A 49-year-old woman pleaded not guilty to charges arising from her role in a MySpace hoax that ended with a 13-year-old girl committing suicide after being spurned by a fictitious boy.
Lori Drew, 49, of Missouri, denied charges of conspiracy to inflict emotional distress and accessing MySpace computers without authorization. She will fact [sic] trial on July 29.
I’ve heard tell she hails from Missouri.
“fact trial”? WTF,O?
Fix it, Dan.
Cheers!
ChrisP
This case is sad all round. No winners here.. the poor little depressive girl couldn’t deal with the harassment that’s common practice on the web.. Then again I’m pretty sure Lori Drew didn’t intend to drive her to suicide .. Now she faces serious jail time for something that was a stupid, mean spirited prank.. The girl; the parents; the Drews; Their kids.. All the lives ruined..
I really don’t see this as a legal matter, sure she was a jerk and a horrible person, but what law did she break?
Aughh. Well, she’s charged with violating a federal statute that makes accessing someone elses protected computer ( in this case Myspace, a corporate entity that hails from California) while also doing this in furtherance of a tort ( which need not be a tort against the company,but some other entity or person(s), in conspiracy with others.
The strict language of the statute would seem to cover her crime, but the courts may use the case to circumscribe the law and limit its application, depending on what evidence they have of legislative intent or case law previously developed ( for example, interpretations set forth in other rulings in cases pertaining to this law). Then there is the matter of proving elements of the case. Testimony, if the case is not summarily dismissed, from participants and confidants of Drew is expected, and what weight that testimony would carry is unkown. However, Ashley Grills based on previous statements, will testify that Drew was an instigator and participant in the “trojan boy” scheme and used the deception to gain access to information that would otherwise have remained concealed.
The tortious act alleged isn’t murder, but intentional infliction of emotional distress.
try again:
She’s charged with violating a federal statute that makes accessing someone elses protected computer ( in this case Myspace, a corporate entity that hails from California) while also doing this in furtherance of a tort ( which need not be a tort against the company,but some other entity or person(s), in conspiracy with others, a crime.
I’m pretty sure Lori Drew didn’t intend to drive her to suicide ..
I’m not so sure. Drew was familiar with the girl’s medical history. IMO I think Drew’s choice of words was deliberate — to get the girl to attempt suicide again.
Maybe I’m just a tad cynical because of the kind of bone deep vindictiveness I’ve witnessed in others.
It takes a special kind of twisted soul to go to such lengths to torture a 13 y/o because she broke off a friendship with your daughter.
Drew needs not to be around her own kids for a long long time.
Lori Drew intended to mind-fuck a 13 yo she knew had emotional problems. Her motive was, to boil it down, revenge for Megan dropping her daughter as a close companion.
She used deception to get access to Megan and hit her where she was vulnerable. She used a young employee and her business computers to set up the account.
After Megan’s suicide, she deleted the account before the body was cold, and pressured a minor child she’d drawn into the scheme to keep her mouth shut. Which shows to me a consciouness of guilt, and a concern about liability, both legal and financial.
The first thanksgiving weekend after Megans death, (after her involvement became known to the Meiers)…well I could go on, but she was horrible to the family, demanded an audience and pounded on the door after being told to leave. Three times. SO what did Drew do? She called the police.
It may not be a criminal penalty Drew gets, but I’m not at all above schadenfreude for her having her actions laid out for all to see, and suffering the expense and anxiety she will suffer.
I’m not generally in favor of laws to restrict speech on the net. But I came to believe that predation on minors might be an exception to that.
The law I’d favor is very limited, and would restrict adults from pretending to be a child in correspondence with someone known to them to be a child ( of course, with exceptions for parents, guardians, or done with parental knowlege and consent, or for law enforcement purposes).
In the police report that Drew herself instigated that Thanksgiving weekend, over a year ago, she set forth in her statement that the trojan boy scheme was developed specifically for the purpose of gaining information about what Megan was posting on Myspace. Megan’s profile was private, protected on the Myspace servers, and without the deception ( which violated several of Myspaces TOS, including not only terms for permission to use the Myspace servers related to user information, but ALSO use of unauthorized access to commit a tort or crime against another member) no access would have been granted.
The false identity was how unauthorized access to Myspace protected files, to hurt Megan, was gained. If Drew had set up a trojan horse with wicky-wack code, to hurt Megan or gain access to her private profile, and Megan was fooled by the lure, the statute would apply without question. The novelty here, is Drew used a Trojan boy to appeal to Megans teen vanities and craving for validation.
Using someone else’s a computer without permission is bad, even illegal. Saying mean things about other people? Not illegal. Even if they are such a mess and so screwed up already that they commit suicide. The thing is, suicide is almost never someone else’s fault, no matter what a jerk they’ve been.
I’m going to try to write this one more time correctly, then I’m going to bed :
She’s charged with violating a federal statute that makes accessing, someone elses protected computer without the computer-owners persmission ( in this case Myspace, a corporate entity that hails from California) while also doing this in furtherance of a tort ( which need not be a tort against the company, but could be some other entity or person(s)), in conspiracy with others, a crime.
Chris, you happen to be mistaken. An important element of the charges against Drew, is the federal code forbidding that unauthorized access in furtherance of a tort.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is the tort alleged as companion to the unauthorized access.
The prosecutors are not alleging the tort is wrongful death.
Chris, you are making me a big fat liar, as I am not in bed yet.
But here’s the link to a pdf of the indictment.
Unfortunately, we, as a country, are being over run by children in adults bodies. “Forget responsibility, I just want to squirt”. It seems that is where we live now.
I don’t know how many here read my post yesterday about my friend’s thirteen year old son dying on a dirt bike, but since I posted that, I have found out that the police believe someone stretched a rope across the trail AFTER this poor kid went up the trail. And then tried to take it down after they had killed this poor little boy.
What the fuck? I just can’t get my mind around this. I just hope that my friend lives through this, because it’s not looking good.
What the fuck is going on here when an empty suit like Obama (and McCain, for that matter), is on the verge of being THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
How stupid are the people in this country? I ain’t no genius, but I do know that the proggs have knocked this country so far off kilter that we are in great danger of stumbling and falling. “And I can’t get up!”
I spent an hour tonight talking to a friend who says that the oil we have is not worth drilling for. He’s not stupid, but he sure sounded like it.
Awwwww. Fuck it. I’m just gonna forget oil, and go on pussy patrol like most of the young people I know.
No problem! The Saudi’s love us, and are going to take care of us at $9.00 a gallon for gasoline. And, as old as I am, I can STILL get “that stuff” for free.
Damn. I am on the edge of saying “Fuck it!”
Just who taught our sons and daughters that God gave us all we have, and will continue to give us freedom, AND WE DON’T nHAVE TO DO A FUCKING THING TO EARN IT?
I am getting seriously frightened.
It may not end up that Lori did anything illegal and yet it doesn’t bother me a bit to know that she will need to account for her actions to a judge. An adult who intentionally lies with the purpose of being cruel to a child deserves to have to explain why.
– I’m wondering why both the child abuse laws as well as malicious intent to do mental or bodily harm doesn’t kick in here.
– Posing on the internet takes a lot of intent, planning aforethought, and effort. Something I’m intimately familiar with stemming from my days as an IRCop, chasing down stalkers. So there should be no question that this was premeditated.
– Unfortunately, unless you;ve actually been involved with this sort of criminal act, and judges typically will not understand the effort it takes, the court will probably demand an unrealistic amount of proof on the part of the prosecution.
– Its a sad fact that the law is still way behind the treacherous sorts of crimes that are possible on the internet. I am not in favor of “free hate speech”. I think that is carrying the 1st amendment to a rediculous extreme.
– BTE – To the people crying about curtailment of free speech laws, you need to stop and think. As things stand now a perp will definately get jail time for defrauding you out of money or possesions within a large body of applicable law, including fradulent use of phones or the net to inact such crimes.
– But tha same perp can visit all sorts of criminal intent without you being in favor of punishment, such as this intentinal act of mental abuse.
– Whats wrong with this picture?
– Again it is parallel to the situation where an enemy combatent now has more rights than an American fetus, regardless of the circustances that he was captured under.
– Seems like fetuses and children in general, are 2nd class citizens in the eyes of the law.
I find myself unable to generate much sympathy for Ms. Drew.
Karma is rough… it’s rougher if you’re an evil, manipulative person.
She deserves to be friendless!
Legal experts such as the one on the Today Show this morning suggest if Lori Drew goes down to jail on this one….that the precedent for websites and web users could be frightening. People saying “emotional” things while using several tags or pretending to be whomever such as “Whitey” or “nigger” could be nailed for ’emotional distress’ and ‘lying’.
Besides, I think all the people involved in the case have suffered enough although the deceased girl’s parents should reexamine their own complicity in the tragedy. They’ll be thrown to the dogs by the defense for their parenting ‘skills’, their pharmacopoeia of drugs given to the child to solve their “problems” with the child, Lori Drew’s attorney’s might just have a field day with some of the most shallow Americans that I have ever seen on TV.
The vengefulness of both families in this case isn’t a pretty thing to see.
What Drew did doesn’t fall under the legal definition of child abuse. Intent to cause psychic harm is not a crime in and of itself, though it can be a tort. Missouri authorities went looking for something to charge her with and failed to find anything. Perhaps the legislature needs to plug that hole.
Yup. What Drew is being charged with happens repeatedly every day, but unless the outcome is something like what it is here, no one gets excited about it, myself included. It’s trolling, really. Drew picked someone who couldn’t handle it, and knew how to push her buttons. Had Megan not killed herself, this would be less than a non-story.
I’d much rather that there were a law to cover the essence of what she did and not the technical aspect.
The vengefulness of both families in this case isn’t a pretty thing to see
The vengefulness of ONE family is understandable. The vengefulness of the other is the issue here.
“…Intent to cause psychic harm is not a crime…”
– Well then it should be, and thats the huge hole you’re referring to.
– Apparently we’ll move heaven and earth to protect their virginity, but if they end up dead, thats ok.
–“that the precedent for websites and web users could be frightening. People saying “emotional†things while using several tags or pretending to be whomever such as “Whitey†or “nigger†could be nailed for ‘emotional distress’ and ‘lying’.”
– Yes.It would be a crying shame, and just about shut down some Libturd websites if people had ro actually be responsible for the things they say and write. Just fucking terrible.
Wait. I thought there were laws against abuse. Is it limited to non-verbal abuse?
Oh, and when do you think Miss One-Track will drop in to a completely unrelated thread and try to “pwn” everyone with her latest misrepresentation in re Bobby Jindal?
Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil must be circling like vultures, ready to pick the bones clean. Imagine the haranguing, tears and drama. They could invite Tom Cruise on to denounce the use of antidepressants. And maybe, put Denise Austin on to demonstrate the importance of exercise for a healthy mind and body(and of course the leer factor). in the end, Oprah can give everybody something, and problem solved.
– I did too Rob. In fact I thought they just updated the Fed laws last year for that very thing. Apparently this nutcase woman is skating through some clever loophold, because I know for a fact that this is considered a form of stalking, and should fall under that law.
Pablo, you are Mistaken about Jack Banas’s decision not to charge Drew under Missouri law. He opted not to bring charges under an available statute, with a barely supportable determination that there had been no attempt to harm or harass Megan.
Federal prosecutors are using a different law, but feel satisfied they have evidence that there was an actual intent to commit the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Christopher Taylor said, “The thing is, suicide is almost never someone else’s fault, no matter what a jerk they’ve been.”
The victim was a troubled fourteen-year-old, the alleged perp was a forty-nine-year-old asshole. If forty-nine-year-old could get a teen, especially a troubled teen, to do all sorts of things like, for instance, provide oral sex, pose for some “artistic” and “edgy” photographs, steal some tires, or kill some person, would you place all the blame on the teenager?
There’s a reason teenagers are treated differently, and it’s because they have different reasoning skills. Some psychologists argue that reason sometimes doesn’t kick into gear until the mid-twenties. It’s obvious that for Lori Drew, forty-nine is still not enough. Maybe she should have some therapy in a protective environment until she learns to not prey upon children who are more popular than she.
And Pablo, intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort.
What has that to do with Federal charges against Drew ?- it does because the statute makes it a felony to gain that “unauthorized access of protected computers” in furtherance of a tort.
I’ve yet to hear of anyone charged with verbal abuse. Sounds like a First Amendment problem. Is it illegal to verbally abuse Congresscritters? How about sending them scathing emails? How about a company that screws you over? Can you write them and tell them the world would be a better place without them?
There’s a point where such things can become harassment or even stalking and you might have some criminal recourse under those laws. Or you could get a restraining order and then have violations of that to prosecute. But I don’t think you can prosecute “verbal abuse” which can easily be defined as “saying hurtful things”.
When it happens to a 13 year old girl (and what Drew did is despicable, no argument there) and she hangs herself we’re all deeply moved. But when it happens to, say, a Marine in boot camp, or a football player after blatantly snafuing a big play, or a blogger who says something exceptionally stupid (Chuck Adkins comes to mind) or your wife when you find out she’s addicted to shopping online and blowing the UPS guy, or in any number of other situations in which a little verbal abuse goes a long way we don’t care so much, nor should we. Sometimes people need the goat horns hung on them, and right now Lori Drew is one of those people. So then, what of the abuse she’s getting? I don’t want to prosecute that because it feels a little like justice.
A new crime that might cover this: Intentional infliction of emotional distress upon a minor, death resulting.
I haven’t heard that. Banas is saying there was no violation of Missouri law, nothing he could charge her with. If there’s something I’m missing, I’d be obliged for a link to it.
Right, and it’s not the crime she’s being charged with. It’s only an element of the crime of unauthorized access and/or conspiracy. That, I think they can prove. Proving unauthorized access of a social networking site through it’s intended interface is going to be substantially more difficult.
– As far as the slippery slope argument, that can be set in stone with a simple direct question.
“Would the person you were communicating with, voluteerily interacted with you in the same way if they knew who you were”?
– If you cannot answer “yes”, then you are stalking. Doesn’t matter what your intentions were, doesn’t matter what the results were, although the results could go to the severity of the crime.
– So much for people wringing their hands over 1st amendment rights. You do not have the right to defraud another person, using the public means of communications, for any reason.
– This would apply equally to blogs and other types of open forums, where the fraudulent postings were directed at a particular individual, or the blog author. You could still be a batshit crazy poster, saying as much foul crap as you like, just like our sweet friends on the Left, as long as you could pass that test. No slippery slope.
What they’re trying to say is that violating a website’s TOS is criminal unauthorized access, especially if you’re not nice to people in doing it. Used to be they’d just ban you.
– And Pablo. Its not a question of verbal abuse, its a question of verbal abuse through intentional misleading by fraudulent means. Stalking.
BTW, intentional infliction of emotional distress is not an easy case to make. The elements are not “was snarky to some anonymous guy on the internets”
It requires intent or recklessness, extreme or outrageous conduct, must actually cause emotional distresss, and that distress has to be “severe”.
The typical law-school example is the sending of a letter falsely informing a person (perhaps with a known with a heart condtion or mental frailty) that their family members have been killed – something intentionally designed to cause severe reaction.
In Megan’s case, the outrage would presumably be luring a vulnerable girl with a false friendship, building up her vanities and hopes, then yanking her as hard and fast as possible in the opposite direction. But you know that story. Most people came away with the idea that a grown woman and mother would go through all that manipulation to punk a 13 yo girl, whom she knew had medicated emotional problems, for the lulz, is sufficient *outrage* to make a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress – and that’s leaving out many of the aggravating details. The manifestations of that distress are arguably severe enough to qualify.
To make the argument that simply being mean or snarky under a pen name will make us all felons is chickeny-little exaggeration. To deliberately target a vulnerable person for self-serving aims with a tailored scheme to inflict severe pain – especially when perp is 49 and target is 13 and not only known to the perp, but such an intimate that she has taken the girl on vacation and knows her medications…for such a ridiculous and petty reason as the normal upheavals in teen girl friendhips –
is not just being mean. And it wouldn’t be a tort if it were just “mean”.
All that said, the federal case could fail at many levels. Elements of the tort must be proved, the conspiracy, but also all the elements proving unauthorized use of protected computers. THe strict language of the statute does cover what Drew did, but there may be law developed around previous cases, or evidence of legislative intent that gets Drew off the hook .
BBH, that’s not even close to the definition of the crime of stalking. http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/stalking.html
And it would make this a federal crime. Do you really want to go there?
Pablo, Banas said there was no violation of Missouri law, but not because there was no law, but because he determined (with weak reasoning) that there was insufficient proof of intent to harm or harass.
I have his statement, I’ll go get a link.
Stalking doesn’t involve fraud. A stalker wants you to know who they are and that they’re watching you.
–“or evidence of legislative intent that gets Drew off the hook.”
– Then they’re trying the case wrong, because stalking is clearly defined under the Federal statutes.
“Proving unauthorized access of a social networking site through it’s intended interface is going to be substantially more difficult.”
They do have the advantage that Megan’s profile, her comments, her posts and her pictures, were protected from public view, and set to “private”.
In order to gain access to that information ( which was Drews aim according to her own statements by herself and her counsel) she had to violate the terms under which Myspace gave her permission to use their computers, and she had to violate no only rules about ID, but arguably also the TOS forbidding gaining access to private pages to harm clients of myspace.
“Stalking doesn’t involve fraud. A stalker wants you to know who they are and that they’re watching you.”
– Wrong. Years ago when the chat rooms first started that was the case. After a few years, with Fed laws starting to be put into place, and ISP tracking improvements and Fed warrent coverage, the Stalker community got wise, and started using every sort of tactic to cover their tracks, not all, but most did. Only the most phscotic continued to “not care”, like a Stalker we had that actually sent a pic of his drivers license to the victim of his dreams. Today the usual perps are far more likely to use subterfuge to gain access to their targets, That change in tactics had some hand in the updating of the stalking laws.
Agreed, and the Meier’s have a tort case they could chose to pursue. Unfortunately, no amount of damages could ever right the harm done.
I think it is, Sarah. It’s being really, really mean. Nasty, cruel…mean. Mean people intentionally inflict distress. It’s what makes ’em mean.
Cite, please.
Well, mean is requisite. But “Plain old mean” isn’t sufficient to prevail in an IIED case. The actions essentially have to rise to the level of outrage. Which is why mere irritation or offense would not make a case. And not only would the “meaness” have to be outrageous, the plaintiff has to prove real, substantial harm resulted.
Pablo, you understand that without the tort, there is no felony unauthorized use of Myspace computers? It not irrelevent to the charges, it’s actally a lynchpin to raising the offense to a felony. You seem to be agreeing that this part of the action is “winnable” – that such a tort was comitted.
Here’s that Banas link.
To excerpt his statement about Missouri charges:
“The actions of the Drews and Grills are not criminal under existing state law, Banas said, because their intent was never to harm, stalk, endanger or harass. [emphasis mine – sw]
“They did it so they could find out what Megan was saying about Mrs. Drew’s daughter,” Banas said. “That is undisputed.
“The only purpose was to find out what one little girl was saying about another little girl” .
He determined this without ever interviewing Ashley Grills ( who testified in the grand jury of the fed case, as in public has alleged intention in spades), and determined this based soley on Drew’s representations to him of events.
I parted company with Banas over his reasoning, though I respected his discretion to the extent of his need to act based on the specific weaknesses and relative costs and benefits of pursuing prosecution.
Since bringing that case could actually interfere with Drew settling civilly, I speculated at the time he may have been trying to get out of the way.
I think that element is provable, which wins nothing in this criminal case. The rest of the case, not so much.
§ 875. Interstate communications
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
On the Internet this statute can be found in full at Cornell
The US Federal Government addressed interstate telephone harassment in U.S. Code Title 47/5/II section 223. (The Communications Act). This Act makes it a Federal offense to place obscene or harassing telephone calls within the United States, the District of Columbia, or interstate or foreign commerce, including a person who:
(a) (1)
(A) makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent;
(B) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;
(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
(D) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number.
USC: 47: 5: II: 223 can be found on the World Wide Web at Cornell
THE US COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996
While the Communications Act referred only to “interstate or foreign communication (harassment) by means of telephone”, the amended version proposed in 1996 (called the Telecommunications Act) changed that text to refer instead to “interstate or foreign communication (harassment) by means of a telecommunications device.” This change was brought about directly by the rise of harassment on the rapidly growing Internet, and the subsequent lack of legislation to deal with it.
– Although I do not have a cite for it, if you dig you can find the referrenced later extension to cover the internet. That was done, as I recall, primarily because of Stalkers and their evolving tactics.
– I myself am not a lawyer, but the Federal agencies that gained access to server imformation to track stalkers steted their positions that way, and I doubt they would do so if they lost very many cases.
That’s communications law, BBH and the term “stalking” does not appear. The federal stalking law is Title 18, § 2261A.
– Yes that would be the casem circa pre-2002, and your cite is correct. I never took the time to actually look it up. We simply followed the instructions of the server Administration, and provided the information as requested upon approval of the server staff of note.
– My guess is that repeated fraudulent contacts with any individual without their knowledge would be salable to a jury as essentially stalking, whether or not that actual word is used in the statute.
– But in this case your cite spells it out:
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2]
– My point was they may be not be trying her under the proper statutes. Of course, as always in law, there can be any number of reasons any given case may be handled differently than you might otherwise normally expect.
“that element is provable”
Gotcha. It’s no slam dunk but likely there’s enough there there fpr conspiracy and tort elements of the felony.
I am not as skeptical of the unauthorized access charges as you, as what she did at least arguably meets the plain language of the statute. She wasn’t just accessing the social network. She targeted a Myspace client and gained access to that clients private profile in violation of permitted use of that computer, specifically in order to gain information from Meier.
But should the case fall short of the requirements of the statute ( or rulings or precendents that interpret it and have the effect of law), I can’t say I am dissatisfied with the idea of DREW having to be that test case.
There doesn’t seem to be any case law that I can find supporting this rather peculiar interpretation of the statute that Drew is charged under.
If they’re successful, say goodbye to anonymity on the internet. It would also lower the bar on what constitutes a “protected system” so far that there would be absolutely no point whatsoever in having passwords on anything.
Lori Drew is not so different than many people her age who have just never understood what “growing up” means. At least where I live, she would by no means be considered a rarity. Somehow in the last fifty years, we have managed to move beyond the concept of responsibility for our own actions.
We are spoiled rotten, and headed for a train wreck. Logic is passe these days.
TLD: To make it complete, we need to find someone to blame.
Lost Dog,
I see nothing historically new in large amounts of irresponsible idiots being among those who are “grown up”. The morons were among the Ancient Romans, pre-Columbian Aztecs, those who came over here on the Mayflower, the Swiss, and even our parents and grandparents. To suggest that idiots are a new thing that have only come to fruit under circumstances of rock music, the Pill, men with long hair, and affirmative action programs is to ignore most of not just Western but also World Civilization. Dolts, inbred cretins, selfish pansicrats, egotists with armies, and similar irresponsible creatures have always been part of humanity. What is new is the ability of middle and lower class people to engage in idiotic behavior that affects those outside their immediate family and community. With such things as cars, planes, telephones, television, and the internet, common morons can affect other common morons in ways earlier morons never dreamt of.
People like Ms. Drew have always been among us, but they used to have to spread their filth at a sewing circle or bake sale rather than a MySpace account. The results would likely have been just as tragic then as they were today.
Jim in KC –
You are correct about using this statute for this kind of unauthorized access, in guise of a fraudulent persona, as opposed to a code crack or phish or trojan horse to defraud while conspiring to commit a tort.
However, the plain language of the statute would seem to apply. I don’t think I share your concern about kissing anonymity goodbye. Mainly, because without the TORT, there is no felony. The tort alleged here has a stiff threshold of proof. But also your point about the level of “protection” being so low – I see that argument a lot….that just anyone can sign up to Myspace, there is no screening, it’s too “easy” to violate TOS, so prosecutors shouldn’t be able to charge someone for using Myspace’s servers without Myspace’s permission (to injure another myspace client ).
But most arguments to that effect tend to leave out the part that Myspace clients who use the commercial service, have the option to hide their profiles. That information can’t be seen by the public – only someone who signs up for myspace. Someone who did so with a pseudonym or by infraction of certain rules – might be unauthorized access. But it wouldn’t rise to a level of felony unless the violator did so to gain information from those hidden pages, in order to use it commit a tort.
re first paragraph of 58 – add “you are correct….it is a novel application”
If they’re successful, say goodbye to anonymity on the internet.
I’m not so sure. The rules of conduct between children and adults is different than between 2 adults. I’m not sure why this should be different for internet communications.
Take this to the logical end of a successful prosecution, too – Suppose the courts find the statute may apply and the prosecutors end up prevailing , and get a guilty verdict in this case. The legislature can go right back and narrow the statute as needed, and exclude the possibility of similar prosecutions.
By not authenticating that “Josh Evans” was, in fact, Josh Evans and NOT Lori Drew, it’s Myspace who has failed. Covering their asses with a TOS is not equivalent to exercising due care. If someone called your bank and pretended to be you, would you expect them to use some reasonable means of ascertaining that the person on the phone is, indeed, you, or simply take the caller’s word for it and proceed with the transaction as requested?
It can’t be unauthorized access because Megan herself provided authorization. That she did so based on Myspace’s faulty authentication is a failure of Myspace’s authentication mechanism. In effect, what they told Megan was that Josh Evans was requesting access to her profile, when in fact it was someone else entirely.
What Lori Drew did was quite dastardly, completely awful, really, but it was possible only because of Myspace’s lax processes. The case would be a slam-dunk if Drew had broken into or stolen a real person’s identity, or if she had somehow broken into secured storage to read Megan’s profile information.
Interesting point, and it brings up the matter that Megan (and her parents, by allowing her to do so) were also in violation of the Myspace TOS because she was technically under-age according to those TOS.
But anyway, the statute she’s charged under really has nothing to do with communications, per se. It’s the hacking law, and she *did* in a way social-engineer Megan, but that could have been avoided had Myspace taken steps to enforce a level of authentication commensurate with their TOS.
Jim, don’t get me wrong, I understand the argument you are making. The weakness is the clear languague of the statute does not make that distinction you are making. The test is unauthorized use. use without permission. And the information gained was protected from view *unless* the violation of Myspace TOS took place. Those violations were not simply having a pseudonym, but also, among other violations, using the myspace site to injure another myspace client.
Just because I leave my keys in the ignition, doesn’t give a criminal the permisison to use my car.
Whatever culpability I might have to someone injured in an accident involving my driven-off car, does not excuse car-taker the the unpermitted use of my car.
I know you do, SarahW. TOS violations are not violations of federal law, though. And words like authenticate and authorize have very specific meanings that would be completely destroyed if this case is successful.
While I have no doubt lawyers can find some way to make a case, being mean to someone then them committing suicide is not illegal nor ought it be.
Mr. Taylor, when the person being mean is an adult and the person who kills himself is a child, would that make a difference? What if “being mean” is a physical act, would that make a difference? What if, for instance, someone, to be mean, beat someone and caused disfigurement? What about the most horrible and abusive people and their terrified children?
Suicide is treated as a crime for purposes of investigation and so those who are caught in the act can be forced to get help. Maybe it shouldn’t be a crime (I see plenty of reasons for and against,) but if an investigation shows that an adult was mean in the way Lori Drew was (saying “the world would be better without you” to a suicidal teenager,) then I am willing to believe that that particular crime of suicide may have been more than a solo act. If Dr. Kevorkian can go to jail for murder when his patients pretty much wanted it (arguable in some cases, but overall true,) then this woman can.
I know: slippy slopes and all. But Lori Drew isn’t charged with murder, she’ll probably suffer most from the civil trial to come, and the justice system isn’t designed for every case. Will this be a case that will act as a catalyst for many bad laws? Certainly. But from it will come some standards for anonymous conduct that won’t interfere with public or semi-public forums such as this one, will still allow for anonymous postings of non-libelous information, and will still allow Americans to act like Americans. Sure, it will take Congress about three tries before they get there and by then someone will do something even more disgusting and awful, but that’s the nature of things.
Authorization means Myspace’s permission to use their servers. They grant limited permission. The TOS violations are not distinguishable under the statute…
They warn the user, that violations may not only result in being banned from the service, if that limited permission is abused, but may also result in prosecution where applicable.
Permission to use their servers is granted every time you successfully log in. You knock, they open the door to you.
Suppose Drew had scammed a bunch of money out of MS clients using MS, would the federal government be prosecuting the violation of MS’s ToS? No, they’d be prosecuting the financial fraud and the ancillary charges that apply to the various permutations of wire/mail fraud.
I really don’t mind seeing Drew suffer the consequences of her actions, but there’s no crime underlying this charge and I don’t see this as an effective nor wise avenue of pursuit. Though dealing with the prosecution is doing a number on her, I’m sure, so there’s that.
Legally, I don’t want to see this precedent for that crime, and I suspect we won’t.
This, I think, gets to the heart of our differences. Without authentication, authorization and access cannot successfully be controlled (limited), which means that it just simply is not a protected system. You can’t possibly determine what level of access an entity should be granted without knowing with some degree of certainty who or what that entity is.
If my bank “protected” its online banking access the way Myspace does, the OCC or FFIEC would put us out of business in a heartbeat.
“If my bank “protected†its online banking access the way Myspace does, the OCC or FFIEC would put us out of business in a heartbeat.”
I’m starting to think there is a confusion of how terms are defined in the statute.
The “protected” definition doesn’t measure how secure a system has been made. It’s a description of those computers considered “protected” by the statute – how the computer is used determines whether it is in a protected class of computers. (Since myspace computers are used in interstate commerce, the myspace computers are “protected computers”.) For the purposes of determining whether it is protected or not, the sort of security measures in may or may not employ are not relevent.
I’ll grant that could be relevent to the question of whether Drew accessed the computers or exceeded authorized use to obtain or alter information. The statute does define it though, and in the strict language of the statute, she could be considered to have exceeded her authorized access to the Myspace system to obtain information, as Myspace kept information from public view. Drew may have exceeded her authorized access by violating the TOS.