorized persons from viewing the information.
They would only be available to someone Myspace permitted to use the system, . Myspace said to users “you don’t have permission if you do x.y,z”, for a,b,c reasons. ” You are saying, if they violate those terms, they have not unlawfully breached the privacy protections that hide pages from public view.
if they violate = the likes of Drew violates
All of this is roughly analagous to prosecuting Capone for Income Tax Evasion. The bitch has it coming.
In answer to 52, yes, that’s correct. In answer to 53, Myspace didn’t make the decision to allow or disallow access to Megan’s profile, she did, so they are not the victims of the fake identity, she is. In answer to 54, Myspace allows anyone who can browse to their URL and can type to use their system. I just went and set up an account, and the helpful little “Web2.0” tooltips suggest that your friends can find you more easily if you “…enter your real name.” So if the TOS says you are required to use your real name, they’re contradicting themselves on their own account sign-up page.
And now The Domino has a MySpace account. I bet the chicks will dig him.
Yes, the bitch has it coming. And I’ll revel in whatever misery this causes her. But I don’t think she’ll get convicted here. And if she does, it will set an unfortunate precedent. At DU it’s against the TOS to say things unfavorable to Democrats.
If you misrepresent yourself as a Dem, and say things that will cause hurt feelings, you could find yourself in the dock.
Trojan Domino. Breaking all the hearts.
I am in the camp that says she should be publicly shamed for what she has done. It was pathetic and juvenile. However, I am not sure it rises to the level of a crime. I guess this case will decide that, if it ever gets past the preliminaries.
If someone is mentally ill, can I be held responsible for anything I say to that person? As long as I don’t represent myself as any official authority, I think it’s safe or at least it should be. I worry about speech being regulated when it shouldn’t be.
Still, there’s that poor girl who killed herself. That’s very sad. If I had been her father, I may have dispensed a little justice of my own. It would not have involved property damage. That’s for kids.
I agree, Pablo. Finding Drew guilty on these charges could definitely set a precedent that would have a negative effect on individual privacy on the internet.
Jim, howso? I’m asking in a devil’s advocate way. Tell me why Myspace’s or any other entity’s computers, should be free to use against the owner’s persmission. Using the analogy of DU, no one HAS to use DU against the terms of service, or necessarily has a right to defraud DU or its clients and say they are who they are not, to get information that would otherwise be blocked from view, and use that information for the intentional infliction of emotional distress or some other harm.
Sarah, I’m focusing mostly on the notion that it’s a “protected computer,” which the MySpace service, it seems, is pretty clearly not. I think it would have to meet certain standards pertaining to access control in order to be considered such. I don’t let users where I work create their own accounts and decide which assets they can use.
Also, the information in any given person’s profile does not belong to Myspace, it belongs to that individual even though it may be stored on Myspace’s computers. If I social-engineer you into giving me access to that profile, that’s not a crime against Myspace even if it is a violation of the TOS to use that information to say mean things to someone. On the other hand, if I perform a brute-force attack against their server and gain a password that allows me to access the information where it’s stored in a database, that *is* a crime against Myspace.
I’m not convinced that Drew didn’t actually commit a crime somewhere along the line, just that she didn’t commit the crime she’s charged with. And I’d hate to see the outcome of this case end up defining “lying to someone online” as being the same as intentionally breaking into systems.
Oh. Yes. It’s just a gut feeling thing.
Happyfeet – I do like your guts. Not to put anything you don’t want in them….this might not apply to you…..(and It might just be my imagination in other cases:
I come away with the impression that a lot of good folks come to the conclusion that this is a case for the Dirae to handle, and her punishment is not up to mere mortals to dish out.
A shout out to all you Mozilla experts: I’ve got a 14 year old who is sneaking onto MySpace and then he clears the history when he’s done. Can I disable that “Clear private data” button?
Right. You’ve really got to massage the hell out of it to come up with that. The statute seems intended for hacking your way into a system, not for sockpuppeting on social networking sites.
Maybe, maybe not. I wish that it were more clear cut, but the law seems ill equipped to take care of her. Mankind, however, has yet to finish with Ms. Drew.
Jim in KC – but might the law not draw a reasonable distinction between “lying online” and lying to get access to information about a user otherwise hidden from view?
Myspace isn’t a public forum. It’s a private service that doesn’t have a fee.
They say you can use the stuff we own, and we have certain features to hide information. You can’t have that unless you agree to our rules, and you can’t use our computer and get the information without following our rules.
It’s one thing to go online to say “I work for paypal, and am getting a kick out of these replies” and another to use email to say, I am Don Mstealy and I represent paypal and I need permission to test your account”
.
MOMMY DIRAE-IST!
Well. Sara. Since you didn’t ask, I’ll give you my opinion. I think in a broader since it would open the door to state or federal rules being imposed on a media that is pretty much self policing. The internet works, and works quite well because it is wide open. What this woman did was unconscionable and in the era of O.J.Simpson you have to wonder if ‘living with oneself’ is punishment enough, but by taking the other road I see only censorship.